@shanedk@TheHoggopogo.... Jeeezzz, and creationists get all upset when scientists point out that they deny all evidence despite it's over-abundance and validity. There's just no end to their ridiculous questions! And it's not even because they're genuinely curious or interested in science, it's because they're trying to find a place in science to wedge their theology, and it is so depressing for me to observe such foolishness. People really need to pay attention in school... tsk tsk.
@TheHoggopogo "Did anyone observe the particular spot in the genetic code where the new nucleotide was added, at the moment of the mutation?" Sorry, if you're not a creationist, I don't know why else you would ask that.
"There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress."
@xXsakkelaoXx "The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.""
That would be less moronic if this video didn't show the actual sequence of genes that changed to let the bacteria digest Nylon.
Why do these scientific minority idiots keep saying that a PC if a product of science this is a Darwinist lie, PC work by magic conducted through crystallised Angel fathers weaved together by elves and are made in Atlantis not China. If you open your PC up you will see. Why don’t you people educate yourselves?
The information was given to the bacteria by means of the environment. You put the nylon in presence of the bacteria, that is where the information was added to the system. So no, information can not increase.
The information was already in the DNA of the bacteria, for it's capacity to adapt new environments. And when you put the nylonase, the bacteria only reacted to it. No information was created.
You just showed it, the information was there in the DNA that got shifted by one letter, and the rest was introduce by the presence of nylon. You can predict that will happens from the start with a computer simulation. Think about compressing the information : the most compressible form of this new DNA would look like : the same old DNA + one C. If you can predict it with simulation, it's the same as uncompressing the information. You don't create information by uncompressing it.
@jb0433628 How did the presence of the nylon byproducts CAUSE the insertion mutation? The mutation was random! It could have easily happened a million times in bacteria that WEREN'T in nylon byproducts, but it wouldn't have been selected for because it didn't give them a survival advantage!
And your "uncompressing" example is just GARBAGE; that is NOT how compression works!
@jb0433628 Oh, wow! Where's the published article that shows the bacterium sequence mapped out in it's entirety before the introduction of nylon and the duplication?
Are you a molecular biologist? Or a chemist, by any chance? Do you have some kind of super-powered machine that validates your claim?
I'm sorry, let's start easy: What's your level of knowledge regarding any of the following: Nucleic acids, codons, DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA, aminoacids, enzyme kinetic?
@jb0433628 There is a distinct lack of logic in your sentence. Organisms adapt to the environment by means of mutation (random) and natural selection (NOT random).
The mutation that occurred in the copied gene was random, however, the new sequence created specified an enzyme that can react with nylon byproducts and break it down into usable substances.
This gave that bacterium a huge advantage over the food struggle and so it lived on to pass it's DNA forward.
@jb0433628 "You put the nylon in presence of the bacteria, that is where the information was added to the system."
So information was added to the system from a non-intelligent source. Maybe if it happens constantly populations will change or "evolve". I wonder why no one has thought about making it a hypothesis and then testing it. We could call it the Theory of Evolution and start teaching it in biology classes.
This is a great example of added manmade intelligence, and adaptive error correcting coding programmed into the cell, but it still has a digestive function which is now corrupted and actually weakens to overall system. When you take the nylon away the bacteria dies out. Great example of degeneration. Don't allow nylonase to reject God and take you to hell, because you will hate this stupid movie for eternity!
Shannon’s theory was not developed to address biological information. It is entirely unsuitable for this since an increase of information by Shannon’s definition can easily be lethal (and an increase in randomness increases Shannon ‘information’).
@xXsakkelaoXx "an increase in randomness increases Shannon ‘information’"
No, that's noise, not information.
It's information because the organism now has less uncertainty about its surroundings (to wit, the fact that it contains nylon products and how to digest them). A lethal mutation does not reduce uncertainty, and such is NOT information. You can't redefine your way out of this one.
Sorry, man. You're wrong here. Random noise has the most information. Filters remove information, leaving behind a signal. The genetic frequency in a population's offspring is the noise, and has the most information. Then natural selection applies to filter out unsuitable information, just as a radio tuner does, and the result is the signal containing only the remaining information, which is what can survive.
That doesn't help xXsakkelaoXx's argument at all, though. XD
Yes, natural selection is the filter, but natural selection uses INFORMATION about the outside world (and what it takes to survive to the next generation). That's where the information comes from. It's like taking an incredibly long stream of random letters and removing anything that isn't Hamlet: the information on what is Hamlet has to come from somewhere else.
Information is characterized by uncertainty and how many bits it requires to represent it. Random noise has the most uncertainty. It isn't even guaranteed to be a viable organism. After selection, you are more certain to have a viable organism. This means information has been removed from the source noise, leaving behind a signal which can be expressed in fewer bits. You need all the organisms, not just the survivors, to reconstitute the noise.
No, it isn't like Hamlet. Hamlet isn't being prey to Romeo and Juliet, or trying to eat enough v's to survive. You're making arguments for intelligent design now.
A specific example given in Shannon Theory is that the outcome of a die roll has more information in it than the outcome of a coin flip. The coin has a built in filter due to its shape that prevents it from landing on four of its sides: those edges are narrow and unstable, and the coin falls onto one of the other two. The die has edges and corners, but those filter less. If you roll a sphere, exactly what single point faces up takes infinite bits to hold the entire real number.
I wasn't conflating them. I was describing specific differences and examples. Mutations aren't truly noise. It's not the case that ANY result can happen, as with noise. There is already a filter built in to the mechanisms of mutation. Actual noise would be like rolling the spherical die. Regardless of that, the die roll's still has more information than the coin flip, and the initial genomes have more information than what remains after some organisms are deleted from that set.
@rkyeun If you have a string of letters that is completely random, it's noise. It doesn't stop being noise just because of the existence of these things called "numbers."
If I start with noise, partition its range into 26 subsets, and label the subsets with letters, it was noise, and I have lost information by diminishing it into merely the letters. I no longer have the data to make that noise.
Mutations occur by several mechanisms, and thermal noise plays a part in deciding when those mutations occur. But it gets reduced to a sequence of nucleotides, and information is filtered out. Then rather than rolling the round die, we roll the six-sider.
Natural selection is similar to the coin. The entire population genetic frequency, stillborns and nonviables included, is like the die roll. Its edges and corners are the limits of possible mutations and number of offspring produced. Natural selection is like the coin. The shape of the environment causes there to be fewer outcomes. What remains is an outcome with less information. --but a higher fraction of it useful for OUR purpose, hence a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
@xXsakkelaoXx If there's information in biochemistry, then Information Theory applies. If Information Theory doesn't apply, then there's no information there.
We can now see that Shannon’s statistical approach to information ignores all four of these ‘extra’ dimensions of information. The reason is quite straightforward—Shannon was originally interested in quantifying the concept of information, and there is no easy way to quantify semantics, syntax, pragmatics or apobetics. Now: where is that "observed" fact???
In the case of the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A, the overall purpose is to produce a viable human being capable of worshipping God and having offspring. Failure to achieve this purpose will lead to clogging of brain cells with fatty ganglioside molecules, consequent degeneration of the brain, and death in infancy.
@xXsakkelaoXx "the overall purpose is to produce a viable human being capable of worshipping God and having offspring."
This is just LAUGHABLY moronic! The purpose of ANY organism is to pass its genes on to the next generation. Anything that helps it do that--such as the ability to digest nylon byproducts--is information it can use for that goal.
