Well this video's very nice and all, but it essentially only contains one long argument from ignorance/incredulity: "Life is too complex, so I can't imagine it arising over time, at "random"." It's really no different than describing the structure of the eye and saying "the eye must have been designed!" And surely you know that argument isn't true? Yes, evolution does this. It didn't start off this complex, but all you need is a directing process.
@yugyfoog In “Genetic Entropy,” John Sanford attempts to discredit mutations as a source of useful genetic change. In addition, he claims that, even if there were significant beneficial mutations, natural selection is not powerful enough to keep genomes from deteriorating. When I first read this book it seemed convincing, but as I dug into the literature I found the book misrepresents every issue it touches.
...now lets see how much you know on the subject..can you name them???
@yugyfoog ahahaah I KNEW IT...lol..these are ,,stan,, series LOOOL LOL LOL..kid..this shows me how much you really know about ANYTHING HERE...ok...first of all,you know that sanford challenged this one on a debate and he skipped like richard dawkins(lmao) ...but wait..i ll give you a credit for the sake of argument here....
@yugyfoog John Sanford was LEADING geneticist and world authority on genetics(and still is) except for the fact that today leading geneticist is Dr. Craig Venter who is atheist BUT...if you want article and video ..he rejects common ancestor myth...:))) and of course darwins tree of life but tree of life was alredy disproved and rejected in early 2000s so its nothing new...now,i ll check AGAIN this site you gave me or ,,critique,, of Sanford...:)) funny,where is critique from evolutionists??
@leviMichealathan Evolution is a complex theory that encompasses many different ideas. While there is a ton of evidence for evolution there is no single observation that, by itself, proves evolution. The evidences must be taken, all together, to demonstrate evolution. Sorry, life isn't simple.
@leviMichealathan Ok. Here is just one of thousands of studies demonstrating macroevolution.
Huber S.K, De Leon L.F, Hendry A.P, Berminghan E, Podos J. Reproductive isolation of sympatric morphs in a population of Darwin's finches. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 July 22; 274(1619): 1709–1714.
@Stianchez "Variation is not evidence of macro evolution"
I never said it was.
"watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w"
Ian Juby is a liar. Steve Austin (who Juby got is Rb-Sr dates from) is also a liar. Austin knew that the Rb-Sr dates would be wrong before he did his analysis.
I don't know where Juby got his K-Ar dates. (Made them up?) K-Ar dating of different Unikaret lava flows show dates from 0.6 to 0.4 mya.
@yugyfoog This antagonistic epistasis causes progressively slower rates of adaptation over time.”
Khryazhrimsky, Draghi and Plotkin referred to some microbe experiments that showed initial gains due to beneficial mutations (in isolated lab populations) that slowed to a crawl due to epistasis, or then “discover rare phenotypic innovations,” then diverge into populations that either coexist or compete.
@yugyfoog More work will be needed, they said, to quantify these effects in the wild with different organisms, population sizes and natural ecologies.
Though hopeful that evolution can march onward in spite of these genetic brakes, they admitted that “the prevalence of antagonistic epistasis measured by the two groups ensures a predictable tempo of adaptation characterized by diminishing marginal returns.”
@yugyfoog They pulled victory from the jaws of defeat, claiming that these experiments “represent resounding achievement for the reductionist approach to studying biology.”
A pro-evolution article in Science Daily summarized the work of the first paper thorough the eyes of Tim Cooper [U of Houston], one of the participants. “The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” was one of the “surprising” results.
@yugyfoog “It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.” Hopefully readers will pardon Cooper for the anthropomorphism. “The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative.” What does this mean for evolutionary progress?
@yugyfoog “These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population’s fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations,” Cooper said.
In contrast to the depressing news in Science, three authors in Nature claimed hopeful news with mutations under epistasis.6 “Cryptic genetic variation promotes rapid evolutionary adaptation in an RNA enzyme” was the optimistic title of their paper, but a close look at their experiment shows ...
@yugyfoog ...it was a case of artificial selection on RNA ribozymes only.
It did not involve a real cell culture, and the gains from “cryptic variation” only showed adaptations to contrived conditions in the lab. They explained the adaptation as a case of “pre-adaptation” or “exaptation” with mutations hiding out till an opportunity arrived for them to show some adaptation in the scientists’ contrived environments.
@yugyfoog Their simplified model substituted for real evidence, because “this facilitating role for cryptic variation has not been proven, partly because most pertinent work focuses on complex phenotypes of whole organisms whose genetic basis is incompletely understood.”
Nevertheless, they claimed by extrapolation that “Our results highlight the positive role that robustness and epistasis can have in adaptive evolution.”
@yugyfoog This paper came out in print a day before the pessimistic papers in Science.
Speaking of mutations, researchers at USC discovered “a chromosomal mutation responsible for a very rare condition in which people grow excess hair all over their bodies” (see Medical Xpress).
While the benefit of such a condition might only count in the arctic, it shows that some mutations can have drastic effects. Even if a hairy female could survive the cold, though, what male would want to marry her?
@leviMichealathan However, there is one fact about evolution that is truly remarkable. There is not a single credible piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. Many people, for hundreds of years have been trying to disprove evolution and every one of them has failed.
The only 'remarkable' thing here is how completely biased and false your statements are. You might be able to get away with that in some places... but not in a place where people have actually studied this for themselves rather than listening to atheist propaganda. There's more evidence that contradicts evolution than could possibly be written here.
"You might be able to get away with that in some places"—Like the real world.
"...people have actually studied this for themselves rather than listening to atheist propaganda"—Many of my professors where theist. I think they would be offended by you statement.
@Kanbei85 I think it's clear that you are the one who's biased. It doesn't matter to me whether evolution is true or not. I just follow the evidence. (And many scientists far more knowledgeable then me).
Because you believe (falsely) that science must conform to your religion you have selection bias. You follow the few scientists that agree with your beliefs and dismiss the many that don't.
@yugyfoog "There is not a single credible piece of evidence that contradicts evolution" hahaha Genetic Entropy, No observable evidence, Mutations, energy DNA, Jupiter
Are you that blind completley ignoring the COUNTLESS problems with evolution? The reason they are problems is because the evolution theory is false. How about you prove it instead?
@yugyfoog Let me make it easy for you, why can most of asia only have black haired kids? Why do more and more people need to wear glasses? Why is the only way of becoming resistant to a disease due to the REMOVAL of information?(protein),
They evolved a worse eye sight? They evolved that they could only have black hair? They evolved resitant towards disease? No, it's all removal of information. Dont give me that piss -> Ignores Natural selection
@Stianchez Let me make it easy for you. You obviously know very little about genetics or biology. Anybody with a one year of college biology can easily see through your pathetic jokes of arguments against evolution. Get an education, then try to argue against evolution.
@yugyfoog ok i have education in biology and molecular biology...but wait...dont judge me by my english grammar,because my nativers are greek and serbian and i also speak main european language german(including italian and russian) so lets get to the points...do you know what is genetic entropy and is it conmfirmed??)i surely am in touch with EVERY latest scientific research and i will provide you articles in which ENTROPY IS SIMPLY...CONFIRMED) NOW kid..answer my and Stianchez questions ok??
@giska1000 You better provide me with the articles that confirm genetic entropy because when I search, I find nothing,
I'm especially interested in the mathematical derivation of genetic entropy. To call something "entropy" implies that there is some sort of "second law of thermodynamics," i.e., dS/dt >= 0. If you can define genetic entropy AND prove the second law in terms of genetic entropy then I will accept it.
In Darwinian evolution, variations must add new information to produce innovations. Neo-Darwinism ascribes those variations to genetic mutations. In 2005, geneticist John Sanford (Cornell) argued that the accumulation of mutations always decreases fitness in a process he called “genetic entropy.”1 The downhill trend is amplified by a number of factors, including selection interference and epistasis (interactions between mutations).
@yugyfoog Such mutations would probably not become fixed in a population or else Eskimos would all have it. Most mutations are nearly neutral and invisible to natural selection, as Sanford explained in detail in his book. Because they are not eliminated by purifying selection, they therefore accumulate in the genome, dragging it into genetic entropy. Mutations are not good material for natural selection.
@yugyfoog Now, genetic entropy from epistasis has received support by two new papers in Science.
For mutations under epistasis to produce innovation, there must be a way for them to work together (synergistic epistasis). This is often assumed but has not been observed. Most experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other (antagonistic epistasis; see 12/14/2006), or causing even less fitness than if they acted alone (decompensatory epistasis; see 10/19/2004).
@Stianchez In a new paper in Science,3 Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis. The abstract said:
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories.Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread....
@yugyfoog ...but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect.
@yugyfoog Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
Within the paper, they said, “We observed an overall negative relation, indicating that epistatic effects became more negative as the expected fitness rose....”
You say that the spaceship happened by accident, despite everything you had just explained before making this statement - it wasn't an accident at all, it was the product of natural selection. The distinction you're not understanding is that while the mutations may be random, natural selection is not. That is the entire beauty of it. If our DNA was always copied perfectly, we'd never evolve.
Natural selection *plus* random mutations are the *driving force* of Darwinism. Without *random* mutations, evolution has no engine at all. Therefore the overall direction and content of life are completely randomly generated (on Darwinism). It's an absolutely untenable theory. Darwinist propaganda tries to hide away the randomness by saying that "Natural Selection isn't random". That's a red herring.
@Kanbei85 I am not sure you understand. It's a two step process. Imagine you have a sieve which you have filled with dirt/stones. The act of shaking the dirt/stones in the sieve is random, yet the "selection" process of the sieve itself ensures that you only end up with stones left over. You would certainly not attribute the leftover stones to "randomness", would you?
@Kanbei85 You might also imagine a wheel mounted on an axle. If you would turn the wheel randomly, it would never go far in one direction or another from its starting point. If you add a ratcheting mechanism though (like the ratcheting you hear as you go up a roller-coaster's first hill), you filter out the randomness in one direction, ensuring that over time, the wheel turns in one direction. Similarly, natural selection "filters out" the randomness which results in DNA which is weaker. Simple!
