If the comments on this video are any indicator, there is no room for free speech in America! Can we not simply ask questions about natural selection? Stunning ignorance...
Darwinian evolution plays the role of religion and creation myth for many. To question it is to challenge something very sacred to these people, which is why they become so enraged and emotional when such questioning occurs.
What adds to the frustration is that, not only does Doug Axe question Darwinian evolution, he does so with flawless reasoning, backed up by a proverbial mountains of scientific data. Their only response? Name-calling and conspiracy theories. Sad.
On the positive side, at least they are now talking about the cambrian period, instead of just saying God created it all 10,000 years ago! so looks like creationists are also evolving! :)
@superFGS11 no, they are saying that the cambrian did not happen. that if it was, as the evolutionists are saying, than it was too short to produce what evolution is saying it did.
It's likely true (not "must be true") not because the argument's being forwarded by someone who's earned the title of doctor, but because the argument is airtight. It could be forwarded by a high school dropout and it would remain equally as valid.
@eyallev The engine for change is not explained. Random mutations cannot explain the vast diversity of life that sprang up in a relatively short period of time.
I don't know what's worse that evolution still has a case or that evolutionists are getting dumber and dumber with their arguements, soon the'll be telling us the egyptians and jews never existed or we can't test evolution with our current technology but it's still true
--------------------- its by natural selection which has no chance 2 it at all all mutaton does is rare and takes it in a certain derection but its going 2 go somewhere regardless.
Evolution requires function. Function requires functioning proteins--the very thing in question. There are no intermediate steps in protein formation. It's either functional or it's non-functional. The idea that proteins can be built up gradually is nonfactual.
You WANT it to be so, you NEED it to be so, but guess what? It's not so.
Random mutations do not and cannot create new proteins, therefore, Darwinian evolution has been falsified.
no it hasn't , the evidence for creationism is not evidence its nonsense. in the comments i gave tones of reasons for evolution & i have loads more.
but really this shows how much of a hypocritical idiot you are, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence all you've show is you don't understand what a protein or evolution is we know proteins can evolve because they vairy in different species.
National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis and many more have been working on this, and they've come up with answers but the exact order of the sequence in our dna in certain locations mirrors that of a chimpanze and no other mammal or creature on earth which guarantees common ancestry.
If you want to take the word of people like stephen c meyer go ahead but his pappers on evolution have rejected by every science academy.
i wonder how he calculated and tested this since the current cpu power available today cannot simulate all those different strings to see if it can fold properly or not.
The good old, "I failed 6th grade math so I don't care what the numbers say! Darwinismdidit! The end!" argument.
I can't say this argument has been refuted because, and let's be real here, it's not even an argument. In fact, it's the antithesis of an argument. It's a faith-based, dogmatic, unscientific bald assertion.
You have blind faith that Darwinian evolution can do anything and everything, thus inconveniences like math and logic don't phase you in the least.
@ReturnOfTheJam Who ever said evolution can do anything and everything? Evolution is really just natural selection acting on mutations to cause genetic change in populations. If you break it down to its simplest form that's really all evolution is. It doesnt matter how small you think the chances are, it obviously happened cause we're here. There is little faith required when mountains of empirical evidence have been gathered over 150 years.Youre free to research that on your own
"It doesnt matter how small you think the chances are, it obviously happened cause we're here."
You've committed the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." You assume Darwinian evolution is the reason we're here, and then use the fact that we're here as evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Yes, we're here. The question is, "How did we get here?" Simply assuming Darwinian evolution is the explanation doesn't answer anything, especially when the data suggests it to be false.
@ReturnOfTheJam While you raise a good point, I have never assumed "Darwinian" evolution was true. I came to that conclusion through my thorough research of the evidence. The data which "suggests it to be false" is nothing but the flawed, psuedoscientific thinking of ID proponents. How exactly their thinking is flawed enters a broad new realm which we could never adequately discuss here. Your point was that all I was doing was assuming, which is your own false assumption.
Perhaps you believe in Darwinian evolution because the evidence convinced you of it's validity (I've yet to find this evidence, despite searching for years), but your claim was clearly circular reasoning.
In what other areas do you believe we should ignore math and probability and simply assert our premises as facts?
Although Axe never formally retracted his paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology, he did agree with a letter to the Journal that his sample size was a BILLION times too small to support his conclusion.
It's possible to believe in evolution and God (Catholic Church accepts evolution), but is it possibile to NOT believe in evolution and NO God? Probably NOT! Intelligent Design is not science.
A very convincing argument. Here I was thinking I.D. was science since it was empirical and falsifiable, all while pleading to a well-known force operating inside of nature (intelligence), but you've set me straight.
The evidence, which you fear, says otherwise. The evidence says that for every one functional protein, there are 10^77 non-functional proteins. For those who are unaware, that's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000.
Good luck, Darwinists. Your archaic "theory" is gonna need it.
@eyallev Ya, you talk like it is very simple. First, start with which working protein, since there is not genetic information to build one? Second, 'make one change', how to make change if there is no new genetic information?
@yohanesmalaysia no genetic information? sure there is, you obviously have not watched this vid', or have no idea what's it's talking about.
in this vid' they are talking about the camberium explotion, a HUGE time frame in which early/primitive life forms have divisified to basiclly fill the world. So you had DNA before hand, and you had already working protines. the question is, how could these change to more complex life forms, and the answer, evolution.
@eyallev you go back to circular arguments... This video (and the whole series "Darwin's dilemma") talking about there is NO trace of any gradual transition of life forms prior to the Cambrian Explosion. What was before Cambrian explosion are only fauna and simple life forms, but suddenly we observed very complex life forms (almost all phylum of animal) appear in Cambrian explosion. Thus, where is your small genetic changes and add-on come from?
@yohanesmalaysia a phylum is a very basic divition (man made btw) of life forms. there were no cows after the cambian explosion, in fact, there were no mamals after the cambrian explosion; even dinosaurs haven't emeraged at the end of the cambrian explosion.
In short, you had very basic life forms before i, and you had alot more of a little more complex life forms after it, no real "magic" here.
@eyallev Why need cows or any mammals after the Cambrian explosion?? The contention here is NO any trace of gradual transitional life forms between the pre-Cambrian (only flora and bacteria) and Cambrian (multiple of animals in almost all major phyla). (Suggest you to have some reading on what is the complexity of life forms in that Cambrian era) Darwinian evolution theoty is totally unable to explain this scientific observation.
@yohanesmalaysia "phyla" is nothing spiecific, and it's just as arbitrary as "spiecies". some guy decided that two lifeforms should be labeled under differant phyla, not enought ppl argued with him, and so it was.
there were "animals" before the cambrian, but again, you are free to call them flora (is plankton animal, or flora? and what is fungii?)
Phylum classification is anything but arbitrary. It's based on body-plans. Body-plans, and what possesses the creative power to produce them, is one of the main subjects of contention in this debate. To attempt to blow it off the way you have suggests to me that you're either ignorant, deceitful, or, sadly, both.
As yohanes says, there is no gradual arrival of body-plans found on the fossil record. They emerge suddenly--the exact opposite of what was predicted by Darwinists.
The Cambrian Explosion seems like a "HUGE time frame" on the surface, but it actually represents roughly 0.2% (1/500) of life's total existence, and that's the upper-limit. For all we know, it could've been instantaneous. All we know is that nearly every single phyla that's ever existed appeared in a single layer of strata over a period between zero and 10-million-years.
Although I'm not a Biblical creationist, this data supports their theory far more than Darwin's.
@ReturnOfTheJam the Cambrian explosion is simply a time frame were either the environment changed, or some organisms made a "breakthrough", which as a result allowed life to spread very quickly to many places. it is this explosion of life, that powered the forces of evolution in many different directions, in many different places.
you had a lot of evolution going on before the Cambrian thing, for example the evolution of "sex" predates it.
someone correct me if im wrong but im sure that when an organism reproduces it the amino acids dont randomly try and form again, they duplicate. this means that when they copy there are chances for mistakes, and those are the variations that cause natural selection, so saying that its a mathematical impossibility for amino acids to arrange in any meaningful way is just a misunderstanding of how evolution works
Here's analogy to the mistake that the video is making: toss a coin 100 times and note down the results. the sequence you'll get will be an extremely special one! the chances are 2^-100. Wow!! Therefore the sequence can be made only by design.. Are you kidding me? :)
@ibenian Bad analogy. The tosses can either show a pattern or show randomness. Flip a coin a 100 times, and if you get a pattern, then you'll get a "special sequence." In a more understandable way, piles wood can be blown in a number of ways, if the end result is a house, it was blown in a "special" way. However, not all configurations are "extremely special."