The fifth dimension of information is apobetics (teleology or teleonomy)—the overall purpose for which a particular word sequence is produced. In the case of the children’s book cited above, the overall purpose is that parents want their children to learn about the world around them so that they will grow up to be good citizens (and perhaps look after their parents in their old age).
Information always has some practical application; it does not just float around in the air waiting for somewhere to settle and become meaningful. In an exactly parallel way, the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A has a practical function in preventing the abnormal build-up of fatty substances in human brain cells.
A fourth dimension of information is pragmatics—the practical functionality of words. For example, ‘a bat can fly in the sky’ is a statement about the capability of bats. This statement could have a practical application in a children’s book, for example, to teach children about the world around them.
The next dimension of information is syntax—the place value or ordering rules of the words. The English sentence ‘A bat can fly in the sky’ is meaningful, but ‘The sky can fly in a bat’ is not. Likewise, syntax is a component of the meaning of genetic words. For example, the correct sequence of amino acids in the enzyme hexosaminidase A can produce a healthy human child, but a single error in that sequence can produce a child with the fatal Tay Sachs disease.
The most obvious extra dimension is their semantic content. ‘Cat’ represents a furry, four-legged mammal, ‘bat’ represents a flying mammal, ‘hat’ is a shading device placed on human heads, etc. In an exactly parallel fashion, the genetic codons UUU and CGA have semantic content as well—the former represents the amino acid phenylalanine, and the latter represents arginine.
For example, GCA, GCC, GCG and GCU all represent alanine, and UAA, UAG and UGA all represent the ‘stop’ sign, but AUG alone represents methionine.
Let’s now consider some three-letter English words for comparison. Cat, mat, bat, hat, fly and sky are all three-letter English words that carry approximately similar Shannon-type statistical information content. Yet we all know that these words carry much more information than just the statistical properties of their letter frequencies.
Four bases taken three at a time yield 64 possible three-letter genetic words (there are no one-, two-or four-letter genetic words). There are twenty amino acids and each three-letter ‘codon’ (word) represents one amino acid or a ‘stop’ or ‘start’ sign. Several different codons can represent the same amino acid (since 64 is greater than 20) but each codon represents only one amino acid.
In his book In the Beginning was Information, Gitt did not apply his analysis to biology in any detail, so I will here explain it by applying it to biological information and to information as expressed in the English language. The genetic code consists of four bases (the genetic alphabet) taken three at a time (the genetic words). The four bases are guanine (G), adenine (A), cytosine (C) and uracil (U).
@TychoCelchu You're right lol, at the time I didn't have a lot of information about this topic myself so copy and paste it was!
but what I've learnt?
It was most probably designed to addapt under stress, not a whole new gene by itself, and I seem to recall that the bacteria lost alot of its functions ? not the way to go if you want to turn into a human right?
And according to shannon information a book full of zzzzzzzz contains more information that a science article :/
@xXsakkelaoXx "You're right lol, at the time I didn't have a lot of information about this topic myself so copy and paste it was! but what I've learnt?"
So you admit you had no idea what you were talking about, but now you think your an expert because you skimmed 3 articles on a creationist website.
Maybe I'll become a surgeon after speed skimming the Wikipedia article on the T.V. show House.
@shanedk "As has already been pointed out, there wasn't one!"
you might be right, but just to make sure you should give a citation
"bald assertion with nothing to back it up"
There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases.
theres observed fact for you, wouldn't you consider it backing up?
@xXsakkelaoXx There are a few good ways that the products for carrying information can be increased. The one in this video is something that can arise from copying errors. As you saw, one letter change or addition can change the overall outcome of the protein translated of the mRNA strand.
Huge volumes can be duplicated and fused together, or even entire chromosomes can duplicate themselves as with plants. Chromosomes can fuse. some retrovirus groups can be added to its host.
The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.
@xXsakkelaoXx He doesnt fail to convince you, but rather you fail to understand. The mutations can be random, but natural selection is not random. Natural selection dictates which mutations are beneficial or not. It's very simple stuff, if i can understand it, then anyone can.
@01101100d LOL! have I said natural selection is random? Natural selection was noticed first by guess who: creasionists! but is misused as evidence for evolution?!?! natural selection only alows variation within the species, it has never been observed one specie turning into another, and it never will, because mutations never increase information, the information is lost, if you have 52 cards in a deck, you can never EVER, have a sequense with a card that is not in the deck.
@xXsakkelaoXx "it has never been observed one specie turning into another."
LMAO oh really. I take it you're not familiar with with the fossil record. Putting that aside, what about the cabbage then? Or new species of drosiphila? Judging by your comment, you're one of those who accepts micro but not macro-evolution, not realising how idiotic it makes you look since they're based on the same function, just the level of change is different.
@xXsakkelaoXx (comment 2) Oh, so, even if evolution was discovered by creationists (which isn't 100% accurate) it doesn't mean that it can't be used against them. It's not for the discoverers to thwart with as they wish. The evidence is what does the talking sir/madam. I suggest a basic science course as a starting point should begin to help you on the path of understanding what it is you're saying.
@shanedk Like most creationists, he will run off and carry on with his old views that "mutations never increase information" bla bla bla. It's easy to see that they aren't interested in the facts because otherwise they'd curiously look at the evidence and then re assess their opinions and views based on the evidence. But as we know, the priority of wishful thinking overtakes the value of evidence. Nice video mate. I thought it was so clear and straight to the point.
Is it true that geneticist Susumu Ohno, the author of the "Birth of a unique enzyme..." article, only 'speculated' that the enzyme was a result of gene duplication and frame shift mutation?
Is it also true that a study, by a Japanese team at the University of Hyogo, suggested that there was no frameshift involved in the "evolution" of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase?
I have a question: Where did the added sequence @4:00 originate from? Were the original "letters" bumped forward one position due to the insertion, or is it an entirely new sequence of "letters"?
@kartune85 The "letters" in the DNA code were bumped forward one, resulting in a new sequence of amino acids. I showed the amino acid sequence, not the DNA code letters.
@shanedk Is it fair to say that the "new" sequence "added" to the gene is not the same sequence, shifted one position due to the insertion, as the sequence shown @3:46?
Is it also fair to say that the "new sequence" is actually using the same sequence of the original gene, just shifted by one position, rather than "brand new information"?
@shanedk So it was fair to say that the "new" sequence "added" to the gene @4:00 is not the same sequence, shifted one position due to the insertion, as the sequence shown @3:46.
Would it also be fair to say that the 92% was not actually "gone, finito, kaput", but rather the existing sequence was shifted forward by one position?
Although 'ADO GAT EMO' may not be a coherent sentence in the English, you could argue that each of those words actually has meaning in the English language.
@shanedk Don't drag me into this, I didn't ask that question.
Your following broad sweeping statement is very telling as to your bias. I can confidently state that your assertion is absolutely false as you can't have looked into "ALL" claims made by Creationists, and it makes me wonder if you've looked at ANY claims made by Creationists.
What is your opinion on the Creationist claim that Natural Selection is an unguided process that requires existing genetic information to select from?
@kartune85 "Natural Selection is an unguided process that requires existing genetic information to select from?"
Here's a perfect example of why ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS: They say Natural Selection can't work because all it can do is select from existing information, not create new genetic sequences. Then they say that Mutation can't work because it can't select the good over the bad. Of course, it's MUTATION that makes the new sequence and NATURAL SELECTION that selects!