@Kanbei85 By the way, no one is trying to "hide away" anything. Scientists and folks that love understanding the natural world want nothing more than to share their knowledge with anyone that is willing to listen. Personally, I think the randomness is the best part. Look at the wide variety of interesting, colorful, weird things that nature has concocted! And none of it would survive if it didn't give that creature an advantage. Feel free to ask any more questions you might have!
The wonderful variety you see in the created world is not a product of "chance" on any level. It's an intentional result of the love and unlimited power of our God, who loves you just as much as me and would like very much for you to stop denying Him. "Natural processes" cannot create any of the wonder you see in the natural world. Dr. Sanford's book soundly puts to rest any notions Darwinian theory might have of being scientifically sound. I encourage you to read it.
@Kanbei85 You can't just observe something and say "God did it" and expect that to be taken seriously as an explanation, though. Many people have tried to explain to you exactly how the natural process can create what we see in the natural world but you just refuse to accept it, or don't understand it. Please answer my question: If you take a mixture of rocks and dirt and put it in a sieve, and then shake the sieve randomly, are the rocks that you have left over the product of randomness?
Here's a way to make your metaphor accurate to Darwinism: the rocks you put into the sieve are selected _at random_ beforehand. You could get all large rocks, or all small, or somewhere in between. Then when you shake that sieve, what comes through is just a modification on what was originally produced- randomly! The main determining factor on what you wind up with is the random rock selection, not the sieve.
By saying it's not allowed to offer God as an explanation for anything, you're just stating your anti-theistic religious bias, and nothing more. It's not a scientific position. Science has no say over what sorts of explanations may be considered. Science may only provide the hard data.
@Kanbei85 "Science has no say over what sorts of explanations may be considered. Science may only provide the hard data." That is what I'm saying no, there is no hard data for God, so there's no sense in using God to explain.. anything, let alone everything.
There's plenty of data in science that is only explicable by an Intelligent Designer (i.e. irreducible complexity). That's called having "hard data" for God, since if life has an intelligent designer, that designer must be God. You will never find scientific *proof* for God, because God is immaterial and therefore science cannot directly test for God. This says nothing about God's existence or nonexistence whatsoever.
@Kanbei85 Give me a single example of irreducible complexity. Eyeball: debunked. Flagella: debunked. This information is easy to find. You are trotting out arguments proved wrong literally decades ago.
If you want to use that criteria as proof of God ("it can't be proved true or false, so it is true by default") then there's no reason to assume it's God doing everything and not the flying spaghetti monster, or teapots orbiting mars, or invisible elephants, or any other absurd "explanation."
Negative, Behe's examples have not been debunked. But there are plenty of Darwin apologists that would like you to think so! :)
You have distorted what I said. I said science is not a tool for directly testing God. Science, believe it or not, is not our only means of knowing things!
@Kanbei85 There is no response to your assertions about irreducible complexity except to say that you are willfully ignorant of the arguments against it. There are stacks of papers dedicated to this subject.
Science is actually the only way of knowing anything. If "observation" is not one of your criteria for belief in something then there's no limit to what you can believe in. The flying spaghetti monster would be just as valid as the judeo-christian god. You only believe what your parents did.
@Kanbei85 Yes, "just" a modification of what was originally produced randomly, that is precisely what I am saying. Except instead of a random collection of rocks, it's random errors in DNA copying. When one creature is born with a random mutation, he enters the "sieve" of natural selection with all of the other non-mutated creatures, and the weak are shaken out and the strong continue to the next generation.
@Kanbei85 Just because you cannot comprehend it doesn't make it wrong. Do you think God is the one that designed the Nylonase bacteria and only put it in a puddle in a nylon factory? If God is so great at designing animals, why have 99% of all of his designs gone extinct? Why did he give humans an appendix, a source of potentially fatal illness? Why are our eyeballs designed so inefficiently?
You are incorrect about the "inefficiencies" of God's designs. First off, eyeballs are designed optimally, contrary to Dawkins' ridiculous claims. You can find this info at reliable creationist sites like creation.com .
You must also understand that the present world does not represent God's perfect design, because since the creation we have fallen and damaging mutations have begun to accumulate. Not everything works the way it was intended to nowadays.
@Kanbei85 There is no "main" determining factor, it's a 2-step process. That's like saying that between heating up the tomato sauce and boiling the pasta, that boiling the pasta is the main determining factor of how good the spaghetti will be. You can't have one without the other. I world without natural selection would be diseased and weak. A world without random mutations would be too static and die off at the slightest change in environmental conditions. Oh, and would all be single cellular.
In a Darwinian world, I would never expect any life in the first place, but, if it DID exist, I would certainly never expect it to be more than unicellular.
Not at all. And you are correct that not all mutations are random. That non-randomness actually winds up making Darwinism even more unfeasible. Again, you'd know this if you'd read Sanford's book....
You are not spiritually or intellectually open (so far as I can tell) to God, so your demand to "prove it" is completely farcical. As far as I can tell, the only thing you *might* be open to is a direct revelation from God Himself to you personally. God isn't so obligated.
@Stianchez There is massive difference between a wagon and a space...there is less than %2 difference between us and our closest genetic relative. And there is more information in an amoeba so there for it should be more complex than we are. Just because you cannot change a wagon into a spaceship doesn't mean that you can't give lifeforms different adaptations...
@gsusreloded The ape argument is an interesting thing. 2% you say, well.. If 2% distinguish us then why are we building cities and flying into space while monkeys are climbing tree's and eating bananas? Btw does that mean we are 50% banana? Apparently banaa have a 50% different genetic code than us. I think mouse was 6% off, are we 94% mice?
Tell me exactly how you could go from one specie to another.
@Stianchez A 2% difference in DNA does not equate to a 2% difference in what the animal looks or behaves like. As was explained in the video, DNA is not simply a list of instructions, the process of creating something from DNA is a massive cascade of chemical reactions that can include some DNA acting on other pieces of DNA. And, the fact is that we actually have a ton in common with animals. Every animal, for example, is a bunch of fancy things wrapped around a tube from the mouth to the anus.
@Stianchez Uh, I didn't prove your point, I refuted it. What I'm saying is that you can't extrapolate the difference in DNA to a difference in what the creature looks or acts like. The reason we share so much DNA with things like bananas is that the foundation of a living creature, the proteins that allow us to synthesize different molecules, metabolize different molecules, take in oxygen, etc. etc.. are all very similar between living things.
@luftwaffle Let me retranslate that for you, it comes from a common designer. Apple uses the same foundation for the Ipod, Ipad and the Iphone ;) Thats why their "DNA" is so similar
@Stianchez Err no, a more accurate analogy would be to say that the I-Pod/pad/phone are similar in construction because their components have been selected as the most fit. It would be possible but sub-optimal to create these things using vacuum tubes instead of transistors for example. Their designs have survived competition. By extension, the common components of bananas/humans/cats/etc. are those that have survived competition. These are things like RNA polymerase and other fundamentals.
@Stianchez You can't be serious. You gain your understanding of dating methods from some guy on youtube? Have you thought about reading peer-reviewed literature on the matter? You ACTUALLY BELIEVE the earth is 6000 years old? If that was the case, then how DO you explain the ratios of radioactive elements in different rocks? God put them there to trick us? You people offer no explanation except "God did it because the bible says so." That's totally worthless and circular logic.
@Stianchez You might imagine the first 50% of the DNA of a banana and the first 50% of the DNA of a human to be the wheels, transmission, and engine of a car. The next 60% is the frame, electronics, body, interior, etc.. a modern lexus would still have a lot in common with a model-T. As I've already stated, our similarities to animals is even more striking. Try to imagine a creature that doesn't have a mouth, anus, and tube connecting the two. The similarity in organs is just icing on the cake.
@Stianchez What does it matter what I think? If a statement is supported by evidence then I believe it is true. If a statement is not supported by evidence then I do not believe that it is true. If a statement is contradicted by evidence then I believe it is false.
@Stianchez No, what I'm saying is that my opinion on what science states is irrelevant. If science stated that our heads were made of cheese, and there was incontrovertible evidence to that end, would it matter what I thought about it? Science is not about opinions and judgements. I think you are the one that blindly listens to other people. What evidence for God is there? You believe it because your parents did. If you were born in ancient Greece you'd believe in Zeus. It's sheer accident.
@luftwaffle Science doesn't have any proof of evolution theory actually being true, does that mean you dont believe in it? and since when did you know anything about my life? My parents are religiouse? My sister's religiouse?
It's sheer accident? You know something I dont know about my life?
@Stianchez But there IS evidence. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on this subject. There are millions of fossils. There are billions of pieces of corroborating evidence in biology, genetics, archaeology, etc. What I know about your life is that you only believe in the particular religion you believe because of the time and place you were born. You believe it because your parents made you believe it, and because you're afraid of death.
@luftwaffle I'll start with the personal attack. The majority of my family isn't religiouse. The fallacy you set up in regads to "you believe it because your parents told you" is false. Are you telling me people that convert to christianity dont exist? hmm.... You're talking to a guy that dont exist?
Second, mountains of evidence..... Yeah.............. Where?
Fossil record? lol dont make me laugh /watch?v=bIa-dL_N_Xg
@Stianchez "mountains of evidence.. Yeah.... Where?"
For someone who says they have studied evolution then your comment makes no sense.
You are either lying about studying it or not smart enough to understand what you read.
By the way why do you guys always pit Christianity against Evolution. Evolution says nothing about any god or how life started. Why don't you go after the theories of Gravity or Electricity they also don't say anything about god and those theories are based on evidence too.
@mtbee9 The fact is, it's a bunch of theories that get's disproven and disputed as Science develops. DNA, genetic entropy, energy, second law of thermodynamics, jupiter, floating forest, mountain strata are all breaking down the theory of evolution.
