The idea is that the information always existed. The medeval Japanese bred a rooster with a 10-20 foot tail. There was no existing rooster with a 10-20 ft tail before they did this so there was no DNA that provided information for one. However, the roosters with the longest tails were carefully selected and bred over time. The trait ensured the roosters genes would be passed on because the tail was the trait which most ensured its survival.
Redundant, please quit that issue, you are boring people here.
Where did the first organism came from? You don't know. How it decided to evolve? It didn't and you still don't know. If you are the smart person you project to be why do you follow this lies? Mutations and information are limited and you guys pretend us to believe your garbage.
I do not think this is a good example. Let me give one. The opsin gene enables New World monkeys to see green. In Old World monkeys, apes and humans this gene has been duplicated and a mutation (probably substitution) in the duplicate enables red to be seen. Thus the 3 groups can see in full colour.
Gene duplication is a powerful tool to increase "information". That's it. The creationist asked for an evolutionary process that increases information. That's what.
If you want an example of how this would provide a useful function, look at nylon-eating bacteria. The bacteria is able to digest nylon from a frame-shift mutation on a gene that has been duplicated.
aLL CELLS REPRODUCE ASEXUALLY...THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MICRO EVOLUTION AND MACRO EVOLUTION YOUR DISSERTATION NEEDS WORK ALSO MR. DAWKINS IS A LIAR! HIS EXPERIMENT REPRODUCING THE BOMBADERE BEETLE WAS WRONG WRONG WRONG! HE PURPOSELY LEFT OUT THE CATALYST THAT CAUSES THE ERUPTION OUTSIDE OF THE BEETLE'S BODY, WHICH DISPROVES EVOLUTION BEYOND A MOST REASONABLE DOUBT. SO MUCH FOR YOUR GODS. (MERE MEN).
This isn't an example of a mutation that increases information in the genome. It's just an example of a mutation. I'm not saying the creationist was right, but this just isn't an answer to the question that was asked in that video.
This is essentially the only example I ever hear, but this mutation results in a loss of information. Seems to me an intellectually rigorous scientist or student would finally concede the failure of the theory. Darwinism is dead.
@onlyonechoice If you are arguing about this video then that is an incorrect statement. Penicillin resistance occurs mainly because of a bacteria acquiring a plasmid (extragenomal DNA) that codes for a beta-lactamase. So in fairness it is an example of an organism gaining information and function. By no means is it a loss. Another example of a mutation leading to gain or in this case toxic gain of function is Huntington's Chorea.
This doesn't make much of a case, when settlers settled in the Americas, they gave the natives blankets tainted with smallpox, the Europeans had an had some resistance whereas the natives had none, when exposed to pathogens a natural resistance occurs, but both the natives and the Europeans were still humans and both strains of bacteria are still bacteria, Also, we all came from Adam and Eve, yet there are many races now as a result of environmental factors, yet we are all still humans
What you are suggesting is that the bacteria already had immunity to penicillin. A new strain was produced which can't be likened to the creation of a new species. This is a shit example. The DNA in the new strain is exactly the same as the DNA in the old strain. A dalmation is a dog the same as a spaniel is a dog.
@copperload 100 percent right its still the same species all that is new is the immunity we all do that does that mean were a new species everytime we get immune to something no im still human species nothing else thats not evolution thats slight variation which dna allows other wise we would all die
@7th75thCallaghan ¿Are U answering non-sense to increase the VIEWS of this BORING video, by getting us back here? Show us the video where a specie becomes another one. EVOLUTION is just a THEORY, the most absurd ever, PROVE the EVOLUTION and CONVINCE the whole world, you don't make that effort because you know it's ABSURD so don't pretend to be a Scientist with this OPPORTUNIST VIDEO. It's boring like this SATANIST Dawkins. You are not Xpert
@7th75thCallaghan FAKE-ASS Scientist, You are POSER, use your account to comment. An ignorant pretending to be scientist. PROVE THE BULLSHIT YOU SAY. Create a PLANT, at least a CELL. U are just repeating the same OLD shit they told you. Dawkins is Luciferian, Creationists kicked your asses since the first court case, simply: Because you cannot prove your bullshit, BIG MOUTH, Show me the video where 1 cell becomes a multicellular organism!
"Creationists kicked your asses since the first court case" - You are deluded. IF Creationism were kicking ass, it would be in schools. It isn't because Magical explinations are NOT science.
Evolution IS reality.
"EVOLUTION is just a THEORY" - Yo don't understand what a theory is. A Theory means ALL observable information on the subject is accounted for and NO information contradicts it.
@Stinukli Brother, plz show me the video where a specie becomes another one. Hybridation among intentionally compatible organisms IS NOT a new SPECIE, it's just a HYBRID, that's allowed so poor dependant species could get benefits from the hybrid plants, like healing + nutritional properties. There was also allowed hybridation between dracons and humans so you could exist. You cannot create a Plant NOR make it evolve. God did create it! You cant even create grass, not even a cell.
@Shan23Studios Do you mean "evolve" as in become more advanced? Because evolution does not mean the new species has to be better, just different. Refer to research done by William Rice and G.W. Salt, where several different species of fruit fly were created by sexual isolation and enviromental preference.
@ODaemienE new species? NEW SPECIES? Sexual isolation? to monocellular micro-organisms? You were reading all of the OLD coments here and just decided to solve the problem? Dude if you or any pro-Evolutionist can prove EVOLUTION please PROVE IT once and for all, not a HYBRID but create a NEW SPECIE from scratch! Dont bother me anymore with the same nonsense
@Shan23Studios Evolution is not ctreating a new species from scratch. That is Abiogenisis. Plus, the study I sited was a fine example of evolution. One species became several. Perhaps you were confused and thought I was talking about bacterium. These are multi-cellular animals, insects even. Other experiments have been done into specieation, you just have to actually look for them. And, I am not attempting to bother you, merely correct you.
Law: a principle based on the predictable consequences of an act, condition, etc.: the law of supply and demand. (this means it has to do with cause and effect)
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine...
@ODaemienE You are the retards they choose to confront me?