How were the letters bumped forward one? If all you have is the sequence, you don't know the mechanism. The fact that many complex mechanisms have been discovered that demonstrate the ability of cells to adapt their own genomes, this single mutation is probably an enzyme altering mechanism like the immune system. So guess what, saying it's a frame shift mutation is ignorance on your part, unless you actually witnessed the change being derived from a copying error.
You have already conceded that organisms do indeed evolve--so you are basically just kissing ass with the people who make you feel alright about your lack of education.
Why can't you name any Darwinists--or even point to the part of Biology that hasnt' taken Darwinism and moved 150 years past it?
@kartune85 I think one good way for you to look up how this happens is to see how translation and transcription works. When a gene makes a code for a protein, tRNA inserts amino acids onto a particular 3 coded base of the messenger RNA strand. If that 3 letter code was different, then a different amino acid would have to go there, making a new amino acid sequence and so a different protein.
Duplicatiion of existing information is not new information. Mutations destroy information. Information CANNOT be created by nature. It is impossible.
@shanedk Just for kicks, leanr why you didn't. First, look up the definition of information and study it so you know what it is you are talking abut. Then go to my channel and search for the vid in which I explain how nature cannot create information, or Dr. Hubert Hockney (biophysicist or Dr. Werner Gitt (professor and director of the German Federal Institute of Information Technology. But then, you don't want to believe science. You prefer fantasy! CYA
@shaned LOL! Nonsnce. You're a science denialist and twister. You attempt to bend science to fit your godless, irrational and unscientific worldview. FAIL
@NephilimFree Really, then write up your findings and submit them for peer review. Overturning the unifying theory of biology should get you a Nobel Prize.
@johnrainrules NO because teh sooper-seekrit scientific cabal what's behind the Illuminati and teh Rothschilds and the Bildebergers won't done let it through the review cuz it's all a CONSPIRACY!!!1!1!111one1one1eleventy-one
@NephilimFree You're a fucking idiot. Instead of making youtube videos where you demonstrate your ignorance over and over again, how about you do something productive? Losing weight would be a great start. ;-)
@shanedk Now, if you want to debate me on this, go to shockawenow d o t c o m and then to Shock's chat and I will gladly school ya in front of others, in a calm, respectable manner, with knowledge and facts, and you can get that tail between your legs afterall.
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalians never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians.
@shanedk "We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
The beauty of Lenski's experiment is that creationists now have experimental grounds for the time and specimens needed to obtain a new beneficial trait. For a presentation on human genetic entropy, Lenski's results are gold ;-)
Here are the citations for my earlier comments. However this information has been available for years. No one argues this level of adaptation and it is misleading to insinuate that this type of low level genetic adaptation can create the DNA information needed to produce novel organs or body plans.
Nyonase-Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 April; 81(8): 2421–2425.
Citrate-Journal of bacteriology August 1998 P.4160-4165
The cecal valve is not a novel body part. it is present in other lizards. No one is claiming that random mutations created the DNA necessary for those valves in a mere three to four generations. It is misleading to suggest that random mutations guided by natural selection created those cecal valves. More likely the DNA was already present and merely switched off.
A Liar? Cite the paper that says " the DNA WAS NOT PRESENT". You shouted it so it must be true. Because You would never Lie or mislead anyone. If you are so sure that the new information for the cecal valve was created by mutation and natural selection, why didn't you feature it in your little video.
I watched your little video again and you didn't mention the paper that supports your CLAIMS about the cecal valves. I have already refuted your claims about nylonase and citrate with SCIENTIFIC evidence and you have provided nothing to support your claim that "the DNA WAS NOT PRESENT". I contend and have shown scientifically your video is misleading and your refusal to provide support of your other rant is more evidence that there is only one liar here and it is YOU.
First you make claims which I refute. then you make additional claims ignoring my refutation of your first claims. You refuse to provide a citation for you claims although you required me to provide citations.Now you are directing me to a you tube video? You are a pathetic liar. I don't dislike you I feel sorry for you. You presented your best arguments in your little video and along comes a random you tuber and shoots the shit out of your arguments. Wow what are the chances
This is moving from funny to hilarious. You directed me to YOUR OWN video as evidence to support YOUR claims. LOL that is hysterical. You may be the dumbest guy that thinks he's smart I have ever seen. Usually people as stupid as you get jobs sweeping up and accept their inferiority. You wear it like a badge of honor.
@mejc2 "You directed me to YOUR OWN video as evidence to support YOUR claims."
No, LIAR, I gave you a reference to my video AFTER YOU SAID I NEVER MADE IT. Now you're caught out in your lie, and the only thing you can do is make up shit and lash out.
Wait, after I refuted the claims in this video, you brought up cecal valves because you mentioned them, without citation, in another video that you made? Why would I be aware of your other videos? OK so let's get this straight. 1. you make false and misleading claims in this video which I refute
2. your response is Oh yeah what about cecal valves
3. I refute your claim about cecal valves and ask you for a citation of your claim
4. No citation and refer me to your own video LOL
"Anatomical and Physiological Changes Associated with a Recent Dietary Shift in the Lizard Podarcis sicula" Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 83(4):632–642.
Liar, all the comments are present for all to see. I said they were present in other lizards. You are beyond a liar, you are a fool. How could you accuse me of saying something when anyone can scroll up and see that you are lying, and then call me a liar. You are like a caricature of a real person. Unbelievable. You have been exposed. Do not reply. if you do I will ignore you. You don't want the truth.
@mejc2 And I showed they were NOT present ANYWHERE in Podarcis. And even if you extend the range to all scaled reptiles, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT have cecal valves. And the cecal valves in the new population are morphologically distinct, so they CAN'T be any kind of atavism AT ALL.
I told you this before. You LIED, and you LIED, and you LIED AGAIN, and you compounded all of these lies by lying once more to try and cover it up.
this video was pretty funny. I like the way that you define information. Maybe ID scientists should change their claim and say that there is no mechanism for developing new programing in the DNA to produce any new body parts or body plans. Also you used Nylonase which is a breakdown of an existing system in the bacteria that makes it less selective hence the ability to digest the linear molecule. Also, the e-coli example, the e-coli already had all the mechanisms to digest citrate anerobically.
GoodScienceForYou, this is your THIRD AND FINAL WARNING. You were warned once for libel, and once for a false accusation of bigotry. Now you have used sockpuppets to thumb up your own comments and bury the comments you don't like, as well as falsely marking them as spam. ONE MORE VIOLATION and you will be blocked from this channel (and so will any other sockpuppets of yours I find).
Oh, and I'm turning off comment ranking for this video.
I again direct you to the talk.origins FAQ page on mutations. In fact, just talk.origins in general has literally mountains of evidence stacked against your assertions.
And forgive me if, when you only promote broken logic and platitudes, I'm a bit skeptical of your 'evidence'.
@bluecode320 That explains why my up thumbs aren't showing up, and his comments keep getting thumbed up. Oh well. Just hafta wait til he gets bored or Shane disables comment voting til he calms down again.
@Virgil0211 I doubt he ever will calm down. There's a comment on his channel asking if he believes that sound waves can turn into Gamma rays. That does not bode well.
@bluecode320 wait... What? Am I reading that correctly? I didn't know anyone could BE that brainless and still chew solid food. Guess that's what 17 years of yoga does to you. That's why I stick to martial arts. Better workout, and better for the brain.
@GoodScienceForYou *yawn* Your platitudes and ad hominems are getting boring. Do you have anything of substance to add?
