Jonathan Wells, excuse me for one minute... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! alright, I feel better. This self confessed enemy of evolution got his PhD in order to try and prove evolution wrong. He vowed to devote his life to destroying "Darwinism". Sun Myung Moons teachings ( yes,as in the moonies) and Jonathan's prayers convinced him to take up the mantle against evolution.
Jonathan sounds like he got into the field of evolution for all the right reasons. HA! I'm sure his findings are impartial. LOL!
@geermanchester We have approximately 98% of similar DNA that a chimpanzee has, that's more relatable DNA than the bonobos who live in close proximity with chimps. Nowhere in our DNA does it make the inserted DNA of more evolved species necessary. We as a species are not so complex as you would think.
@donnyaldridge Correct, it is not guaranteed that hey will reproduce, but if it does have beneficial genes than it is more likely to reproduce than those that lack it.
Yet another example of why 99 percent of all species are extinct. What is the ultimate destination here? Evolution is false and creationism is true? How efficient of our creator! To make a fruit fly with extra wings that not only cannot be utilized but will ultimately be the death of this poor insect.
Go to google and search "Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space." You will find details the creation of a completely new gene from a random DNA sequence - that is to say, the creation of "functional information" naturally, and without "intelligence."
This fly obviously cannot function. Evolution is an adaptation to situations where certain functions are required. If an organism has them they can pass on the genes: if not like this fly then they cannot. The fly is an example of mutation and while it is sad its mutation is not of benefit in our environment it is quite possible another mutation will hold an advantage.
Jonathan Wells: PhD in religious studies in 1986 (ID'er)
Paul Nelson: PhD in philosophy (creationist)
Ken Miller: Biology professor and is AGAINST intelligent design
These people are not scientists.. They make it sound reasonable but they are just trying to find arguments which support there belief. It should be the other way around. Belief should be build on the arguments! There is no reason to throw away evolution theory since it simply works..
Besides the fact that there are 5,000 species of fruit fly the transitional fossil record directly contracts the statement @2:30. For example Polar Bears have morphological adaptions that Brown Bears do not and there is a fossil ancestor dated approx. 120,000 years ago from which mtDNA was extracted from and compared to modern bears. It showed that Polar Bears evolved rapidly and on the line of brown bears. This is just one example of countless others of beneficial adaptation.
This research has aligned with all mutative experimentation&research done in the 20th century.Mutations were sometimes neutral,mostly destructive,never positive. Mutant offspring either died or reverted to their wildtype. How can the claim be made that there is no limit to accumalation of mutations? The only thing ever observed is limit,in labs or nature. Easy to say there is no limit,but it has NEVER been observed.
@Copsweet Wrong. Most mutations are neutral and do not effect fitness. The remainder are either beneficial or deleterious depending on selection pressure. And no mutant offspring can be and have been maintained due to selection without reverting to their wildtype. After all this is how new species form which we have observed. So where again is the limit to selected mutations being accumulated?
@Copsweet And I call your bullshit. You're making stuff up at this point, for example see Dhawan et al "Detection of a True Breeding Homeotic Gene Mutant Pps-1 with Partially Petaloid Sepals in Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) and Its Genetic Behavior" (2007) J Hered 98(4):373-377 to see why you are wrong.
@whitefox998 Call away,we're talking about Drosophilia are we not? Whatever blows your hair back jack,I'm really not that intetrested in exchanging insults.
@Copsweet Okay, ignoring the fact that no one as of yet has been insulting are you arguing that only fruit flies revert to their wildtype when mutated?
Although evolution may be real, I don't believe humans evolved. I believe humans were created using the DNA of primates and highly evolved beings. All through ancient history there are hints of ET activity. Research with an open mind to learn the truth.
Pathetic propaganda from the bible biased creationist creed. The resort to lying when all other means fail to get their silly world view out to their dumbed down followers. They have no interest in real research, all they want is mind control and people obeying them. Search for the real version of evolution and not this twisted crap. Damn, they have even spliced Ken Miller into the video ... I wonder what he thinks about that?
A simple case of moving the goal posts. The point of the four-winged fly was to show genetic mutations can and do change morphology. The skeptics in this video pretend that the "real" goal of the experiment was to make a specifically beneficial mutation, but this is quite simply a misrepresentation. In evolution, every trait has a positive purpose when put in the right environment... the point is that large-scale changes over time are entirely possible.
Quite a leap of faith to say that because mutations are observed, new species will be produced. The scientific method is very demanding. Until I see, I will not believe.
There is no limit to how far mutations can go, and organisms that are better suited to their environments tend to have more children, so it's perfectly logical to assume that organisms can evolve.
@Phyerbyrd No. I am requiring the rules for the scientific method to be emplyed. If you want to shape your belief system based on"logical conclusions" that is fine. I choose to stick with what is ACTUALLY observed to shape my conclusions.. Again, the scientific method is quite demanding.
The scientific method is employed. You think that that's the only evidence? what about the myriad fossils that we find every day? Look at dog breeding, evolution is the same processes, just over a longer period of time.
@Phyerbyrd Dog breeding is not species creation. Evolution is atheory that tries to explain the origin of species, not the variations within a species. Fossilsare just the remnants of something that was once alive, it does not tell uus who it's parents were or who it's children were. We can only "speculate"
Genetic traits of the level of homology we see in fossils could only have been passed down by hereditary lines. Evolution explains how one organism can change into another through mutation and natural selection. Mutations occur, some help an organism survive, the ones that survive breed, the offspring have an exaggerated version of the original trait. If this goes on for several hundred thousand generations it's inevitable that the organism's DNA will undergo massive cumulative changes.