@Wishingstarification Any sequence has the same change of occurring. e.g for an 8 bit sequence, both 01010101 and 10100011 has the same probability of 1/256. Anything you call a pattern is just one possibility and doesn't dictate anything on its usefulness either. There are gazillions of configurations that do not show any particular detectable pattern but given a chance would be useful.
@ibenian There is a difference between a meaningful sequence and a random one. To put it another way, if someone finds a house and someone finds a pile of wood, it's unreasonable to conclude that both were just randomly thrown together by the wind.
If you get rid of the idea of meaningful occurrence, you've thrown out the whole field of biostatistics. Alpha being 0.05 no longer has any meaning. You can throw the Mendelian genetics out the door also, because you've equated all sequences.
@Wishingstarification In fact, this month's Sci-am has an article about this. It turns out, proteins don't even fold perfectly! Here's what it says: "Now, however, it is becoming clear that a host of proteins carry out their biological tasks without ever completely folding; others fold only as needed." Sci-am April 2011 "The Orderly Chaos of Proteins"
@ibenian Since proteins don't even fold perfectly, that already says there are a lot of useful configurations than previously assumed. In other words, organic things do not work like clock, with an exact design that has to match piece by by piece. They do whatever they can. That's why they are so adaptive, rather than rigid.
The tiny possibility that is mentioned in this video refers to a specific configuration. The video does a huge mistake by ignoring the fact that there may be infinitely many useful configuration that didn't actually happen but could happen. So in the space of all possibilities, there are many useful configuration, not just what's out there today.
@ibenian There are not an infinitely number of useful combinations (proteins). Proteins take on specific shapes to perform specific functions. Sometimes just a single wrong amino acid within a large protein leads to a genetic disease... Dawkins used the analogy of letters in a sentence. If I need a sentence that says "The king and queen lived in a castle" and try to get that by random chances, it becomes a mathematical improbability so great as to be absurd.
If you're mentally retarded or just stupid, chances are you'd blindly believe this. For the remaining 2 percent of people who are remotely intelligent yet still believe this, good for you. And I wish I was not exaggerating.
Main lie: 'if the amino acids are incorrectly assembled no protein will form.' Sorry, but any combination of amino acids Will fold. That's what they do when they're polymerized. That protein however may or may not be functional In Its Environment. Where's the dilemma? Where's the black box? I don't get it!! They keep saying there's a problem with evolution then never present the problem. And bitching about us not listening to shit you pull out of your ass doesn't count!
@MultiPaulinator Had you watched the video you would have seen that the problem is the mathematical impossibility of picking by chance the proper sequence of amino acids to form a needed functioning protein. The number of random mutations (guesses) are far too large to have occurred. I've noticed that some people just can't grasp the simple concept of mathematical impossibilities and as a result just insult the makers of the video without any explanation of where they're wrong.
They're going to get thumbs down for no reason other than the fact that they're challenging the atheists' religion, which hides under the cover of legitimate science. YouTube is full of hateful atheists. You do the math (if you can).
Let the quality of the video speak for itself, not a flock of brain-dead imbeciles who will vote thumbs down regardless of said quality.
emm... why do they ignor the fact that the amount changes the probability, you see ther can be 1 marked atom in the univers and it may take a long time for 1 person to finde BUT if you have.... a billion? a trillion people looking the number realy go's up...
Yeah, but these rejects won't listen to you. They would rather entertain their Darwinian fantasy. I've read enough biological research in the last few years to confidently say that the bandwagon that exists now in blind favor of Neo-Darwanism will be the laughing stock of biology in probably less than 10 years.
The evidence is already there, I don't need to present anything. What you need to do is some unbiased research and reading of your own. The integral information processing of the cell, a communication system magnitudes of order more powerful than anything we have ever built, exists at the base of life, within chemical systems. It needs to be explained. Then evolution can be scientifically evaluated, and adaptation can be truly understood.
@circusOFprecision What evidence? I've looked myself, I've asked dozens of creationists, none can move the ball any further than the line of assertion.
'The integral information processing of the cell'
Which process?
'a communication system magnitudes of order more powerful than anything we have ever built
Orders of magnitude more subject to replication with variation than anything we've ever built.
Just look at protein synthesis, or the problem of chemical evolution to account for information. The evidence for design is overwhelming. Read the Signature in the Cell, or visit uncommondesign. The ID folks may be wrong, but at least they are asking the right questions.
@circusOFprecision No, the bare assertion of design is repetitious, you point to a complex process and jump from observation to conclusion, that fails in every way possible in being scientific.
Protein synthesis is peptide bonding and information at the most basic level is defined as a distinguishing characteristics.
Fair enough, as in you can believe what you like. Can you explain the entire process of transcription using brute chemical language and accurately describe what is going on? You certainly have not so far. You fail to acknowledge the exchange of information, or the information at all rather. It's not the bare assertion of design, it's the damn specifics of it, at least as far as we are able to currently grasp.
@circusOFprecision It's not a matter of belief, it's about one side being supported by all evidence and the other (yours) being supported only by fallacy. In this case nirvana fallacy 'Can you explain the entire process of transcription' and begging the question 'it's the damn specifics of it'
There are no specifics of design because it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
Waaaaiit... how does Natural Selection generate new genes? It can't do that. And it can't generate new species... not in a billion years. Because natural selection is just a question of who get's killed and who passes on it's genes. But no matter who it is, it's still the same old genes of the same old species and it doesn't introduce any new genes - no matter how long you wait.
@Supenmanu Do it! t's really funny, search "Scientists Discover 356 Animal Inclusions Trapped In Opaque Amber 100 Million Years Old science daily"
the neatest fossils of the world shows... stasis hahaha all the 356 are are known species or isolated ones, none of them is transitional, oh and remember, that insects reproduce much faster than mammals, lol how can those evo guys have such a strong dellusion??
@IloveYOUviruses That's a fallacy known as confirmation bias, you're focusing on stasis and ignoring the vast and sequential change found in the fossil record.
@TheScienceFoundation If you wanna believe that the neatest fossils (besides frozen mammals) show stasis just because, that's up to you, I don't expect you to see the contradiction.
They know this, but they refuse to address it. What they do is interpret adaptation as evolutionary change. Then they extrapolate this change to explain all diversity. It's pretty clever, but it isn't very scientific. At least not by Popper's meaning of science, falsifiability.
@circusOFprecision No, extrapolation of observed change is not used as primary evidence for common descent, or at all directly. What observed mechanisms do is explain the pattern which emerges when studying the data in any field of biology or especially all fields concordantly.
Evolutionist are ignorants , why people study statistic? Every minded one who read that Statistical facts should give up evolution, and looks for another way.
and so as a creationist you will reject reality and say god did it, evolution is a fact by the way the theory is evolution via natural selection. evolution has always been correct just look at the fossils, look at the genomes and similarity of base pairs of adenine, thymine, guamine and cytosine. look at how bacteria and viruses adapt to their surroundings, your own mitochondria in your cells is an archeobacteria cell. your cells work in symbiosis with it, open yours eyes its there. think
The problem is that evolution explains nothing about life itself, it only attempts to explain its diversity. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is no better than the geocentric model. It explains what it can, from its purposefully limited assumptions, but we have much more information now. It's time to move to a heliocentric model, one that acknowledges consciousness and the information in biology as having a critical role it life's development.
@circusOFprecision You have that backwards, creationism is the 'explanation' of mythology and mysticism, evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity which employs realistic useful mechanisms and is actually capable of practical predictive power.
Very good and convincing presentation. I feel relieved, bcz overwhelming proof and evidence suggest that Man is not just an evolved, mutated, crazy Ape.(Heaven forbid!)
Anyone who gets tricked by this should look up the significance of the cambrian explosion.. ..it has nothing to do with the formation of proteins or the beginning of life.
Wow okay so, how exactly did that scientist calculate that 10 to the 74th? And, is he trying to say that 10 to the 74th is the odds of a blindfolded man picking out a single marked atom? Come on, people. This isnt empirical, this is sleight of hand. This is silly creationists wrapping themselves up in labcoats and tossing 25 digit-long numbers at people, hoping to confound them before they have a chance to taste the crap they are being fed. This is the antithesis of scientific understanding.
Im sorry, Im trying to find the videos offered by the Discovery Institute that prove, or even lend any support at all, to Intelligent Design. Ive been sifting through their videos looking for the many videos they must have that show experiments and data that prove ID to be right, but I cannot find them. Can anyone help me?
Oh, wait, thats right, there are no experiments and there is no data that supports Intelligent Design. Hmm....doesn't that mean it has about the same credibility as Santa?
Wow! each step in Dawkins idea becomes a Mt. improvible. The faith that it takes to resist the grace of God! May God have mercy, yet He already has- Jesus was sent for us and all who believe!