Oh, I know. Crazy thing is, there are people like you who still run around hocking creationism even after all this time, even possessing an inflated, completely unwarranted sense of superiority.
Care to show some evidence of your supposedly advanced IQ, or are you going to keep acting like a religious nut?
I don't want you to feel bad about yourself. What happens when people start to understand the truth about some delusion they fell for, they get sad and they get angry at the messenger. This is not fun for me to do this, but every person deserves a chance to get free of all religious nonsense. I mean you no harm, just give some keys to freedom to you. If this stuff is too important, then you will continue to cave in for it.
@TheMrgoku1985 How do you explain the absolute physical evidence in DNA that ONLY shows genetic loss in all multicellular creatures? There is no evolution. Humans have over 4600 defects according to the human genome project and Evotards can only show me 4 positive mutations that can be verified.
@shanedk There are several examples? What examples? According to genetics there are four in humans and 4600 negative know to cause death, disease and horrible experiences shortening life. That is 4600 to 4 equaling a net degradation. Humans are degrading faster than ever from mutations. Bacteria does not count. Only multicellular creatures. Bacteria remains a single cell and has not evolved.
@johnrainrules You sould wake up from your lay down for any definition these morons put in science. Here is the real definition: Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This has never happened in biology. This is not science.
@GoodScienceForYou No, the REAL definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies in a population over generations." You need to stop going to the dictionary--which does NOT define words, but reports popular usage--and look at what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS say it is.
@TheMrgoku1985 I pity the sad people who think that HEMG is real. DNA shows only genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is only gene loss, atavisms, atrophy, and screwed up genes caused by mutations.
@johnrainrules The genetic structure for your jaw that at one time was larger, able to fit in the wisdom teeth and stronger is show by the physical remnant from a higher condition of fitness.
Every cell that is relating to diseases is a gene loss, from a condition of fitness to one of heading towards extinction.
There is absolutely no evidence of any progress towards better fitness, nor towards more complexity.
@GoodScienceForYou The jaw being smaller is how our arms could be longer. The same gene controls both. That's why T. rexes had such small arms. That is NOT the way an intelligent designer would have done it!
@GoodScienceForYou "The genetic structure for your jaw that at one time was larger, able to fit in the wisdom teeth and stronger is show by the physical remnant from a higher condition of fitness."
The "genetic structure" of my jaw has been the same since the day I was born and I still have my wisdom teeth.
You talk about observation.
Did anyone observe the particular spot in the genetic code where the new nucleotide was added, at the moment of the mutation?
TheHoggopogo 1 week ago
@TheHoggopogo Yes, it's listed in the source.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk @TheHoggopogo.... Jeeezzz, and creationists get all upset when scientists point out that they deny all evidence despite it's over-abundance and validity. There's just no end to their ridiculous questions! And it's not even because they're genuinely curious or interested in science, it's because they're trying to find a place in science to wedge their theology, and it is so depressing for me to observe such foolishness. People really need to pay attention in school... tsk tsk.
GuitarMannnnnn 1 week ago
@GuitarMannnnnn
Lol you make a lot of claims about someone you don't even know buddy.
TheHoggopogo 1 week ago
@TheHoggopogo "Did anyone observe the particular spot in the genetic code where the new nucleotide was added, at the moment of the mutation?" Sorry, if you're not a creationist, I don't know why else you would ask that.
GuitarMannnnnn 1 week ago
it doesnt add up information.. it changed information that will be functional during that time.
peyupsgurl 2 weeks ago
in·for·ma·tion (nfr-mshn)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
5. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
peyupsgurl 2 weeks ago
"There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress."
Source: creation . com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.""
That would be less moronic if this video didn't show the actual sequence of genes that changed to let the bacteria digest Nylon.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
Why do these scientific minority idiots keep saying that a PC if a product of science this is a Darwinist lie, PC work by magic conducted through crystallised Angel fathers weaved together by elves and are made in Atlantis not China. If you open your PC up you will see. Why don’t you people educate yourselves?
wispa2 3 weeks ago
The information was given to the bacteria by means of the environment. You put the nylon in presence of the bacteria, that is where the information was added to the system. So no, information can not increase.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 How does this make ANY sense?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
The information was already in the DNA of the bacteria, for it's capacity to adapt new environments. And when you put the nylonase, the bacteria only reacted to it. No information was created.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "The information was already in the DNA of the bacteria,"
Where? Show the precise genetic sequence where it existed.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
You just showed it, the information was there in the DNA that got shifted by one letter, and the rest was introduce by the presence of nylon. You can predict that will happens from the start with a computer simulation. Think about compressing the information : the most compressible form of this new DNA would look like : the same old DNA + one C. If you can predict it with simulation, it's the same as uncompressing the information. You don't create information by uncompressing it.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 How did the presence of the nylon byproducts CAUSE the insertion mutation? The mutation was random! It could have easily happened a million times in bacteria that WEREN'T in nylon byproducts, but it wouldn't have been selected for because it didn't give them a survival advantage!
And your "uncompressing" example is just GARBAGE; that is NOT how compression works!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
I may soon post a video explaining in detail what I am talking about, I will send you the link.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628
Before you do that, there's a video I want you to watch.
/watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun
I already saw it before commenting.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
The "C" was all the information added, and it was added by the presence of Nylon.
jb0433628 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Oh, wow! Where's the published article that shows the bacterium sequence mapped out in it's entirety before the introduction of nylon and the duplication?
Are you a molecular biologist? Or a chemist, by any chance? Do you have some kind of super-powered machine that validates your claim?
I'm sorry, let's start easy: What's your level of knowledge regarding any of the following: Nucleic acids, codons, DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA, aminoacids, enzyme kinetic?
TheKainMan 3 weeks ago
@TheKainMan
> Where's the published article that shows the bacterium sequence mapped out in it's entirety before the introduction of nylon and the duplication?
Here you go. tinyurl.com/nylonase
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun I was being sarcastic in asking @jb0433628 directly. I know, I need to work on my sarcasm, sorry. I also know about the mapped DNA.
Cheers, anyway. Hopefully he'll take a look at it. :)
TheKainMan 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 There is a distinct lack of logic in your sentence. Organisms adapt to the environment by means of mutation (random) and natural selection (NOT random).
The mutation that occurred in the copied gene was random, however, the new sequence created specified an enzyme that can react with nylon byproducts and break it down into usable substances.
This gave that bacterium a huge advantage over the food struggle and so it lived on to pass it's DNA forward.
TheKainMan 3 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "You put the nylon in presence of the bacteria, that is where the information was added to the system."
So information was added to the system from a non-intelligent source. Maybe if it happens constantly populations will change or "evolve". I wonder why no one has thought about making it a hypothesis and then testing it. We could call it the Theory of Evolution and start teaching it in biology classes.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a great example of added manmade intelligence, and adaptive error correcting coding programmed into the cell, but it still has a digestive function which is now corrupted and actually weakens to overall system. When you take the nylon away the bacteria dies out. Great example of degeneration. Don't allow nylonase to reject God and take you to hell, because you will hate this stupid movie for eternity!
Ramohog 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ramohog 1 month ago
interesting video!
gtp591 1 month ago
"My left carbuncle's flavor is a heavy shade of penguin"
I think I'll start a new religion, and that sentence willd be it's only tenet... Who's in?
theanvilcracks 2 months ago
Shannon’s theory was not developed to address biological information. It is entirely unsuitable for this since an increase of information by Shannon’s definition can easily be lethal (and an increase in randomness increases Shannon ‘information’).