"You are either lying about studying it or not smart enough to understand what you read." You forgot the third, or I realize the truth and see that the theory is broken.
Do you not know the contradictions between evolution and christianity?
@Stianchez "that get's disproven" Not even close to disproving TofE yet.
"the theory is broken" You guys keep 'claiming' this but so far no evidence is provided to convince the world, but do keep trying.
"the contradictions between evolution and christianity" Ah of course your religion relies on one ancient book written by man, and if that didn't exist then your religion has nothing. What a very weak religion you have.
TofE says nothing about god but proves your bible is wrong! Sorry!
@mtbee9 ""the theory is broken" You guys keep 'claiming' this but so far no evidence is provided to convince the world, but do keep trying."
Becuase you wont even consider it. You haven't read the entire story which you admitted. You read what they believe to be true, not the problems it has. Imagine even if the evolution theory had been true, if we look at today. There ARE problems they cannot figure out. It's not our fault you refuse to look at them. Obviously it will be compelling to you.
@Stianchez "There ARE problems they cannot figure out " There are problems with ALL of science - at the cutting edge of our understanding. That's why we continue to investigate. The minor problems that you've sited do not disprove Evolution just give questions that need answers. Sorry.
This gives absolutely no reason to say 'god did it!' That is a total cop out to claim something completely unknown did something and then pretend somehow you know it's true!
"The God of the Gaps" is a strawman argument. We believe in God not because of what we don't know, but because of what we *do* know. The evidence is explained best (by far) through inference to an intelligent designer- *not* through simply saying "it happened for no reason by chance, and we don't know exactly how". That's called "Naturalism of the Gaps", and is purely pseudoscience.
I don't dismiss all the other religions; I think most religions (except those which are merely distortions of Christianity) originally had their start in some kind of divine revelation. However, I also think that Christianity has the most clear and complete revelation available to mankind. I think this because of the internal and external evidences. You're not ready for that yet. You don't even realize your need for God in the first place.
@mtbee9 "minor problems" You call genetic entropy a minor problem, seriously? We dont claim "God did it" it's a false and childish view on creationism.
Seriously please explain to me how genetic entropy is a "minor problem" in regards to the evolution theory. It's the same as stating a 100 meter dash, where the contestents can only run backwards due to genetic error and then call it a minor problem. They'll never reach the goal. Same goes for evolution.
"the book misrepresents every issue it touches. It is an interesting work from a psychological point of view, showing how the drive to reduce cognitive dissonance is so strong that people can be literally unable to see the facts that disagree with their viewpoint."
The evidence does not show that we have more diseases, or die quicker, or that life has in fact degraded.
The fossil record shows an increase in complexity not the other way round!
This is a load of nonsense. Refer to my video resources touching the fossil record. It only "shows" Darwinian change for those who are intellectually pre-committed to finding it.
@Kanbei85 " intellectually pre-committed to finding it." More BS.
"You're not ready for that yet. You don't even realize your need for God in the first place."
At least you are right there. I am not ready to buy into mythological stories about invisible gods that magically created the entire universe for a small group of mammals on an insignificant planet!
Oh but, I do realize that I have no need for made up gods. You unfortunately still have the need so hang in there with your delusion.
@mtbee9 "The fossil record shows" ................................. The fossil record is man made,based of man's pressumptions. It's not 2+2 = 4. There are numerouse faults with the fossil record.
I will glady send you resources on this from bio/palentol with P.H.D's former atheists
"The evidence does not show that we have more diseases, or die quicker,
It does unless you can show me where a mutation has created new information without removing or re-arrangeing already excisting information?
@Stianchez "The fossil record is man made" LOL that's the best one I've heard in a long time - I always thought creationists called it the work of the devil!
" There are numerouse faults with the fossil record." 'faults' - another good one - are you trying to be funny on purpose! LOL
Well show me some! I'd love to see these 'faults'
Maybe best though if you just stay with your delusion - you would probably be better off than understanding the truth.
@mtbee9 ..... When I stated the "fossil record " is man made, I ment that the layers in which they are found "geologic collum" is man made. Sorry for not being clear enough.
You still haven't answered my mutation question. Just an answer based on a misunderstanding of what I said which is probably my fault for not being clear enough.
Can you answer the mutation question directly? If you appeal to science then creationism is what stands as truth today. We are degrading, not evolving.
@Stianchez When put on the spot about the error of the things you say, you either change the subject or ignore the point. Why? What "fault" is there to the geologic record? Please answer without linking to some creationist video or website.
@bjeh001 This is the first time I see a comment from you, I dont change the subject I clearly stated what was wrong according to the guy who'se knowledge is weak and he's unable to understand the point im giving him without having to spoon feed him.
The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge). All over the world you find fossils in different orders. There's no standard. Then you have a ton more I can PM Cambrion explotion, floating forest etc
@Stianchez "The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge)." Name the creationist. Also see: Grand Canyon or Google “geologic column” then explain why your statement here isn’t false. "All over the world you find fossils in different orders. There's no standard". Don’t PM religious misinformation just give ONE actual scientifically valid example. Like a pine cone or a mammal fossilized in the Cambrian Period.
Take this from someone who's learned this lesson many times the hard way: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Good work, and keep studying.
@Kanbei85 "Take this from someone who's learned this lesson many times the hard way: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Sort of an ironic statement to make toward my poor deluded friend, Stianchez. Poor Chez is out debated every time on evolution, Chez must willfully ignore corroborating evidence across multiple areas of science to cling to superstious beliefs. What aspect of Christianity holds up to dispassionate critical examination like the evolution Chez denies?
@Stianchez Evolution has been explained to you repeatedly already, so don’t go there trying to change the subject. Stick to what’s put to you for ONCE. Justify statements that you have made with scientific facts and not links to amateurish charlatans. Either a geologic column doesn’t exist or there are faults in it, which is it? Explain with REAL science from a REAL scientist that supports your statements.
@bjeh001 I've just put forth genetic entropy as my new left hook, seeing macro evolution has never been proven. In regards to the geologic collum is man made, due to findings of fossils. All over the wolrd you find fossils in different order. I dont see why this is a big point, whats more interesting is the fossils themselves, take the cambrian period. Complex life all of a sudden? Anyway dont avoid it genetic entropy.
@Stianchez At this point I’m not interested in genetic entropy nor your ramblings about macro evolution. You’ve been right hooked and bitch slapped in the past by more eloquent people than I on those topics. Back up ypur previous statements. Name ONE fossil by stratigraphy that’s out of order (validated by an actual credible scientific source). Justify your statement that a geologic column doesn’t exist. How many times must I ask?
@bjeh001 haha how convinient "not interested in genetic entropy"
Someone who uses personal attacks, I've already spent enough time on your trolling and prejudice. How about you for once do some work, and show me that every finding of fossils have been found in the right order. Without expections. If there are any exceptions that means it cannot be that old, how can something move "millions" of years upwads.
You should check out the floating forest theory. A global flood my friend.
@Stianchez There is no personal attack, trolling or prejudice in simply asking you to back up what you say. Stick to the point at hand then we'll move on to another one of your assertions.
STILL waiting for you to name ONE out of place fossil. STILL waiting for you to justify your statement that a geologic column doesn't exist.
@Stianchez Chez, you have failed to NAME one fossil that’s out of order in biostratigraphy. If you could show evidence that one extinct species of fauna was fossilized in a much earlier geologic layer than it belongs, you’d be one step closer to invalidating The Theory of Evolution. You have not answered anything. You have evaded answering. You demonstrate your assertions are untenable.
@bjeh001 I didn't there are ton's of fossils out of the order, even human fossils supposebly being millions of years old, human fossils inside a dinosaur fossil. I want to see your honesty, because I know there are tons of fossils outside of their order however you refuse to show them. You're not honest. A problem most evolutionists have. You haven't even showed me anything, nor have you answered my claims. Get of your high horse and prove your position. I've told you countless times already.
@Stianchez The lack of honesty is on your part. I am not making any assertions, you are. I asked for you to provide a scientific basis for those assertions. You have the burden of proof. You have failed. Now you attempt to blow smoke with your Floating Forrest Theory. Well OK, I'll bite. Explain your Floating Forrest Theory and point to real scientific evidence that supports it. And by the way, did you really mean human fossil inside a dinosaur fossil???
@bjeh001 I have the burden of proof? I just showed you. There's been found a human pelvis and chest under the layer of the supposebly dinosaur collum. Theere's one, they've found a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint, they've found human footprints not inside but on the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
The floating forest theory is vast, go check it up. I've already done enough work for you, Burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that the geological collum is consistent and exist.
@Stianchez (“I just showed you. There's been found a human pelvis and chest under the layer of the supposebly dinosaur collum.”) You have showed me NOTHING. Who found it and where?
(“The floating forest theory is vast, go check it up.”) I have. And there seems NOTHING on it in REAL science. (“Prove to me that the geological collum is consistent and exist.”) YOU asserted that it is not, which is why I asked for you to show ONE out place fossil. I made no assertions so proof is on you.
@bjeh001 I saw it over a year ago, it's a wide known examples in regards to the Pelvis, and the footprint. Have you seriously never heard of these? /watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA Somewhere in this serie's is the source sited, I am not going to go through all that material again for you to find it. The source to the finding are stated in the video so dont jump hoops just becuase it came from a youtube video.
@Stianchez Chez, /watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA, is this the best you have? Some charlatan strawmans evolution and atheism for 30 minutes with a link to a creationist site for more lies? What about facts, data or specimens. I asked if you could back up your assertions with credible scientific evidence. Where is the actual fossil specimen of dinosaurs and hominids found contemporaneously in situ?
@bjeh001 I told you it was a series of 20 videos, inside are the source for the findings I wont go through that again for you. If you are interested in learning then sit down and watch it.