SOLVE the evolution failures & make it a Universal Law already, (oh wait: YOU CANT) You morons, incompetent, inferior.
I have you like fools, making echo of my words, you don't even know what to think if I don't give you a concept. Imbecils. This video stinks, but your replies are worst, your grammatical lies are incoherent, and you are so stupid.
@Shan23Studios I was right. You could not see the difference. Evolutionary Theory is a broad term that describes how several Biological and Chemical Laws work together to form new species. These include mutation and DNA & RNA replication; observable facts. Laws describe what happens, Theories describe how it happens. Laws are fixed, circumstantial situations which must meet exact criteria, else be falsified. Theories use Laws to describe the working universe.
Thank you for this, the Dawkins video was obviously fake as any 1st year genetics student would answer that question without hesitating. Finally there is a video response that I can direct all of those retarded creationists to so that I don't have to lose any hair explaining a very simple concept to the intellectual equivalent of a doorknob.
Oh no, Dawkins was stumped by a question & DID NOT ANSWER?
again, Dawkins was stumped by a question & DID NOT ANSWER?
but you did? new inmune bacteria are not increasing their genome information, wich is why the expert R. dawkins never mentioned them. they dont become different species. That is what the woman asked, you know that.
He didn't ANSWER, he is the famous EVOLUTIONIST, & he didn't answer.
@Shan23Studios Dawkins was never stumped by such a question, and he clearly says that himself. F.x. do you have a version were a FEMALE asks, and another one where a MAN is the interviewer. 1. Dawkins is already thinking when the interviewer asks. 2. Dawkins' answer had nothing to do with the supposed question. watch?v=6gHi6jES700
And yes, genomic information increase is seen all the time. It happens in plants and rice when they become polyploid. Also tandem duplication adds information.
@Stinukli You mean the whole video is a HOAX to be famous? Like Lady Gaga with the SheMale rumor + vdo? He was acting PERPLEX? & even asked for time. He Dawkins, the EXPERT did NOT answer the question, SHE asked for an example and he COULD NOT give it. Increasing genome info don't lead to a new specie, Plants DONT become new NOR different species. He is just another Satanist pretending to be atheist. Genome info is just a memory Record in all beings. NOTHING ON EARTH IS BECOMING A NEW SPECIE.
@Shan23Studios No, the point is that the video is fake, he wasn't posed the question in the first place, even an elementary understanding of genetics answers the question for you. Your second mistake is in making the ignorant, uninformed and unresearched assumption that Dawkins is an expert on either atheism or genetics - hate to break this to you, but he isn't - if we had any serious scientific philosophers acting in his role as pop-science media pundit, they would swallow you whole.
@Shan23Studios Speciation is observed contemporary, so you're wrong. I never said "HOAX to be famous". You know what I mean. We're dealing with creationists.
I am a Christian by the way. Thank God for evolution, hehe. :-)
@Shan23Studios Also, your childish suggestion that genomic data is memory is meaningless, all stored data can be described as memory, are you saying that our memories are stored in DNA? You would be very wrong in saying so.
@Shan23Studios Polyploidy in plants can lead to speciation should that chromosome be selected for, one of the ways how the domestication of plants has lead to distinct species, different from their ancestors. In terms of all cell types, genetic data can be added in the form of an addition mutation, in turn that addition may be selected for, resulting in divergence, multiply this over millions of years over millions of instances, and allow to marinade in common sense for 5 minutes before serving.
@whiteowl1415 Hybridation among intentionally compatible organisms IS NOT a new SPECIE, it's just a HYBRID, that's allowed so poor dependant species could get benefits from the hybrid plants, like healing + nutritional properties. There was also allowed hybridation between dracons and humans so you could exist. You cannot create a Plant and you cannot make it evolve. God did create it! You cant even create grass, not even a cell.
Well I stand corrected after further research I guess DNA is fairly simple. Like a blob of jello. Yes and i guess it is assembled in a fairly random manner. Key word random. Keep drinking the koolaide my friend, with evolutionist adherents like yourself I have great confidence in the future of humanity.
Since all life runs off the same DNA compounds, or nucleobasis, changesin in evolution do not need NEW info, they just need rearanging of the OLD info.
When an Evolutionist can prove that we all descended from rocks (i.e. inanimate matter), I'll gladly consider myself a Materialist... that I am nothing more than "Talking Meat".
Until then, the faith Materialists profess... that rocks spontaneously developed the capacity to transform from objective matter into subjective entitiies (with the ability to eat, procreate, walk, form communities, and have an opinion)... is more than fantsy. It's a political agenda to submit us to the Rule of Men.
The facts are that Materialism provides no explanation...
(a) as to how rocks (or any inanimate matter) produce RNA, or DNA;
(b) as to how objective matter (i.e., Life's representation under the cloak of Materialism as "Talking Meat") produce subjectivity; and
(c) for the fact that the absence of essential proteins produces different apparatus, Irreducible Complexity of the Bacterial Flagellum (/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY) is irrefutable.
@whiteowl1415, an Evolutionist approached Our Father and said, "Listen, as we can produce artificial DNA, we no longer need you." "OK." Our Father said, "So, let's have a man-making contest!" "Love to!" the Evolutionist said. "Now," Our Father instructed, "we'll need to do this just like I did with Adam." "No worries," the Evolutionist replied, as he bent down to grab a handful of dirt. "Whoa!" Our Father said. "Not so fast, son. Of course, you'll first need to get your **own** dirt."
@whiteowl1415 So humans bring organic substances fom the earth and and combine them( i.e. design them in a controlled environment) and that proves what? They find amino acids on an asteroid, the building blocks of DNA. Do you even have a clue how complex DNA is. Thats exactly like saying a bag full of beach sand is the same as a smart phone. Even your boy Dawkins admits science has NO answer to the origin of life. Its called a unified theory when science has a consensus. Abiogensis=Miracle
"and that proves what?" - That organic compouds can be found in inorganics
"Do you even have a clue how complex DNA is" - Not as complext as most people make it out to be. DNA is basicaly compose of 4 primary mololuces that are connected to each otehr through naturaly forming bonds in a fairly random manner. If it HAD to be as precise as creationists make it out to be, there wouldn't be enough variety in it to use as court evidence.