@Phyerbyrd These hereditary lines are incomplete. Only through assumptions in a picture book do they show a relationship to another species. Has the creation of a new species ever been observed or replicated? No. Do you even know what the "Scientific Method" is? Also as an aside; please tell me how the ability for blood to coagulate "evolved". It had to be able to the first time it was needed.
Many features found in those fossils are only inherited through direct ancestry. Look up "evolution of blood clotting" on google and click the first link.
Yes, distantly all organisms are related. The randomness is offset by the fact that so many organisms are mutating at once and that natural selection only lets feasible mutations live. It's like a slot machine that has billions of slots and each one re-rolls if it gets the wrong number. The cambrian explosion is massive speciation and adaptive radiation. Evolution doesn't have a constant speed, it can be accelerated by competition between many different species.
@Phyerbyrd He knew that statistically speaking, the fossil record would either prove or disprove his theory without question in about 100 years from his discoveries. He said that if the rellavent fossils have not been found by then, his theory would be flawed. In other words he had taken into account the lack of fossils during his lifetime. Also DNA evidence seems to contradict evolution. For example: the bat and the blue whale have more in common than some of the 3000 different species of frogs
But the fossil record is consistent; go look up transitional forms on Wikipedia. There is only one mutation that produces echolocation, so its more than likely that any species that has echolocation will have that gene.
@Phyerbyrd Just because a question can be googled, it doesn't mean that the question is adequately answered. You refer to a species with "echolocation" being "more likely" to have that gene. How does it get that gene? Does one organism mutate it or does a generation acquire it simultaneously? If it's a single creature all of a sudden acquires it why is it passed on and deemed necessary? I could use longer arms at times and shorter arms at others.
It's a mutation of a gene for cilia in the ears, of which there is only one that allows for that level of directional hearing. That's all it is, extremely well developed directional hearing.
If an animal lives in water, which absorbs light, it would be very helpful to have good directional hearing. Same thing with living in the dark. The mutation that allows for echolocation is derived from a gene for the cilia in mammalian ears.
What do you want? How the gene mutated? Those kinds of mutations happen every generation, it's not that rare. It's just a gene for really good directional hearing.
@Phyerbyrd My whole argument is based on the concept o randomness. If mutations where truly random, all offspring would have random mutations. Beneficial or not.
Most of evolution happens too slow for you to see. But surely, there are other things in your life you believe to be true without having seen them directly. You can't see magnetism, gravity, radio waves or atoms and yet we know they exist because we can observe them indirectly.
The video seems to suggest that in order for speciation to occur you would need very dramatic mutation. That's not necessarily true. If members of a species become sufficiently isolated speciation can occur as well.
@kantastisk Magnetism, gravity, atoms and radio waves can be replicated and observed, thus falling into the scientific realm. Evolution is based on speculation and has not been proven. Why do you think evolutionists get so excited about finding a "missing link"? Because they still can't prove their theory.
evolution is certainly not based on speculation. It is based on fossil evidence, molecular evidence (which is overwhelmingly strong), the evidence from the geographical distribution of the species and much more.
Geologists have in fact found many so called 'missing links'. The confusion probably stems from the fact that they either get classified as belonging to the homo-genus or the australopithecus-genus. You should know, by the way, that we are lucky to have fossils at all.
@kantastisk If I was to believe evolution, I would have to say that luck plays a major role. Funny how organisms seem to randomly mutate correctly at the right place and time when the said mutation is needed. As far as the fossil record goes; Darwin himself stated that if the problem of the 'cambrian explosion' was not resolved his theory would be very suspect. To this day, with all of the fossils since discovered, the cambrian explosion has not been explained.
It is true that luck plays a role, but it doesn't follow that mutation is somehow guided. The majority of the mutations that occur are actually harmful or they simply don't bear any effects at all. But every now and then a beneficial mutation comes along and natural selection immediately acts on it, causing it to spread in the gene pool.
The fruit flies in the video are 'mutants' in a popular sense - their mutated wings are not the kind of mutation you look for in evolution...
@kantastisk No you wouldn't look for this kind of mutation but I have one question. If mutations are random, where are all of the mutations that didn't work? Why are they not found in the fossil record? Randomness is like lottery numbers generated. Where are all of the losing tickets that didn't win?
If an unsuccessful gene develops somewhere it's carrier will likely die childless and the gene won't have any luck spreading. Thus 'bad' mutations don't carry very far. However you could consider any fossilized creature that is too young to have copulated an evolutionary "loser" - one that "didn't work".
The same concept applies today if an animal dies without ever having any offspring. Evolutionary history, cruel as it is, is littered with the 'losers'.
@2uberu That's right and as a result both you and me carry thousands of 'pseudogenes' in our genome - genes that have lost all functionality and are now simply along for the ride. The selective pressure on them is so small it hasn't effectively killed their carriers (lucky us).
This only goes up to a certain point, however. In nature recourses are scarce and the animals that use their resources to actually grow useful things will have an advantage over those wasting time growing useless things.
@2uberu You can deem a gene as 'functional' in a positive sense if it helps the carrier spread the gene. You could call it 'functional' in a negative sense if it prevents the carrier from spreading the gene. It follows that genes that are functional in the positive sense will tend to become more numerous in the gene pool. Genes that are functional in the negative sense will tend to diminish in the gene pool.
This is how selective pressure is employed. Another term for it is natural selection.
