Maybe Postulate 2: Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously form polymers linked together by 3', 5'-phosphodiester linkages
Maybe Postulate 3: A polyribonucleotide (i.e. RNA molecule), once formed, would have the catalytic activity to replicate itself, and a population of such self-replicating molecules could arise.
Maybe Postulate 4: Self-replicating RNA molecules wouild have all of the catalytic activities necessary to sustain a ribo-organism.
The human body begins as a sphere called a blastocyst and becomes more elongated as it develops. Some structures, like the carotid duct, are simply obliterated during development, and some are eliminated and replaced. Other structures, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity
@owensphil you don't need to tell me about medicine, I am a medical student. Also the information I provided was provided by a highly respected professor in a highly respected university.
I would like to point out that saying something is due to development, does not negate evolution, since development is tied to evolution.
@owensphil not more than you trust me. Im studying right now for an exam, so I know I have a lot to learn. But you clearly have no understanding about hte debate if you think that proving something is the result of deveelopment disproves that it evolved. It clearly doesnt. Otherwise harvard university wouldn't teach it. Your argument is simplistic, but you dont seem to understand that.
YOU are arrogant not me because you think you are smarter than all these universities.
@owensphil it is arrogant to have the necessity to teach my professors about development. They know about human development in much greater understanding than you do. Yet they stick to the point I made above. Which by the way was not the point you made. You were talking about humans, I was talking about giraffes which shows that you don't really understand what the subject is, and that you have no authority or knowledge to criticize my professors.
@owensphil no one disagrees that recurrent laryngeal is the result of development. Everything in the human body that developed is the result of development. However that doesn't negate the fact that evolution led to that development in the first place. So your source actually does not negate my argument. It states something which you completely misunderstood.
@owensphil here's harvard's department of evolution: oeb.harvard. e d u go email them and tell them how much smarter you are than them and how your argument disproves evoution and watch them laugh at you. You have no right to talk about arrogance or knowledge my friend you have less than I do, and I have less than these eminent biologists. You think you are smarter than all of them.
@owensphil also its not called the carotid duct, its called ductus arteriosus. You are proving that you have no understanding of the subject. And you are calling me arrogant? Do yourself a favor. Go to college, study the subject for a couple years, and then come back and talk to me.
And anyway you missed the point I made about the video, its about the fact that every medical school teaches evolution. If you disagree take it up with my MD professors. Until then never go to a doctor. Simple.
Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.
- Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188.
@owensphil listen to what I said carefully, I wasn't talking about the development of human recurrent larygneal, but the recurrent laryngeal of the giraffes. And the beauty of development is that it is intimately tied with evolution. So saying that something is due to developmental factors does not negate evolution as you imply.
@truthofevolution I wasn't talking about the development of human recurrent larygneal, but the recurrent laryngeal of the giraffes.
Yes, I heard that thank you. Now tell why the same wouldn´t apply? You have no clue as to the evolution of the giraffe. I can´t believe you even´t brought that one up. Do yourself a favor and stay clear of that topic because I will publicly make you look like the arrogant fool that you are
@owensphil dude don't talk to me about having a clue you dont even know what a ductus arteriosus is and confused it with a carotid duct. I cant teach you this baby stuff right now I have an exam.
You arent publically making me look like a fool, you are trying to make my ivy league educated, PhD, MD professors who taught me about the recurrent laryngeal look like fools. That makes YOU look like a fool because you dont have an iota of their intelligence.
@owensphil every single university yes even the ones with eminent biologists say very clearly what I say about evolution. This indicates that you have no understanding of the subject, or you would not have used such a silly argument and pretend to teach these professors and myself something we already know in much greater detal than you do.
> every single university yes even the ones with eminent biologists say very clearly what I say about evolution
OK you´re going have to better than just assert that. I would like to see documentation of some sort that let´s us know that you know what every single university states.
@owensphil look it up fool. if you don't even know that every university teaches evolution, it shows that youve never taken a biology course in a university.
@owensphil look I dont have time to get into an argument with an uneducated fool because I have to study for an important exam. Why don't you go to harvard university's page and see what they have to say on evolution. Then go to each university of your choice. They all teach evolution. Im not going to spoonfeed you information. Also I am not talking about the biochemistry but about the evolution. You are not even properly answering the question.
"I swear to Darwin..blah blah.. lady with a turban says change is $1.59? LIAR! Its $1.58.. blah blah.. unless I know that person "atheist".. blah blah.. I will spill out my secrets to them and live off of every word they say.. for they shalt never lie"
-There's a difference between consciously lying and being tricked into believing "this is the truth."
-Doctors also learn about the human body in its current form, I'm sure.
No, sir, I want YOU to accept my challenge. Since doctors learn their lies from med school, religious people learned their lies from people with similar religions (parents, teachers, etc.). Doctors lie, and religious people lie. Since all religious people teach, spread, follow, and believe LIES (~95% of people in US), how can you believe anything they're saying? Even stuff that don't necessarily seem to have stuff directly related to creationism. So here's my challenge to you, the "atheist"....
The problem with creationism, heaven and hell is that no one really believes them. A lot of people say they believe in that stuff, but, in practice, they always act like they don't.