@philackey The sand analogy is ALL wrong, btw. Since DNA works on chemical bonds, its more like filling a box with magnitized paperclips, then pulling one out and seeing how long of a chain it can make through connections to the others.
@shankarceg, yours is the 1st reasonable response to my posts. Thank you!
Truthfully, I entered this world Tabula Rasa! So, perhaps, like you, I accepted the explanations my family shared with me; i.e., their explanation for the World (i.e. the material & the ephemeral). Though, as my questions grew, I sought answers elsewhere. For me, the architecture of Materialism addresses but the artifacts of our reality, so the answers must rest in Consciousness. For me, Know Thyself seems the only path.
@assistme I hope you aren't saying that the flagellum is of irreducible complexity, because it certainly isn't, the various sub-components can be seen separately in various forms in other cell types. Those who believe in irreducible complexity are of irreducible simplicity, and need to perhaps study a little more before making such adolescent judgments and assumptions within a discipline that demands patience, and the understanding that new data will arrive in time and change what we know.
btw, you might want to correct your commentary on _ points:
1/"Most infectious diseases" it is effective against Gram positive bacteria. That may cover >50% of infectious diseases, but the common meaning of "most" is not simply "the majority"
2/ Fleming discovered penicillin, he did not invent it
3/ P. notatum is the organism, the chemical is penicillin
4/Betalactamase-resistant penicillins are still very much in use
5/the resistance gene is transmitted laterally via a plasmid vector
Dawkins own published answer to this question is that over a long time scale increase in information is a controversial: in DNA replication there tends to be loss of information rather than an increase. I suspect it is this factor that means he cannot give a *simple* answer
Dawkins own published answer to this question is that over a long time scale increase in information is a controversial: in DNA replication there tends to be loss of information rather than increase: in a penicillin-free environment, the resistance allele declines in the population.
1/ transmission of penicillin resistance is an evolutionary process
2/ propagation of the penicillin resisance gene represents presence of genetic information in filial generations that was not present in parent generations ie increase in information,
Get over it people- Dawkins was stumped and the replication of old information does not equate to the emergence of new never-before-seen information which actually has some relevance to the issue. Also, Dawkins won't debate the world's most academically credentialed Christian apologist, William Lane Craig. It's called the empty chair debate and its taking place on the 25th of October (this month). Dawkins ain't coming folks!
If the best creationism cn do is point a finger and say "You're missing information" to science then all its going to get in response is "No kidding."
Science never claimed to have all the issues, it just dosn't jump to a "God did it" reaction everytime it look for more.
@fashklash What about gene duplication within an organism? It's in any molecular biology or genetics textbook and well understood right down to the chemical events of what happens to cause it. An extra copy of a gene is created, which can then (because it's literally like making a copy of work on a hard drive) change, giving rise to never-before-seen genetic information. (Disclaimer: I have no problem with religion, one of my best friends is a Christian. I'm however a MSc Biology student).
@Axolotl9250 I do know of and acknowledge that idea,and I would be willing to pursue it logically in order to know the probability of new information coming about through the replication of old information.However,no one in the evolution orthodoxy would be willing to contemplate the obstacles to such a model.Actually, what evolutionary biologists like Dawkins claim is that large information-bearing sections of RNA must have duplicated and joined together, but they spurn all counter-claims.
@fashklash It is certainly true that this duplication does not always give rise to completely new information. An alternative outcome I've been reading about recently is rather the two copies stay near enough identical, and end up doubling the amount of whatever substance it codes for in a cell. When you say about RNA doubles and joins together do you mean the idea DNA came from RNA (I wasn't sure)?
"however,no one in the evolution orthodoxy would be willing to contemplate the obstacles" - Not true, obstacles are theorized to fuel evolution by eliminateing the nonviable. Any Evolutionist who discounts obstacles isn't fully appreciating the idea of what evolution is.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systemS were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
"but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either."
Indeed, but it is more irrational to assume that an invisible, all powerful being did it as well.
True science reserves presumptions as to a cause until data supports it irrefutably.
Religion screams "We have the answer" without evidence at all, then threatens eternal damnation to anyone that says, "Sorry dude, but that isn't proof"
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
NO VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
This is not an answer to the question posed. The question wasn't is change over time possible in bacteria through a process of trait selection. That is like saying can you select traits in dogs and breed them with other dogs to enhance those traits? Of course you can. If this example was the only example then the answer would be a clear no. Sticking to the question and giving a straight forward yeas or no shouldn't be a problem.
Regardless of rather Dawkins could reply or not..which if you watch other vids involving him you will see that he is a great long term thinker, but not much of an on the spot guy...An answer is available bellow explaining Klinefelters as an example to the question...Those backing the interviewers question as some sort of disproof, pleasse read.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Klinefelter's syndrome: The average human genome contains 46 Chromosomes while an individual with Klinefelter's syndrome has 47 due to the XXY trippling at the end rather than the XY or XX coupling normaly seen. Result, 1 full gene's worth of "increase the information"
Downs syndrome is similar in nature, but with diferent genes and different effects
A) You didn't answer the question. A bacteria mutating to become resilliant to penicillin is not the same as adding information. There are no examples of information being added to a genome via mutation.
B) Change within a species (micro-evolution) is observable and measureable. Change from one species into another (macro-evolution) is not. Belief in the latter is arrived at by a leap of faith, not scientific evidence.
@northmag Your statement assumes that there are distinct species. That is also a leap of faith. There is no scientific difference in saying that two human's are different species, from saying a human and a tree are different species. Both simply differ in their DNA by some percentage. That is completely arbitrary. You can say that identical twins are the same species... that is all. So your belief in the categories macro & micro evolution is a fallacy.