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "an increase in randomness increases Shannon ‘information’"
No, that's noise, not information.
It's information because the organism now has less uncertainty about its surroundings (to wit, the fact that it contains nylon products and how to digest them). A lethal mutation does not reduce uncertainty, and such is NOT information. You can't redefine your way out of this one.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk
Sorry, man. You're wrong here. Random noise has the most information. Filters remove information, leaving behind a signal. The genetic frequency in a population's offspring is the noise, and has the most information. Then natural selection applies to filter out unsuitable information, just as a radio tuner does, and the result is the signal containing only the remaining information, which is what can survive.
That doesn't help xXsakkelaoXx's argument at all, though. XD
rkyeun 2 months ago
@rkyeun "Random noise has the most information."
Not according to Shannon Theory.
Yes, natural selection is the filter, but natural selection uses INFORMATION about the outside world (and what it takes to survive to the next generation). That's where the information comes from. It's like taking an incredibly long stream of random letters and removing anything that isn't Hamlet: the information on what is Hamlet has to come from somewhere else.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk
Yes, according to Shannon Theory.
Information is characterized by uncertainty and how many bits it requires to represent it. Random noise has the most uncertainty. It isn't even guaranteed to be a viable organism. After selection, you are more certain to have a viable organism. This means information has been removed from the source noise, leaving behind a signal which can be expressed in fewer bits. You need all the organisms, not just the survivors, to reconstitute the noise.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@shanedk
No, it isn't like Hamlet. Hamlet isn't being prey to Romeo and Juliet, or trying to eat enough v's to survive. You're making arguments for intelligent design now.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@shanedk
A specific example given in Shannon Theory is that the outcome of a die roll has more information in it than the outcome of a coin flip. The coin has a built in filter due to its shape that prevents it from landing on four of its sides: those edges are narrow and unstable, and the coin falls onto one of the other two. The die has edges and corners, but those filter less. If you roll a sphere, exactly what single point faces up takes infinite bits to hold the entire real number.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@rkyeun "A specific example given in Shannon Theory is that the outcome of a die roll has more information in it than the outcome of a coin flip."
You're conflating two different things. There's a difference between the number of possible outcomes and noise.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk
I wasn't conflating them. I was describing specific differences and examples. Mutations aren't truly noise. It's not the case that ANY result can happen, as with noise. There is already a filter built in to the mechanisms of mutation. Actual noise would be like rolling the spherical die. Regardless of that, the die roll's still has more information than the coin flip, and the initial genomes have more information than what remains after some organisms are deleted from that set.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@rkyeun If you have a string of letters that is completely random, it's noise. It doesn't stop being noise just because of the existence of these things called "numbers."
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk
If I start with noise, partition its range into 26 subsets, and label the subsets with letters, it was noise, and I have lost information by diminishing it into merely the letters. I no longer have the data to make that noise.
Mutations occur by several mechanisms, and thermal noise plays a part in deciding when those mutations occur. But it gets reduced to a sequence of nucleotides, and information is filtered out. Then rather than rolling the round die, we roll the six-sider.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@shanedk
Natural selection is similar to the coin. The entire population genetic frequency, stillborns and nonviables included, is like the die roll. Its edges and corners are the limits of possible mutations and number of offspring produced. Natural selection is like the coin. The shape of the environment causes there to be fewer outcomes. What remains is an outcome with less information. --but a higher fraction of it useful for OUR purpose, hence a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@shanedk Your ignorance fails you, this argument is over.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Btw, I dont think you read my argument properly, but the shannon theory doesnt apply to biochemistry
xXsakkelaoXx 1 month ago
@xXsakkelaoXx If there's information in biochemistry, then Information Theory applies. If Information Theory doesn't apply, then there's no information there.
shanedk 1 month ago
We can now see that Shannon’s statistical approach to information ignores all four of these ‘extra’ dimensions of information. The reason is quite straightforward—Shannon was originally interested in quantifying the concept of information, and there is no easy way to quantify semantics, syntax, pragmatics or apobetics. Now: where is that "observed" fact???
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
In the case of the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A, the overall purpose is to produce a viable human being capable of worshipping God and having offspring. Failure to achieve this purpose will lead to clogging of brain cells with fatty ganglioside molecules, consequent degeneration of the brain, and death in infancy.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "the overall purpose is to produce a viable human being capable of worshipping God and having offspring."
This is just LAUGHABLY moronic! The purpose of ANY organism is to pass its genes on to the next generation. Anything that helps it do that--such as the ability to digest nylon byproducts--is information it can use for that goal.
shanedk 2 months ago
The fifth dimension of information is apobetics (teleology or teleonomy)—the overall purpose for which a particular word sequence is produced. In the case of the children’s book cited above, the overall purpose is that parents want their children to learn about the world around them so that they will grow up to be good citizens (and perhaps look after their parents in their old age).
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx The Teleological Argument has been refuted since Thomas Aquinas, and probably long before. Way to be current!
shanedk 2 months ago
Information always has some practical application; it does not just float around in the air waiting for somewhere to settle and become meaningful. In an exactly parallel way, the amino acid sequence in hexosaminidase A has a practical function in preventing the abnormal build-up of fatty substances in human brain cells.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
A fourth dimension of information is pragmatics—the practical functionality of words. For example, ‘a bat can fly in the sky’ is a statement about the capability of bats. This statement could have a practical application in a children’s book, for example, to teach children about the world around them.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
The next dimension of information is syntax—the place value or ordering rules of the words. The English sentence ‘A bat can fly in the sky’ is meaningful, but ‘The sky can fly in a bat’ is not. Likewise, syntax is a component of the meaning of genetic words. For example, the correct sequence of amino acids in the enzyme hexosaminidase A can produce a healthy human child, but a single error in that sequence can produce a child with the fatal Tay Sachs disease.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
The most obvious extra dimension is their semantic content. ‘Cat’ represents a furry, four-legged mammal, ‘bat’ represents a flying mammal, ‘hat’ is a shading device placed on human heads, etc. In an exactly parallel fashion, the genetic codons UUU and CGA have semantic content as well—the former represents the amino acid phenylalanine, and the latter represents arginine.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
For example, GCA, GCC, GCG and GCU all represent alanine, and UAA, UAG and UGA all represent the ‘stop’ sign, but AUG alone represents methionine.
Let’s now consider some three-letter English words for comparison. Cat, mat, bat, hat, fly and sky are all three-letter English words that carry approximately similar Shannon-type statistical information content. Yet we all know that these words carry much more information than just the statistical properties of their letter frequencies.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
Four bases taken three at a time yield 64 possible three-letter genetic words (there are no one-, two-or four-letter genetic words). There are twenty amino acids and each three-letter ‘codon’ (word) represents one amino acid or a ‘stop’ or ‘start’ sign. Several different codons can represent the same amino acid (since 64 is greater than 20) but each codon represents only one amino acid.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
In his book In the Beginning was Information, Gitt did not apply his analysis to biology in any detail, so I will here explain it by applying it to biological information and to information as expressed in the English language. The genetic code consists of four bases (the genetic alphabet) taken three at a time (the genetic words). The four bases are guanine (G), adenine (A), cytosine (C) and uracil (U).
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx You even got the basics wrong. In common usage, "the genetic code" refers to DNA. Uracil is only in RNA. Thymine replaces it in DNA.
Your whole argument is clearly a bunch of copy and paste bits that you've used without understanding what it actually means.