"Creationists," as you disingenuously refer to I.D. proponents as, will go away when their arguments stop making perfect sense.
Given the fact that the more we study biology, the more valid intelligent design becomes, and the stronger the arguments for I.D. become, I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.
Will you be presenting your argument as to why scientist Doug Axe's work is "propaganda with no bearing on reality whatsoever," or are we suppose to take your completely unbiased and totally honest *wink, wink* word on it?
Personally, I think it's your claim that is dishonest propaganda with no bearing on reality whatsoever. I think Darwinian evolution is your religious-like creation myth, and anyone who challenges it, as Dr. Axe has, is viewed as a heretic.
What has morality got to do with it. This is a discussion of pure science and discussions of morality are a diversion. Using pure science evolution can't be proved, but it can be disproved. Using pure science creationism can't be proved nor can it be disproved. Both belief systems are at the heart religious. Evolution has the god of random acts and can only be accepted by a leap of faith. Creationism has a God of ordered events and again can only be accepted by a leap of faith.
@resoeng "What has morality got to do with it. This is a discussion of pure science and discussions of morality are a diversion. " Not true - the belief and/or rational basis for belief in Naturalism/Atheism/Materialism or Theism/Creationism/ID has significant ethical implications which go a long way in explaining why this is such a thorny hotbed issue. As for Pure Science - what is it about this discussion that makes you believe that it is Pure Science - whatever that may mean?
I like how they refer to a blind man looking for one atom...well that's all and well if evolution was looking for something. I guess it's impossible to be dealt a Royal flush in 5 card stud because of all the ways the cards could have been dealt...Well shit I've been dealt a royal flush...guess I imagined it.
ye here! I have to say it really is informative to read your comments adam. And it is most annoying to hear the fucked up statements form the other side. However, thanks for your great work here ar, I did learn
@NephilimFree Your arguments are fallacious. Darwin believed in evolution before Galapagos therefore it is not true. Darwin's father was a sexually promiscuous therefore evolution is not true.
And what do you mean by "God's moral law” What moral law? Stone those who work on the Sabbath? A rape victim must marry their rapist? Pillage, steal, kill, and rape those who do not believe the same as you? Sounds real moral to me.
@SynnJinn13 "If life (and the universe) is meaningless than what is a moral law? Is it "morally improper" to torture small children or rape your neighbors daughter? Why?
It is definately not the 'moral' law of the bible. In case you have not noticed, we have morallity with or without religion or God(s). The universe is not inherently moral. Look at it. Morality is a human social construct.
You imply a slippery slope fallacy - unless their is an inherent 'meaning' in the universe and an 'absolute' moral law (this is implied also, please correct me if I am reading too much into it.). Please, demonstrate why this is necessary.
@SynnJinn13 "You imply a slippery slope fallacy - unless their is an inherent 'meaning' in the universe and an 'absolute' moral law (this is implied also, please correct me if I am reading too much into it.). Please, demonstrate why this is necessary". Morality is an objective reality or it isn't (Law of Non Contradiction). Life has meaning or it doesn't (same law). If life doesn't have objective meaning then life is without moral purpose. Not sure what you want me to demonstrate.
1). Objective meaning => An objective goal, intent, or ultimate end. Think (being or (Raison d'être)).
Objective moral purpose => striving towards, acting consistent with ones reason for being (ultimate aim or ultimate meaning). Think (being well). Hope that helps;-)
2). Not sure that I can to your satisfaction and not gona try. It's besides the point. I said Objective meaning then Objective purpose; No Objective meaning then No Objective purpose.
Since you seemed at a loss regarding what I was asking, let me clarify. Your assertion at face value seems non-sequitur and filled with many assumed premises, therefore, please:
#1. Define ‘objective meaning’ and ‘moral purpose.’
#2. Demonstrate that they actually exist, that morality is an objective reality and life has meaning.
#3. Show how they are contingent on each other, e.g., how moral purpose depends on objective meaning.
I think you are missing my point. If there is no ultimate/objective end (reason for being) to our lives then our actions (moral conduct) serve no ultimate/objective moral purpose (being well/good conduct/action consistent with our reason for being). This very well may be the case -- but if it is then who are you to go around inditing/judging Christians (Religious Believers) or their God for behaving badly? What is objective good & bad in your meaningless universe?
To state it as simply as I can: An action is ethical (has objective moral purpose) if it is consistent with the ultimate aim of life (the objective meaning of life) (the good). If life has no objective meaning then life has no objective moral purpose (good action). Perhaps you find these statement objectionable -- which is fine by me -- but I think (I hope) you should at least understand my meaning at this point.
You have already said (in so many words) that the universe is not inherently moral (ethical) and that morality is an arbitrary social construct (convention). If true then anything man does...man does. Meaning that rape and murder, albeit painful and destructive to the victim, is not objectively immoral...right? By you own definition rape and murder can only be, at best, subjectively or arbitrarily immoral...right? What say you?
@SynnJinn13 Language is a social convention. The philosophical presuppositions of modern science are grounded in social convention. The legal and political system that we live under is social convention. Much of what we call history is based upon social convention etc. What about the principles of logic and mathematics...are they (like morality) social conventions as well? or are they real features of reality? What say you?
@SynnJinn13 "In case you have not noticed, we have morallity (sic) with or without religion or God(s)". Really? "The universe is not inherently moral. Look at it". Wait you just said that we have morality with or without God(s) are you now saying we don't? "Morality is a human social construct". Ahhh I see...how very arbitrary. Given that morality is an arbitrary social construct (we make it up) then perhaps rape and murder are legitimate actions? Just be careful not to get caught...right? ;-)
Sorry. This is simply wrong. Our bodies generate novel functional genes by mutation and alternate splicing throughout our whole lives. These proteins are called antibodies. The antigen binding sequence of an antibody is a random addition of nucleotides. These random amino acids are then presented on the exterior of the cell to be activated by an infecting agent. Our immune system is proof that this is premise is bogus.
I love how reasonable it is, especially considering my likelihood of ever coming in contact with this keyboard was less likely than a protein being formed.
This entire argument is based on a falsehood. First, the narrator incorrectly states that if the amino acids of a protein are incorrectly assembled, no protein will form. This is simply not true. Biology is replete with examples of incorrectly formed proteins. Usually they cause problems but sometimes they are advantageous, like the one that lets certain bacteria eat nylon, which didn't exist until 1938. The second falsehood is in calculating the probability of formation of a given protein.
This is just silly. We don't have to speculate that mutations and natural selection work. We've seen it for ourselves in the Lenski experiment! So much for impossible!
are you taking about Richard Lenski? The same Richard Lenski who won't provide the raw data for his results?
And assuming Lenski's results are indeed correct, how does his results with the E. Coli cells prove evolution? Lenski's results affirm adaptation, but I see nothing proving evolution.
@brian78045 He has provided his data in a number of articles. However they use all sorts of technical language that you probably don't understand. I would suggest you stick to bronze age myths to explain the origin of species. You don't have to go to college for that ; ). In all seriousness if you think you can take on evolution and the results of the Lenski experiment then do what Lenski did; get a PhD and publish you ideas in a peer reviewed journal and see if they can withstand scrutiny.
@GuyMontag92 "The theory of evolution, like the first Atomic Theory, was an Iron Age idea. Is an idea invalid simply because it is old? It's true that our theories (models of reality) & better at describing, controlling and predicting the world around us than the theories of the ancient Greeks but does that mean the Greeks were idiots? Have we reached the end of the road for scientific discovery or merely scratched the surface? Has modern science enslaved free thought & become the new dogma?
@GuyMontag92 Nothing but sour grapes because your precious evolution has been found wanting. The sick joke that evolutionists are playing on society has been rumbled and I for one, love it!
@NeilAnthony69 I for one love the fact that the psuedo-science you hold so dear is believed almost exclusively by people who lack PhD's in biology. Consequently they never have nor ever will influence science. You as well as the overwhelming majority of people who believe in creationism/ID will never be able to influence those who are actually experts in biology for the simple fact that they are too informed to buy your snake oil. May science prevail!!!
@GuyMontag92 "[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation." — Fred Hoyle
@GuyMontag92 "Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition." -Thomas Kuhn
@GuyMontag92 "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
They completely fail to mention that evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis but of mutation and selection of already existing life. Great way to fight and argument that no one is making Discovery Institute.
But that would mean the Creationists are right - because it means that there is a Directive that is not of the material realm that is running the show by a form of ... its a physics thing
@FagBoyAtheists God of the gaps. Even if the ID arguments held up, how can you then jump to a supernatural cause, i.e., "godidit" (which there can be no verification/falsification of) and then jump to this god is YHVH. Why not an impersonal force, a deistic being, or even demiurge? It is because your argument is tautological...presuppose a theistic god and look for gaps to jam him into to "prove" his existence. ID = bad science, flawed logic, and ignoring the facts.