@Stianchez If you’re not willing to sit through 20 videos of boring nonsense for something YOU cite as a source, why would you think I am? And based on what you half remember from creationist lectures a year ago, you assert that legitimate science is wrong. You can’t cite credible academic sources or name actual specimens. Do you realise how this makes you look? I suggest that if YOU are interested in learning, then sit down and watch something other than creationist psuedoscience.
@bjeh001 I gave you examples, you didn't take my word for it. I sent you where you could gather the sources, and you dont want to look at it. Fair enough, im not going to do the work for you. How about for once you try to prove anything then? I cant recall any evidence coming from your side.
"you assert that legitimate science is wrong." When?
"You can’t cite credible academic sources or name actual specimens" I've done loads, Im sorry for not remembering the pelvis name for this one argumen
@Stianchez Of course I can’t take your word for it!! That why I asked you to justify things you say. When asked for reliable scientific sources you link creationist videos on YouTube. When asked for fossil evidence, you've never "done loads"; you couldn’t even name ONE fossil species to support your point. And again, I haven’t asserted anything, so I’ve no "side" to prove. I’ve only asked you to justify the things you say that go against scholarly scientific consensus in geology and biology.
@bjeh001 I dont really understand why you are so afraid to prove to me that the geological collum is consistent, although we both know it isn't. Somewhere fossils roughly line in an order that the geological collum predicts, other places they do not. I gave you 4 examples. Pelvis,Human Foot, Dinosaur Footprint and Floating forest. I can link you to the floating forest, it's presented by a former atheist P.H.D in biology and Geology if im not mistaken.
@Stianchez Are you not understanding?? I’m not making claims. It’s not my job here to defend the geologic column or anything else. I simply ask you to justify your going against scholarly consensus. So I DARE you to: NAME one fossil species that’s out of place. NAME where and by whom dinosaur and human fossils were found contemporaneously in situ. Explain your Floating Forest Theory. DO NOT link to 20 or more creationist videos, elucidate on your own. Do you understand??
@bjeh001 The floating forest theory is a theory comparing the fossils of plants, and putting them upa gainst origins of life and the geological collum. Here's a professor showing you detailed, It's a very interesting watch, and not 20 videos long /watch?v=DHYjNG_F1BM
@Stianchez "The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge).” “Theere's one, they've found a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint, they've found human footprints not inside but on the same layers as dinosaur fossils."
Read our exchanges over the past week. Please explain how BOTH statements by you can be correct. How your Dinosaur-Human story and Floating Forest theory can both be consistent with the 'Geologic Column doesnt even exists'.
@bjeh001 There's no doubt layers of animal's but the geological collum based on where you can find the animals in the rock layers are man made, from the naturalistic view. "We think the species at the bottom are oldest, and species at the top are newest. Then you have contradictions such as things going through the rock layers like petrified tree's and fossils that are newer like the human and dinosaur. The other side think the layer of animals were formed by flood. Which explain the diversity
@Stianchez So the Geologic Column sort of exists and is sort of consistent. But ONLY when you need it to support Creation Mythology? Like when it’s needed to explain the layering of coal seams as with your Floating Forest “Theory”.
@bjeh001 The reason I believe it was mostly made by a flood. Is because there's variouse evidence supporting it. First of all it's the so called Geological collum is not consistant. The reason it tend's to have smaller animals at the bottom if you use logic. Bigger animals would be able to outrun a flood longer, and have better chances of avoiding it longer. Even tthough there are some bigger animals lower. Lack of transitional fossils, petrified tree trunk running through multiple layers etc.
@Stianchez So now a geologic column exists but just like you, it’s not consistent. And if smaller animal couldn’t outrun your flood as well as larger ones, then using logic, you should be able to show me things like tortoises, moles or wombats fossilized in Cambrian era rock. Explain why I should believe you that there are no Transitional Fossils when reputable scientists have found Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, and Archaeoptryx. Fossils that you must deny or totally ignore out of willful ignorance?
@bjeh001 ..... The geological collum does not exist (the evolutionary model). However there are layers of animals no doubt. Do you not understand what the geological collum is?
Transitional Fossils is a guessing gameand out of the millions of fossil they found you can only name 3?
A definition for a transitional fossil is a fossil that remotely resembles two different animals like a link You think this is hard science? There's ought to many many thousand of them. Yet there are not.
@Stianchez Interesting that I named 3 transitional fossils that you say don’t exist? And you’ve yet to name ONE fossil that’s out of place in the geologic record. And if you need more, the least you can do is Google transition fossil.
So now you’re back to the geologic column doesn't exists: especially when it supports evolutionary theory. No offense, but since you seem to demonstrate some sort of irrational bias, I’ll accept definitions not from you but only from reputable scholarly sources.
@bjeh001 I never claimed your fossils didn't exist.I just said transitional fossils are not hard science it's a guessing game.In order to prove transitional fossils you should of had many of them. If there's just a "few" that means it's just concidence. I've looked into it before, and if you go by palentologists own words. "The extreme rarity of transitional fossils is the trade secret of palentology" <-- Something along that line.
In regards to the geological collum,you clearly dont understand
@Stianchez Does every animal that dies leave a fossil or is it more likely that remains are scattered by weather and decay or eaten by other animals? If fossil preservation happened every time it wouldn’t be rare, would it? If paleontology, comparative anatomy, phylogeny, geology are used in supporting transitional fossils, which of these do not fit your standard as a “hard science”?If hard science concerns you, what "hard science" by REAL scientists, supports your Floating Forest/Flood Theory?
Good grief guys. Do you really think you're going to convince one another at this point? Let it be Anathema.
"
I'll answer your question, but this is the last one. There's a million of fossils found, a flood would be perfect in preserving fossils. As the fossil record shows, vast number of fossils were very fast. If evolution were true, among the millions of fossil we found. There ought to be many many links, yet there's supposebly only a very few "links" by definition
@Stianchez One must wonder why there’s not just one huge Global Flood Layer in the Fossil Record. Kanbei85 got one thing right. You don’t convince anyone of anything.
@Stianchez "the contradictions between evolution and christian" So what you are really saying is that you have no problem with science or how it works and the theories that are produced to explain the world UNTIL they come in conflict with your beliefs based on an ancient book.
I think that sums up very well why so many people leave religion. Factual evidence wins over made up stories every time! No contest.
You're spewing propaganda, like a million others on here, without any clue what you're talking about. Darwinism is completely unproven, and, from a purely logical and scientific standpoint, is completely unfounded. Facts do win out over made up stories every time, and that's why each and every one of us is going to be held accountable to our Creator for our lives. This is not a game.
@Kanbei85 "Darwinism is completely unproven" Nope - It's supported by all the evidence and there are no competing theories. Sorry.
"held accountable to our Creator" Sorry totally unfounded claim for which you have zero evidence - and you claim Darwinism has none. What planet do you live on! LOL
The only game is the one you're playing - "believe my myth or else!" ... No thanks
Christianity is all over the world, there's a huge awakening going on in korea and china for instance. Christianity has the highest convertion rate in the world. It's an argument of ignorance to state that you believ e it becuase you were born into a christian family. Ignoring people converting to christianity and accepting Jesus Christ, including myself.
I love you bro, but you need to open your eyes. The path you are on will only lead you into suffering.
@Stianchez You're purposefully ignoring the evidence. Google "Evidence of common descent" and read the wikipedia article. That's all I have to say about that.
I was not making a personal attack against you. What I'm saying is that your beliefs are based entirely on your circumstances. Whether it was your parents or your friends, your belief was not based on evidence, it was based on your circumstances. You could just as easily believe in Islam if you were born in a different time or place.
Your argument fails from the first sentence. The genome is not an instruction manual. Just try to make your argument without using analogies. Remember, all analogies are lies.
Well this video's very nice and all, but it essentially only contains one long argument from ignorance/incredulity: "Life is too complex, so I can't imagine it arising over time, at "random"." It's really no different than describing the structure of the eye and saying "the eye must have been designed!" And surely you know that argument isn't true? Yes, evolution does this. It didn't start off this complex, but all you need is a directing process.
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
@Mithcoriel
The eye was indeed designed. You have suspended your common sense due to brainwashing. Seek help.
Kanbei85 4 months ago
@Kanbei85 Bare assertion fallacy.
Mithcoriel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sanford has been debunked.
YECs don't have a clue.
odinata 5 months ago
@yugyfoog In “Genetic Entropy,” John Sanford attempts to discredit mutations as a source of useful genetic change. In addition, he claims that, even if there were significant beneficial mutations, natural selection is not powerful enough to keep genomes from deteriorating. When I first read this book it seemed convincing, but as I dug into the literature I found the book misrepresents every issue it touches.
...now lets see how much you know on the subject..can you name them???
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog ahahaah I KNEW IT...lol..these are ,,stan,, series LOOOL LOL LOL..kid..this shows me how much you really know about ANYTHING HERE...ok...first of all,you know that sanford challenged this one on a debate and he skipped like richard dawkins(lmao) ...but wait..i ll give you a credit for the sake of argument here....
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog John Sanford was LEADING geneticist and world authority on genetics(and still is) except for the fact that today leading geneticist is Dr. Craig Venter who is atheist BUT...if you want article and video ..he rejects common ancestor myth...:))) and of course darwins tree of life but tree of life was alredy disproved and rejected in early 2000s so its nothing new...now,i ll check AGAIN this site you gave me or ,,critique,, of Sanford...:)) funny,where is critique from evolutionists??
giska1000 7 months ago
For a video entitled "This is Evolution" you do not seem to know the first thing about it. Can you even define evolution in a biological context?
jebus6kryst 8 months ago
More creationist BS.
mtbee9 8 months ago
@yugyfoog no, i asked u what is the best evidence for evolution; not a link to the evidences for evolution.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan Evolution is a complex theory that encompasses many different ideas. While there is a ton of evidence for evolution there is no single observation that, by itself, proves evolution. The evidences must be taken, all together, to demonstrate evolution. Sorry, life isn't simple.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog hmmmm,,,,,ok, name one the evidences for evo; when i say evo, i mean macro evo.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan Ok. Here is just one of thousands of studies demonstrating macroevolution.