TychoCelchu 3 weeks ago
@TychoCelchu You're right lol, at the time I didn't have a lot of information about this topic myself so copy and paste it was!
but what I've learnt?
It was most probably designed to addapt under stress, not a whole new gene by itself, and I seem to recall that the bacteria lost alot of its functions ? not the way to go if you want to turn into a human right?
And according to shannon information a book full of zzzzzzzz contains more information that a science article :/
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "It was most probably designed to addapt under stress, not a whole new gene by itself,"
I SHOWED the new gene, LIAR!
"I seem to recall that the bacteria lost alot of its functions ?"
Nope, as I SAID IN THE VIDEO, the gene WAS A COPY, so it could mutate the gene WITHOUT loss of function.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "so it could mutate the gene WITHOUT loss of function."
Many gene duplications ARE harmful, like downs syndrome!
And why would you first define what information is and then use shannon theory to measure it?
"I SHOWED the new gene"
Yes but this "new" gene was designed to appear in the first place
Check this out: ncbi . nlm . nih . gov/pmc/articles/PMC525574/?tool=pubmed
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "You're right lol, at the time I didn't have a lot of information about this topic myself so copy and paste it was! but what I've learnt?"
So you admit you had no idea what you were talking about, but now you think your an expert because you skimmed 3 articles on a creationist website.
Maybe I'll become a surgeon after speed skimming the Wikipedia article on the T.V. show House.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "but now you think your an expert because you skimmed 3 articles on a creationist website."
Not an expert, but I've obtained INFORMATION yes, and yes the genetic sequences og the genes where designed to change, didn't you read my comment?
Are anyone here familiar to what the loss of function the bacteria got?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "I've obtained INFORMATION yes, and yes the genetic sequences og the genes where designed to change, didn't you read my comment?"
Yes, we just see it for what it is: bald assertion with nothing to back it up, that contradicts the observed facts.
"Are anyone here familiar to what the loss of function the bacteria got?"
As has already been pointed out, there wasn't one!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk "As has already been pointed out, there wasn't one!"
you might be right, but just to make sure you should give a citation
"bald assertion with nothing to back it up"
There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases.
theres observed fact for you, wouldn't you consider it backing up?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx "Not an expert, but I've obtained INFORMATION yes"
Misinformation.
"and yes the genetic sequences og the genes where designed to change, didn't you read my comment?"
Yes, and I explained why it was wrong.
"Are anyone here familiar to what the loss of function the bacteria got?"
For those of us with attention spans we figured out there wasn't a loss when it was explained during the video.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
question: How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx There are a few good ways that the products for carrying information can be increased. The one in this video is something that can arise from copying errors. As you saw, one letter change or addition can change the overall outcome of the protein translated of the mRNA strand.
Huge volumes can be duplicated and fused together, or even entire chromosomes can duplicate themselves as with plants. Chromosomes can fuse. some retrovirus groups can be added to its host.
01101100d 2 months ago
The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx I show the genetic sequences, LIAR.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk i'm sorry, you totally fail to convince, why? you believe that random mutation can create humans from something far less complex.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx He doesnt fail to convince you, but rather you fail to understand. The mutations can be random, but natural selection is not random. Natural selection dictates which mutations are beneficial or not. It's very simple stuff, if i can understand it, then anyone can.
01101100d 2 months ago
@01101100d LOL! have I said natural selection is random? Natural selection was noticed first by guess who: creasionists! but is misused as evidence for evolution?!?! natural selection only alows variation within the species, it has never been observed one specie turning into another, and it never will, because mutations never increase information, the information is lost, if you have 52 cards in a deck, you can never EVER, have a sequense with a card that is not in the deck.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "it has never been observed one specie turning into another."
LMAO oh really. I take it you're not familiar with with the fossil record. Putting that aside, what about the cabbage then? Or new species of drosiphila? Judging by your comment, you're one of those who accepts micro but not macro-evolution, not realising how idiotic it makes you look since they're based on the same function, just the level of change is different.
01101100d 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx (comment 2) Oh, so, even if evolution was discovered by creationists (which isn't 100% accurate) it doesn't mean that it can't be used against them. It's not for the discoverers to thwart with as they wish. The evidence is what does the talking sir/madam. I suggest a basic science course as a starting point should begin to help you on the path of understanding what it is you're saying.
01101100d 2 months ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Natural selection was noticed first by guess who: creasionists!"
[citation needed]
"it has never been observed one specie turning into another"
BULLSHIT. It's been observed HUNDREDS of times!
"because mutations never increase information"
I have two videos and a book showing it happening. You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Like most creationists, he will run off and carry on with his old views that "mutations never increase information" bla bla bla. It's easy to see that they aren't interested in the facts because otherwise they'd curiously look at the evidence and then re assess their opinions and views based on the evidence. But as we know, the priority of wishful thinking overtakes the value of evidence. Nice video mate. I thought it was so clear and straight to the point.
01101100d 2 months ago
I suggest you read the book "programming of life". That is all.
Antilli 2 months ago
Is it true that geneticist Susumu Ohno, the author of the "Birth of a unique enzyme..." article, only 'speculated' that the enzyme was a result of gene duplication and frame shift mutation?
Is it also true that a study, by a Japanese team at the University of Hyogo, suggested that there was no frameshift involved in the "evolution" of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase?
kartune85 3 months ago
I have a question: Where did the added sequence @4:00 originate from? Were the original "letters" bumped forward one position due to the insertion, or is it an entirely new sequence of "letters"?
kartune85 4 months ago
@kartune85 The "letters" in the DNA code were bumped forward one, resulting in a new sequence of amino acids. I showed the amino acid sequence, not the DNA code letters.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Is it fair to say that the "new" sequence "added" to the gene is not the same sequence, shifted one position due to the insertion, as the sequence shown @3:46?
Is it also fair to say that the "new sequence" is actually using the same sequence of the original gene, just shifted by one position, rather than "brand new information"?
kartune85 4 months ago
@kartune85 No, it's a different sequence. They hold none of the same amino acids in common. Consider the following sentence of 3-letter words:
DOG ATE MOE
Now stick an A at the beginning:
ADO GAT EMO
It makes completely different words. The information has been entirely changed, and none of the information in the previous sentence is held over.
shanedk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk So it was fair to say that the "new" sequence "added" to the gene @4:00 is not the same sequence, shifted one position due to the insertion, as the sequence shown @3:46.
Would it also be fair to say that the 92% was not actually "gone, finito, kaput", but rather the existing sequence was shifted forward by one position?
Although 'ADO GAT EMO' may not be a coherent sentence in the English, you could argue that each of those words actually has meaning in the English language.
kartune85 3 months ago
@kartune85 "How were the letters bumped forward one?"
By an insertion mutation. They happen all the time. We KNOW the mechanism. We KNOW why these mutations happen.
ALL creationism is based on ignorance and LIES.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Don't drag me into this, I didn't ask that question.
Your following broad sweeping statement is very telling as to your bias. I can confidently state that your assertion is absolutely false as you can't have looked into "ALL" claims made by Creationists, and it makes me wonder if you've looked at ANY claims made by Creationists.
What is your opinion on the Creationist claim that Natural Selection is an unguided process that requires existing genetic information to select from?
kartune85 3 weeks ago
@kartune85 "and it makes me wonder if you've looked at ANY claims made by Creationists."
I've been debating creationists for over 20 years.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@kartune85 "Natural Selection is an unguided process that requires existing genetic information to select from?"