@2uberu Mutations are not the standard, they are the exception. At the moment of conception the genes go for 100 % copying fidelity, and they are very good at it so mutations only happen extremely rarely. When they do however there is an even smaller chance that the mutation happens to be a helpful one. If it is a helpful one natural selection acts on it, 'saving' the helpful mutation by causing it to spread. 'Good mistakes' accumulate over time in this way. Another term for that is evolution.
@2uberu Well, with hindsight you might call mutation the standard because during the billions of years available mutation has happened so many times. But that's like saying hitting the jackpot is the standard because you've played the lottery a billion times. Mutation is an extremely unlikely event, it just has an even more extreme amount of 'tries' available.
@kantastisk What I disagree with is the fact that selection happens in the way you describe in terms of species creation. There is no proof. If I was to believe natural selection, I would have to believe that random mutations produce distinct organisms. Going back to the lottery analogy, it would be like not knowing how many numbers you would have to pick, yet getting every one of them right at the right moment in time. Highly unlikely.
@2uberu I used the lottery analogy to describe the unlikeliness of getting a good mutation at all. If you want to expand it to cover the entire evolutionary process you need to change it a bit: Instead of having just one jackpot you need to have a huge number of smaller prices - say a dollar each. And the lottery needs to be continuous and cumulative so each time you win you add to the sum total of all your winnings. Given enough time you will see billionaires who never won the jackpot.
@kantastisk True randomness is very hard to comprehend. Picture a lottery with an unknown winning number (0 to infinity). Then have an entity pick the number of numbers required to win, and then have that entity pick the exact winning numbers. THAT is randomness.
@2uberu You seem to be confusing randomness with likeliness. Flipping a coin yields a truly *random* result, yet the chance of it landing on your preferred side is rather good: 1/2. The fact that something is random does not tell you how likely or unlikely the chance of it happening is.
A helpful mutation is in itself a random event but is a lot more likely than what you seem to envisage, especially considering the amount of time available. And again: Helpful mutations accumulate.
@kantastisk Your example is in a control setting. Nature is not a control setting. The definition of random really makes a difference. If my definition is correct, you most would certainly agree that recurring successful random adaptations are highly unlikely.
@2uberu "Controlled setting?" What difference could that possibly make? The phenomenon of chance doesn't care if *you* flip a coin or the winds blow it about - the chance of it landing on either side is still 1/2. Throwing a dice with 6 sides is as random as throwing one with 20 sides.
Randomness itself simply does not dictate the level of likelihood. There is no "redefining" this. The chance of mutation happening is measured in mutation rate, a statistical number assigned to genes or organisms.
@kantastisk lol. How often does the winds 'blow about' a coin? That is what I mean. Who says a coin has to flip? The number of possible outcomes are limitless thus truly random.
@2uberu The number of possible outcomes is not limitless! Ask a mathematician or read up on statistics if my word is not enough. The genetic code is written in a specific "language" - a four-letter code - allowing only certain outcomes for mutation. Base pairs mutate at predictable rates, and these rates are routinely recorded by scientists. If you just choose to insist that mutation is infinitely unlikely I can't add anymore to this discussion.
@2uberu That's an entirely new point. A classical example of species prediction is the 'Xanthopan morgani'. Do a little research on that one.
Anyway, you seem to be just jumping to new points every time you run into trouble with the old ones and I can't keep spending time with this. I'll let you have the last word here, but I sincerely urge you to read up on how evolution actually works instead of lingering around bogus creationist videos like this one. There are real answers to your questions.
@kantastisk First you say that every time I run into trouble I make new points, then you say there are real answers my questions. Could it be that you are not addressing my questions? So Darwin said that there must be a way for a particular flower to pollinate and then he found it. That moth was already in existence. Science is able to predict when and what will happen that hasn't happened yet, such as the creation of compounds or the chemical reactions of things. Darwinism can't is my point.
@2uberu Do chicken have teeth? Why is there a plan for making teeth in their DNA?
This is what one would expect if the ancestor of chickens had teeth (which we know through the fossil record, they do). Evolution is evident in us too. How could we share 50% of our DNA with banana's if we did not have a common ancestor? It is not the random mutation, but the lack of competing parallels within a given system that leads to an evolutionary step.
@2uberu- "Dog breeding is not species creation. Evolution is atheory (sic) that tries to explain the origin of species, not the variations within a species."
According to you, every scientist is wrong, every science book is wrong, and every anti-viral drug does not work. Evolution explains the diversity of Earth's life forms, Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. With your understanding of evolution made apparent by your words, you need to be asking questions not attempting answers.
They are too minute to see in one organism, the mutations I'm talking about are things like slightly longer arms or thicker hair. You see them all of the time but you don't know it.
@2uberu (continued) It is also true that we haven't got far in explaining exactly what happened during the Cambrian explosion. This is partly because it is very difficult to know anything about that period at all. I rather prefer that there are areas of science which are still open to explore.
In any case consider what we set out to explain: The appearance of design. If you prefer to postulate a designer you are left with an even bigger problem: Who or what designed the designer?
No, once again, poor argument for evolution because the cecal valve was not created by random mutation combinations but by infomration already in the DNA from the parent population. DNA is far more complex than most evolutionists think. It completely destroys the idea of morphological change and sings the praises of the creator. Only the ignorant can deny this and it is the ignorant who fall for evolution.
Do you have a source to support your claim that the information was already in the genome?
Even if you did I don't think it would matter because A mutation would have to occur to activate the gene. Then natural selection would operate on the gene.
I know how complex DNA is but it's not a problem for evolution because evolution is a very non-random process.