I don't know exactly why I chose not to tell you what Life is but will suffice it to say only that there is no such thing as you, a frog, a bird, fish , horse, or plant - all of which
being a specific driven material manifestation of the same Force or Entity.
Its not Natural except that it being the final expressment of the Creation of the universe - in that respect its Natural in as much as a Creation can be construed as natural but that implies a specific intent.
Another matter that goes as against evolution is that Life is purpose driven.
So the way I see it ,gay evolutionist perverts and Creations both lack a proper definition.
Something that is "purpose driven" is not random. Also - Life is anti-natural in that it operates in specific defiance of nature . Such as fins, flagellum, legs
wings, all these things being in defiance of motive by wind and currents. In other words - Life then operates to expand itself by rejection of reliance upon wind blowing a seed. Although it still does because thats intelligent not to burn your bridges.
It seems that the snarling gay atheist perverts that champion evolution are operating under a misapprehension being Randomness and Natural Selection for any alteration is a internal response to external stimuli for the express "purpose," of avoiding destruction. Therefore there must be present a shared
ideation being a program by which it determines by a compensate attenuated transceiver prevalent conditional parameters and any "change" in those parameters are compensated for. If autonomic it being so only by "design."
Really? Last I checked, it was you who lacks proper punctuation. I notice quite a few of your sentences seem to run on without pause after statements, trying to squish two clauses together, it would seem. Further, I don't appreciate the ad hominem assaults. I may not share the same point of view as you do, but I'm most certainly not a homosexual.
Further, if you think you on your own have disproved evolution, by all means, write of them, and submit your findings in a peer reviewed paper.
The scientific community is always open to outside challenge on these matters. If you do succeed, then Congratulations. However, you still have to provide evidence that Creationism exists for it to be put forward instead of Evolution, for which there is none, aside from semantics. And that's where your false dichotomy on "Evolution or Creation" falls apart.
Just because it's not one doesn't automatically mean it's the other.
The difference between a scientist and a creationist is this: A scientist first gathers the facts, and then sees what conclusion he can come up with. A creationist jumps straight to the conclusion (provided by his holy book), and then see what kinds of facts he can come up with. This second method is an intrinsically flawed and dishonest method of conducting "scientific" investigation.
DI logic: I am taking a fill-in-the-blank test after studying for it extensively. There is one correct answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. My chances of getting the right answer are one in a set of infinity. Therefor, I can never get the right answer.
All they are doing is setting up a paradox similar to Achilles and the Tortoise. Simple observations of reality smash this bogus reasoning.
and when you take into account backup genes you look even more foolish.
"3. Natural selection (and ultimately speciation) reduces the genetic diversity in a population, making adapting to a new environment more difficult."
.............unfortunately that is mostly true for the new "specialized species", hence we see em die off in the fossil record. but so what? there's always something else to take it's place.
"Speciation reduces genetic diversity." lets see...i had AAATTCTGTGATGATTGA and now i have that AND AAATTCTGTAATGATTGA ...w8.... i have more variation! "The theory of evolution explains nothing " yet it explains decreased production in a chemostat.... yes. you ARE moron and you have no idea what you are talking about. go back to school.
Let's see.. if the theory of evolution is wrong... it should be easy for a retarded moronic idiot like you, a person with not a clue about BASIC biology, to discover me one single mistake at the wikipage about evolution.
HOW THE FUCK IS ONE SPECIE BECOMING 2 (ONE OF THEM THE ANCESTOR ONE) IS "LESS"? ARE YOU A RETARD?
Fact: 1 specie-> 2 species. that's more. 1+1=2. you are saying 1+1=1.... are you a MORON?
Natural selection, selects. go learn what it is before coming here, loser.
Explain to me bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics, adenoids problems, down syndrome and sickle cell disease being beneficial in an environment with malaria. without evolution.
Higher chance of negative mutations? How did you reach this conclusion? I would love to know. And genetic entropy? How does two different species coming from one REDUCE the genetic diversity. MORON. In nearly all cases this would be the exact opposite.
I think you got a misconception there buddy. Because evolution happened over a REALLY LONG TIME. Plus, evolution does not work only through mutations, but through genetic drift as well.
Awesome video. Only a fool would believe that random mutations could result in the amazing diversity of life.
harleyxxfabco 1 week ago
4:33 ..."There's no reason to think that this is plausible." Absolutely!!! Much more likely an invisible man in the sky did it with magic!!!
wjhopper 3 weeks ago
If the comments on this video are any indicator, there is no room for free speech in America! Can we not simply ask questions about natural selection? Stunning ignorance...
FreshDonuts 1 month ago
@FreshDonuts
Darwinian evolution plays the role of religion and creation myth for many. To question it is to challenge something very sacred to these people, which is why they become so enraged and emotional when such questioning occurs.
What adds to the frustration is that, not only does Doug Axe question Darwinian evolution, he does so with flawless reasoning, backed up by a proverbial mountains of scientific data. Their only response? Name-calling and conspiracy theories. Sad.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
On the positive side, at least they are now talking about the cambrian period, instead of just saying God created it all 10,000 years ago! so looks like creationists are also evolving! :)
superFGS11 1 month ago
@superFGS11 no, they are saying that the cambrian did not happen. that if it was, as the evolutionists are saying, than it was too short to produce what evolution is saying it did.
eyallev 1 month ago
fancy video with nice crisp graphics and someone that has Dr. in front of their name, it must be true!!!
rockinrobben1 1 month ago
@rockinrobben1
It's likely true (not "must be true") not because the argument's being forwarded by someone who's earned the title of doctor, but because the argument is airtight. It could be forwarded by a high school dropout and it would remain equally as valid.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam yes, problem is, that the argument is false, because it's based on a strew man.
evolution is NOT saying that a new gene just appeared in the genome, but that it was there to begin with, and change to do something else/more.
eyallev 1 month ago
@eyallev The engine for change is not explained. Random mutations cannot explain the vast diversity of life that sprang up in a relatively short period of time.
harleyxxfabco 1 week ago
I don't know what's worse that evolution still has a case or that evolutionists are getting dumber and dumber with their arguements, soon the'll be telling us the egyptians and jews never existed or we can't test evolution with our current technology but it's still true
1987AaronM 2 months ago
just by mutation is "10 to the power 74" wht bs
--------------------- its by natural selection which has no chance 2 it at all all mutaton does is rare and takes it in a certain derection but its going 2 go somewhere regardless.
thejewishagnostic 2 months ago
@thejewishagnostic
No, it's not.
Evolution requires function. Function requires functioning proteins--the very thing in question. There are no intermediate steps in protein formation. It's either functional or it's non-functional. The idea that proteins can be built up gradually is nonfactual.
You WANT it to be so, you NEED it to be so, but guess what? It's not so.
Random mutations do not and cannot create new proteins, therefore, Darwinian evolution has been falsified.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
no it hasn't , the evidence for creationism is not evidence its nonsense. in the comments i gave tones of reasons for evolution & i have loads more.
but really this shows how much of a hypocritical idiot you are, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence all you've show is you don't understand what a protein or evolution is we know proteins can evolve because they vairy in different species.
thejewishagnostic 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic When you have to result to name calling you have lost the debate.
Cheers.
harleyxxfabco 1 week ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis and many more have been working on this, and they've come up with answers but the exact order of the sequence in our dna in certain locations mirrors that of a chimpanze and no other mammal or creature on earth which guarantees common ancestry.
If you want to take the word of people like stephen c meyer go ahead but his pappers on evolution have rejected by every science academy.
thejewishagnostic 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic Chimps and humans had the same Designer. Why wouldn't He use similar DNA?
harleyxxfabco 1 week ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
the people on the video are not biologists, 99.9% of biologists accept evolution for the fact that it is.
thejewishagnostic 1 month ago 2
@thejewishagnostic And 99.9% are unable to explain how proteins could have evolved given the odds shown in this video.
harleyxxfabco 1 week ago
proof of evolution
atavisms,homology,embriology,natural selection,speciation,ervs,summation,chromosone dna,mitocondrial dna,fossil record,dna similarities,vestigal organs,ring species,artifical selection
thejewishagnostic 2 months ago
@thejewishagnostic
Proof of Ateleological (Darwinian/Blind Watchmaker) Evolution: *chirping crickets*
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
i wonder how he calculated and tested this since the current cpu power available today cannot simulate all those different strings to see if it can fold properly or not.
shintsu01 2 months ago in playlist More videos from DiscoveryInstitute
@shintsu01
"The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds"
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
Comment removed
carlsm95 2 months ago
@carlsm95
The good old, "I failed 6th grade math so I don't care what the numbers say! Darwinismdidit! The end!" argument.