OF COURSE, YOURE A MAN--BECAUSE MANY MEN BELIEF IN THE THEORY BEING 'FACT'==== most women, even those who are scientists dont believe the nonsense===because we have the ability to keep new life in the womb, and they STILL CANT make artificial wombs yet
@49jubilee please dont say stupid things. Have you ever talked to a woman scientist who works in biochemistry? My FEMALE professor taught me about the recurrent laryngeal nerve that I mention in this video as an example of evolution.
Also you dont understand the definition of a theory. A theory means a model or an explanation. In science a theory has more weight than fact. Atomic theory is a theory does that mean you dont believe in atoms?
Please do not talk when you have no understanding.
@49jubilee I have to study for an exam right now, but EVERY SINGLE university teaches evolution. EVERY SINGLE one. I said that in the video. Does that matter to you? Do you think that most of the women in every single university dont believe in evolution?
Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds? EVERY university teaches evolution, but most women dont believe it? That makes no sense. I dont know how you can say that without doing any research on the subject. Do you have statistics?
It's possible to navigate competently if your premise is that the sun goes round the earth-- some people used to do so. I'd trust such a navigator to get me where I wanted to go over one who knew the earth goes round the sun, but couldn't navigate for toffee.
I suspect that a lot of med students take the evolution modules with a pinch of salt-- I've personally heard a moslem one saying that he doesn't believe it.
@gerontodon no this is not the point that I made. I am not discussing one's ability to accept one premise but not another. I am discussing one's ability to accept one premise and not another when that person knows that the false premise is a willful lie.
Your suspicion is wrong considering you are not a medstudent and I am. Every student I know accepts evolution. But thats not the point ,the point is that muslim student is a hypocrite who accepts knowledge from those he knows are willing liars
As for being inconsistent for taking medical advice whilst not accepting all of what's taught in med schools, the 'blind watchmaker' isn't so much a fact or set of facts, as a metaphysical framework in which facts are made sense of. Perhaps they'd fit equally well, or better, into another framework.
The existence of homologies makes some kind of evolution convincing, and if you're right about the giraffe nerve thing, then perhaps some or all biological 'designs' are constrained by what's gone before. I need to research all that more. But I don't accept that random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, and I think that idea has been hugely oversold. If it's wrong, that doesn't prove that the process is *not* mindless, but the best argument for that view is not available.
@gerontodon there is no "if i am right", this is a simple fact to look up, if you doubt my claim look it up and then post whether I am right or wrong, rather than doubting my fact without doing any research.
Secondly this video is meant to address those creationists who think scientists are liars who are actively keeping creationism out of science despite knowing that facts are not on their side.
Also unless you have taken college level biochem, you are no position to decide what is oversold
@gerontodon there is no "if i am right", this is a simple fact to look up, if you doubt my claim look it up and then post whether I am right or wrong, rather than doubting my fact without doing any research.
Secondly this video is meant to address those creationists who think scientists are liars who are actively keeping creationism out of science despite knowing that facts are not on their side.
Also unless you have taken college level biochem, you are no position to decide what is oversold
@gerontodon certainly the idea is not oversold considering that the predictions made by evolution give support to the theory because of bayesian inference. Also considering that I have never seen any creationist respond to my evidence for evolution: there is a nested hierarchy of random mutations on long terminal repeat sequences despite the known action of reverse transcriptase.
This shows that evolution is indeed as darwin described.
weather if the nerve evolved or it was designed is irrelevant for medicine, as a doctor you only need to know how the nerve works. the origin of the organ is irrelevant.
@Answerquestions1 no but thats not what I mean. Look at my example of a ribosome. They just found the structure, the structure has to do with how it works not its origin, yet there is a good chance that scientists are lying because the structure of the ribosome is exactly what evolution said it would be. The point remains that you have tens of thousands of scientists knowingly lying, and you believe them on everything else? How do you know they arent lying?
No, scientists are not lying, they are biased, most scientists whent to colledge with the preconcive idea that evolution is true, and most of their teachers told them that evolution is true, that is why most scientists are evolutionists.
most priests belive in God, but that does not prove that God is real.
btw, your statment assumes that evolution is science in the first place.
@Answerquestions1 then this argument is obviously not for you. Many creationists think that scientists are lying, and keeping creationism out of science. This argument is for them.
Actually thats not why most scientists are evolutionists. Most scientists are evolutionists because of scientific evidence such as the nested hierarchy of mutations on long terminal repeat sequences despite the known action of reverse transcriptase.
@Answerquestions1 actually the fact that you think that i assumed anything shows that you havent watched any of my videos. My statement is based on evidence. Your statement is based on something you read in a blog.
Anyway my argument in this particular video is directed towards people who believe that scientists are actively keeping creationism out of the scientific community even though they know that there is no evidence for evolution which means that they are liars.
I am not saying that your possition is not based on evidance, and since you are a PHD student, you mst know much more than I.
However I believe that maybe you are looking at the evidance with the preconcive idea that evolution is true. For example the fact that we share 95% of DNA with chimps, proves nothing, unless you start with the preconcive idea that evolution is true.
@Answerquestions1 but thats what Im saying, my example is does not take into account any preconceived ideas, thats why I mentioned it. Thats why creationists never mention nested hierarchy on LTRs. They know its an argument they cant win.