He didn't answer because 1) he was pissed off that the people interviewing him had lied about their reasons for doing so 2) he didn't want to get quote mined 3) it's perfectly fine to take your time on a question
@sahadevaaa He did end up answering the question he posted it on a website ( don't remember which website), but the people interviewing him did lie about their intentions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence no he didnt reply- what he replied was not an answer to the question which was asked. read yourself the question and what he answered on his website.
They lied or not- is not an issue and cant be proven now.
@sahadevaaa YES he did, on austrailian skeptics in an article called the information challenge is where you can find it. He answered the question fully and yes they did lie, they were acting disingenuous and in return tried to make him look foolish by cutting him off. Why don't you go there now and read it before jumping to conclusions.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You call this reply? : The answer in practise is complicated and contraversial. All bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. So tell me where is that single example of a genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in the genome??? so where is the answer in that artice??
@sahadevaaa Read the article before commenting, but here is a simplificationThe kind of mutation called a 'gene duplication' when coupled with ANY other kind of mutation that changes the properties of one of the copies, will increase the amount of information in the genome.
@sahadevaaa The second kind of mutation can occur at the same time as the gene duplication ... i.e. a duplication that does not result in two identical copies of the original gene, but two slightly different copies.
Or the second mutation can occur much later ... perhaps millions of years later ... on one of the two duplicates.
Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is an "increase in information" no matter how you define it.
@sahadevaaa The second kind of mutation can occur at the same time as the gene duplication ... i.e. a duplication that does not result in two identical copies of the original gene, but two slightly different copies.
Or the second mutation can occur much later ... perhaps millions of years later ... on one of the two duplicates.
Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is an "increase in information" no matter how you define it.
@sahadevaaa I was dumbing it down for you, but this is science and it's easy for christian creationists to quote mine and be deceitful which you continue to ignore. The information challenge article by dawkins explains his situation fully, if you can't believe his eye witness account then I can't help you.
@sahadevaaa Okay don't believe in eye witness accounts, it's your loss. If you can't investigate evolutionary knowledge or the truth behind this incident with a fucking computer then by all means you may as well be a vegetable.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence to edit video is not a criteria that its a hoax. so if you care about others (including animals)- are you a vegetarian? its good you are aiming at unity of all, but it ll never happen on the material bases. caus if people will continue thinking that they are just these material bodies, they ll continue fighting. science cant solve it- only true religion can solve it , caus it can change peoples' hearts.
@sahadevaaa Yes editing a video is dishonest it's like quote mining. I am not a vegetarian but I also understand the way in which this world works. Religion is what is tearing people apart people think one god is truer than another along with other problems. Religion hasn't solved anything just held mankind back, sure believing in god is fine but fundamentalists like yourself are only hurting the cause of unification.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so if you are not a vegetarian you are another proof of hypocrisy. You are good just for human beings, and somebody wants to be good just for the white ones or black ones. you are killing animals just to satisfy your tongue. Just because their intellect is lower. thats a shame.
@sahadevaaa Just because I eat animals does not mean I don't care for them, they are an essential part of nature and our habitat and because I eat some animals does not mean I eat all of them or because they are of lower intellect that I don't care for them. You really can't talk either because you more than likely aren't a vegetarian either.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence i am vegetarian for 9 years. how you can tell that you care if you eat them?. Its two opposite things- to kill and to care. real care is love, and even not killing doesnt mean love, caus i lets say dont kill or beat or whatever my neighbour but doesnt mean that i care or love him, so not to kill is the foundational platform. please watch Earthlings- it ll show many things you couldnt even imagine- how horrible it is.
@sahadevaaa Well i'm not going to eat my cat or a majority of the animals on the planet, besides without domesticated animals we'd be reduced to vegetables and with the number of people on earth we'd be further reduced to eating each other. So killing a few animals to survive isn't a bad thing, and yes you can still care for animals by preserving their wildlife and keeping them from going extinct.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence to grow animals requires land, food, water. its such a waste- i forgot the exact number how many times to produce one kilo of grains is efficient to that of an kilo of meat. so thing that we 'll be reduced to eating each other due to vegetarian diet is total nonsense. So why i and million other vegetarians on the planet are healthy, i am even working physical job and making sports as well. Pythagor, newton, plato and other great thinkers were vegetarians
@sahadevaaa there are currently close to 7 billion people on earth, attempting feed all of them with vegetables would be literally impossible, the amount you would have to produce would be astronomical not to mention people would not agree to it. Also being a vegetarian you don't get enough required vitamins, and numerous other problems. There's a reason we are omnivores, because we require both to be healthy.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence not only vegetables- grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, milk products. Why it would be impossible?? so with meat- which requires more land and food to feed them- its possible, but not with vegetarian stuff- then it would become impossible. oh my God- from where you get all this stuff- dont get enough vitamins??? its total crap
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Numerous other problems :) so why me and millions vegetarians are healthy?? why they dont need and you need. i and everybody else see numerous meat industry problems- just google and you ll see. I care (or better to tell at least dont kill) living beings not just human beings- to care just about human beings is selfish.
@sahadevaaa Because you lack certain vitamins needed to sustain your own existence, and meat provides many of those things that vegetables don't provide. Yes every industry has problems but guess what that's why we have food protocols and immune systems.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence oh dear..... which vitamins, which things, which fats????? you are really intelligent in science, but believe me- not in this topic
@sahadevaaa *facepalm* dietary matters are science and yes most vegetarians do not get enough saturated fats, vitamins, iron, and can sometimes be malnourished not to mention the cravings. Without meat it's much harder to sustain yourself.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so i heard one particular thing- Iron. I can name fruits and vegetables, nuts where i can get it from. I dont have any craving to eat meat- really- after i stopped - i dont want it at all. can you name me more vitamins or minerals which vegetarians dont get? What would be proof to you that vegetarian diet is healthy???
@sahadevaaa you need animal fats and vegetables don't carry much weight so your more likely to be malnourished. But i'm done speaking with you, good day.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence any experiment done- you are speaking like it was done- something like to take thousand vegetarians, thousand meat eaters and to test. otherwise is just speculation that person needs meat caus if vegetarian feels well and healthy where is the problem. interestingly how i am 9 years vegetarian and can do physical job and while my colleagues are complaining to be tired after job, i go to play sports 3 a week. so how i dont need animal fats?