I can't say this argument has been refuted because, and let's be real here, it's not even an argument. In fact, it's the antithesis of an argument. It's a faith-based, dogmatic, unscientific bald assertion.
You have blind faith that Darwinian evolution can do anything and everything, thus inconveniences like math and logic don't phase you in the least.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Who ever said evolution can do anything and everything? Evolution is really just natural selection acting on mutations to cause genetic change in populations. If you break it down to its simplest form that's really all evolution is. It doesnt matter how small you think the chances are, it obviously happened cause we're here. There is little faith required when mountains of empirical evidence have been gathered over 150 years.Youre free to research that on your own
carlsm95 1 month ago
@carlsm95
"It doesnt matter how small you think the chances are, it obviously happened cause we're here."
You've committed the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." You assume Darwinian evolution is the reason we're here, and then use the fact that we're here as evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Yes, we're here. The question is, "How did we get here?" Simply assuming Darwinian evolution is the explanation doesn't answer anything, especially when the data suggests it to be false.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam While you raise a good point, I have never assumed "Darwinian" evolution was true. I came to that conclusion through my thorough research of the evidence. The data which "suggests it to be false" is nothing but the flawed, psuedoscientific thinking of ID proponents. How exactly their thinking is flawed enters a broad new realm which we could never adequately discuss here. Your point was that all I was doing was assuming, which is your own false assumption.
carlsm95 1 month ago
@carlsm95
Perhaps you believe in Darwinian evolution because the evidence convinced you of it's validity (I've yet to find this evidence, despite searching for years), but your claim was clearly circular reasoning.
In what other areas do you believe we should ignore math and probability and simply assert our premises as facts?
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
Although Axe never formally retracted his paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology, he did agree with a letter to the Journal that his sample size was a BILLION times too small to support his conclusion.
williambrazzers 4 months ago
It's possible to believe in evolution and God (Catholic Church accepts evolution), but is it possibile to NOT believe in evolution and NO God? Probably NOT! Intelligent Design is not science.
williambrazzers 4 months ago
@williambrazzers
A very convincing argument. Here I was thinking I.D. was science since it was empirical and falsifiable, all while pleading to a well-known force operating inside of nature (intelligence), but you've set me straight.
Yes, the above was sarcasm.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam I see you're being an asshole, but I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Way 2 go you dry wit douche!
williambrazzers 1 month ago
Evolution is a ridiculous scape-goat for those who love their sin. Period. Great vid, about time the real truth was revealed.
Proteched 4 months ago
Ahh! The stupid! Make it stop. It burns! It burns!
marley54fd 5 months ago
Damn it I wanted to click dislike. : (
ZachRose88 6 months ago
"Proteins" can be any length. Just build on ones that work!
Keitaro2011 7 months ago
@Keitaro2011
The evidence, which you fear, says otherwise. The evidence says that for every one functional protein, there are 10^77 non-functional proteins. For those who are unaware, that's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000.
Good luck, Darwinists. Your archaic "theory" is gonna need it.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Evoltuion still happened, though.
Keitaro2011 1 month ago
you don't need to look in the entire univ'. start with a working protine, make one change, the new protine still works (most of the time).
new protine works better? keep it.
new protine does something else too? keep it.
this vid = fail.
eyallev 8 months ago
@eyallev Ya, you talk like it is very simple. First, start with which working protein, since there is not genetic information to build one? Second, 'make one change', how to make change if there is no new genetic information?
yohanesmalaysia 4 months ago
@yohanesmalaysia no genetic information? sure there is, you obviously have not watched this vid', or have no idea what's it's talking about.
in this vid' they are talking about the camberium explotion, a HUGE time frame in which early/primitive life forms have divisified to basiclly fill the world. So you had DNA before hand, and you had already working protines. the question is, how could these change to more complex life forms, and the answer, evolution.
eyallev 4 months ago
@eyallev you go back to circular arguments... This video (and the whole series "Darwin's dilemma") talking about there is NO trace of any gradual transition of life forms prior to the Cambrian Explosion. What was before Cambrian explosion are only fauna and simple life forms, but suddenly we observed very complex life forms (almost all phylum of animal) appear in Cambrian explosion. Thus, where is your small genetic changes and add-on come from?
yohanesmalaysia 4 months ago
@yohanesmalaysia a phylum is a very basic divition (man made btw) of life forms. there were no cows after the cambian explosion, in fact, there were no mamals after the cambrian explosion; even dinosaurs haven't emeraged at the end of the cambrian explosion.
In short, you had very basic life forms before i, and you had alot more of a little more complex life forms after it, no real "magic" here.
eyallev 4 months ago
@eyallev Why need cows or any mammals after the Cambrian explosion?? The contention here is NO any trace of gradual transitional life forms between the pre-Cambrian (only flora and bacteria) and Cambrian (multiple of animals in almost all major phyla). (Suggest you to have some reading on what is the complexity of life forms in that Cambrian era) Darwinian evolution theoty is totally unable to explain this scientific observation.
yohanesmalaysia 3 months ago
@yohanesmalaysia "phyla" is nothing spiecific, and it's just as arbitrary as "spiecies". some guy decided that two lifeforms should be labeled under differant phyla, not enought ppl argued with him, and so it was.
there were "animals" before the cambrian, but again, you are free to call them flora (is plankton animal, or flora? and what is fungii?)
eyallev 3 months ago
Comment removed
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eyallev
Phylum classification is anything but arbitrary. It's based on body-plans. Body-plans, and what possesses the creative power to produce them, is one of the main subjects of contention in this debate. To attempt to blow it off the way you have suggests to me that you're either ignorant, deceitful, or, sadly, both.
As yohanes says, there is no gradual arrival of body-plans found on the fossil record. They emerge suddenly--the exact opposite of what was predicted by Darwinists.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@eyallev
The Cambrian Explosion seems like a "HUGE time frame" on the surface, but it actually represents roughly 0.2% (1/500) of life's total existence, and that's the upper-limit. For all we know, it could've been instantaneous. All we know is that nearly every single phyla that's ever existed appeared in a single layer of strata over a period between zero and 10-million-years.
Although I'm not a Biblical creationist, this data supports their theory far more than Darwin's.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam the Cambrian explosion is simply a time frame were either the environment changed, or some organisms made a "breakthrough", which as a result allowed life to spread very quickly to many places. it is this explosion of life, that powered the forces of evolution in many different directions, in many different places.
you had a lot of evolution going on before the Cambrian thing, for example the evolution of "sex" predates it.
eyallev 1 month ago
someone correct me if im wrong but im sure that when an organism reproduces it the amino acids dont randomly try and form again, they duplicate. this means that when they copy there are chances for mistakes, and those are the variations that cause natural selection, so saying that its a mathematical impossibility for amino acids to arrange in any meaningful way is just a misunderstanding of how evolution works
sizzlorr4 9 months ago
About time for us to get out of this fictional age of unscientific wishful thinking of evolutionism, and to start pursuing REAL Science!
Eye2EyeIIIV 10 months ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV this is real science fucktard this world is better of secular! not some ignorant anti-science Christian world
deokuso 10 months ago
i guess they didnt understand dawkins analogy
jacobpaprotskiy 11 months ago
Here's analogy to the mistake that the video is making: toss a coin 100 times and note down the results. the sequence you'll get will be an extremely special one! the chances are 2^-100. Wow!! Therefore the sequence can be made only by design.. Are you kidding me? :)
ibenian 11 months ago
@ibenian Bad analogy. The tosses can either show a pattern or show randomness. Flip a coin a 100 times, and if you get a pattern, then you'll get a "special sequence." In a more understandable way, piles wood can be blown in a number of ways, if the end result is a house, it was blown in a "special" way. However, not all configurations are "extremely special."
Wishingstarification 9 months ago
@Wishingstarification Any sequence has the same change of occurring. e.g for an 8 bit sequence, both 01010101 and 10100011 has the same probability of 1/256. Anything you call a pattern is just one possibility and doesn't dictate anything on its usefulness either. There are gazillions of configurations that do not show any particular detectable pattern but given a chance would be useful.
ibenian 9 months ago
@ibenian There is a difference between a meaningful sequence and a random one. To put it another way, if someone finds a house and someone finds a pile of wood, it's unreasonable to conclude that both were just randomly thrown together by the wind.
If you get rid of the idea of meaningful occurrence, you've thrown out the whole field of biostatistics. Alpha being 0.05 no longer has any meaning. You can throw the Mendelian genetics out the door also, because you've equated all sequences.