Putting organisms in a nested hierchy deos not prove anything, I can also get 100 cakes and organise them in a nested hierchy, putting similar cakes as ´´close relatives´´ and different cakes as ´´far relatives´´ but that does not mean that cakes evolved from simpler meals.
besides any inconsistency with the nested hierchy predicted by evolution can be solved by using convergent evolution as an explanation.
@Answerquestions1 ok nested hirarchy doesnt mean similarity. In fact in NH differences are MORE important and also in nature, nested hierarchy ALWAYS means that two things are related.
You haev a nested hierarchy with your parents and languages with a common ancestor have nested hierarchy.
Also evolution PREDICTS nested hierarchy, and an important quality of a good science is its ability to predict. Evolution predicted the NH of RANDOM mutations BEFORE genetics was discovered.
that would definitly be a very good point for evolution, can you recomend me an article that talks about mutations in NH? I am specially interested in the supposed fact that NH of random mutation where predicted before genetics.
@Answerquestions1 Hi just one quick thing, next time can you just say "fact" instead of "supposed fact", Im sharing my knowledge at the highest level with you and I think you should respect that. If your teacher gets annoyed and stops teaching you thats your loss and noone else's.
Ok, so Darwin in his book drew the first tree of life, thus showing how creatures should form a nested hierarchy. Now remember that nested hierarchies apply to ALL features including genetics.
@Answerquestions1 so even though genetics hasnt been discovered yet, evolution still predicts nested hierarchy of all features. So the second genetics was discovered, people knew that for evolution to be true, there has to be nested hierarchy of mutations.
Watch my video "ERVs: evidence for evolution" and youll see multiple papers I provide, where before the experiment they didnt know if there was a nested hierarchy of mutations. After, their prediction was confirmed.
@Answerquestions1 I raelly appreciate that you are being humble. Most people I talk to would not apologize. And it wasnt necessary. I was simply pointing out that we should be mindful that tens of thousands of scientists have put their lives into studying evolution. We should respect that even if we do not agree.
I appreciate that you understand that.
Also please do watch teh ERVs video, I have made many videos on this subject, feel free to watch any one and comment.
@Answerquestions1 I raelly appreciate that you are being humble. Most people I talk to would not apologize. And it wasnt necessary. I was simply pointing out that we should be mindful that tens of thousands of scientists have put their lives into studying evolution. We should respect that even if we do not agree.
I appreciate that you understand that.
Also please do watch teh ERVs video, I have made many videos on this subject, feel free to watch any one and comment.
@Answerquestions1 we know that the mutations are random because of teh fact that they appear of LTRs ( I can do an experiment in a lab right now using LTRs and prove randomness) and yet they have an NH. Why? Why do random mutations have nh?
Why did God put mutations in NH when things are NOT related, when in nature we see that EVERY TIME we have NH, we have related animals?
@theDracoIX you missed the point dude, but right now Im dealing with some other idiot, and Im a busy medstudent, so Ill get back to you in a few days.
@theDracoIX Everytime a new antiobiotic comes out, or a new flu shot. Thats because of evolution. If bacteria didn't mutate, if virus's didn't change one cure would be all you'd ever need. Yet your immune system battles the Flu pretty much every year. Even though you should be immune to it after the first time.
So if you don't want to believe in evolution thats fine. But you have to never get the same disease twice, and treat any infections with penicillin sound fair? k good.
@GhostInTheShell29 Only a fvcking idiot would ever take penicillin, you couldn't force that shit into my mouth or any other fvcking prescription drug for that matter... OUTSIDE of a painkiller if I had some sort of physical injury like a cut or broken bone.
@theDracoIX Just have to ask... Why do you say fvcking? Seeing as everyone knows what your saying all you did was change one letter to another letter that looked similar...
I just don't get it why not just say fucking. Is there a rule or something i'm unaware of?
And even one thing about evolution that we can not explain right now, does not negate the thousands and thousands of things we do know that proves evolution.
@bleunt why is it you have to believe everything or nothing? Even creationist believe in most of the "thousands and thousands of things" that prove evolution within kinds.
@aemull3 I never said you have to believe everything or nothing. I said that the fact that we don't know everything which has to do with evolution, that does not mean it's false.
@PlayfulGibbon All church is, is a public gathering of hypocritical assholes pretending to be "Religious". When I went to church in highschool a couple times (parents wanted to try), I would see the same chicks I went to that church with getting gang banged at parties. Most "religious" people are quick to judge, quick to anger. Very very few (And I'm sorry if you are) truly embody the spirit of whatever religion they are attending.
@JgHaverty so you went to one church and your going to put your narrow minded views on all religious people calling them hypocritical assholes? Maybe your right and everyone is evil gang banging sluts since that is what you have seen at parties. Good point
creationist do believe in parts of evolution they just do not believe in the mutation portion. Most believe in natural selection with "kinds" that can mate but that the mutation to go from one or the other is incorrect. There is no record of mutations happening in modern science so the portion they do not believe is only a theory and until it happens will remain a theory.
@aemull3 also what youre saying is not true. Please watch the multitude of videos I made abuot evolution. Gravity is also a theory. So are atoms. You dont understand the definition of the word theory. It means model in science.
Furthermore, mutations happen all the time, just google "observed instances of speciation" for hundreds of examples of new species forming that we observed.
@truthofevolution I'm talking about mutations that add information or jump classes. I could be wrong and I'm sure you know far more than I do but I've seen from multiple sources there hasnt been one.