By the way, another example of morphological change is polydactely. Many babies are born with four fully functional extra digits.
What athlete doesn't seem to understand is that the information perhaps did not exist before, but then developed but stayed dormant, then became active through a mutation.
I hope that is simple yet concise enough to make sense.
@athlete117 The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[7] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[9]
In this vid the evolution side simply can't explain why bad mutation happens. the goal is "the strong will survive" and that falls on its face when the stronger species is in fact the parent. if the parent can't produce anything greater in the following mutation then we would all still be ooze
not 'the stronger', merely the better adapted to its niche (according to the selecting pressure, NOT your determination of what is 'better'). bad mutation happens because mutation is random, natural selection then determines which mutations get passed on. neutral mutations and beneficial mutations are far more likely to be passed on because they are adaptive (beneficial). in other words it IS possible to for the second species to be 'weaker' if the selecting pressure makes that more likely.
Why does evolution have to explain why bad mutations happen? Seems like it would be a problem for creationists. A better question is, why can the halteres mutate into wings unless flies had evolved from other two-winged Diptera in the first place?
I should say flies evolved from Insects with two pairs of wings into Diptera with about 150,000 species of flies in the world. That's a lot of examples of evolution unless you think they got created individually.
Bad mutations happen in the process of cell replication. Were talking a few millions of years here, of slow mutations, or evolution. Bad and good happen, its the slow gradual constant of genetic mutations through the generations that causes evolution of a species. Not all species are destined to evolve to sentinence.
its the creatures ability to use the said mutation to its advantage (either in the old or a new situation) that makes a mutation good or bad
the strong arent the smartest, or strongest, or most varied creatures, the strongest are those best suited to a completely new situation (like mamels after most large creatures dying after a world wide eclipse through dust/debri clouds)
If your initial question was supposed to mean somehow that because we see things fail in our world what does that say about the creator. Then I would argue that things fail because we have the choice to abuse things thus causing some created things to fail. Like the heavy drug user that gives birth to a baby that has failing kidneys or whatever. at some point we gotta realize our choices have consequences.
Yes there are things that fail without question. But they weren't created to fail. There is a big difference in something created to fail and something that fails based on what we as humans do to it. for example the alcoholic who's liver fails is not the creators fault? is it?
My point is simply that you asked the question "what does bad mutation or morphology say about creation" and I say it says nothing! those are evolutionary terms not creationist terms.
it's only in evolutionary theory that change is relevant. Creations are made the way they are intended. you don't create a coffee cup and then get frustrated with the way it works. LOL if you don't like the way it works you recreate it.
There are plenty of examples of things created that have failed. There are organs that fail, some that don't have any reason to be there. What sense does that make unless it was intended to fail in the first place? I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm not quite sure why you keep laughing about this.
Jonathan Wells, excuse me for one minute... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! alright, I feel better. This self confessed enemy of evolution got his PhD in order to try and prove evolution wrong. He vowed to devote his life to destroying "Darwinism". Sun Myung Moons teachings ( yes,as in the moonies) and Jonathan's prayers convinced him to take up the mantle against evolution.
Jonathan sounds like he got into the field of evolution for all the right reasons. HA! I'm sure his findings are impartial. LOL!
metalsusa1 2 months ago
evolution is a bad fairy tale. Made up to scare little kids.
darkfur35 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkfur35
So you don't think that foxes are related to wolves?
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geermanchester We have approximately 98% of similar DNA that a chimpanzee has, that's more relatable DNA than the bonobos who live in close proximity with chimps. Nowhere in our DNA does it make the inserted DNA of more evolved species necessary. We as a species are not so complex as you would think.
pat5168 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyaldridge Correct, it is not guaranteed that hey will reproduce, but if it does have beneficial genes than it is more likely to reproduce than those that lack it.
pat5168 6 months ago
Yet another example of why 99 percent of all species are extinct. What is the ultimate destination here? Evolution is false and creationism is true? How efficient of our creator! To make a fruit fly with extra wings that not only cannot be utilized but will ultimately be the death of this poor insect.
prophylacticfaith 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to google and search "Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space." You will find details the creation of a completely new gene from a random DNA sequence - that is to say, the creation of "functional information" naturally, and without "intelligence."
karikon11 6 months ago
What do these creationist say of dog breeds?
They are not all crippled 5 legged pirate dogs, but show both fast working and extreme "morphology".
Tuomixx 6 months ago
@Tuomixx they ignore them because it would destroy their arguments, they ignore reality in place of fantasy, they are pathetic children at heart
wearestarstuffsagan 5 months ago
There is no guarantee that if the changes are beneficial to the organisim that they will even be passed on....
donnyaldridge 7 months ago
This fly obviously cannot function. Evolution is an adaptation to situations where certain functions are required. If an organism has them they can pass on the genes: if not like this fly then they cannot. The fly is an example of mutation and while it is sad its mutation is not of benefit in our environment it is quite possible another mutation will hold an advantage.
nicksynnz 9 months ago
Jonathan Wells: PhD in religious studies in 1986 (ID'er)
Paul Nelson: PhD in philosophy (creationist)
Ken Miller: Biology professor and is AGAINST intelligent design
These people are not scientists.. They make it sound reasonable but they are just trying to find arguments which support there belief. It should be the other way around. Belief should be build on the arguments! There is no reason to throw away evolution theory since it simply works..
drdwitte 1 year ago
23 Christians who are afraid to admit that they devoted their life to a lie disliked this video.
utube793 1 year ago
Besides the fact that there are 5,000 species of fruit fly the transitional fossil record directly contracts the statement @2:30. For example Polar Bears have morphological adaptions that Brown Bears do not and there is a fossil ancestor dated approx. 120,000 years ago from which mtDNA was extracted from and compared to modern bears. It showed that Polar Bears evolved rapidly and on the line of brown bears. This is just one example of countless others of beneficial adaptation.
f0xfree 1 year ago
So what happens if they mutate two an additional pair of muscle for the second wings? The genetic information is there.