Here's a perfect example of why ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS: They say Natural Selection can't work because all it can do is select from existing information, not create new genetic sequences. Then they say that Mutation can't work because it can't select the good over the bad. Of course, it's MUTATION that makes the new sequence and NATURAL SELECTION that selects!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
How were the letters bumped forward one? If all you have is the sequence, you don't know the mechanism. The fact that many complex mechanisms have been discovered that demonstrate the ability of cells to adapt their own genomes, this single mutation is probably an enzyme altering mechanism like the immune system. So guess what, saying it's a frame shift mutation is ignorance on your part, unless you actually witnessed the change being derived from a copying error.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You have already conceded that organisms do indeed evolve--so you are basically just kissing ass with the people who make you feel alright about your lack of education.
Why can't you name any Darwinists--or even point to the part of Biology that hasnt' taken Darwinism and moved 150 years past it?
odinata 2 months ago
@kartune85 I think one good way for you to look up how this happens is to see how translation and transcription works. When a gene makes a code for a protein, tRNA inserts amino acids onto a particular 3 coded base of the messenger RNA strand. If that 3 letter code was different, then a different amino acid would have to go there, making a new amino acid sequence and so a different protein.
01101100d 2 months ago
Duplicatiion of existing information is not new information. Mutations destroy information. Information CANNOT be created by nature. It is impossible.
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree I just showed it, Nephie.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Just for kicks, leanr why you didn't. First, look up the definition of information and study it so you know what it is you are talking abut. Then go to my channel and search for the vid in which I explain how nature cannot create information, or Dr. Hubert Hockney (biophysicist or Dr. Werner Gitt (professor and director of the German Federal Institute of Information Technology. But then, you don't want to believe science. You prefer fantasy! CYA
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree "First, look up the definition of information"
I GAVE the definition in the video, as well as the three types of content.
You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk FAIL. Use a dictionary, not your imagination.
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree Dictionaries do NOT give scientific definitions. You need a book on Shannon Theory.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shaned LOL! Nonsnce. You're a science denialist and twister. You attempt to bend science to fit your godless, irrational and unscientific worldview. FAIL
CYA
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree Really, then write up your findings and submit them for peer review. Overturning the unifying theory of biology should get you a Nobel Prize.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@johnrainrules NO because teh sooper-seekrit scientific cabal what's behind the Illuminati and teh Rothschilds and the Bildebergers won't done let it through the review cuz it's all a CONSPIRACY!!!1!1!111one1one1eleventy-one
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk It would be fun to read Nephilims paper, kind of like Kent Hovinds doctoral dissertation.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@NephilimFree completely lol
Fantasticlist 4 months ago
@NephilimFree You're a fucking idiot. Instead of making youtube videos where you demonstrate your ignorance over and over again, how about you do something productive? Losing weight would be a great start. ;-)
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@shanedk Now, if you want to debate me on this, go to shockawenow d o t c o m and then to Shock's chat and I will gladly school ya in front of others, in a calm, respectable manner, with knowledge and facts, and you can get that tail between your legs afterall.
NephilimFree 4 months ago
@NephilimFree How are you going to do anything in a calm and rational manner when you never go online without getting drunk first?
evensgrey 4 months ago
"We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
Lenski used tens of trillions of E Coli, what's the fuss all about?
The great achievement of Lenski was the demonstration that evolution is impossible without trillions of specimens, so, obviously, mammalians never evolved.
I think that Lenski's experiments can be safely used by Christians.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Huh? How do you come to that conclusion?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk "We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 e12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 e12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations." -Lenski 2008
The beauty of Lenski's experiment is that creationists now have experimental grounds for the time and specimens needed to obtain a new beneficial trait. For a presentation on human genetic entropy, Lenski's results are gold ;-)
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Um, it's not specimens that matter, it's generations.
Why don't you give the stat for how many generations it took?
shanedk 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Ask about Lenski's experiments on Conservapedia.
bluecode320 7 months ago
@bluecode320 Oh, man, they're using their own discussion pages as reference!
Conservapedia is a joke.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Yep, and mentioning Lenski warrants an insta-ban from Schlafly (although recently they've been banning pretty much every newcomer).
bluecode320 7 months ago
Here are the citations for my earlier comments. However this information has been available for years. No one argues this level of adaptation and it is misleading to insinuate that this type of low level genetic adaptation can create the DNA information needed to produce novel organs or body plans.
Nyonase-Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 April; 81(8): 2421–2425.
Citrate-Journal of bacteriology August 1998 P.4160-4165
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 A protein IS the body part of a bacterium.
shanedk 7 months ago
@mejc2 And what about the lizards that evolved cecal valves in only 30 years?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
The cecal valve is not a novel body part. it is present in other lizards. No one is claiming that random mutations created the DNA necessary for those valves in a mere three to four generations. It is misleading to suggest that random mutations guided by natural selection created those cecal valves. More likely the DNA was already present and merely switched off.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 YOU ARE A LIAR. Cecal valves are present in <1% of all scaled reptiles, and never, ever, EVER before in that genus. The DNA WAS NOT PRESENT.
And it was a LOT more than three or four generations; more like 15 or 20.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
A Liar? Cite the paper that says " the DNA WAS NOT PRESENT". You shouted it so it must be true. Because You would never Lie or mislead anyone. If you are so sure that the new information for the cecal valve was created by mutation and natural selection, why didn't you feature it in your little video.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 I DID. It's also featured in my book.
LIAR.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
I watched your little video again and you didn't mention the paper that supports your CLAIMS about the cecal valves. I have already refuted your claims about nylonase and citrate with SCIENTIFIC evidence and you have provided nothing to support your claim that "the DNA WAS NOT PRESENT". I contend and have shown scientifically your video is misleading and your refusal to provide support of your other rant is more evidence that there is only one liar here and it is YOU.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 No, YOU are the liar: /watch?v=KLNoRlxjvJI
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
First you make claims which I refute. then you make additional claims ignoring my refutation of your first claims. You refuse to provide a citation for you claims although you required me to provide citations.Now you are directing me to a you tube video? You are a pathetic liar. I don't dislike you I feel sorry for you. You presented your best arguments in your little video and along comes a random you tuber and shoots the shit out of your arguments. Wow what are the chances
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 "First you make claims which I refute."
You refuted squat. You made unfounded assertions about something you clearly know nothing about.
"You refuse to provide a citation for you claims"
I've already given my sources.
"Now you are directing me to a you tube video?"
It's MY VIDEO, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! You know, the one you CLAIM DOESN'T EXIST???
Another fucking creationist liar. Nothing more.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
This is moving from funny to hilarious. You directed me to YOUR OWN video as evidence to support YOUR claims. LOL that is hysterical. You may be the dumbest guy that thinks he's smart I have ever seen. Usually people as stupid as you get jobs sweeping up and accept their inferiority. You wear it like a badge of honor.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 "You directed me to YOUR OWN video as evidence to support YOUR claims."
No, LIAR, I gave you a reference to my video AFTER YOU SAID I NEVER MADE IT. Now you're caught out in your lie, and the only thing you can do is make up shit and lash out.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Wait, after I refuted the claims in this video, you brought up cecal valves because you mentioned them, without citation, in another video that you made? Why would I be aware of your other videos? OK so let's get this straight. 1. you make false and misleading claims in this video which I refute
2. your response is Oh yeah what about cecal valves
3. I refute your claim about cecal valves and ask you for a citation of your claim
4. No citation and refer me to your own video LOL
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 "after I refuted the claims in this video"
You refuted NOTHING. You made baseless assertions, after showing clearly you are SERIOUSLY uninformed on the subject, and refused to back them up.