Huber S.K, De Leon L.F, Hendry A.P, Berminghan E, Podos J. Reproductive isolation of sympatric morphs in a population of Darwin's finches. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 July 22; 274(1619): 1709–1714.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog i asked u to NAME one of the evidences for evo; not a study; not a link; just name one of the evidences.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan Ok, I'll name it Fred. What's you point?
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog ...... Variation is not evidence of macro evolution....... T___T watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "Variation is not evidence of macro evolution"
I never said it was.
"watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w"
Ian Juby is a liar. Steve Austin (who Juby got is Rb-Sr dates from) is also a liar. Austin knew that the Rb-Sr dates would be wrong before he did his analysis.
I don't know where Juby got his K-Ar dates. (Made them up?) K-Ar dating of different Unikaret lava flows show dates from 0.6 to 0.4 mya.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog "Ok. Here is just one of thousands of studies demonstrating macroevolution."
Ian Juby is a liar. - K-Ar dating of different Unikaret lava flows show dates from 0.6 to 0.4 mya
That's your answer? You think that refutes his entire video? If you're refering to the lava flow they still knew the age of the rocks.
nature(dot)com / news / 2009 / 090827 / full / news(dot)2009(dot)864(dot)html ---> /watch?v=_hHcu8yuxgk
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez The paper I referenced was about speciation, i.e., macroevolution, not variation.
If you think people lying in a video doesn't refute the video, then that explains why you're a creationist.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog This antagonistic epistasis causes progressively slower rates of adaptation over time.”
Khryazhrimsky, Draghi and Plotkin referred to some microbe experiments that showed initial gains due to beneficial mutations (in isolated lab populations) that slowed to a crawl due to epistasis, or then “discover rare phenotypic innovations,” then diverge into populations that either coexist or compete.
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog More work will be needed, they said, to quantify these effects in the wild with different organisms, population sizes and natural ecologies.
Though hopeful that evolution can march onward in spite of these genetic brakes, they admitted that “the prevalence of antagonistic epistasis measured by the two groups ensures a predictable tempo of adaptation characterized by diminishing marginal returns.”
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog They pulled victory from the jaws of defeat, claiming that these experiments “represent resounding achievement for the reductionist approach to studying biology.”
A pro-evolution article in Science Daily summarized the work of the first paper thorough the eyes of Tim Cooper [U of Houston], one of the participants. “The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other,” was one of the “surprising” results.
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog “It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.” Hopefully readers will pardon Cooper for the anthropomorphism. “The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative.” What does this mean for evolutionary progress?
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog “These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population’s fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations,” Cooper said.
In contrast to the depressing news in Science, three authors in Nature claimed hopeful news with mutations under epistasis.6 “Cryptic genetic variation promotes rapid evolutionary adaptation in an RNA enzyme” was the optimistic title of their paper, but a close look at their experiment shows ...
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog ...it was a case of artificial selection on RNA ribozymes only.
It did not involve a real cell culture, and the gains from “cryptic variation” only showed adaptations to contrived conditions in the lab. They explained the adaptation as a case of “pre-adaptation” or “exaptation” with mutations hiding out till an opportunity arrived for them to show some adaptation in the scientists’ contrived environments.
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog Their simplified model substituted for real evidence, because “this facilitating role for cryptic variation has not been proven, partly because most pertinent work focuses on complex phenotypes of whole organisms whose genetic basis is incompletely understood.”
Nevertheless, they claimed by extrapolation that “Our results highlight the positive role that robustness and epistasis can have in adaptive evolution.”
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog This paper came out in print a day before the pessimistic papers in Science.
Speaking of mutations, researchers at USC discovered “a chromosomal mutation responsible for a very rare condition in which people grow excess hair all over their bodies” (see Medical Xpress).
While the benefit of such a condition might only count in the arctic, it shows that some mutations can have drastic effects. Even if a hairy female could survive the cold, though, what male would want to marry her?
giska1000 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan However, there is one fact about evolution that is truly remarkable. There is not a single credible piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. Many people, for hundreds of years have been trying to disprove evolution and every one of them has failed.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog
The only 'remarkable' thing here is how completely biased and false your statements are. You might be able to get away with that in some places... but not in a place where people have actually studied this for themselves rather than listening to atheist propaganda. There's more evidence that contradicts evolution than could possibly be written here.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Evolution is atheist propaganda now? Wow, you really are deluded :D
And where exactly did you study evolution Kanbei?
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@Kanbei85
"You might be able to get away with that in some places"—Like the real world.
"...people have actually studied this for themselves rather than listening to atheist propaganda"—Many of my professors where theist. I think they would be offended by you statement.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 I think it's clear that you are the one who's biased. It doesn't matter to me whether evolution is true or not. I just follow the evidence. (And many scientists far more knowledgeable then me).
Because you believe (falsely) that science must conform to your religion you have selection bias. You follow the few scientists that agree with your beliefs and dismiss the many that don't.
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog "There is not a single credible piece of evidence that contradicts evolution" hahaha Genetic Entropy, No observable evidence, Mutations, energy DNA, Jupiter
Are you that blind completley ignoring the COUNTLESS problems with evolution? The reason they are problems is because the evolution theory is false. How about you prove it instead?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez
Genetic Entropy — Ignores natural selection.
No observable evidence — Ignores tons of observable evidence reported by scientists for the last 200 years.
Mutations — part of evolution
Energy DNA — ???
Jupiter — ???
yugyfoog 8 months ago
@yugyfoog Ignores natural selection? Do you even know how natural selection works? Im starting to question your knowledge on the topic.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@yugyfoog Let me make it easy for you, why can most of asia only have black haired kids? Why do more and more people need to wear glasses? Why is the only way of becoming resistant to a disease due to the REMOVAL of information?(protein),
They evolved a worse eye sight? They evolved that they could only have black hair? They evolved resitant towards disease? No, it's all removal of information. Dont give me that piss -> Ignores Natural selection
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez Let me make it easy for you. You obviously know very little about genetics or biology. Anybody with a one year of college biology can easily see through your pathetic jokes of arguments against evolution. Get an education, then try to argue against evolution.
yugyfoog 7 months ago
@yugyfoog ok i have education in biology and molecular biology...but wait...dont judge me by my english grammar,because my nativers are greek and serbian and i also speak main european language german(including italian and russian) so lets get to the points...do you know what is genetic entropy and is it conmfirmed??)i surely am in touch with EVERY latest scientific research and i will provide you articles in which ENTROPY IS SIMPLY...CONFIRMED) NOW kid..answer my and Stianchez questions ok??
giska1000 7 months ago
@giska1000 You better provide me with the articles that confirm genetic entropy because when I search, I find nothing,
I'm especially interested in the mathematical derivation of genetic entropy. To call something "entropy" implies that there is some sort of "second law of thermodynamics," i.e., dS/dt >= 0. If you can define genetic entropy AND prove the second law in terms of genetic entropy then I will accept it.
yugyfoog 7 months ago
@yugyfoog Genetic Entropy Confirmed
In Darwinian evolution, variations must add new information to produce innovations. Neo-Darwinism ascribes those variations to genetic mutations. In 2005, geneticist John Sanford (Cornell) argued that the accumulation of mutations always decreases fitness in a process he called “genetic entropy.”1 The downhill trend is amplified by a number of factors, including selection interference and epistasis (interactions between mutations).
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog Such mutations would probably not become fixed in a population or else Eskimos would all have it. Most mutations are nearly neutral and invisible to natural selection, as Sanford explained in detail in his book. Because they are not eliminated by purifying selection, they therefore accumulate in the genome, dragging it into genetic entropy. Mutations are not good material for natural selection.
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog Now, genetic entropy from epistasis has received support by two new papers in Science.
For mutations under epistasis to produce innovation, there must be a way for them to work together (synergistic epistasis). This is often assumed but has not been observed. Most experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other (antagonistic epistasis; see 12/14/2006), or causing even less fitness than if they acted alone (decompensatory epistasis; see 10/19/2004).
giska1000 7 months ago
@Stianchez In a new paper in Science,3 Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis. The abstract said:
Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories.Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread....
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog ...but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect.
giska1000 7 months ago
@yugyfoog Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
Within the paper, they said, “We observed an overall negative relation, indicating that epistatic effects became more negative as the expected fitness rose....”
giska1000 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
You say that the spaceship happened by accident, despite everything you had just explained before making this statement - it wasn't an accident at all, it was the product of natural selection. The distinction you're not understanding is that while the mutations may be random, natural selection is not. That is the entire beauty of it. If our DNA was always copied perfectly, we'd never evolve.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
Natural selection *plus* random mutations are the *driving force* of Darwinism. Without *random* mutations, evolution has no engine at all. Therefore the overall direction and content of life are completely randomly generated (on Darwinism). It's an absolutely untenable theory. Darwinist propaganda tries to hide away the randomness by saying that "Natural Selection isn't random". That's a red herring.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 I am not sure you understand. It's a two step process. Imagine you have a sieve which you have filled with dirt/stones. The act of shaking the dirt/stones in the sieve is random, yet the "selection" process of the sieve itself ensures that you only end up with stones left over. You would certainly not attribute the leftover stones to "randomness", would you?
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 You might also imagine a wheel mounted on an axle. If you would turn the wheel randomly, it would never go far in one direction or another from its starting point. If you add a ratcheting mechanism though (like the ratcheting you hear as you go up a roller-coaster's first hill), you filter out the randomness in one direction, ensuring that over time, the wheel turns in one direction. Similarly, natural selection "filters out" the randomness which results in DNA which is weaker. Simple!
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 By the way, no one is trying to "hide away" anything. Scientists and folks that love understanding the natural world want nothing more than to share their knowledge with anyone that is willing to listen. Personally, I think the randomness is the best part. Look at the wide variety of interesting, colorful, weird things that nature has concocted! And none of it would survive if it didn't give that creature an advantage. Feel free to ask any more questions you might have!