TMBrd89 1 year ago
Comment removed
viper100200 1 year ago
This research has aligned with all mutative experimentation&research done in the 20th century.Mutations were sometimes neutral,mostly destructive,never positive. Mutant offspring either died or reverted to their wildtype. How can the claim be made that there is no limit to accumalation of mutations? The only thing ever observed is limit,in labs or nature. Easy to say there is no limit,but it has NEVER been observed.
Copsweet 1 year ago
@Copsweet Wrong. Most mutations are neutral and do not effect fitness. The remainder are either beneficial or deleterious depending on selection pressure. And no mutant offspring can be and have been maintained due to selection without reverting to their wildtype. After all this is how new species form which we have observed. So where again is the limit to selected mutations being accumulated?
whitefox998 1 year ago
@whitefox998 When left alone to breed,every specimen reverted to wildtype. Either the 1st gen or within a few,without exception. That is limit.
Copsweet 1 year ago
@Copsweet And I call your bullshit. You're making stuff up at this point, for example see Dhawan et al "Detection of a True Breeding Homeotic Gene Mutant Pps-1 with Partially Petaloid Sepals in Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) and Its Genetic Behavior" (2007) J Hered 98(4):373-377 to see why you are wrong.
whitefox998 1 year ago
@whitefox998 Call away,we're talking about Drosophilia are we not? Whatever blows your hair back jack,I'm really not that intetrested in exchanging insults.
Copsweet 1 year ago
@Copsweet Okay, ignoring the fact that no one as of yet has been insulting are you arguing that only fruit flies revert to their wildtype when mutated?
whitefox998 1 year ago
There are far more unfit mutations than there are fit. Finding the fit mutation will take us some work and time.
It's very hard for our imagination to picture the evolutionary process. But at least, science is giving us answers that God hasn't yet.
BassamMinFalasteen 1 year ago
Although evolution may be real, I don't believe humans evolved. I believe humans were created using the DNA of primates and highly evolved beings. All through ancient history there are hints of ET activity. Research with an open mind to learn the truth.
geermanchester 1 year ago
Pathetic propaganda from the bible biased creationist creed. The resort to lying when all other means fail to get their silly world view out to their dumbed down followers. They have no interest in real research, all they want is mind control and people obeying them. Search for the real version of evolution and not this twisted crap. Damn, they have even spliced Ken Miller into the video ... I wonder what he thinks about that?
heyawhaw 1 year ago
@heyawhaw well, not really. this is actual scientific research that they took out of context to support their bible thumping bull crap agenda.
prophetofpeace2010 1 year ago
A simple case of moving the goal posts. The point of the four-winged fly was to show genetic mutations can and do change morphology. The skeptics in this video pretend that the "real" goal of the experiment was to make a specifically beneficial mutation, but this is quite simply a misrepresentation. In evolution, every trait has a positive purpose when put in the right environment... the point is that large-scale changes over time are entirely possible.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Quite a leap of faith to say that because mutations are observed, new species will be produced. The scientific method is very demanding. Until I see, I will not believe.
2uberu 2 years ago
There is no limit to how far mutations can go, and organisms that are better suited to their environments tend to have more children, so it's perfectly logical to assume that organisms can evolve.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd Making assumptions is quite different than scientific observations. Again, the scientific method is quite demanding. Isn't it?
2uberu 1 year ago
You're arguing semantics. Replace "assume" with "come to the logical conclusion"
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd No. I am requiring the rules for the scientific method to be emplyed. If you want to shape your belief system based on"logical conclusions" that is fine. I choose to stick with what is ACTUALLY observed to shape my conclusions.. Again, the scientific method is quite demanding.
2uberu 1 year ago
The scientific method is employed. You think that that's the only evidence? what about the myriad fossils that we find every day? Look at dog breeding, evolution is the same processes, just over a longer period of time.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd Dog breeding is not species creation. Evolution is atheory that tries to explain the origin of species, not the variations within a species. Fossilsare just the remnants of something that was once alive, it does not tell uus who it's parents were or who it's children were. We can only "speculate"
2uberu 1 year ago
Genetic traits of the level of homology we see in fossils could only have been passed down by hereditary lines. Evolution explains how one organism can change into another through mutation and natural selection. Mutations occur, some help an organism survive, the ones that survive breed, the offspring have an exaggerated version of the original trait. If this goes on for several hundred thousand generations it's inevitable that the organism's DNA will undergo massive cumulative changes.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd These hereditary lines are incomplete. Only through assumptions in a picture book do they show a relationship to another species. Has the creation of a new species ever been observed or replicated? No. Do you even know what the "Scientific Method" is? Also as an aside; please tell me how the ability for blood to coagulate "evolved". It had to be able to the first time it was needed.
2uberu 1 year ago
Many features found in those fossils are only inherited through direct ancestry. Look up "evolution of blood clotting" on google and click the first link.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd I'm not talking about inheritance, I am concerned about the randomness. Are you saying that we are all related to lobsters?