@aemull3 once again if you google "observed instances of speciation" youll see that we have recorded new species forming. They are caused by mutations, mainly at the chromosomal level. This stuff is well documented.
We have also found a bacterial gene that digests nylon, since nylon is an artificial fiber, the only possible way that exists is that it mutated from another gene afte humans produced nylon.
@aemull3 just to let you know there is no disagreement in the institutions about evolution. Every single university teaches it from harvard to princeton to yale to oxford. There are 200,000 scientific research articles on it. The science of evolution is not in doubt to those who have studied it.
@aemull3 except that there are recoded mutations. Hell even in agriculture with crops there are recorded cases. Nahhh they are just stubborn and avert their eyes to the truth :(
@TheReptilianAgenda No shit there are small mutations that lose information and do not drastically change kinds. Idk if they happened in the past or not, I'm just saying I wont believe it until I see it. You can be as convinced as you want you are a descendant of a chimp but until its recorded of a mutation changing kinds I'm skeptical of the mutation part of evolution.
@aemull3 Hmmm are Wolves the same as dogs or are they a separate species?? Are Dogs only similar to, or derived from wolves?//// Hmmm I wonder wonder wonder??? If it is humans that domesticated them I wonder if that means they have been there to observe this, hmmmm?
The clear problem in your argument is going from if the person doesnt trust evolution they cant believe any science/medicine. Thats like saying if you do believe anything in the bible, there is a supreme being, or whatever that everything that comes out of a preachers mouth is true. With science and religion I think most people pick and choose which things are to be believed. Also we clearly didnt come from giraffes : )
@pinochet222 lol they wont be digested because our bodies are used to digesting left handed shit. Infact some types of bonds simply cannot be digested. Cellulose for example, is a sugar just like glucose. Yet we can easily digest glucose but we cannto digest cellulose. The substrate's bonds are very important for the enzyme.
I don't get this mindset. Denialists keep claiming that this or that needs to be shown or can't be explained by anything but magic. Inevitably, it turns out that the question is based on a false assumption, or that it takes, as you say, about two minutes to find a proper scientific work.
How do people go on, what kind of self awareness do they have to feel comfortable with being consistently wrong and yet never appreciate the possibility that they are just wrong about what they think they know.
@blackwolf1200 How do they keep claiming things without ever checking if these claims are even true before boasting around? I don't get this level of blind acceptance, just because they get their info from an outspoken Christian (who, by default, is incapable of lying). Yet, the very next breath, they will have no problem at all with asserting that all humans are fallible and wretched and liars. The cognitive dissonance is just amazing.
@blackwolf1200 thats because they are so emotionally attached to their beliefs. The challenge is to get them to a point where they either accept reality or their beliefs, and that is what im trying to do here.
Reality tells you to go to a doctor, while blind ignorance tells them that doctors are liars.
Which one will they choose? It depends on what they value most.
@truthofevolution I wonder how long it will take the creationist to simply deny that anything about evolution has to do with anything about medicine. I've seen that one, too. Suppported by an unnamed relative who of course "went though medical school without evolution ever being mentioned". Turning out to be a waitress he knows who had a two week seminar on first aid. :)
@blackwolf1200 hahaha, but thats exactly why i give very specific examples. Just tell them that "my friend in medschool just learned about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in his anatomy class, he said in giraffes...."
that level of detail is usually enough to shock them into submission. Ive actually never encountered anyone who said that medicine and evolution are unrelated for that reason.
Nice gloss over on the RNA bit
Maybe Postulate 1: There was a prebiotic pool of beta-D-ribonucleotides.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
Maybe Postulate 2: Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously form polymers linked together by 3', 5'-phosphodiester linkages
Maybe Postulate 3: A polyribonucleotide (i.e. RNA molecule), once formed, would have the catalytic activity to replicate itself, and a population of such self-replicating molecules could arise.
Maybe Postulate 4: Self-replicating RNA molecules wouild have all of the catalytic activities necessary to sustain a ribo-organism.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
The human body begins as a sphere called a blastocyst and becomes more elongated as it develops. Some structures, like the carotid duct, are simply obliterated during development, and some are eliminated and replaced. Other structures, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil you don't need to tell me about medicine, I am a medical student. Also the information I provided was provided by a highly respected professor in a highly respected university.
I would like to point out that saying something is due to development, does not negate evolution, since development is tied to evolution.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution
> you don't need to tell me about medicine, I am a medical student.
And you have a lot to learn Jr.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil not more than you trust me. Im studying right now for an exam, so I know I have a lot to learn. But you clearly have no understanding about hte debate if you think that proving something is the result of deveelopment disproves that it evolved. It clearly doesnt. Otherwise harvard university wouldn't teach it. Your argument is simplistic, but you dont seem to understand that.
