Dismantling CDK007's ''Evidence for Evolution III''

[iwanttocrashmybike]

Me thinks these Genome/DNA mishaps are from the fall.

As the whole live as long as the Universe in the beginning eh?

[Craigmw45]

"Most ERV's are useful"

No they are not. We have genetically engineered mice, and knocked out ERV's from their genome, and they function just fine without them, in some cases the ERV can be shown to be detrimental, in ways.

Jaquelin Dudley, a researcher at U of Texas does lots of this work. Go to JAX mice and get a mouse with missing ERV's and keep it for a pet and see for your self. Though you have to be affiliated with an approved institution.

[Aerostoth]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is commonly referred to as GRASPING AT THIN AIR.

Acting as if a change from 98% similar DNA to 95% would really be significant is, well, petty. Grow up and accept the facts. They're similar.

[jesse8857]

@Aerostoth I'm 50% similar to a banana

[raponte1955]

@Aerostoth The watermelon and the clouds share a 98% water contents. Wow they're similar!!

[uyenst]

" So if ERVs were inserted by retroviruses, shouldn't have apoptosis killed the ERV-containing cells?" If apoptosis works so well then no one would have been infected and died and there would have been no epidemic. I'm no scientist, I just don't get that part

[shncsr]

Hi, write "logical evidences for Islam" and watch it

Why is there One Creator?

Why is there a religion?

Why Islam is the true religion?

[morton16ok]

Dude, the scientific paper you quoted said that ERV's caused transcription. Transcription. Do you know what transcription is? That means that the gene tells proteins to start copying that piece of DNA. So it copies it. What does that do for us? Well, unless that fucking piece of DNA is functional absolutely nothing. We have a piece of DNA that has been copied to mRNA. If it doesn't do anything in the cell, that is a bigger proof of evolution since it has no 'function' in the cell. Good try

[circusOFprecision]

@morton16ok

Show that it has no function. Then attempt to show the origin of that functionless piece of DNA. Then you would be getting somewhere. Otherwise your conclusion isn't even remotely scientific.

[jesse8857]

@morton16ok That was only the beginning - did you see the paper after that said ERVs helped the p53 gene?

And don't swear too- that's a warning for your last comment

[guineapiggyman]

u DO realize 93 percent is still a majority...?

[jesse8857]

@guineapiggyman 93% similarity to chimps you say? that does not matter! 51% is a majority! Even if it did matter, it would prove a common designer just as much as a common ancestor...

[TheScienceFoundation]

@jesse8857 'Even if it did matter, it would prove a common designer just as much as a common ancestor...

No it wouldn't because there are actual mechanisms for the similarity (which is 96% by the way) through common descent. There are none for a common designer.

[buffboynick]

I have subscribed to the BEST debunkers of evolution (you included)

and thought ya may enjoy Berean Beacon's channel and PPSimmons.

Both thoroughly destroy ev-LIE-ution (using real science)

I'm not personally a Creationist but I do know evolution is nonsense.

There are many excellent videos from real scientists (like Dr David Berlinski) that are on Youtube and you may enjoy them, or add them to your favorites.

Keep up the great work.

[jesse8857]

@buffboynick ok cool!

[buffboynick]

Well done

If evolutionists want to show "evidence" for shared ancestry then how bout they find one confirmed shared ancestor

Because ardi, homo erectus, homo habilis, and neanderthals arent it.

No CHLCA has been found nor exists. Gene Hybridization (one of the MANY forms of genetic engineering) is the ONLY way to make an entirely NEW species.

Then the proper number of X and Y chromosomes are added so the newly created species can breed and make more of their kind.

[jesse8857]

@buffboynick thanks for the positive comment - I don't get many at all! Yeah, about homo, australopithecines etc., you should watch my video "Dismantling Human Evolution" if you aren't entirely familiar with why they are wrong. Mind you, it does go for 1/2 hour!

And with the species thing, some new species have been created - even though they are obviously the same kind. For instance, a dog and a wolf are different species... If you would like to know my definition of kind, just ask :)

[buffboynick]

@jesse8857

Yes the only thing that occurs naturally in the wild are variations within species (which some evolutionists mistakenly call "evolution")

The majority of mutations are "neutral" (just producing color changes and slight appendage differences due to gene mixing done in reproduction)

Some gene hybridization occurs naturally when similar species reproduce (some insects and the animal known as the "Liger" are examples)

But radical change can only be done through genetic engineering

[jesse8857]

@buffboynick May I ask you, are you a christian or anything? I wont be shoving my beliefs down your throat, but I would be interested to know...

[buffboynick]

@jesse8857

I am a "Deist" and truth-seeker.

Im not into organized religion.

Just into following my conscience and the golden rule. I do think God and the soul exist, but I dont following any certain "religion". I have researched all known religions (especially Buddhism and Christianity) and found some truth in all.

I also know the original Hebrew version of the Bible is much different then the King James version. I am pretty "complex". I do know evolution is farce though, I'm sure of that

[jesse8857]

@buffboynick I'll say one thing - remember Jesus said He is the ONLY way to heaven. I hope you find out what really is true... :)

[raponte1955]

Wow, respect between dramatically opposing sides! Dawkins and Hitchens should learn a lesson or two!