2uberu 1 year ago
Yes, distantly all organisms are related. The randomness is offset by the fact that so many organisms are mutating at once and that natural selection only lets feasible mutations live. It's like a slot machine that has billions of slots and each one re-rolls if it gets the wrong number. The cambrian explosion is massive speciation and adaptive radiation. Evolution doesn't have a constant speed, it can be accelerated by competition between many different species.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd So you disagree with Darwin on this subject then?
2uberu 1 year ago
He didn't know about all of the fossils we know of today, he didn't even know DNA existed.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd He knew that statistically speaking, the fossil record would either prove or disprove his theory without question in about 100 years from his discoveries. He said that if the rellavent fossils have not been found by then, his theory would be flawed. In other words he had taken into account the lack of fossils during his lifetime. Also DNA evidence seems to contradict evolution. For example: the bat and the blue whale have more in common than some of the 3000 different species of frogs
2uberu 1 year ago
Comment removed
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
But the fossil record is consistent; go look up transitional forms on Wikipedia. There is only one mutation that produces echolocation, so its more than likely that any species that has echolocation will have that gene.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd Just because a question can be googled, it doesn't mean that the question is adequately answered. You refer to a species with "echolocation" being "more likely" to have that gene. How does it get that gene? Does one organism mutate it or does a generation acquire it simultaneously? If it's a single creature all of a sudden acquires it why is it passed on and deemed necessary? I could use longer arms at times and shorter arms at others.
2uberu 1 year ago
It's a mutation of a gene for cilia in the ears, of which there is only one that allows for that level of directional hearing. That's all it is, extremely well developed directional hearing.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd I wasn;t askinf for a definition of echolocation. I was asking you to explain the origin(s) of it.
2uberu 1 year ago
If an animal lives in water, which absorbs light, it would be very helpful to have good directional hearing. Same thing with living in the dark. The mutation that allows for echolocation is derived from a gene for the cilia in mammalian ears.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd Again, you are avoiding my point entirely. I'll leave it at that.
2uberu 1 year ago
What do you want? How the gene mutated? Those kinds of mutations happen every generation, it's not that rare. It's just a gene for really good directional hearing.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@Phyerbyrd My whole argument is based on the concept o randomness. If mutations where truly random, all offspring would have random mutations. Beneficial or not.
2uberu 1 year ago
Also, look up precambrian life on wikipedia.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@2uberu Do you think a Chiwawa and a St. Bernard can breed? That's speciation in anyone's book.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Just another dog to me.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Nobody was expecting too much from you.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Most of evolution happens too slow for you to see. But surely, there are other things in your life you believe to be true without having seen them directly. You can't see magnetism, gravity, radio waves or atoms and yet we know they exist because we can observe them indirectly.
The video seems to suggest that in order for speciation to occur you would need very dramatic mutation. That's not necessarily true. If members of a species become sufficiently isolated speciation can occur as well.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk Magnetism, gravity, atoms and radio waves can be replicated and observed, thus falling into the scientific realm. Evolution is based on speculation and has not been proven. Why do you think evolutionists get so excited about finding a "missing link"? Because they still can't prove their theory.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
evolution is certainly not based on speculation. It is based on fossil evidence, molecular evidence (which is overwhelmingly strong), the evidence from the geographical distribution of the species and much more.
Geologists have in fact found many so called 'missing links'. The confusion probably stems from the fact that they either get classified as belonging to the homo-genus or the australopithecus-genus. You should know, by the way, that we are lucky to have fossils at all.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk If I was to believe evolution, I would have to say that luck plays a major role. Funny how organisms seem to randomly mutate correctly at the right place and time when the said mutation is needed. As far as the fossil record goes; Darwin himself stated that if the problem of the 'cambrian explosion' was not resolved his theory would be very suspect. To this day, with all of the fossils since discovered, the cambrian explosion has not been explained.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
It is true that luck plays a role, but it doesn't follow that mutation is somehow guided. The majority of the mutations that occur are actually harmful or they simply don't bear any effects at all. But every now and then a beneficial mutation comes along and natural selection immediately acts on it, causing it to spread in the gene pool.
The fruit flies in the video are 'mutants' in a popular sense - their mutated wings are not the kind of mutation you look for in evolution...
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk No you wouldn't look for this kind of mutation but I have one question. If mutations are random, where are all of the mutations that didn't work? Why are they not found in the fossil record? Randomness is like lottery numbers generated. Where are all of the losing tickets that didn't win?
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu that's a fair question.
If an unsuccessful gene develops somewhere it's carrier will likely die childless and the gene won't have any luck spreading. Thus 'bad' mutations don't carry very far. However you could consider any fossilized creature that is too young to have copulated an evolutionary "loser" - one that "didn't work".
The same concept applies today if an animal dies without ever having any offspring. Evolutionary history, cruel as it is, is littered with the 'losers'.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk Who says that a random useless mutation would die off? If it is not used it is just as random as if it was used..
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu That's right and as a result both you and me carry thousands of 'pseudogenes' in our genome - genes that have lost all functionality and are now simply along for the ride. The selective pressure on them is so small it hasn't effectively killed their carriers (lucky us).
This only goes up to a certain point, however. In nature recourses are scarce and the animals that use their resources to actually grow useful things will have an advantage over those wasting time growing useless things.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk So how is this "selective pressure" Emplyed? What determines whether something is "functional"? Everything is funtional.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu You can deem a gene as 'functional' in a positive sense if it helps the carrier spread the gene. You could call it 'functional' in a negative sense if it prevents the carrier from spreading the gene. It follows that genes that are functional in the positive sense will tend to become more numerous in the gene pool. Genes that are functional in the negative sense will tend to diminish in the gene pool.