YOU are arrogant not me because you think you are smarter than all these universities.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@owensphil it is arrogant to have the necessity to teach my professors about development. They know about human development in much greater understanding than you do. Yet they stick to the point I made above. Which by the way was not the point you made. You were talking about humans, I was talking about giraffes which shows that you don't really understand what the subject is, and that you have no authority or knowledge to criticize my professors.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution > They know about human development in much greater understanding than you do
I´m sure they do which is why I cited and will continue to cite my sources.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil no one disagrees that recurrent laryngeal is the result of development. Everything in the human body that developed is the result of development. However that doesn't negate the fact that evolution led to that development in the first place. So your source actually does not negate my argument. It states something which you completely misunderstood.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@owensphil here's harvard's department of evolution: oeb.harvard. e d u go email them and tell them how much smarter you are than them and how your argument disproves evoution and watch them laugh at you. You have no right to talk about arrogance or knowledge my friend you have less than I do, and I have less than these eminent biologists. You think you are smarter than all of them.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution
How about instead I cite other experts in the field which what I´ve been doing. Will that work for you Jr.?
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil also its not called the carotid duct, its called ductus arteriosus. You are proving that you have no understanding of the subject. And you are calling me arrogant? Do yourself a favor. Go to college, study the subject for a couple years, and then come back and talk to me.
And anyway you missed the point I made about the video, its about the fact that every medical school teaches evolution. If you disagree take it up with my MD professors. Until then never go to a doctor. Simple.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.
- Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil listen to what I said carefully, I wasn't talking about the development of human recurrent larygneal, but the recurrent laryngeal of the giraffes. And the beauty of development is that it is intimately tied with evolution. So saying that something is due to developmental factors does not negate evolution as you imply.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution I wasn't talking about the development of human recurrent larygneal, but the recurrent laryngeal of the giraffes.
Yes, I heard that thank you. Now tell why the same wouldn´t apply? You have no clue as to the evolution of the giraffe. I can´t believe you even´t brought that one up. Do yourself a favor and stay clear of that topic because I will publicly make you look like the arrogant fool that you are
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil dude don't talk to me about having a clue you dont even know what a ductus arteriosus is and confused it with a carotid duct. I cant teach you this baby stuff right now I have an exam.
You arent publically making me look like a fool, you are trying to make my ivy league educated, PhD, MD professors who taught me about the recurrent laryngeal look like fools. That makes YOU look like a fool because you dont have an iota of their intelligence.
Im warning you to steer clear of this.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution
carotid duct (online medical dictionary)
A portion of the embryonic dorsal aorta between points of juncture with the third and fourth arch arteries; it disappears early in development.
This is what I said:
Some structures, such as the carotid duct, are simply obliterated during development, and some are eliminated and replaced.
Look it up Jr. I warned you about making a FOOL of yourself. Should have listened.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil every single university yes even the ones with eminent biologists say very clearly what I say about evolution. This indicates that you have no understanding of the subject, or you would not have used such a silly argument and pretend to teach these professors and myself something we already know in much greater detal than you do.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution
> every single university yes even the ones with eminent biologists say very clearly what I say about evolution
OK you´re going have to better than just assert that. I would like to see documentation of some sort that let´s us know that you know what every single university states.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
@owensphil look it up fool. if you don't even know that every university teaches evolution, it shows that youve never taken a biology course in a university.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@owensphil look I dont have time to get into an argument with an uneducated fool because I have to study for an important exam. Why don't you go to harvard university's page and see what they have to say on evolution. Then go to each university of your choice. They all teach evolution. Im not going to spoonfeed you information. Also I am not talking about the biochemistry but about the evolution. You are not even properly answering the question.
truthofevolution 3 weeks ago
@truthofevolution
> I dont have time to get into an argument with an uneducated fool because
because if you get into content as opposed to grand standing, you might get embarrassed.
owensphil 3 weeks ago
"I swear to Darwin..blah blah.. lady with a turban says change is $1.59? LIAR! Its $1.58.. blah blah.. unless I know that person "atheist".. blah blah.. I will spill out my secrets to them and live off of every word they say.. for they shalt never lie"
-There's a difference between consciously lying and being tricked into believing "this is the truth."
-Doctors also learn about the human body in its current form, I'm sure.
-The enemy mixes tares in a good harvest.
UCKLEEBOI 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, sir, I want YOU to accept my challenge. Since doctors learn their lies from med school, religious people learned their lies from people with similar religions (parents, teachers, etc.). Doctors lie, and religious people lie. Since all religious people teach, spread, follow, and believe LIES (~95% of people in US), how can you believe anything they're saying? Even stuff that don't necessarily seem to have stuff directly related to creationism. So here's my challenge to you, the "atheist"....
UCKLEEBOI 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
NoSpeakFrog 4 weeks ago
Let me get this straight... Correct me if i'm wrong cuz i may not understand.
This seems to be your argument
1) creationists believe that evolution is not true.
2) All med schools teach evolution as fact.
3) doctors are trained from med schools
4) Therefore in order for creationists to be consistent in their beliefs, they may not take medicine from doctors.
I'm not saying that evolutionism isn't true but your argument against creationism is not sound.
tatripp 3 months ago
@tatripp its a little bit different.