And I HAVE cited the paper, LIAR.
shanedk 7 months ago
@mejc2 And here's a newer reference:
"Anatomical and Physiological Changes Associated with a Recent Dietary Shift in the Lizard Podarcis sicula" Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 83(4):632–642.
shanedk 7 months ago
@mejc2 And let's not forget, YOU were the one who LIED and said that cecal valves were common among reptiles when they're not.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Liar, all the comments are present for all to see. I said they were present in other lizards. You are beyond a liar, you are a fool. How could you accuse me of saying something when anyone can scroll up and see that you are lying, and then call me a liar. You are like a caricature of a real person. Unbelievable. You have been exposed. Do not reply. if you do I will ignore you. You don't want the truth.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 And I showed they were NOT present ANYWHERE in Podarcis. And even if you extend the range to all scaled reptiles, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT have cecal valves. And the cecal valves in the new population are morphologically distinct, so they CAN'T be any kind of atavism AT ALL.
I told you this before. You LIED, and you LIED, and you LIED AGAIN, and you compounded all of these lies by lying once more to try and cover it up.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Please delete GoodScienceForYou's top rated comments. Thanks. :)
Drgamedood 7 months ago
this video was pretty funny. I like the way that you define information. Maybe ID scientists should change their claim and say that there is no mechanism for developing new programing in the DNA to produce any new body parts or body plans. Also you used Nylonase which is a breakdown of an existing system in the bacteria that makes it less selective hence the ability to digest the linear molecule. Also, the e-coli example, the e-coli already had all the mechanisms to digest citrate anerobically.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 Um, [citation needed] for those two claims...
shanedk 7 months ago
GoodScienceForYou, this is your THIRD AND FINAL WARNING. You were warned once for libel, and once for a false accusation of bigotry. Now you have used sockpuppets to thumb up your own comments and bury the comments you don't like, as well as falsely marking them as spam. ONE MORE VIOLATION and you will be blocked from this channel (and so will any other sockpuppets of yours I find).
Oh, and I'm turning off comment ranking for this video.
You are a thoroughly vile and disgusting person.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk Looks like he went off and blocked me. I can't comment on his page or subscribe to him. Guess it was too much for his feeble little mind.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
Notice how the highest rated comments are now both from GoodScienceForYou.
Interesting...
vspqbd 10 months ago
@vspqbd I've already blocked one of his sockpuppets.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk dude, could you block him and delete his comments? Thanks. :)
Drgamedood 8 months ago
Comment removed
MrRealScience 10 months ago
@MrRealScience [Citation needed]
I again direct you to the talk.origins FAQ page on mutations. In fact, just talk.origins in general has literally mountains of evidence stacked against your assertions.
And forgive me if, when you only promote broken logic and platitudes, I'm a bit skeptical of your 'evidence'.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@MrRealScience Why'd you remove your comment? Afraid people will notice your sockpuppet?
Some 'extreme IQ'. You couldn't even stop yourself from making a rookie mistake.
Still waiting to hear what your credentials in computer programming are.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 His other sock-puppet is "HavenHead". There's probably a whole bunch of them.
bluecode320 10 months ago
@bluecode320 That explains why my up thumbs aren't showing up, and his comments keep getting thumbed up. Oh well. Just hafta wait til he gets bored or Shane disables comment voting til he calms down again.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Virgil0211 I doubt he ever will calm down. There's a comment on his channel asking if he believes that sound waves can turn into Gamma rays. That does not bode well.
bluecode320 10 months ago
@bluecode320 wait... What? Am I reading that correctly? I didn't know anyone could BE that brainless and still chew solid food. Guess that's what 17 years of yoga does to you. That's why I stick to martial arts. Better workout, and better for the brain.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
MrRealScience has been blocked as a sockpuppet of GoodScienceForYou.
shanedk 10 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou *yawn* Your platitudes and ad hominems are getting boring. Do you have anything of substance to add?
Oh, I know. Crazy thing is, there are people like you who still run around hocking creationism even after all this time, even possessing an inflated, completely unwarranted sense of superiority.
Care to show some evidence of your supposedly advanced IQ, or are you going to keep acting like a religious nut?
Virgil0211 10 months ago
I don't want you to feel bad about yourself. What happens when people start to understand the truth about some delusion they fell for, they get sad and they get angry at the messenger. This is not fun for me to do this, but every person deserves a chance to get free of all religious nonsense. I mean you no harm, just give some keys to freedom to you. If this stuff is too important, then you will continue to cave in for it.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago 5
@GoodScienceForYou
Fucking retard
TheMrgoku1985 4 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 How do you explain the absolute physical evidence in DNA that ONLY shows genetic loss in all multicellular creatures? There is no evolution. Humans have over 4600 defects according to the human genome project and Evotards can only show me 4 positive mutations that can be verified.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "How do you explain the absolute physical evidence in DNA that ONLY shows genetic loss in all multicellular creatures?"
It DOESN'T. Information in DNA is gained by mutations ALL THE TIME. I have several examples in my videos and in my book.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk There are several examples? What examples? According to genetics there are four in humans and 4600 negative know to cause death, disease and horrible experiences shortening life. That is 4600 to 4 equaling a net degradation. Humans are degrading faster than ever from mutations. Bacteria does not count. Only multicellular creatures. Bacteria remains a single cell and has not evolved.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Bacteria remains a single cell and has not evolved"
You should probably look up what the word evolved means.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@johnrainrules You sould wake up from your lay down for any definition these morons put in science. Here is the real definition: Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This has never happened in biology. This is not science.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou No, the REAL definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies in a population over generations." You need to stop going to the dictionary--which does NOT define words, but reports popular usage--and look at what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS say it is.
shanedk 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
watch?v=y6oOWouCceA
watch?v=ocd1VOvpndw
watch?v=IYN_M7kYENo
watch?v=xZmkhCD0lfU
You have been pwned
TheMrgoku1985 4 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 I pity the sad people who think that HEMG is real. DNA shows only genetic degradation in all complex creatures. There is only gene loss, atavisms, atrophy, and screwed up genes caused by mutations.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Atavisms prove evolution and disprove creationism.
"There is only gene loss"
Name one gene that has been lost.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@johnrainrules The genetic structure for your jaw that at one time was larger, able to fit in the wisdom teeth and stronger is show by the physical remnant from a higher condition of fitness.
Every cell that is relating to diseases is a gene loss, from a condition of fitness to one of heading towards extinction.
There is absolutely no evidence of any progress towards better fitness, nor towards more complexity.
GoodScienceForYou 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou The jaw being smaller is how our arms could be longer. The same gene controls both. That's why T. rexes had such small arms. That is NOT the way an intelligent designer would have done it!
shanedk 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The genetic structure for your jaw that at one time was larger, able to fit in the wisdom teeth and stronger is show by the physical remnant from a higher condition of fitness."
The "genetic structure" of my jaw has been the same since the day I was born and I still have my wisdom teeth.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Thats nice have you presented this bullshit for peer review? You have been owned.
watch?v=y6oOWouCceA
watch?v=ocd1VOvpndw
watch?v=IYN_M7kYENo
watch?v=xZmkhCD0lfU
TheMrgoku1985 4 months ago