This is how selective pressure is employed. Another term for it is natural selection.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk My point is that if mutations were truly random, all offspring would have random mutations, beneficial or not.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Mutations are not the standard, they are the exception. At the moment of conception the genes go for 100 % copying fidelity, and they are very good at it so mutations only happen extremely rarely. When they do however there is an even smaller chance that the mutation happens to be a helpful one. If it is a helpful one natural selection acts on it, 'saving' the helpful mutation by causing it to spread. 'Good mistakes' accumulate over time in this way. Another term for that is evolution.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk They are the standard if you believe in evolutionary changes.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Well, with hindsight you might call mutation the standard because during the billions of years available mutation has happened so many times. But that's like saying hitting the jackpot is the standard because you've played the lottery a billion times. Mutation is an extremely unlikely event, it just has an even more extreme amount of 'tries' available.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk That's my point it's like calling the selection process natural because it is what naturally happened.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Then we seem to agree. Selection comes about by natural processes and that is indeed why we call it natural selection.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk But what does that explain? Things happened because they happen?
2uberu 1 year ago
@kantastisk What I disagree with is the fact that selection happens in the way you describe in terms of species creation. There is no proof. If I was to believe natural selection, I would have to believe that random mutations produce distinct organisms. Going back to the lottery analogy, it would be like not knowing how many numbers you would have to pick, yet getting every one of them right at the right moment in time. Highly unlikely.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu I used the lottery analogy to describe the unlikeliness of getting a good mutation at all. If you want to expand it to cover the entire evolutionary process you need to change it a bit: Instead of having just one jackpot you need to have a huge number of smaller prices - say a dollar each. And the lottery needs to be continuous and cumulative so each time you win you add to the sum total of all your winnings. Given enough time you will see billionaires who never won the jackpot.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk True randomness is very hard to comprehend. Picture a lottery with an unknown winning number (0 to infinity). Then have an entity pick the number of numbers required to win, and then have that entity pick the exact winning numbers. THAT is randomness.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu You seem to be confusing randomness with likeliness. Flipping a coin yields a truly *random* result, yet the chance of it landing on your preferred side is rather good: 1/2. The fact that something is random does not tell you how likely or unlikely the chance of it happening is.
A helpful mutation is in itself a random event but is a lot more likely than what you seem to envisage, especially considering the amount of time available. And again: Helpful mutations accumulate.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk Your example is in a control setting. Nature is not a control setting. The definition of random really makes a difference. If my definition is correct, you most would certainly agree that recurring successful random adaptations are highly unlikely.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu "Controlled setting?" What difference could that possibly make? The phenomenon of chance doesn't care if *you* flip a coin or the winds blow it about - the chance of it landing on either side is still 1/2. Throwing a dice with 6 sides is as random as throwing one with 20 sides.
Randomness itself simply does not dictate the level of likelihood. There is no "redefining" this. The chance of mutation happening is measured in mutation rate, a statistical number assigned to genes or organisms.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk lol. How often does the winds 'blow about' a coin? That is what I mean. Who says a coin has to flip? The number of possible outcomes are limitless thus truly random.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu The number of possible outcomes is not limitless! Ask a mathematician or read up on statistics if my word is not enough. The genetic code is written in a specific "language" - a four-letter code - allowing only certain outcomes for mutation. Base pairs mutate at predictable rates, and these rates are routinely recorded by scientists. If you just choose to insist that mutation is infinitely unlikely I can't add anymore to this discussion.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk Science is able to predict outcomes. When a new species can be predicted or even observed then I would know that Darwin was right.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu That's an entirely new point. A classical example of species prediction is the 'Xanthopan morgani'. Do a little research on that one.
Anyway, you seem to be just jumping to new points every time you run into trouble with the old ones and I can't keep spending time with this. I'll let you have the last word here, but I sincerely urge you to read up on how evolution actually works instead of lingering around bogus creationist videos like this one. There are real answers to your questions.
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk First you say that every time I run into trouble I make new points, then you say there are real answers my questions. Could it be that you are not addressing my questions? So Darwin said that there must be a way for a particular flower to pollinate and then he found it. That moth was already in existence. Science is able to predict when and what will happen that hasn't happened yet, such as the creation of compounds or the chemical reactions of things. Darwinism can't is my point.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu Do chicken have teeth? Why is there a plan for making teeth in their DNA?
This is what one would expect if the ancestor of chickens had teeth (which we know through the fossil record, they do). Evolution is evident in us too. How could we share 50% of our DNA with banana's if we did not have a common ancestor? It is not the random mutation, but the lack of competing parallels within a given system that leads to an evolutionary step.
ProfessorPEARL 1 year ago
@ProfessorPEARL So by that logic, skyscrapers evolved from bridges. They are both made of concrete and steel.
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
Sky scraper blueprints include instructions on making bridges?
ProfessorPEARL 1 year ago
@ProfessorPEARL Blueprints appear randomly?
2uberu 1 year ago
@2uberu
According to your attempt to compare apples and clouds, they do.
ProfessorPEARL 1 year ago
@ProfessorPEARL No. According to Darwinism they appear randomly.
2uberu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2uberu- "Dog breeding is not species creation. Evolution is atheory (sic) that tries to explain the origin of species, not the variations within a species."
According to you, every scientist is wrong, every science book is wrong, and every anti-viral drug does not work. Evolution explains the diversity of Earth's life forms, Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. With your understanding of evolution made apparent by your words, you need to be asking questions not attempting answers.