1) creationists believe that evolution is a LIE
2) all medical schools deliberately teach a lie as a fact
3) Medical schools cannt be trusted
4) same as your 3
5) same as your 4
It is absolutely sound. If they can teach one lie they can teach more than one. So they shouldnt trust medicine just to be safe.
truthofevolution 3 months ago
awesome. I like ur argument. I feel the same
rayalaseema9999 8 months ago
The problem with creationism, heaven and hell is that no one really believes them. A lot of people say they believe in that stuff, but, in practice, they always act like they don't.
gugamilare 10 months ago
OF COURSE, YOURE A MAN--BECAUSE MANY MEN BELIEF IN THE THEORY BEING 'FACT'==== most women, even those who are scientists dont believe the nonsense===because we have the ability to keep new life in the womb, and they STILL CANT make artificial wombs yet
49jubilee 1 year ago
@49jubilee please dont say stupid things. Have you ever talked to a woman scientist who works in biochemistry? My FEMALE professor taught me about the recurrent laryngeal nerve that I mention in this video as an example of evolution.
Also you dont understand the definition of a theory. A theory means a model or an explanation. In science a theory has more weight than fact. Atomic theory is a theory does that mean you dont believe in atoms?
Please do not talk when you have no understanding.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@49jubilee I have to study for an exam right now, but EVERY SINGLE university teaches evolution. EVERY SINGLE one. I said that in the video. Does that matter to you? Do you think that most of the women in every single university dont believe in evolution?
Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds? EVERY university teaches evolution, but most women dont believe it? That makes no sense. I dont know how you can say that without doing any research on the subject. Do you have statistics?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
It's possible to navigate competently if your premise is that the sun goes round the earth-- some people used to do so. I'd trust such a navigator to get me where I wanted to go over one who knew the earth goes round the sun, but couldn't navigate for toffee.
I suspect that a lot of med students take the evolution modules with a pinch of salt-- I've personally heard a moslem one saying that he doesn't believe it.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon no this is not the point that I made. I am not discussing one's ability to accept one premise but not another. I am discussing one's ability to accept one premise and not another when that person knows that the false premise is a willful lie.
Your suspicion is wrong considering you are not a medstudent and I am. Every student I know accepts evolution. But thats not the point ,the point is that muslim student is a hypocrite who accepts knowledge from those he knows are willing liars
truthofevolution 1 year ago
As for being inconsistent for taking medical advice whilst not accepting all of what's taught in med schools, the 'blind watchmaker' isn't so much a fact or set of facts, as a metaphysical framework in which facts are made sense of. Perhaps they'd fit equally well, or better, into another framework.
cont
gerontodon 1 year ago
The existence of homologies makes some kind of evolution convincing, and if you're right about the giraffe nerve thing, then perhaps some or all biological 'designs' are constrained by what's gone before. I need to research all that more. But I don't accept that random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, and I think that idea has been hugely oversold. If it's wrong, that doesn't prove that the process is *not* mindless, but the best argument for that view is not available.
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon there is no "if i am right", this is a simple fact to look up, if you doubt my claim look it up and then post whether I am right or wrong, rather than doubting my fact without doing any research.
Secondly this video is meant to address those creationists who think scientists are liars who are actively keeping creationism out of science despite knowing that facts are not on their side.
Also unless you have taken college level biochem, you are no position to decide what is oversold
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@gerontodon there is no "if i am right", this is a simple fact to look up, if you doubt my claim look it up and then post whether I am right or wrong, rather than doubting my fact without doing any research.
Secondly this video is meant to address those creationists who think scientists are liars who are actively keeping creationism out of science despite knowing that facts are not on their side.
Also unless you have taken college level biochem, you are no position to decide what is oversold
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@gerontodon certainly the idea is not oversold considering that the predictions made by evolution give support to the theory because of bayesian inference. Also considering that I have never seen any creationist respond to my evidence for evolution: there is a nested hierarchy of random mutations on long terminal repeat sequences despite the known action of reverse transcriptase.
This shows that evolution is indeed as darwin described.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
weather if the nerve evolved or it was designed is irrelevant for medicine, as a doctor you only need to know how the nerve works. the origin of the organ is irrelevant.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 no but thats not what I mean. Look at my example of a ribosome. They just found the structure, the structure has to do with how it works not its origin, yet there is a good chance that scientists are lying because the structure of the ribosome is exactly what evolution said it would be. The point remains that you have tens of thousands of scientists knowingly lying, and you believe them on everything else? How do you know they arent lying?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
No, scientists are not lying, they are biased, most scientists whent to colledge with the preconcive idea that evolution is true, and most of their teachers told them that evolution is true, that is why most scientists are evolutionists.
most priests belive in God, but that does not prove that God is real.
btw, your statment assumes that evolution is science in the first place.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 then this argument is obviously not for you. Many creationists think that scientists are lying, and keeping creationism out of science. This argument is for them.
Actually thats not why most scientists are evolutionists. Most scientists are evolutionists because of scientific evidence such as the nested hierarchy of mutations on long terminal repeat sequences despite the known action of reverse transcriptase.
Believe me, I know because Im a PhD student.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 actually the fact that you think that i assumed anything shows that you havent watched any of my videos. My statement is based on evidence. Your statement is based on something you read in a blog.
Anyway my argument in this particular video is directed towards people who believe that scientists are actively keeping creationism out of the scientific community even though they know that there is no evidence for evolution which means that they are liars.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I am not saying that your possition is not based on evidance, and since you are a PHD student, you mst know much more than I.