@sahadevaaa It's a scientific fact, yes it is possible to live as a vegetarian but it is not the most healthy because we as humans are omnivores not herbivores. Regardless it does not matter to me.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Every animal is particular- like a man. Its the same as if i killed some guy's wife and would tell him- i still care about humans- i am for green planet stuff or smth like that. Its ridiculous.
@sahadevaaa There is a massive difference between cannibalism and consuming animals, you act as though you have to be a vegan to care about the planet which is ridiculous. Plenty of people do work to help the environment and still eat meat.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence you have to be vegetarian to care about animals, caus otherwise you are contributing to killing them.if i provided facts that meat industry negatively influences environment doesnt mean that i provided facts that environmentalists dont eat meat !!!
@sahadevaaa Who made you the boss on caring for nature? Plenty of people can help the environment and eat meat which you continue to ignore. Not all environmentalists are vegans, although i'm sure most are. Isn't going to stop me or anyone else from enjoying a steak either way.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence me the boss on caring for nature???? people who kill and eat are more bosses- caus they do what they want- and thats the sign or boss. yes- they can help environment and eat meat, but then they dont care about animals. as if now i'm responsible for those environmentalists who are eating meat :)
@Requiemxtoxinnocence if one looks to any car- even not intelligent person understands that somebody created this car- it couldnt just appear out of nothing by chance and became ferrari. same is with universe- its so perfectly designed, yet so many thinks that nobody created it, that everything happpened by chance- its like madness. and science will never find out the creator- caus they can use just material tools- but God is unaccesible by material tools
@sahadevaaa A car and the universe are two massively different things, a car is a machine that you can actually find the blueprints to, the manufacturers, and many other evidences. The universe is completely different as it deals in physics, and if god wanted to leave a signature he should've done so.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yeah yeah- two massively different things caus universe is even more complex machine. by the way how you would recognize my made car? how you would find manufacturers, what if i made everything myself. doesnt make sense yeah? but that everything came by chance make sense :DDD
@sahadevaaa Your essentially comparing mcdonalds to mt.everest and then saying "god did it" because we only know what happened a few milliseconds afterword. Everything came by chance? That just shows how little you understand about BB cosmology to try and insert your belief that your particular god did it when we do not know for sure. Believe all you want but don't assume that it's the correct answer, you need to provide evidence and the methods used to do so not just say "magic" did it.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so how you would recognise my made car? how you would recognise UFO- you would explore and tell- oh it belongs to Marsians? :) yeah- everything came by chance - if there is no Creator. If it didnt come by chance, it means there was a plan. so what evidence would prove you that it was God made?
@sahadevaaa Cars are not the same as biological cells. You don't even understand evolution or cosmology and you continue to plug in your belief. If god created the universe, why doesn't he show up sometime and explain how he did it to our scientists? Or perhaps you could explain how magic created the universe.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Nothing is the same. I just ask how you would prove that the my made car is my made or that Ufo was made by Marsians. and how you would like Him to show up to prove that He is God- in BBC news with shining aura around him and telling- i'm God! or he should descend from the sky- but then you could tell that he is UFO not God. so what would make for you an evidence that that person is God?
@sahadevaaa I told you I could go to the car manufactures place, speak to the builders, look at the technological innovations, and even go to a factory to see them built by humans. Martians would be a bit harder but there would be bodies, technological innovations, possibly tools, and so forth. To prove himself to be god he would have to: appear to everyone, do some galactic magic ( make a few stars), and stop a few natural disasters as well as explain how he made the universe in detail.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yes - you told- but you would never find out that i built that car! i could get the technology and make my own car which wouldnt be for sale. thats the problem. yes- there would be some tools or whatever in UFO- but problem is that you couldnt define from where they came from. there are several problems with that- if he appeared to everyone how you would know that its God? and he would have to create few stars for every one of us? and answer all questions
@sahadevaaa Wrong you can find out most histories of cars by getting information on them from previous owners, and building your own car? You would have to have the materials and knowledge to do so and to do it alone would be pain staking you'd need help from other manufacturing companies just to make all the parts. Yeah just prove his ultimate galactic power and explain how he did so with precision.
The idea is that the information always existed. The medeval Japanese bred a rooster with a 10-20 foot tail. There was no existing rooster with a 10-20 ft tail before they did this so there was no DNA that provided information for one. However, the roosters with the longest tails were carefully selected and bred over time. The trait ensured the roosters genes would be passed on because the tail was the trait which most ensured its survival.
vertigo0331 1 week ago
Redundant, please quit that issue, you are boring people here.
Where did the first organism came from? You don't know. How it decided to evolve? It didn't and you still don't know. If you are the smart person you project to be why do you follow this lies? Mutations and information are limited and you guys pretend us to believe your garbage.
Shan23Studios 2 weeks ago
I do not think this is a good example. Let me give one. The opsin gene enables New World monkeys to see green. In Old World monkeys, apes and humans this gene has been duplicated and a mutation (probably substitution) in the duplicate enables red to be seen. Thus the 3 groups can see in full colour.
larka46 2 weeks ago
Gene duplication is a powerful tool to increase "information". That's it. The creationist asked for an evolutionary process that increases information. That's what.
If you want an example of how this would provide a useful function, look at nylon-eating bacteria. The bacteria is able to digest nylon from a frame-shift mutation on a gene that has been duplicated.
DeadFishFactory 3 weeks ago
MRSA, use to be treatable with common drugs, then becomes immune to them years later :o
jihad76239 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KoutetsuTenshin NO! SUN comes UP, sun GOES DOWN!!! THAT cannot be explained!