Wishingstarification 9 months ago
@Wishingstarification In fact, this month's Sci-am has an article about this. It turns out, proteins don't even fold perfectly! Here's what it says: "Now, however, it is becoming clear that a host of proteins carry out their biological tasks without ever completely folding; others fold only as needed." Sci-am April 2011 "The Orderly Chaos of Proteins"
ibenian 9 months ago
@ibenian Since proteins don't even fold perfectly, that already says there are a lot of useful configurations than previously assumed. In other words, organic things do not work like clock, with an exact design that has to match piece by by piece. They do whatever they can. That's why they are so adaptive, rather than rigid.
ibenian 9 months ago
The tiny possibility that is mentioned in this video refers to a specific configuration. The video does a huge mistake by ignoring the fact that there may be infinitely many useful configuration that didn't actually happen but could happen. So in the space of all possibilities, there are many useful configuration, not just what's out there today.
ibenian 11 months ago
@ibenian There are not an infinitely number of useful combinations (proteins). Proteins take on specific shapes to perform specific functions. Sometimes just a single wrong amino acid within a large protein leads to a genetic disease... Dawkins used the analogy of letters in a sentence. If I need a sentence that says "The king and queen lived in a castle" and try to get that by random chances, it becomes a mathematical improbability so great as to be absurd.
Elhardt 9 months ago
If you're mentally retarded or just stupid, chances are you'd blindly believe this. For the remaining 2 percent of people who are remotely intelligent yet still believe this, good for you. And I wish I was not exaggerating.
crazyinsane500 1 year ago
Main lie: 'if the amino acids are incorrectly assembled no protein will form.' Sorry, but any combination of amino acids Will fold. That's what they do when they're polymerized. That protein however may or may not be functional In Its Environment. Where's the dilemma? Where's the black box? I don't get it!! They keep saying there's a problem with evolution then never present the problem. And bitching about us not listening to shit you pull out of your ass doesn't count!
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago
@MultiPaulinator Had you watched the video you would have seen that the problem is the mathematical impossibility of picking by chance the proper sequence of amino acids to form a needed functioning protein. The number of random mutations (guesses) are far too large to have occurred. I've noticed that some people just can't grasp the simple concept of mathematical impossibilities and as a result just insult the makers of the video without any explanation of where they're wrong.
Elhardt 9 months ago
Intelligent Design people are sad losers, they won't even allow ratings on their videos, because they know they are going to get thumbs down, LOL
XUltra00 1 year ago 5
@XUltra00
They're going to get thumbs down for no reason other than the fact that they're challenging the atheists' religion, which hides under the cover of legitimate science. YouTube is full of hateful atheists. You do the math (if you can).
Let the quality of the video speak for itself, not a flock of brain-dead imbeciles who will vote thumbs down regardless of said quality.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
emm... why do they ignor the fact that the amount changes the probability, you see ther can be 1 marked atom in the univers and it may take a long time for 1 person to finde BUT if you have.... a billion? a trillion people looking the number realy go's up...
jannikmt 1 year ago
Yeah, but these rejects won't listen to you. They would rather entertain their Darwinian fantasy. I've read enough biological research in the last few years to confidently say that the bandwagon that exists now in blind favor of Neo-Darwanism will be the laughing stock of biology in probably less than 10 years.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision 'in blind favor of Neo-Darwanism will be the laughing stock of biology in probably less than 10 years.'
So then you should have no problem either presenting an example of evidence against evolutionary theory or for intelligent design/creationism.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The evidence is already there, I don't need to present anything. What you need to do is some unbiased research and reading of your own. The integral information processing of the cell, a communication system magnitudes of order more powerful than anything we have ever built, exists at the base of life, within chemical systems. It needs to be explained. Then evolution can be scientifically evaluated, and adaptation can be truly understood.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision What evidence? I've looked myself, I've asked dozens of creationists, none can move the ball any further than the line of assertion.
'The integral information processing of the cell'
Which process?
'a communication system magnitudes of order more powerful than anything we have ever built
Orders of magnitude more subject to replication with variation than anything we've ever built.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Just look at protein synthesis, or the problem of chemical evolution to account for information. The evidence for design is overwhelming. Read the Signature in the Cell, or visit uncommondesign. The ID folks may be wrong, but at least they are asking the right questions.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision No, the bare assertion of design is repetitious, you point to a complex process and jump from observation to conclusion, that fails in every way possible in being scientific.
Protein synthesis is peptide bonding and information at the most basic level is defined as a distinguishing characteristics.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Fair enough, as in you can believe what you like. Can you explain the entire process of transcription using brute chemical language and accurately describe what is going on? You certainly have not so far. You fail to acknowledge the exchange of information, or the information at all rather. It's not the bare assertion of design, it's the damn specifics of it, at least as far as we are able to currently grasp.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision It's not a matter of belief, it's about one side being supported by all evidence and the other (yours) being supported only by fallacy. In this case nirvana fallacy 'Can you explain the entire process of transcription' and begging the question 'it's the damn specifics of it'
There are no specifics of design because it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Waaaaiit... how does Natural Selection generate new genes? It can't do that. And it can't generate new species... not in a billion years. Because natural selection is just a question of who get's killed and who passes on it's genes. But no matter who it is, it's still the same old genes of the same old species and it doesn't introduce any new genes - no matter how long you wait.
Supenmanu 1 year ago
@Supenmanu have you seen the amber fossils shown in sciencedaily?
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses: no. Do they show an interim species?
Supenmanu 1 year ago
@Supenmanu Do it! t's really funny, search "Scientists Discover 356 Animal Inclusions Trapped In Opaque Amber 100 Million Years Old science daily"
the neatest fossils of the world shows... stasis hahaha all the 356 are are known species or isolated ones, none of them is transitional, oh and remember, that insects reproduce much faster than mammals, lol how can those evo guys have such a strong dellusion??
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses That's a fallacy known as confirmation bias, you're focusing on stasis and ignoring the vast and sequential change found in the fossil record.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation If you wanna believe that the neatest fossils (besides frozen mammals) show stasis just because, that's up to you, I don't expect you to see the contradiction.
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@Supenmanu Natural selection is the filter, mutation produces new genes, particularly duplication events.
'and it doesn't introduce any new genes'
Of course it does, and I can prove it. ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pubmed/6585807 If it's too technical it's broken down here /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@Supenmanu
They know this, but they refuse to address it. What they do is interpret adaptation as evolutionary change. Then they extrapolate this change to explain all diversity. It's pretty clever, but it isn't very scientific. At least not by Popper's meaning of science, falsifiability.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision No, extrapolation of observed change is not used as primary evidence for common descent, or at all directly. What observed mechanisms do is explain the pattern which emerges when studying the data in any field of biology or especially all fields concordantly.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Beautiful video. Is there one that debunks the Pasteur Germ Theory of Disease?
texpeare 1 year ago
Evolutionist are ignorants , why people study statistic? Every minded one who read that Statistical facts should give up evolution, and looks for another way.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
and so as a creationist you will reject reality and say god did it, evolution is a fact by the way the theory is evolution via natural selection. evolution has always been correct just look at the fossils, look at the genomes and similarity of base pairs of adenine, thymine, guamine and cytosine. look at how bacteria and viruses adapt to their surroundings, your own mitochondria in your cells is an archeobacteria cell. your cells work in symbiosis with it, open yours eyes its there. think
TheAtheistsRule 1 year ago
@TheAtheistsRule
The problem is that evolution explains nothing about life itself, it only attempts to explain its diversity. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is no better than the geocentric model. It explains what it can, from its purposefully limited assumptions, but we have much more information now. It's time to move to a heliocentric model, one that acknowledges consciousness and the information in biology as having a critical role it life's development.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision You have that backwards, creationism is the 'explanation' of mythology and mysticism, evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity which employs realistic useful mechanisms and is actually capable of practical predictive power.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Very good and convincing presentation. I feel relieved, bcz overwhelming proof and evidence suggest that Man is not just an evolved, mutated, crazy Ape.(Heaven forbid!)
Now, Game over, Evilutionists!
kleenex3000 1 year ago
I can just hear the creationists saying: "Sold!! You had me at protein!".
What a load of theistic crap.
crabbit101 1 year ago
Anyone who gets tricked by this should look up the significance of the cambrian explosion.. ..it has nothing to do with the formation of proteins or the beginning of life.
Originalsaschkin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow, talk about bait and switch on the title.
Lying for Jesus ftw!!
tehKap0w 1 year ago
wow, talk about bait ans witch on the title.