However I believe that maybe you are looking at the evidance with the preconcive idea that evolution is true. For example the fact that we share 95% of DNA with chimps, proves nothing, unless you start with the preconcive idea that evolution is true.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 but thats what Im saying, my example is does not take into account any preconceived ideas, thats why I mentioned it. Thats why creationists never mention nested hierarchy on LTRs. They know its an argument they cant win.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
Putting organisms in a nested hierchy deos not prove anything, I can also get 100 cakes and organise them in a nested hierchy, putting similar cakes as ´´close relatives´´ and different cakes as ´´far relatives´´ but that does not mean that cakes evolved from simpler meals.
besides any inconsistency with the nested hierchy predicted by evolution can be solved by using convergent evolution as an explanation.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 ok nested hirarchy doesnt mean similarity. In fact in NH differences are MORE important and also in nature, nested hierarchy ALWAYS means that two things are related.
You haev a nested hierarchy with your parents and languages with a common ancestor have nested hierarchy.
Also evolution PREDICTS nested hierarchy, and an important quality of a good science is its ability to predict. Evolution predicted the NH of RANDOM mutations BEFORE genetics was discovered.
Thats science
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
that would definitly be a very good point for evolution, can you recomend me an article that talks about mutations in NH? I am specially interested in the supposed fact that NH of random mutation where predicted before genetics.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 Hi just one quick thing, next time can you just say "fact" instead of "supposed fact", Im sharing my knowledge at the highest level with you and I think you should respect that. If your teacher gets annoyed and stops teaching you thats your loss and noone else's.
Ok, so Darwin in his book drew the first tree of life, thus showing how creatures should form a nested hierarchy. Now remember that nested hierarchies apply to ALL features including genetics.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 so even though genetics hasnt been discovered yet, evolution still predicts nested hierarchy of all features. So the second genetics was discovered, people knew that for evolution to be true, there has to be nested hierarchy of mutations.
Watch my video "ERVs: evidence for evolution" and youll see multiple papers I provide, where before the experiment they didnt know if there was a nested hierarchy of mutations. After, their prediction was confirmed.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I apologize for the ''suposed fact'' thing, in my context that is a supposed fact not a fact, however I was not trying to be offencive.
about ERVs I'll whatch your video some day, today I don't have time. and I will let you know if I have any comments
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 I raelly appreciate that you are being humble. Most people I talk to would not apologize. And it wasnt necessary. I was simply pointing out that we should be mindful that tens of thousands of scientists have put their lives into studying evolution. We should respect that even if we do not agree.
I appreciate that you understand that.
Also please do watch teh ERVs video, I have made many videos on this subject, feel free to watch any one and comment.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 I raelly appreciate that you are being humble. Most people I talk to would not apologize. And it wasnt necessary. I was simply pointing out that we should be mindful that tens of thousands of scientists have put their lives into studying evolution. We should respect that even if we do not agree.
I appreciate that you understand that.
Also please do watch teh ERVs video, I have made many videos on this subject, feel free to watch any one and comment.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 its called "ERVs: defense of arguments and LTRs"
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 we know that the mutations are random because of teh fact that they appear of LTRs ( I can do an experiment in a lab right now using LTRs and prove randomness) and yet they have an NH. Why? Why do random mutations have nh?
Why did God put mutations in NH when things are NOT related, when in nature we see that EVERY TIME we have NH, we have related animals?
Why is God trying to fool us?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Once again an evotard confusing biology w/ evolution. WTF does evo have to do w/ taking medicine? What you said was so fvcking nonsensical.
Doctors are taught about evolution AND?! How does that make them liars or untrustworthy? I use to believe in evo, does that mean I was a liar?
Also, RNA is ONLY produced within living cells - so you have in no way solved the chicken and egg problem, you fvcking mimtard.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX you missed the point dude, but right now Im dealing with some other idiot, and Im a busy medstudent, so Ill get back to you in a few days.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@theDracoIX Everytime a new antiobiotic comes out, or a new flu shot. Thats because of evolution. If bacteria didn't mutate, if virus's didn't change one cure would be all you'd ever need. Yet your immune system battles the Flu pretty much every year. Even though you should be immune to it after the first time.
So if you don't want to believe in evolution thats fine. But you have to never get the same disease twice, and treat any infections with penicillin sound fair? k good.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 Only a fvcking idiot would ever take penicillin, you couldn't force that shit into my mouth or any other fvcking prescription drug for that matter... OUTSIDE of a painkiller if I had some sort of physical injury like a cut or broken bone.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX Just have to ask... Why do you say fvcking? Seeing as everyone knows what your saying all you did was change one letter to another letter that looked similar...
I just don't get it why not just say fucking. Is there a rule or something i'm unaware of?
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
And even one thing about evolution that we can not explain right now, does not negate the thousands and thousands of things we do know that proves evolution.
bleunt 1 year ago
@bleunt why is it you have to believe everything or nothing? Even creationist believe in most of the "thousands and thousands of things" that prove evolution within kinds.
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 I never said you have to believe everything or nothing. I said that the fact that we don't know everything which has to do with evolution, that does not mean it's false.
bleunt 1 year ago
If atheism is a religion then surely a hospital, a monument to evolution, is its church.
All we ask in our church is that you leave your hypocrisy outside.
PlayfulGibbon 1 year ago 7
@PlayfulGibbon well said.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@PlayfulGibbon All church is, is a public gathering of hypocritical assholes pretending to be "Religious". When I went to church in highschool a couple times (parents wanted to try), I would see the same chicks I went to that church with getting gang banged at parties. Most "religious" people are quick to judge, quick to anger. Very very few (And I'm sorry if you are) truly embody the spirit of whatever religion they are attending.