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
The wonderful variety you see in the created world is not a product of "chance" on any level. It's an intentional result of the love and unlimited power of our God, who loves you just as much as me and would like very much for you to stop denying Him. "Natural processes" cannot create any of the wonder you see in the natural world. Dr. Sanford's book soundly puts to rest any notions Darwinian theory might have of being scientifically sound. I encourage you to read it.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 You can't just observe something and say "God did it" and expect that to be taken seriously as an explanation, though. Many people have tried to explain to you exactly how the natural process can create what we see in the natural world but you just refuse to accept it, or don't understand it. Please answer my question: If you take a mixture of rocks and dirt and put it in a sieve, and then shake the sieve randomly, are the rocks that you have left over the product of randomness?
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
Here's a way to make your metaphor accurate to Darwinism: the rocks you put into the sieve are selected _at random_ beforehand. You could get all large rocks, or all small, or somewhere in between. Then when you shake that sieve, what comes through is just a modification on what was originally produced- randomly! The main determining factor on what you wind up with is the random rock selection, not the sieve.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
By saying it's not allowed to offer God as an explanation for anything, you're just stating your anti-theistic religious bias, and nothing more. It's not a scientific position. Science has no say over what sorts of explanations may be considered. Science may only provide the hard data.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Science has no say over what sorts of explanations may be considered. Science may only provide the hard data." That is what I'm saying no, there is no hard data for God, so there's no sense in using God to explain.. anything, let alone everything.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
There's plenty of data in science that is only explicable by an Intelligent Designer (i.e. irreducible complexity). That's called having "hard data" for God, since if life has an intelligent designer, that designer must be God. You will never find scientific *proof* for God, because God is immaterial and therefore science cannot directly test for God. This says nothing about God's existence or nonexistence whatsoever.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Give me a single example of irreducible complexity. Eyeball: debunked. Flagella: debunked. This information is easy to find. You are trotting out arguments proved wrong literally decades ago.
If you want to use that criteria as proof of God ("it can't be proved true or false, so it is true by default") then there's no reason to assume it's God doing everything and not the flying spaghetti monster, or teapots orbiting mars, or invisible elephants, or any other absurd "explanation."
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
Negative, Behe's examples have not been debunked. But there are plenty of Darwin apologists that would like you to think so! :)
You have distorted what I said. I said science is not a tool for directly testing God. Science, believe it or not, is not our only means of knowing things!
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 There is no response to your assertions about irreducible complexity except to say that you are willfully ignorant of the arguments against it. There are stacks of papers dedicated to this subject.
Science is actually the only way of knowing anything. If "observation" is not one of your criteria for belief in something then there's no limit to what you can believe in. The flying spaghetti monster would be just as valid as the judeo-christian god. You only believe what your parents did.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Yes, "just" a modification of what was originally produced randomly, that is precisely what I am saying. Except instead of a random collection of rocks, it's random errors in DNA copying. When one creature is born with a random mutation, he enters the "sieve" of natural selection with all of the other non-mutated creatures, and the weak are shaken out and the strong continue to the next generation.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
There's no way that random mutation could ever account for the genetic information we have in life. Please read Dr. Sanford's book.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Just because you cannot comprehend it doesn't make it wrong. Do you think God is the one that designed the Nylonase bacteria and only put it in a puddle in a nylon factory? If God is so great at designing animals, why have 99% of all of his designs gone extinct? Why did he give humans an appendix, a source of potentially fatal illness? Why are our eyeballs designed so inefficiently?
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
You are incorrect about the "inefficiencies" of God's designs. First off, eyeballs are designed optimally, contrary to Dawkins' ridiculous claims. You can find this info at reliable creationist sites like creation.com .
You must also understand that the present world does not represent God's perfect design, because since the creation we have fallen and damaging mutations have begun to accumulate. Not everything works the way it was intended to nowadays.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 There is no "main" determining factor, it's a 2-step process. That's like saying that between heating up the tomato sauce and boiling the pasta, that boiling the pasta is the main determining factor of how good the spaghetti will be. You can't have one without the other. I world without natural selection would be diseased and weak. A world without random mutations would be too static and die off at the slightest change in environmental conditions. Oh, and would all be single cellular.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle
In a Darwinian world, I would never expect any life in the first place, but, if it DID exist, I would certainly never expect it to be more than unicellular.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Kanbei... Prove it.
Otherwise I can equally say that everything on earth was put here by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His noodley appendage.
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Mutations are random (mostly, I can give you examples of specific repeatable mutation events if you wish) but Natural Selection is no.
Evolution is a product of mutation and natural selection. One part random, one part not.
Is this hard for you to understand?
SwissTopper 8 months ago
@SwissTopper
Not at all. And you are correct that not all mutations are random. That non-randomness actually winds up making Darwinism even more unfeasible. Again, you'd know this if you'd read Sanford's book....
You are not spiritually or intellectually open (so far as I can tell) to God, so your demand to "prove it" is completely farcical. As far as I can tell, the only thing you *might* be open to is a direct revelation from God Himself to you personally. God isn't so obligated.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Ahh, I love it when creationists try to have different standards for proof.
Evolution needs to be proven on completely unrealistic terms.
And yet god doesn't need any proof at all.
It really shows how desperate you are :D
SwissTopper 8 months ago
Nice video.
sarevor 8 months ago
You wasted alot of time just to set up a strawman...wow
gsusreloded 8 months ago
@gsusreloded Which is?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez There is massive difference between a wagon and a space...there is less than %2 difference between us and our closest genetic relative. And there is more information in an amoeba so there for it should be more complex than we are. Just because you cannot change a wagon into a spaceship doesn't mean that you can't give lifeforms different adaptations...
gsusreloded 8 months ago
@gsusreloded The ape argument is an interesting thing. 2% you say, well.. If 2% distinguish us then why are we building cities and flying into space while monkeys are climbing tree's and eating bananas? Btw does that mean we are 50% banana? Apparently banaa have a 50% different genetic code than us. I think mouse was 6% off, are we 94% mice?
Tell me exactly how you could go from one specie to another.
Cheerio! and God bless you!
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez You fail at understanding what is said. Oh and, *trees. No apostrophe :)
danthecat21 8 months ago
@danthecat21 Thanks for correcting my grammar, it's the only way we learn ;)
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez Glad to help :)
danthecat21 8 months ago
@Stianchez A 2% difference in DNA does not equate to a 2% difference in what the animal looks or behaves like. As was explained in the video, DNA is not simply a list of instructions, the process of creating something from DNA is a massive cascade of chemical reactions that can include some DNA acting on other pieces of DNA. And, the fact is that we actually have a ton in common with animals. Every animal, for example, is a bunch of fancy things wrapped around a tube from the mouth to the anus.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle Exactly, Thanks for proving my point.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez Uh, I didn't prove your point, I refuted it. What I'm saying is that you can't extrapolate the difference in DNA to a difference in what the creature looks or acts like. The reason we share so much DNA with things like bananas is that the foundation of a living creature, the proteins that allow us to synthesize different molecules, metabolize different molecules, take in oxygen, etc. etc.. are all very similar between living things.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle Let me retranslate that for you, it comes from a common designer. Apple uses the same foundation for the Ipod, Ipad and the Iphone ;) Thats why their "DNA" is so similar
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez Err no, a more accurate analogy would be to say that the I-Pod/pad/phone are similar in construction because their components have been selected as the most fit. It would be possible but sub-optimal to create these things using vacuum tubes instead of transistors for example. Their designs have survived competition. By extension, the common components of bananas/humans/cats/etc. are those that have survived competition. These are things like RNA polymerase and other fundamentals.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle /watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w welcome to the family. =)
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez You can't be serious. You gain your understanding of dating methods from some guy on youtube? Have you thought about reading peer-reviewed literature on the matter? You ACTUALLY BELIEVE the earth is 6000 years old? If that was the case, then how DO you explain the ratios of radioactive elements in different rocks? God put them there to trick us? You people offer no explanation except "God did it because the bible says so." That's totally worthless and circular logic.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@Stianchez You might imagine the first 50% of the DNA of a banana and the first 50% of the DNA of a human to be the wheels, transmission, and engine of a car. The next 60% is the frame, electronics, body, interior, etc.. a modern lexus would still have a lot in common with a model-T. As I've already stated, our similarities to animals is even more striking. Try to imagine a creature that doesn't have a mouth, anus, and tube connecting the two. The similarity in organs is just icing on the cake.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle What would you think if science states the eye evolved in a twinkle?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez What does it matter what I think? If a statement is supported by evidence then I believe it is true. If a statement is not supported by evidence then I do not believe that it is true. If a statement is contradicted by evidence then I believe it is false.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle What the heck, you are unable to make up your own mind, and blindly listen to other people?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez No, what I'm saying is that my opinion on what science states is irrelevant. If science stated that our heads were made of cheese, and there was incontrovertible evidence to that end, would it matter what I thought about it? Science is not about opinions and judgements. I think you are the one that blindly listens to other people. What evidence for God is there? You believe it because your parents did. If you were born in ancient Greece you'd believe in Zeus. It's sheer accident.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle Science doesn't have any proof of evolution theory actually being true, does that mean you dont believe in it? and since when did you know anything about my life? My parents are religiouse? My sister's religiouse?
It's sheer accident? You know something I dont know about my life?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez But there IS evidence. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on this subject. There are millions of fossils. There are billions of pieces of corroborating evidence in biology, genetics, archaeology, etc. What I know about your life is that you only believe in the particular religion you believe because of the time and place you were born. You believe it because your parents made you believe it, and because you're afraid of death.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
@luftwaffle I'll start with the personal attack. The majority of my family isn't religiouse. The fallacy you set up in regads to "you believe it because your parents told you" is false. Are you telling me people that convert to christianity dont exist? hmm.... You're talking to a guy that dont exist?