Lying for Jesus ftw!!
tehKap0w 1 year ago
Wow okay so, how exactly did that scientist calculate that 10 to the 74th? And, is he trying to say that 10 to the 74th is the odds of a blindfolded man picking out a single marked atom? Come on, people. This isnt empirical, this is sleight of hand. This is silly creationists wrapping themselves up in labcoats and tossing 25 digit-long numbers at people, hoping to confound them before they have a chance to taste the crap they are being fed. This is the antithesis of scientific understanding.
EppurSiMuove419 1 year ago
Comment removed
EppurSiMuove419 1 year ago
Im sorry, Im trying to find the videos offered by the Discovery Institute that prove, or even lend any support at all, to Intelligent Design. Ive been sifting through their videos looking for the many videos they must have that show experiments and data that prove ID to be right, but I cannot find them. Can anyone help me?
Oh, wait, thats right, there are no experiments and there is no data that supports Intelligent Design. Hmm....doesn't that mean it has about the same credibility as Santa?
EppurSiMuove419 1 year ago
Wow! each step in Dawkins idea becomes a Mt. improvible. The faith that it takes to resist the grace of God! May God have mercy, yet He already has- Jesus was sent for us and all who believe!
JoaquinJB 1 year ago
IC XC
NI KA
jivimome 1 year ago
Jesus christ are the creationists still at it? Really!!
somor98 1 year ago 17
@somor98
"Creationists," as you disingenuously refer to I.D. proponents as, will go away when their arguments stop making perfect sense.
Given the fact that the more we study biology, the more valid intelligent design becomes, and the stronger the arguments for I.D. become, I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
Um... what on earth does this have to do with Intelligent Design?
Oh, that's right... Intelligent Design is based on an argument from the negative... I remember now.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Someone please-debate one or two of the issues presented.
pillblooms 1 year ago
Great music, great narrator, nice animations...
Too bad the content is dishonest propaganda with no bearing on reality whatsoever.
And big surprise to everyone, ratings are disabled :D
thinghurlos 1 year ago 26
@thinghurlos
Will you be presenting your argument as to why scientist Doug Axe's work is "propaganda with no bearing on reality whatsoever," or are we suppose to take your completely unbiased and totally honest *wink, wink* word on it?
Personally, I think it's your claim that is dishonest propaganda with no bearing on reality whatsoever. I think Darwinian evolution is your religious-like creation myth, and anyone who challenges it, as Dr. Axe has, is viewed as a heretic.
ReturnOfTheJam 1 month ago
What has morality got to do with it. This is a discussion of pure science and discussions of morality are a diversion. Using pure science evolution can't be proved, but it can be disproved. Using pure science creationism can't be proved nor can it be disproved. Both belief systems are at the heart religious. Evolution has the god of random acts and can only be accepted by a leap of faith. Creationism has a God of ordered events and again can only be accepted by a leap of faith.
resoeng 1 year ago
@resoeng "What has morality got to do with it. This is a discussion of pure science and discussions of morality are a diversion. " Not true - the belief and/or rational basis for belief in Naturalism/Atheism/Materialism or Theism/Creationism/ID has significant ethical implications which go a long way in explaining why this is such a thorny hotbed issue. As for Pure Science - what is it about this discussion that makes you believe that it is Pure Science - whatever that may mean?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
I like how they refer to a blind man looking for one atom...well that's all and well if evolution was looking for something. I guess it's impossible to be dealt a Royal flush in 5 card stud because of all the ways the cards could have been dealt...Well shit I've been dealt a royal flush...guess I imagined it.
Brewhahh 1 year ago
@adamredwine
ye here! I have to say it really is informative to read your comments adam. And it is most annoying to hear the fucked up statements form the other side. However, thanks for your great work here ar, I did learn
twentyinchsoul 1 year ago
@NephilimFree LOL "denialism"
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Your arguments are fallacious. Darwin believed in evolution before Galapagos therefore it is not true. Darwin's father was a sexually promiscuous therefore evolution is not true.
And what do you mean by "God's moral law” What moral law? Stone those who work on the Sabbath? A rape victim must marry their rapist? Pillage, steal, kill, and rape those who do not believe the same as you? Sounds real moral to me.
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13 "If life (and the universe) is meaningless than what is a moral law? Is it "morally improper" to torture small children or rape your neighbors daughter? Why?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@copernicanideas
It is definately not the 'moral' law of the bible. In case you have not noticed, we have morallity with or without religion or God(s). The universe is not inherently moral. Look at it. Morality is a human social construct.
You imply a slippery slope fallacy - unless their is an inherent 'meaning' in the universe and an 'absolute' moral law (this is implied also, please correct me if I am reading too much into it.). Please, demonstrate why this is necessary.
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
Comment removed
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13 "You imply a slippery slope fallacy - unless their is an inherent 'meaning' in the universe and an 'absolute' moral law (this is implied also, please correct me if I am reading too much into it.). Please, demonstrate why this is necessary". Morality is an objective reality or it isn't (Law of Non Contradiction). Life has meaning or it doesn't (same law). If life doesn't have objective meaning then life is without moral purpose. Not sure what you want me to demonstrate.
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@copernicanideas
“Morality is an objective reality or it isn't (Law of Non Contradiction). Life has meaning or it doesn't (same law).
You did not answer me, instead you only pointed out the obvious. I am asking you to support your implied assertion, which you finally stated as:
“If life doesn't have objective meaning then life is without moral purpose.”
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13
1). Objective meaning => An objective goal, intent, or ultimate end. Think (being or (Raison d'être)).
Objective moral purpose => striving towards, acting consistent with ones reason for being (ultimate aim or ultimate meaning). Think (being well). Hope that helps;-)
2). Not sure that I can to your satisfaction and not gona try. It's besides the point. I said Objective meaning then Objective purpose; No Objective meaning then No Objective purpose.
3). See answer to Q #1.
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@copernicanideas
Since you seemed at a loss regarding what I was asking, let me clarify. Your assertion at face value seems non-sequitur and filled with many assumed premises, therefore, please:
#1. Define ‘objective meaning’ and ‘moral purpose.’
#2. Demonstrate that they actually exist, that morality is an objective reality and life has meaning.
#3. Show how they are contingent on each other, e.g., how moral purpose depends on objective meaning.
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13
I think you are missing my point. If there is no ultimate/objective end (reason for being) to our lives then our actions (moral conduct) serve no ultimate/objective moral purpose (being well/good conduct/action consistent with our reason for being). This very well may be the case -- but if it is then who are you to go around inditing/judging Christians (Religious Believers) or their God for behaving badly? What is objective good & bad in your meaningless universe?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13
To state it as simply as I can: An action is ethical (has objective moral purpose) if it is consistent with the ultimate aim of life (the objective meaning of life) (the good). If life has no objective meaning then life has no objective moral purpose (good action). Perhaps you find these statement objectionable -- which is fine by me -- but I think (I hope) you should at least understand my meaning at this point.
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13
You have already said (in so many words) that the universe is not inherently moral (ethical) and that morality is an arbitrary social construct (convention). If true then anything man does...man does. Meaning that rape and murder, albeit painful and destructive to the victim, is not objectively immoral...right? By you own definition rape and murder can only be, at best, subjectively or arbitrarily immoral...right? What say you?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13 Language is a social convention. The philosophical presuppositions of modern science are grounded in social convention. The legal and political system that we live under is social convention. Much of what we call history is based upon social convention etc. What about the principles of logic and mathematics...are they (like morality) social conventions as well? or are they real features of reality? What say you?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@SynnJinn13 "In case you have not noticed, we have morallity (sic) with or without religion or God(s)". Really? "The universe is not inherently moral. Look at it". Wait you just said that we have morality with or without God(s) are you now saying we don't? "Morality is a human social construct". Ahhh I see...how very arbitrary. Given that morality is an arbitrary social construct (we make it up) then perhaps rape and murder are legitimate actions? Just be careful not to get caught...right? ;-)
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@mattea19841984 "Objective" LOL
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
Theses arguments are old, recycled, and debunked time and time again. When is Discovery Institute going to give us something new?
spashiee 1 year ago 2
Sorry. This is simply wrong. Our bodies generate novel functional genes by mutation and alternate splicing throughout our whole lives. These proteins are called antibodies. The antigen binding sequence of an antibody is a random addition of nucleotides. These random amino acids are then presented on the exterior of the cell to be activated by an infecting agent. Our immune system is proof that this is premise is bogus.
jtaylor432 1 year ago
I call straw man on this one.
peterpan4681 1 year ago 2
The assumption that it's pure chance is fallacious. As soon as one piece of the puzzle is found it builds one step on another.
disrxt 1 year ago
Don't you love backwards calculation?