JgHaverty 1 year ago
@JgHaverty so you went to one church and your going to put your narrow minded views on all religious people calling them hypocritical assholes? Maybe your right and everyone is evil gang banging sluts since that is what you have seen at parties. Good point
aemull3 1 year ago
creationist do believe in parts of evolution they just do not believe in the mutation portion. Most believe in natural selection with "kinds" that can mate but that the mutation to go from one or the other is incorrect. There is no record of mutations happening in modern science so the portion they do not believe is only a theory and until it happens will remain a theory.
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 also what youre saying is not true. Please watch the multitude of videos I made abuot evolution. Gravity is also a theory. So are atoms. You dont understand the definition of the word theory. It means model in science.
Furthermore, mutations happen all the time, just google "observed instances of speciation" for hundreds of examples of new species forming that we observed.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution I'm talking about mutations that add information or jump classes. I could be wrong and I'm sure you know far more than I do but I've seen from multiple sources there hasnt been one.
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 once again if you google "observed instances of speciation" youll see that we have recorded new species forming. They are caused by mutations, mainly at the chromosomal level. This stuff is well documented.
We have also found a bacterial gene that digests nylon, since nylon is an artificial fiber, the only possible way that exists is that it mutated from another gene afte humans produced nylon.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@aemull3 just to let you know there is no disagreement in the institutions about evolution. Every single university teaches it from harvard to princeton to yale to oxford. There are 200,000 scientific research articles on it. The science of evolution is not in doubt to those who have studied it.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@aemull3 The funny part is they can never define what a "kind" is, ever.
apocalypseap 1 year ago
@aemull3 except that there are recoded mutations. Hell even in agriculture with crops there are recorded cases. Nahhh they are just stubborn and avert their eyes to the truth :(
TheReptilianAgenda 1 year ago
@TheReptilianAgenda No shit there are small mutations that lose information and do not drastically change kinds. Idk if they happened in the past or not, I'm just saying I wont believe it until I see it. You can be as convinced as you want you are a descendant of a chimp but until its recorded of a mutation changing kinds I'm skeptical of the mutation part of evolution.
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 Hmmm are Wolves the same as dogs or are they a separate species?? Are Dogs only similar to, or derived from wolves?//// Hmmm I wonder wonder wonder??? If it is humans that domesticated them I wonder if that means they have been there to observe this, hmmmm?
TheReptilianAgenda 1 year ago
@TheReptilianAgenda I also wonder what sticke'rs sarcoma is Hmmmm I wonder wonder wonder what "kind" that is???
TheReptilianAgenda 1 year ago
The clear problem in your argument is going from if the person doesnt trust evolution they cant believe any science/medicine. Thats like saying if you do believe anything in the bible, there is a supreme being, or whatever that everything that comes out of a preachers mouth is true. With science and religion I think most people pick and choose which things are to be believed. Also we clearly didnt come from giraffes : )
aemull3 1 year ago
what happens when you eat a bunch of right-handed amino acids?
pinochet222 1 year ago
@pinochet222 lol they wont be digested because our bodies are used to digesting left handed shit. Infact some types of bonds simply cannot be digested. Cellulose for example, is a sugar just like glucose. Yet we can easily digest glucose but we cannto digest cellulose. The substrate's bonds are very important for the enzyme.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
well done :)
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo thanks much appreciated!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
The creationist wasn't SongWriter4God, was it?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 no, someone else. but ive seen it ten thousand times.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
I don't get this mindset. Denialists keep claiming that this or that needs to be shown or can't be explained by anything but magic. Inevitably, it turns out that the question is based on a false assumption, or that it takes, as you say, about two minutes to find a proper scientific work.
How do people go on, what kind of self awareness do they have to feel comfortable with being consistently wrong and yet never appreciate the possibility that they are just wrong about what they think they know.
blackwolf1200 1 year ago
@blackwolf1200 How do they keep claiming things without ever checking if these claims are even true before boasting around? I don't get this level of blind acceptance, just because they get their info from an outspoken Christian (who, by default, is incapable of lying). Yet, the very next breath, they will have no problem at all with asserting that all humans are fallible and wretched and liars. The cognitive dissonance is just amazing.
blackwolf1200 1 year ago
@blackwolf1200 thats because they are so emotionally attached to their beliefs. The challenge is to get them to a point where they either accept reality or their beliefs, and that is what im trying to do here.
Reality tells you to go to a doctor, while blind ignorance tells them that doctors are liars.
Which one will they choose? It depends on what they value most.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution I wonder how long it will take the creationist to simply deny that anything about evolution has to do with anything about medicine. I've seen that one, too. Suppported by an unnamed relative who of course "went though medical school without evolution ever being mentioned". Turning out to be a waitress he knows who had a two week seminar on first aid. :)
blackwolf1200 1 year ago
@blackwolf1200 hahaha, but thats exactly why i give very specific examples. Just tell them that "my friend in medschool just learned about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in his anatomy class, he said in giraffes...."
that level of detail is usually enough to shock them into submission. Ive actually never encountered anyone who said that medicine and evolution are unrelated for that reason.
truthofevolution 1 year ago