Second, mountains of evidence..... Yeah.............. Where?
Fossil record? lol dont make me laugh /watch?v=bIa-dL_N_Xg
Sources listed in the info bar.
- Continue
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "mountains of evidence.. Yeah.... Where?"
For someone who says they have studied evolution then your comment makes no sense.
You are either lying about studying it or not smart enough to understand what you read.
By the way why do you guys always pit Christianity against Evolution. Evolution says nothing about any god or how life started. Why don't you go after the theories of Gravity or Electricity they also don't say anything about god and those theories are based on evidence too.
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9 The fact is, it's a bunch of theories that get's disproven and disputed as Science develops. DNA, genetic entropy, energy, second law of thermodynamics, jupiter, floating forest, mountain strata are all breaking down the theory of evolution.
"You are either lying about studying it or not smart enough to understand what you read." You forgot the third, or I realize the truth and see that the theory is broken.
Do you not know the contradictions between evolution and christianity?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "that get's disproven" Not even close to disproving TofE yet.
"the theory is broken" You guys keep 'claiming' this but so far no evidence is provided to convince the world, but do keep trying.
"the contradictions between evolution and christianity" Ah of course your religion relies on one ancient book written by man, and if that didn't exist then your religion has nothing. What a very weak religion you have.
TofE says nothing about god but proves your bible is wrong! Sorry!
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9 ""the theory is broken" You guys keep 'claiming' this but so far no evidence is provided to convince the world, but do keep trying."
Becuase you wont even consider it. You haven't read the entire story which you admitted. You read what they believe to be true, not the problems it has. Imagine even if the evolution theory had been true, if we look at today. There ARE problems they cannot figure out. It's not our fault you refuse to look at them. Obviously it will be compelling to you.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "There ARE problems they cannot figure out " There are problems with ALL of science - at the cutting edge of our understanding. That's why we continue to investigate. The minor problems that you've sited do not disprove Evolution just give questions that need answers. Sorry.
This gives absolutely no reason to say 'god did it!' That is a total cop out to claim something completely unknown did something and then pretend somehow you know it's true!
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9
"The God of the Gaps" is a strawman argument. We believe in God not because of what we don't know, but because of what we *do* know. The evidence is explained best (by far) through inference to an intelligent designer- *not* through simply saying "it happened for no reason by chance, and we don't know exactly how". That's called "Naturalism of the Gaps", and is purely pseudoscience.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 "We believe in God ... because of what we *do* know"
Nobody 'knows' anything about 'god' unless you have some evidence!
"inference to an intelligent designer" Exactly - guess and wishes - nothing, except what you want to believe.
"it happened for no reason by chance" Well you might not like it but it looks like it's true! (Btw -Evolution is not simple chance)
No gaps - just logical interpretation of the evidence so far - something you don't have!
mtbee9 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 From your page " fight the myth and falsehood that grips much of the present-day world"
That would be all the world religions - If you think your religion is right please explain why all the other religions are wrong?
When you can explain why you dismiss all the other religions you will know why I dismiss yours!
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9
I don't dismiss all the other religions; I think most religions (except those which are merely distortions of Christianity) originally had their start in some kind of divine revelation. However, I also think that Christianity has the most clear and complete revelation available to mankind. I think this because of the internal and external evidences. You're not ready for that yet. You don't even realize your need for God in the first place.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@mtbee9 "minor problems" You call genetic entropy a minor problem, seriously? We dont claim "God did it" it's a false and childish view on creationism.
Seriously please explain to me how genetic entropy is a "minor problem" in regards to the evolution theory. It's the same as stating a 100 meter dash, where the contestents can only run backwards due to genetic error and then call it a minor problem. They'll never reach the goal. Same goes for evolution.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez I offer this quote:
"the book misrepresents every issue it touches. It is an interesting work from a psychological point of view, showing how the drive to reduce cognitive dissonance is so strong that people can be literally unable to see the facts that disagree with their viewpoint."
The evidence does not show that we have more diseases, or die quicker, or that life has in fact degraded.
The fossil record shows an increase in complexity not the other way round!
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9
This is a load of nonsense. Refer to my video resources touching the fossil record. It only "shows" Darwinian change for those who are intellectually pre-committed to finding it.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 " intellectually pre-committed to finding it." More BS.
"You're not ready for that yet. You don't even realize your need for God in the first place."
At least you are right there. I am not ready to buy into mythological stories about invisible gods that magically created the entire universe for a small group of mammals on an insignificant planet!
Oh but, I do realize that I have no need for made up gods. You unfortunately still have the need so hang in there with your delusion.
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9 "The fossil record shows" ................................. The fossil record is man made,based of man's pressumptions. It's not 2+2 = 4. There are numerouse faults with the fossil record.
I will glady send you resources on this from bio/palentol with P.H.D's former atheists
"The evidence does not show that we have more diseases, or die quicker,
It does unless you can show me where a mutation has created new information without removing or re-arrangeing already excisting information?
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "The fossil record is man made" LOL that's the best one I've heard in a long time - I always thought creationists called it the work of the devil!
" There are numerouse faults with the fossil record." 'faults' - another good one - are you trying to be funny on purpose! LOL
Well show me some! I'd love to see these 'faults'
Maybe best though if you just stay with your delusion - you would probably be better off than understanding the truth.
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9 ..... When I stated the "fossil record " is man made, I ment that the layers in which they are found "geologic collum" is man made. Sorry for not being clear enough.
You still haven't answered my mutation question. Just an answer based on a misunderstanding of what I said which is probably my fault for not being clear enough.
Can you answer the mutation question directly? If you appeal to science then creationism is what stands as truth today. We are degrading, not evolving.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez When put on the spot about the error of the things you say, you either change the subject or ignore the point. Why? What "fault" is there to the geologic record? Please answer without linking to some creationist video or website.
bjeh001 8 months ago
@bjeh001 This is the first time I see a comment from you, I dont change the subject I clearly stated what was wrong according to the guy who'se knowledge is weak and he's unable to understand the point im giving him without having to spoon feed him.
The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge). All over the world you find fossils in different orders. There's no standard. Then you have a ton more I can PM Cambrion explotion, floating forest etc
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge)." Name the creationist. Also see: Grand Canyon or Google “geologic column” then explain why your statement here isn’t false. "All over the world you find fossils in different orders. There's no standard". Don’t PM religious misinformation just give ONE actual scientifically valid example. Like a pine cone or a mammal fossilized in the Cambrian Period.
bjeh001 8 months ago
Part 2 - To make it a bit more clear, you think the fossils are found with a description? "This fossil is millions of years old"
The order in which we find which is used to date them are man made, there I hope you understand it now.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez
Take this from someone who's learned this lesson many times the hard way: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Good work, and keep studying.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 Will do cheers
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Take this from someone who's learned this lesson many times the hard way: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Sort of an ironic statement to make toward my poor deluded friend, Stianchez. Poor Chez is out debated every time on evolution, Chez must willfully ignore corroborating evidence across multiple areas of science to cling to superstious beliefs. What aspect of Christianity holds up to dispassionate critical examination like the evolution Chez denies?
bjeh001 8 months ago
@bjeh001 /watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w welcome to the family. =)
Exactly what proved evolution again? I forgot our previouse debate since im "delutional"
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez Evolution has been explained to you repeatedly already, so don’t go there trying to change the subject. Stick to what’s put to you for ONCE. Justify statements that you have made with scientific facts and not links to amateurish charlatans. Either a geologic column doesn’t exist or there are faults in it, which is it? Explain with REAL science from a REAL scientist that supports your statements.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I've just put forth genetic entropy as my new left hook, seeing macro evolution has never been proven. In regards to the geologic collum is man made, due to findings of fossils. All over the wolrd you find fossils in different order. I dont see why this is a big point, whats more interesting is the fossils themselves, take the cambrian period. Complex life all of a sudden? Anyway dont avoid it genetic entropy.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez At this point I’m not interested in genetic entropy nor your ramblings about macro evolution. You’ve been right hooked and bitch slapped in the past by more eloquent people than I on those topics. Back up ypur previous statements. Name ONE fossil by stratigraphy that’s out of order (validated by an actual credible scientific source). Justify your statement that a geologic column doesn’t exist. How many times must I ask?
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 haha how convinient "not interested in genetic entropy"
Someone who uses personal attacks, I've already spent enough time on your trolling and prejudice. How about you for once do some work, and show me that every finding of fossils have been found in the right order. Without expections. If there are any exceptions that means it cannot be that old, how can something move "millions" of years upwads.
You should check out the floating forest theory. A global flood my friend.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez There is no personal attack, trolling or prejudice in simply asking you to back up what you say. Stick to the point at hand then we'll move on to another one of your assertions.
STILL waiting for you to name ONE out of place fossil. STILL waiting for you to justify your statement that a geologic column doesn't exist.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I just gave you an answer, no wonder you think I dont present any when you ignore it that easily.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Chez, you have failed to NAME one fossil that’s out of order in biostratigraphy. If you could show evidence that one extinct species of fauna was fossilized in a much earlier geologic layer than it belongs, you’d be one step closer to invalidating The Theory of Evolution. You have not answered anything. You have evaded answering. You demonstrate your assertions are untenable.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I didn't there are ton's of fossils out of the order, even human fossils supposebly being millions of years old, human fossils inside a dinosaur fossil. I want to see your honesty, because I know there are tons of fossils outside of their order however you refuse to show them. You're not honest. A problem most evolutionists have. You haven't even showed me anything, nor have you answered my claims. Get of your high horse and prove your position. I've told you countless times already.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez The lack of honesty is on your part. I am not making any assertions, you are. I asked for you to provide a scientific basis for those assertions. You have the burden of proof. You have failed. Now you attempt to blow smoke with your Floating Forrest Theory. Well OK, I'll bite. Explain your Floating Forrest Theory and point to real scientific evidence that supports it. And by the way, did you really mean human fossil inside a dinosaur fossil???