ProfessorPEARL 1 year ago
They are too minute to see in one organism, the mutations I'm talking about are things like slightly longer arms or thicker hair. You see them all of the time but you don't know it.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
@2uberu (continued) It is also true that we haven't got far in explaining exactly what happened during the Cambrian explosion. This is partly because it is very difficult to know anything about that period at all. I rather prefer that there are areas of science which are still open to explore.
In any case consider what we set out to explain: The appearance of design. If you prefer to postulate a designer you are left with an even bigger problem: Who or what designed the designer?
kantastisk 1 year ago
@kantastisk I don't postulate on things dealing with science.
2uberu 1 year ago
yes it is a dead end. they will die. did these guys even study evolution?
notbrokensonocrutch 2 years ago
No examples of positive morphological change? What about cecal valves?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
No, once again, poor argument for evolution because the cecal valve was not created by random mutation combinations but by infomration already in the DNA from the parent population. DNA is far more complex than most evolutionists think. It completely destroys the idea of morphological change and sings the praises of the creator. Only the ignorant can deny this and it is the ignorant who fall for evolution.
athlete117 2 years ago
Do you have a source to support your claim that the information was already in the genome?
Even if you did I don't think it would matter because A mutation would have to occur to activate the gene. Then natural selection would operate on the gene.
I know how complex DNA is but it's not a problem for evolution because evolution is a very non-random process.
By the way, another example of morphological change is polydactely. Many babies are born with four fully functional extra digits.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
What athlete doesn't seem to understand is that the information perhaps did not exist before, but then developed but stayed dormant, then became active through a mutation.
I hope that is simple yet concise enough to make sense.
5k4k1dhtp 2 years ago
@athlete117 The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[7] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[9]
gamesbok 1 year ago
In this vid the evolution side simply can't explain why bad mutation happens. the goal is "the strong will survive" and that falls on its face when the stronger species is in fact the parent. if the parent can't produce anything greater in the following mutation then we would all still be ooze
Nathan1024 2 years ago
not 'the stronger', merely the better adapted to its niche (according to the selecting pressure, NOT your determination of what is 'better'). bad mutation happens because mutation is random, natural selection then determines which mutations get passed on. neutral mutations and beneficial mutations are far more likely to be passed on because they are adaptive (beneficial). in other words it IS possible to for the second species to be 'weaker' if the selecting pressure makes that more likely.
naard 2 years ago 2
Exactly. Natural Selection doesnt say weak dies, strong survives. The most adaptable species is in favor due to natural selection.
SIGScienceISGod 2 years ago 2
Why does evolution have to explain why bad mutations happen? Seems like it would be a problem for creationists. A better question is, why can the halteres mutate into wings unless flies had evolved from other two-winged Diptera in the first place?
foxlake02 2 years ago 2
I should say flies evolved from Insects with two pairs of wings into Diptera with about 150,000 species of flies in the world. That's a lot of examples of evolution unless you think they got created individually.
foxlake02 2 years ago
The explanation is simple, it's amazing that you've missed it, it's gene mutation. Evolution is not a "power" or something like that...jeez..
VonCarlsson 2 years ago
Bad mutations happen in the process of cell replication. Were talking a few millions of years here, of slow mutations, or evolution. Bad and good happen, its the slow gradual constant of genetic mutations through the generations that causes evolution of a species. Not all species are destined to evolve to sentinence.
SIGScienceISGod 2 years ago
Can creationism offer the proof evolution states in genetics?
SIGScienceISGod 2 years ago
Strong will survive meaning the strongest to adapt.
SIGScienceISGod 2 years ago
no mutation is good or bad by definetion?
its the creatures ability to use the said mutation to its advantage (either in the old or a new situation) that makes a mutation good or bad
the strong arent the smartest, or strongest, or most varied creatures, the strongest are those best suited to a completely new situation (like mamels after most large creatures dying after a world wide eclipse through dust/debri clouds)
an00bish 2 years ago
If your initial question was supposed to mean somehow that because we see things fail in our world what does that say about the creator. Then I would argue that things fail because we have the choice to abuse things thus causing some created things to fail. Like the heavy drug user that gives birth to a baby that has failing kidneys or whatever. at some point we gotta realize our choices have consequences.
Nathan1024 2 years ago
Yes there are things that fail without question. But they weren't created to fail. There is a big difference in something created to fail and something that fails based on what we as humans do to it. for example the alcoholic who's liver fails is not the creators fault? is it?
My point is simply that you asked the question "what does bad mutation or morphology say about creation" and I say it says nothing! those are evolutionary terms not creationist terms.
Nathan1024 2 years ago
if its a bad mutation or one that doesn't change anythingg, what does that say abiout the creation theory>
AtheistMommy 2 years ago
it's only in evolutionary theory that change is relevant. Creations are made the way they are intended. you don't create a coffee cup and then get frustrated with the way it works. LOL if you don't like the way it works you recreate it.
Nathan1024 2 years ago
So then according to creation some things are made to fail?
AtheistMommy 2 years ago
who said that? in creation things are made to be what they are. we don't find remnants of screwed up or prototype creations LOL.
Nathan1024 2 years ago
There are plenty of examples of things created that have failed. There are organs that fail, some that don't have any reason to be there. What sense does that make unless it was intended to fail in the first place? I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm not quite sure why you keep laughing about this.
AtheistMommy 2 years ago
I just love this stuff!
TheEdge012 2 years ago
epic win!!!! :)
jbbremerton 2 years ago