Johnf85 1 month ago
Comment removed
Johnf85 1 month ago
why the tyrannosaurus rex, didn't survive
alcojigmpfi 1 month ago
At least you had the balls to allow the Comments section to remain open
ncwdane 1 month ago
no one asked you any question, dude! so keep your hypothesis to yoself until yu are summoned,ok? hhhhhhhh jks!
madenew000 2 months ago
aLL CELLS REPRODUCE ASEXUALLY...THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MICRO EVOLUTION AND MACRO EVOLUTION YOUR DISSERTATION NEEDS WORK ALSO MR. DAWKINS IS A LIAR! HIS EXPERIMENT REPRODUCING THE BOMBADERE BEETLE WAS WRONG WRONG WRONG! HE PURPOSELY LEFT OUT THE CATALYST THAT CAUSES THE ERUPTION OUTSIDE OF THE BEETLE'S BODY, WHICH DISPROVES EVOLUTION BEYOND A MOST REASONABLE DOUBT. SO MUCH FOR YOUR GODS. (MERE MEN).
777godwithme 2 months ago
@777godwithme CAPS LOCK IS INTENSE!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Johnf85 1 month ago
"stumped" yes thats what its called.when you cant answer a qeustion. No need for brackets to try and save face
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
This isn't an example of a mutation that increases information in the genome. It's just an example of a mutation. I'm not saying the creationist was right, but this just isn't an answer to the question that was asked in that video.
warron24 2 months ago 6
@warron24 Well stated! Mere mutation does not increase the amount of information in the genome.
BlakeRudy 1 week ago
This is essentially the only example I ever hear, but this mutation results in a loss of information. Seems to me an intellectually rigorous scientist or student would finally concede the failure of the theory. Darwinism is dead.
onlyonechoice 2 months ago
@onlyonechoice If you are arguing about this video then that is an incorrect statement. Penicillin resistance occurs mainly because of a bacteria acquiring a plasmid (extragenomal DNA) that codes for a beta-lactamase. So in fairness it is an example of an organism gaining information and function. By no means is it a loss. Another example of a mutation leading to gain or in this case toxic gain of function is Huntington's Chorea.
ptolomey12 1 month ago
This doesn't make much of a case, when settlers settled in the Americas, they gave the natives blankets tainted with smallpox, the Europeans had an had some resistance whereas the natives had none, when exposed to pathogens a natural resistance occurs, but both the natives and the Europeans were still humans and both strains of bacteria are still bacteria, Also, we all came from Adam and Eve, yet there are many races now as a result of environmental factors, yet we are all still humans
7eliyahu 3 months ago
when theists can't answer questions regarding evolution, they start cursing
TheZachary86 3 months ago
What you are suggesting is that the bacteria already had immunity to penicillin. A new strain was produced which can't be likened to the creation of a new species. This is a shit example. The DNA in the new strain is exactly the same as the DNA in the old strain. A dalmation is a dog the same as a spaniel is a dog.
copperload 3 months ago 3
@copperload 100 percent right its still the same species all that is new is the immunity we all do that does that mean were a new species everytime we get immune to something no im still human species nothing else thats not evolution thats slight variation which dna allows other wise we would all die
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
dawkins is a fool and a fake.
Seigu007 3 months ago
No new information was entered into the next generation of the organism, this is a loss of information, not a gain.
HebrewTiger 3 months ago 2
@7th75thCallaghan ¿Are U answering non-sense to increase the VIEWS of this BORING video, by getting us back here? Show us the video where a specie becomes another one. EVOLUTION is just a THEORY, the most absurd ever, PROVE the EVOLUTION and CONVINCE the whole world, you don't make that effort because you know it's ABSURD so don't pretend to be a Scientist with this OPPORTUNIST VIDEO. It's boring like this SATANIST Dawkins. You are not Xpert
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
@7th75thCallaghan FAKE-ASS Scientist, You are POSER, use your account to comment. An ignorant pretending to be scientist. PROVE THE BULLSHIT YOU SAY. Create a PLANT, at least a CELL. U are just repeating the same OLD shit they told you. Dawkins is Luciferian, Creationists kicked your asses since the first court case, simply: Because you cannot prove your bullshit, BIG MOUTH, Show me the video where 1 cell becomes a multicellular organism!
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shan23Studios
"Creationists kicked your asses since the first court case" - You are deluded. IF Creationism were kicking ass, it would be in schools. It isn't because Magical explinations are NOT science.
Evolution IS reality.
"EVOLUTION is just a THEORY" - Yo don't understand what a theory is. A Theory means ALL observable information on the subject is accounted for and NO information contradicts it.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@Stinukli Brother, plz show me the video where a specie becomes another one. Hybridation among intentionally compatible organisms IS NOT a new SPECIE, it's just a HYBRID, that's allowed so poor dependant species could get benefits from the hybrid plants, like healing + nutritional properties. There was also allowed hybridation between dracons and humans so you could exist. You cannot create a Plant NOR make it evolve. God did create it! You cant even create grass, not even a cell.
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios Do you mean "evolve" as in become more advanced? Because evolution does not mean the new species has to be better, just different. Refer to research done by William Rice and G.W. Salt, where several different species of fruit fly were created by sexual isolation and enviromental preference.
ODaemienE 1 month ago
@ODaemienE new species? NEW SPECIES? Sexual isolation? to monocellular micro-organisms? You were reading all of the OLD coments here and just decided to solve the problem? Dude if you or any pro-Evolutionist can prove EVOLUTION please PROVE IT once and for all, not a HYBRID but create a NEW SPECIE from scratch! Dont bother me anymore with the same nonsense
Shan23Studios 1 month ago
@Shan23Studios Evolution is not ctreating a new species from scratch. That is Abiogenisis. Plus, the study I sited was a fine example of evolution. One species became several. Perhaps you were confused and thought I was talking about bacterium. These are multi-cellular animals, insects even. Other experiments have been done into specieation, you just have to actually look for them. And, I am not attempting to bother you, merely correct you.
ODaemienE 1 month ago
@ODaemienE ONE SPECIE dont BECOME several, because if any of you could prove that, EVOLUTION would be a LAW, not the absurd THEORY it is.
Shan23Studios 3 weeks ago
@Shan23Studios Well...
Law: a principle based on the predictable consequences of an act, condition, etc.: the law of supply and demand. (this means it has to do with cause and effect)
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine...