[Hortos1]

I look at quite a lot of atheist/theist videos, and I'm firmly on the atheist side, but I have to say it's refreshing to see two people on opposing sides conversing in a civilised manner i.e. jesse and timric. It's rare so I say good on you.

[timrice666]

3 questions, which you can of course delete, and I will debate if you wish. 1/ Why do the people best placed to judge the evidence (biologists) overwhelmingly reject id and creationism and conclude that the current theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life? 2/ Why do all the main churches agree evolution is true? and 3/ if science points to god, why are 90% plus members of the slite scientific bodies (national academy, royal society etc) atheist.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Answers in Genesis has a list of hundreds of top scientists who are creationists. The guy who invented MRI scanner is one. And who knows how many refuse to say what they believe in fear of loosing their jobs?

Who are the "main churches"? there are many many that don't believe in evolution.

Ever heard that creationists get the sac if they are found out? I could give a long list of this if you want... But simply put, Nat Geo, Royal Society etc., don't allow creationists.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 thanks. The catholic church and the anglican communion accept evolution (as god's method, of course) there are too many protestant churches to name but some do and some don't depending on the level of biblical literalism.If there is a conspiracy against creationism you'd wonder why any christians would have rolled over, let alone these major churches? I'm reading up at "AiG" also "godandscience". Too early to judge them, can i contact you when i've looked into their/your claims?

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 The main problem with churches is that they entirely focus on the Bible (which isn't bad in itself), and just accept the scientific claims that could be false. They almost never research the subject.

well I suppose you could just message me I suppose? Or just keep commenting here... I can prove to you that atheism is scientifically impossible if you want to know about it...

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 I'm open to all and any arguments, and I certainly don't know everything. I'm not religious because there is no objective evidence for the truth of any religion and even within the religions no agreement as to what the holy books mean or what their god/gods want, but i am open to the concept of god and if there was evidence i'd like to see it I have alot of time on my hands at the minute so don't feel obliged, but if you do respond i'd like that. continued on next post

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 I think the Bible is the only possible candidate for a true religion because it is the only one that is scientifically accurate [shouldn't the god of this universe know what he created?]. I have posted a video called "Proof of God" which shows the impossibility of ancient scholars having written the Bible without a god's guidance. I believe that Jesus created this universe, and I think there is much scientific evidence for a God of some description.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 The vatican has it's own scientists but if we're being sceptical what about ken ham (AiG)? he makes his living out of that museum and creation science(might be a vested interest there), don't want to say more as i'm still looking into his claims (interesting). I appreciate your answers so keep them coming especially the impossible atheism proof. I'll stay on the comments but if you want to PM i'll reply in kind. thanks

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 What's a PM?! I'm a bit ignorant of this stuff...!

Yeah, I just posted a video "Atheism: Scientifically Impossible" it is at watch?v=i_gqTII3kLk If you see any problems with it, please speak up - criticism is the best way to fix something. But if you don't, maybe it's time to radically rethink you're ideas... You seem to be alot nicer than most atheists, so I apologize if I was a bit abrupt etc., before.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 PM= private message (well that's what i mean by it) I am an atheist (depending on your definition) but i prefer to say not religious as i am open to the truth where ever it is found and i don't KNOW there is no god/gods. You have not been abrupt and you are right to be wary as some people just like to trash other ideas. Thanks for everything and i'll get back to you after i watch the video.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Watched some of your vids and i admire your faith,dedication and taste in music, I have posted some comments and will comment further if i feel i have something to add, Looking forward to your replies, and i hope you're not too disappointed in my opinion.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Basically, your argument is based on majority opinion. This has proved to be fallacious in the past. The majority of scientists once believed that you didn't have to wash hands before surgery, that the earth is flat and is the center of the solar system, that big objects fall faster than little objects, there is bad blood, spontaneous generation - the list goes on and on. And yet, it was the majority of scientists that believed this stuff.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Thanks for your answer but you are not completely correct, my argument is based on expert opinion, the majority of people do not accept evolution and all the examples you give were accepted until the experts looked at new evidence and had to change their minds then the public followed suit. You are of course right to be sceptical, "nullius in verba" is the motto of the royal society after all. I am just wondering how you explain the consensus of expert opinion, PM me if you prefer.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Yeah well I meant the majority of scientists... Yes, so it may seem that evolution is true to some, but new lines of evidence could always come up that contradict evolution (I'm very sure this has already happened - especially in the big bang model) as has happened in the past to the examples I gave. It took hundreds of years - some thousands - before they were discredited.

[thor123422]

Description says it all. The actual testable evidence is wrong simply because I can tell you that god did it.

Now please give me a testable experiment to show whether or not god did it because unless you show me that this piece of evidence supports evolution.

[jesse8857]

@thor123422 The whole point of CDK's vid was to prove evolution, it doesn't because we have an explanation. Simple. BTW, I'm removing comments - not because I'm afraid to debate either..