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I have the burden of proof? I just showed you. There's been found a human pelvis and chest under the layer of the supposebly dinosaur collum. Theere's one, they've found a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint, they've found human footprints not inside but on the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
The floating forest theory is vast, go check it up. I've already done enough work for you, Burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that the geological collum is consistent and exist.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez (“I just showed you. There's been found a human pelvis and chest under the layer of the supposebly dinosaur collum.”) You have showed me NOTHING. Who found it and where?
(“The floating forest theory is vast, go check it up.”) I have. And there seems NOTHING on it in REAL science. (“Prove to me that the geological collum is consistent and exist.”) YOU asserted that it is not, which is why I asked for you to show ONE out place fossil. I made no assertions so proof is on you.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I saw it over a year ago, it's a wide known examples in regards to the Pelvis, and the footprint. Have you seriously never heard of these? /watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA Somewhere in this serie's is the source sited, I am not going to go through all that material again for you to find it. The source to the finding are stated in the video so dont jump hoops just becuase it came from a youtube video.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Chez, /watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA, is this the best you have? Some charlatan strawmans evolution and atheism for 30 minutes with a link to a creationist site for more lies? What about facts, data or specimens. I asked if you could back up your assertions with credible scientific evidence. Where is the actual fossil specimen of dinosaurs and hominids found contemporaneously in situ?
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I told you it was a series of 20 videos, inside are the source for the findings I wont go through that again for you. If you are interested in learning then sit down and watch it.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez If you’re not willing to sit through 20 videos of boring nonsense for something YOU cite as a source, why would you think I am? And based on what you half remember from creationist lectures a year ago, you assert that legitimate science is wrong. You can’t cite credible academic sources or name actual specimens. Do you realise how this makes you look? I suggest that if YOU are interested in learning, then sit down and watch something other than creationist psuedoscience.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I gave you examples, you didn't take my word for it. I sent you where you could gather the sources, and you dont want to look at it. Fair enough, im not going to do the work for you. How about for once you try to prove anything then? I cant recall any evidence coming from your side.
"you assert that legitimate science is wrong." When?
"You can’t cite credible academic sources or name actual specimens" I've done loads, Im sorry for not remembering the pelvis name for this one argumen
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Of course I can’t take your word for it!! That why I asked you to justify things you say. When asked for reliable scientific sources you link creationist videos on YouTube. When asked for fossil evidence, you've never "done loads"; you couldn’t even name ONE fossil species to support your point. And again, I haven’t asserted anything, so I’ve no "side" to prove. I’ve only asked you to justify the things you say that go against scholarly scientific consensus in geology and biology.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I dont really understand why you are so afraid to prove to me that the geological collum is consistent, although we both know it isn't. Somewhere fossils roughly line in an order that the geological collum predicts, other places they do not. I gave you 4 examples. Pelvis,Human Foot, Dinosaur Footprint and Floating forest. I can link you to the floating forest, it's presented by a former atheist P.H.D in biology and Geology if im not mistaken.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Are you not understanding?? I’m not making claims. It’s not my job here to defend the geologic column or anything else. I simply ask you to justify your going against scholarly consensus. So I DARE you to: NAME one fossil species that’s out of place. NAME where and by whom dinosaur and human fossils were found contemporaneously in situ. Explain your Floating Forest Theory. DO NOT link to 20 or more creationist videos, elucidate on your own. Do you understand??
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 The floating forest theory is a theory comparing the fossils of plants, and putting them upa gainst origins of life and the geological collum. Here's a professor showing you detailed, It's a very interesting watch, and not 20 videos long /watch?v=DHYjNG_F1BM
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez "The geologic collunm for starters doesn't even exist(Man made by a creationist to my knowledge).” “Theere's one, they've found a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint, they've found human footprints not inside but on the same layers as dinosaur fossils."
Read our exchanges over the past week. Please explain how BOTH statements by you can be correct. How your Dinosaur-Human story and Floating Forest theory can both be consistent with the 'Geologic Column doesnt even exists'.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 There's no doubt layers of animal's but the geological collum based on where you can find the animals in the rock layers are man made, from the naturalistic view. "We think the species at the bottom are oldest, and species at the top are newest. Then you have contradictions such as things going through the rock layers like petrified tree's and fossils that are newer like the human and dinosaur. The other side think the layer of animals were formed by flood. Which explain the diversity
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez So the Geologic Column sort of exists and is sort of consistent. But ONLY when you need it to support Creation Mythology? Like when it’s needed to explain the layering of coal seams as with your Floating Forest “Theory”.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 The reason I believe it was mostly made by a flood. Is because there's variouse evidence supporting it. First of all it's the so called Geological collum is not consistant. The reason it tend's to have smaller animals at the bottom if you use logic. Bigger animals would be able to outrun a flood longer, and have better chances of avoiding it longer. Even tthough there are some bigger animals lower. Lack of transitional fossils, petrified tree trunk running through multiple layers etc.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez So now a geologic column exists but just like you, it’s not consistent. And if smaller animal couldn’t outrun your flood as well as larger ones, then using logic, you should be able to show me things like tortoises, moles or wombats fossilized in Cambrian era rock. Explain why I should believe you that there are no Transitional Fossils when reputable scientists have found Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, and Archaeoptryx. Fossils that you must deny or totally ignore out of willful ignorance?
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 ..... The geological collum does not exist (the evolutionary model). However there are layers of animals no doubt. Do you not understand what the geological collum is?
Transitional Fossils is a guessing gameand out of the millions of fossil they found you can only name 3?
A definition for a transitional fossil is a fossil that remotely resembles two different animals like a link You think this is hard science? There's ought to many many thousand of them. Yet there are not.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Interesting that I named 3 transitional fossils that you say don’t exist? And you’ve yet to name ONE fossil that’s out of place in the geologic record. And if you need more, the least you can do is Google transition fossil.
So now you’re back to the geologic column doesn't exists: especially when it supports evolutionary theory. No offense, but since you seem to demonstrate some sort of irrational bias, I’ll accept definitions not from you but only from reputable scholarly sources.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I never claimed your fossils didn't exist.I just said transitional fossils are not hard science it's a guessing game.In order to prove transitional fossils you should of had many of them. If there's just a "few" that means it's just concidence. I've looked into it before, and if you go by palentologists own words. "The extreme rarity of transitional fossils is the trade secret of palentology" <-- Something along that line.
In regards to the geological collum,you clearly dont understand
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez
Good grief guys. Do you really think you're going to convince one another at this point? Let it be Anathema.
Kanbei85 7 months ago
@Kanbei85 Yeah, you're right. Thanks.
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez Does every animal that dies leave a fossil or is it more likely that remains are scattered by weather and decay or eaten by other animals? If fossil preservation happened every time it wouldn’t be rare, would it? If paleontology, comparative anatomy, phylogeny, geology are used in supporting transitional fossils, which of these do not fit your standard as a “hard science”?If hard science concerns you, what "hard science" by REAL scientists, supports your Floating Forest/Flood Theory?
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 "@Stianchez
Good grief guys. Do you really think you're going to convince one another at this point? Let it be Anathema.
"
I'll answer your question, but this is the last one. There's a million of fossils found, a flood would be perfect in preserving fossils. As the fossil record shows, vast number of fossils were very fast. If evolution were true, among the millions of fossil we found. There ought to be many many links, yet there's supposebly only a very few "links" by definition
Stianchez 7 months ago
@Stianchez One must wonder why there’s not just one huge Global Flood Layer in the Fossil Record. Kanbei85 got one thing right. You don’t convince anyone of anything.
bjeh001 7 months ago
@bjeh001 He was talking to both. If you are ever interested in a big read I'll send you some resources.
Have a good day
Stianchez 7 months ago
@bjeh001 I also gave you another specific example of your evolutionary geological collum. The floating forest theory. You refuse to look at it. Why?
Stianchez 7 months ago
@mtbee9 /watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w Welcome to the family =)
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez "the contradictions between evolution and christian" So what you are really saying is that you have no problem with science or how it works and the theories that are produced to explain the world UNTIL they come in conflict with your beliefs based on an ancient book.
I think that sums up very well why so many people leave religion. Factual evidence wins over made up stories every time! No contest.
mtbee9 8 months ago
@mtbee9
You're spewing propaganda, like a million others on here, without any clue what you're talking about. Darwinism is completely unproven, and, from a purely logical and scientific standpoint, is completely unfounded. Facts do win out over made up stories every time, and that's why each and every one of us is going to be held accountable to our Creator for our lives. This is not a game.
Kanbei85 8 months ago
@Kanbei85 "Darwinism is completely unproven" Nope - It's supported by all the evidence and there are no competing theories. Sorry.
"held accountable to our Creator" Sorry totally unfounded claim for which you have zero evidence - and you claim Darwinism has none. What planet do you live on! LOL
The only game is the one you're playing - "believe my myth or else!" ... No thanks
mtbee9 8 months ago
@luftwaffle Part 2 -
Christianity is all over the world, there's a huge awakening going on in korea and china for instance. Christianity has the highest convertion rate in the world. It's an argument of ignorance to state that you believ e it becuase you were born into a christian family. Ignoring people converting to christianity and accepting Jesus Christ, including myself.
I love you bro, but you need to open your eyes. The path you are on will only lead you into suffering.
Stianchez 8 months ago
@Stianchez You're purposefully ignoring the evidence. Google "Evidence of common descent" and read the wikipedia article. That's all I have to say about that.
I was not making a personal attack against you. What I'm saying is that your beliefs are based entirely on your circumstances. Whether it was your parents or your friends, your belief was not based on evidence, it was based on your circumstances. You could just as easily believe in Islam if you were born in a different time or place.
luftwaffle 8 months ago
Your argument fails from the first sentence. The genome is not an instruction manual. Just try to make your argument without using analogies. Remember, all analogies are lies.
yugyfoog 8 months ago