ODaemienE 3 weeks ago
@Shan23Studios ...However, judging by your inept use of the English language, I doubt you will see the difference.
(Species, not "specie." and does not or doesn't, not "dont". Even if it was "dont" it would be don't, with an apostrophy.)
ODaemienE 3 weeks ago
@ODaemienE You are the retards they choose to confront me?
SOLVE the evolution failures & make it a Universal Law already, (oh wait: YOU CANT) You morons, incompetent, inferior.
I have you like fools, making echo of my words, you don't even know what to think if I don't give you a concept. Imbecils. This video stinks, but your replies are worst, your grammatical lies are incoherent, and you are so stupid.
Shan23Studios 2 weeks ago
@Shan23Studios I was right. You could not see the difference. Evolutionary Theory is a broad term that describes how several Biological and Chemical Laws work together to form new species. These include mutation and DNA & RNA replication; observable facts. Laws describe what happens, Theories describe how it happens. Laws are fixed, circumstantial situations which must meet exact criteria, else be falsified. Theories use Laws to describe the working universe.
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for this, the Dawkins video was obviously fake as any 1st year genetics student would answer that question without hesitating. Finally there is a video response that I can direct all of those retarded creationists to so that I don't have to lose any hair explaining a very simple concept to the intellectual equivalent of a doorknob.
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
Comment removed
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
Oh no, Dawkins was stumped by a question & DID NOT ANSWER?
again, Dawkins was stumped by a question & DID NOT ANSWER?
but you did? new inmune bacteria are not increasing their genome information, wich is why the expert R. dawkins never mentioned them. they dont become different species. That is what the woman asked, you know that.
He didn't ANSWER, he is the famous EVOLUTIONIST, & he didn't answer.
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios Dawkins was never stumped by such a question, and he clearly says that himself. F.x. do you have a version were a FEMALE asks, and another one where a MAN is the interviewer. 1. Dawkins is already thinking when the interviewer asks. 2. Dawkins' answer had nothing to do with the supposed question. watch?v=6gHi6jES700
And yes, genomic information increase is seen all the time. It happens in plants and rice when they become polyploid. Also tandem duplication adds information.
Stinukli 3 months ago
@Stinukli You mean the whole video is a HOAX to be famous? Like Lady Gaga with the SheMale rumor + vdo? He was acting PERPLEX? & even asked for time. He Dawkins, the EXPERT did NOT answer the question, SHE asked for an example and he COULD NOT give it. Increasing genome info don't lead to a new specie, Plants DONT become new NOR different species. He is just another Satanist pretending to be atheist. Genome info is just a memory Record in all beings. NOTHING ON EARTH IS BECOMING A NEW SPECIE.
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios No, the point is that the video is fake, he wasn't posed the question in the first place, even an elementary understanding of genetics answers the question for you. Your second mistake is in making the ignorant, uninformed and unresearched assumption that Dawkins is an expert on either atheism or genetics - hate to break this to you, but he isn't - if we had any serious scientific philosophers acting in his role as pop-science media pundit, they would swallow you whole.
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios Speciation is observed contemporary, so you're wrong. I never said "HOAX to be famous". You know what I mean. We're dealing with creationists.
I am a Christian by the way. Thank God for evolution, hehe. :-)
Stinukli 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios Also, your childish suggestion that genomic data is memory is meaningless, all stored data can be described as memory, are you saying that our memories are stored in DNA? You would be very wrong in saying so.
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios Polyploidy in plants can lead to speciation should that chromosome be selected for, one of the ways how the domestication of plants has lead to distinct species, different from their ancestors. In terms of all cell types, genetic data can be added in the form of an addition mutation, in turn that addition may be selected for, resulting in divergence, multiply this over millions of years over millions of instances, and allow to marinade in common sense for 5 minutes before serving.
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
@Shan23Studios
Plants DONT become new NOR different species
Incorrect. In fact the first research in genetic inheritence was done using selective breeing of Orchids and Peas and by a Theist monk as I recall.
EVERYTHING on earth is slowly beoming a new species.
ever see a Mule? one parent was a horse, one was a donkey, yet the Mule's Chromosome count matches neither
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
Comment removed
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415 Hybridation among intentionally compatible organisms IS NOT a new SPECIE, it's just a HYBRID, that's allowed so poor dependant species could get benefits from the hybrid plants, like healing + nutritional properties. There was also allowed hybridation between dracons and humans so you could exist. You cannot create a Plant and you cannot make it evolve. God did create it! You cant even create grass, not even a cell.
Shan23Studios 3 months ago
Well I stand corrected after further research I guess DNA is fairly simple. Like a blob of jello. Yes and i guess it is assembled in a fairly random manner. Key word random. Keep drinking the koolaide my friend, with evolutionist adherents like yourself I have great confidence in the future of humanity.
philackey 3 months ago
BTW...Evolution dosn't require NEW DNA.
Since all life runs off the same DNA compounds, or nucleobasis, changesin in evolution do not need NEW info, they just need rearanging of the OLD info.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
When an Evolutionist can prove that we all descended from rocks (i.e. inanimate matter), I'll gladly consider myself a Materialist... that I am nothing more than "Talking Meat".
Until then, the faith Materialists profess... that rocks spontaneously developed the capacity to transform from objective matter into subjective entitiies (with the ability to eat, procreate, walk, form communities, and have an opinion)... is more than fantsy. It's a political agenda to submit us to the Rule of Men.
assistme 4 months ago
@assistme
development of a fetus.
DAN splits into RNA,
Cell divides and RNA uses new elements absorbed through digestion to creates a new 1/2 and rebecome DNA
Chemicals naturaly form bonds.
Soon as the right chemicals met up to for even 1 strand of RNA the rest just becomes a domino effect.
Creating a body from minerals is the basis behind vitamins.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415
*DAN = DNA in previous post
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415, your reply hasn't answered anything.
The facts are that Materialism provides no explanation...