I love how reasonable it is, especially considering my likelihood of ever coming in contact with this keyboard was less likely than a protein being formed.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
This entire argument is based on a falsehood. First, the narrator incorrectly states that if the amino acids of a protein are incorrectly assembled, no protein will form. This is simply not true. Biology is replete with examples of incorrectly formed proteins. Usually they cause problems but sometimes they are advantageous, like the one that lets certain bacteria eat nylon, which didn't exist until 1938. The second falsehood is in calculating the probability of formation of a given protein.
mutatron 1 year ago
what a wonderful video! this is going under my favorites!
likwidsunshine74 1 year ago
This is just silly. We don't have to speculate that mutations and natural selection work. We've seen it for ourselves in the Lenski experiment! So much for impossible!
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 ,
are you taking about Richard Lenski? The same Richard Lenski who won't provide the raw data for his results?
And assuming Lenski's results are indeed correct, how does his results with the E. Coli cells prove evolution? Lenski's results affirm adaptation, but I see nothing proving evolution.
brian78045 1 year ago
@brian78045 He has provided his data in a number of articles. However they use all sorts of technical language that you probably don't understand. I would suggest you stick to bronze age myths to explain the origin of species. You don't have to go to college for that ; ). In all seriousness if you think you can take on evolution and the results of the Lenski experiment then do what Lenski did; get a PhD and publish you ideas in a peer reviewed journal and see if they can withstand scrutiny.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 "The theory of evolution, like the first Atomic Theory, was an Iron Age idea. Is an idea invalid simply because it is old? It's true that our theories (models of reality) & better at describing, controlling and predicting the world around us than the theories of the ancient Greeks but does that mean the Greeks were idiots? Have we reached the end of the road for scientific discovery or merely scratched the surface? Has modern science enslaved free thought & become the new dogma?
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 Nothing but sour grapes because your precious evolution has been found wanting. The sick joke that evolutionists are playing on society has been rumbled and I for one, love it!
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
@NeilAnthony69 I for one love the fact that the psuedo-science you hold so dear is believed almost exclusively by people who lack PhD's in biology. Consequently they never have nor ever will influence science. You as well as the overwhelming majority of people who believe in creationism/ID will never be able to influence those who are actually experts in biology for the simple fact that they are too informed to buy your snake oil. May science prevail!!!
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 "[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation." — Fred Hoyle
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 "I can accept the theory of relativity as
little as I can accept the existence of atoms." -- Ernst Mach
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 "Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition." -Thomas Kuhn
copernicanideas 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
copernicanideas 1 year ago
They completely fail to mention that evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis but of mutation and selection of already existing life. Great way to fight and argument that no one is making Discovery Institute.
sgore83 1 year ago 3
More barefaced lying from the discovery institute!
paolo27th 1 year ago 2
What a tangled web of idiocy evolutionists be
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
But that would mean the Creationists are right - because it means that there is a Directive that is not of the material realm that is running the show by a form of ... its a physics thing
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Comment removed
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
@FagBoyAtheists God of the gaps. Even if the ID arguments held up, how can you then jump to a supernatural cause, i.e., "godidit" (which there can be no verification/falsification of) and then jump to this god is YHVH. Why not an impersonal force, a deistic being, or even demiurge? It is because your argument is tautological...presuppose a theistic god and look for gaps to jam him into to "prove" his existence. ID = bad science, flawed logic, and ignoring the facts.
SynnJinn13 1 year ago
I don't know exactly why I chose not to tell you what Life is but will suffice it to say only that there is no such thing as you, a frog, a bird, fish , horse, or plant - all of which
being a specific driven material manifestation of the same Force or Entity.
That makes sense.
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Its not Natural except that it being the final expressment of the Creation of the universe - in that respect its Natural in as much as a Creation can be construed as natural but that implies a specific intent.
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Another matter that goes as against evolution is that Life is purpose driven.
So the way I see it ,gay evolutionist perverts and Creations both lack a proper definition.
Something that is "purpose driven" is not random. Also - Life is anti-natural in that it operates in specific defiance of nature . Such as fins, flagellum, legs
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
wings, all these things being in defiance of motive by wind and currents. In other words - Life then operates to expand itself by rejection of reliance upon wind blowing a seed. Although it still does because thats intelligent not to burn your bridges.
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Avoidance of destruction then would be the governor of diversity.
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
It seems that the snarling gay atheist perverts that champion evolution are operating under a misapprehension being Randomness and Natural Selection for any alteration is a internal response to external stimuli for the express "purpose," of avoiding destruction. Therefore there must be present a shared
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
ideation being a program by which it determines by a compensate attenuated transceiver prevalent conditional parameters and any "change" in those parameters are compensated for. If autonomic it being so only by "design."
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Wow this video certainly elicited attacks by the ignorant gaytards.
Notice that none of the gaytards can even form a coherent sentence ?
FagBoyAtheists 1 year ago
Really? Last I checked, it was you who lacks proper punctuation. I notice quite a few of your sentences seem to run on without pause after statements, trying to squish two clauses together, it would seem. Further, I don't appreciate the ad hominem assaults. I may not share the same point of view as you do, but I'm most certainly not a homosexual.
Further, if you think you on your own have disproved evolution, by all means, write of them, and submit your findings in a peer reviewed paper.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
"Them" being your proofs against evolution.
The scientific community is always open to outside challenge on these matters. If you do succeed, then Congratulations. However, you still have to provide evidence that Creationism exists for it to be put forward instead of Evolution, for which there is none, aside from semantics. And that's where your false dichotomy on "Evolution or Creation" falls apart.
Just because it's not one doesn't automatically mean it's the other.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago 3
The difference between a scientist and a creationist is this: A scientist first gathers the facts, and then sees what conclusion he can come up with. A creationist jumps straight to the conclusion (provided by his holy book), and then see what kinds of facts he can come up with. This second method is an intrinsically flawed and dishonest method of conducting "scientific" investigation.
aeroshock1 1 year ago
DI logic: I am taking a fill-in-the-blank test after studying for it extensively. There is one correct answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. My chances of getting the right answer are one in a set of infinity. Therefor, I can never get the right answer.
All they are doing is setting up a paradox similar to Achilles and the Tortoise. Simple observations of reality smash this bogus reasoning.
acdobens 1 year ago
"and ultimately speciation) reduces the genetic diversity in a population"
and also you do not seem to understand that this is natural selection working ON the previously diversified BASAL SPECIES.
if your population increases enough, so does your diversity, and so does your possibility for speciation.
if you adapt enough to your new enviroment, your numbers will increase and your population will flourish.
and that's leaving out interbreeding subspecies...
thinkppl 1 year ago
"because mutations deteriorate, not create."
BS.
and when you take into account backup genes you look even more foolish.
"3. Natural selection (and ultimately speciation) reduces the genetic diversity in a population, making adapting to a new environment more difficult."
.............unfortunately that is mostly true for the new "specialized species", hence we see em die off in the fossil record. but so what? there's always something else to take it's place.
thinkppl 1 year ago
"And when they do, they are only beneficial in certain environments "
which is EXACTLY what makes then beneficial in the FIRST PLACE.
ever wondered why we find high frequencies of sickle cell alleles in maleria ridden area's and low frequencies outside of those?
it's really not that hard to understand.
thinkppl 1 year ago
"Mutations happen randomly and slowly,"
blatant lie.
even when the probability is 1/10^9.
that still means you yourself contain somewhere around 10 mutations in your entire genome, when compaired to your parents.
"the mutations must affect the phenotype of the organism in order to be selected for/against"
ooooh it's not just mutations silly one. it's recombination too.....
"RARELY "
it only takes one to set them off in the population. so 10^11 isn't that bad considering the generations.
thinkppl 1 year ago
thinkppl 1 year ago
Let's see.. if the theory of evolution is wrong... it should be easy for a retarded moronic idiot like you, a person with not a clue about BASIC biology, to discover me one single mistake at the wikipage about evolution.
if you can't. you have jackshit.
bugger off moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago
retard... another person here already said it:
HOW THE FUCK IS ONE SPECIE BECOMING 2 (ONE OF THEM THE ANCESTOR ONE) IS "LESS"? ARE YOU A RETARD?
Fact: 1 specie-> 2 species. that's more. 1+1=2. you are saying 1+1=1.... are you a MORON?
Natural selection, selects. go learn what it is before coming here, loser.
Explain to me bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics, adenoids problems, down syndrome and sickle cell disease being beneficial in an environment with malaria. without evolution.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Higher chance of negative mutations? How did you reach this conclusion? I would love to know. And genetic entropy? How does two different species coming from one REDUCE the genetic diversity. MORON. In nearly all cases this would be the exact opposite.
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
I think you got a misconception there buddy. Because evolution happened over a REALLY LONG TIME. Plus, evolution does not work only through mutations, but through genetic drift as well.
crackerkiller89 1 year ago