(a) as to how rocks (or any inanimate matter) produce RNA, or DNA;
(b) as to how objective matter (i.e., Life's representation under the cloak of Materialism as "Talking Meat") produce subjectivity; and
(c) for the fact that the absence of essential proteins produces different apparatus, Irreducible Complexity of the Bacterial Flagellum (/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY) is irrefutable.
assistme 4 months ago
@assistme
DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space - NASA Researchers
Copy and paste that into google and watch the video and you will will understand how Life can come from the inanimate.
Summary: The building blocks of DNA are just chemical bonds that have been observed to happen in inanimate asteroids
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
Comment removed
assistme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415, an Evolutionist approached Our Father and said, "Listen, as we can produce artificial DNA, we no longer need you." "OK." Our Father said, "So, let's have a man-making contest!" "Love to!" the Evolutionist said. "Now," Our Father instructed, "we'll need to do this just like I did with Adam." "No worries," the Evolutionist replied, as he bent down to grab a handful of dirt. "Whoa!" Our Father said. "Not so fast, son. Of course, you'll first need to get your **own** dirt."
assistme 4 months ago
@assistme
FYI, I didn't spam flag that one.
I don't agree with it, but I find it funny
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@whiteowl1415 So humans bring organic substances fom the earth and and combine them( i.e. design them in a controlled environment) and that proves what? They find amino acids on an asteroid, the building blocks of DNA. Do you even have a clue how complex DNA is. Thats exactly like saying a bag full of beach sand is the same as a smart phone. Even your boy Dawkins admits science has NO answer to the origin of life. Its called a unified theory when science has a consensus. Abiogensis=Miracle
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey
"and that proves what?" - That organic compouds can be found in inorganics
"Do you even have a clue how complex DNA is" - Not as complext as most people make it out to be. DNA is basicaly compose of 4 primary mololuces that are connected to each otehr through naturaly forming bonds in a fairly random manner. If it HAD to be as precise as creationists make it out to be, there wouldn't be enough variety in it to use as court evidence.
"Abiogensis=Miracle" God of the Gaps fallacy
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@philackey The sand analogy is ALL wrong, btw. Since DNA works on chemical bonds, its more like filling a box with magnitized paperclips, then pulling one out and seeing how long of a chain it can make through connections to the others.
P.S. Can't stand Dawkins. Guy is an ass
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@assistme And you are saying if evolution doesn't answer these above questions,then GOD is the natural answer?
shankarceg 4 months ago
@shankarceg, yours is the 1st reasonable response to my posts. Thank you!
Truthfully, I entered this world Tabula Rasa! So, perhaps, like you, I accepted the explanations my family shared with me; i.e., their explanation for the World (i.e. the material & the ephemeral). Though, as my questions grew, I sought answers elsewhere. For me, the architecture of Materialism addresses but the artifacts of our reality, so the answers must rest in Consciousness. For me, Know Thyself seems the only path.
assistme 4 months ago
@assistme I hope you aren't saying that the flagellum is of irreducible complexity, because it certainly isn't, the various sub-components can be seen separately in various forms in other cell types. Those who believe in irreducible complexity are of irreducible simplicity, and need to perhaps study a little more before making such adolescent judgments and assumptions within a discipline that demands patience, and the understanding that new data will arrive in time and change what we know.
7th75thCallaghan 3 months ago
btw, you might want to correct your commentary on _ points:
1/"Most infectious diseases" it is effective against Gram positive bacteria. That may cover >50% of infectious diseases, but the common meaning of "most" is not simply "the majority"
2/ Fleming discovered penicillin, he did not invent it
3/ P. notatum is the organism, the chemical is penicillin
4/Betalactamase-resistant penicillins are still very much in use
5/the resistance gene is transmitted laterally via a plasmid vector
Liodegrance 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins own published answer to this question is that over a long time scale increase in information is a controversial: in DNA replication there tends to be loss of information rather than an increase. I suspect it is this factor that means he cannot give a *simple* answer
Liodegrance 4 months ago
Dawkins own published answer to this question is that over a long time scale increase in information is a controversial: in DNA replication there tends to be loss of information rather than increase: in a penicillin-free environment, the resistance allele declines in the population.
Liodegrance 4 months ago
I have to concede that:
1/ transmission of penicillin resistance is an evolutionary process
2/ propagation of the penicillin resisance gene represents presence of genetic information in filial generations that was not present in parent generations ie increase in information,
So this does answer the question as set.
However...
Liodegrance 4 months ago
Get over it people- Dawkins was stumped and the replication of old information does not equate to the emergence of new never-before-seen information which actually has some relevance to the issue. Also, Dawkins won't debate the world's most academically credentialed Christian apologist, William Lane Craig. It's called the empty chair debate and its taking place on the 25th of October (this month). Dawkins ain't coming folks!
fashklash 4 months ago
@fashklash
If the best creationism cn do is point a finger and say "You're missing information" to science then all its going to get in response is "No kidding."
Science never claimed to have all the issues, it just dosn't jump to a "God did it" reaction everytime it look for more.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@fashklash What about gene duplication within an organism? It's in any molecular biology or genetics textbook and well understood right down to the chemical events of what happens to cause it. An extra copy of a gene is created, which can then (because it's literally like making a copy of work on a hard drive) change, giving rise to never-before-seen genetic information. (Disclaimer: I have no problem with religion, one of my best friends is a Christian. I'm however a MSc Biology student).
Axolotl9250 4 months ago
@Axolotl9250 I do know of and acknowledge that idea,and I would be willing to pursue it logically in order to know the probability of new information coming about through the replication of old information.However,no one in the evolution orthodoxy would be willing to contemplate the obstacles to such a model.Actually, what evolutionary biologists like Dawkins claim is that large information-bearing sections of RNA must have duplicated and joined together, but they spurn all counter-claims.
fashklash 4 months ago
@fashklash It is certainly true that this duplication does not always give rise to completely new information. An alternative outcome I've been reading about recently is rather the two copies stay near enough identical, and end up doubling the amount of whatever substance it codes for in a cell. When you say about RNA doubles and joins together do you mean the idea DNA came from RNA (I wasn't sure)?
Axolotl9250 4 months ago
@fashklash
"however,no one in the evolution orthodoxy would be willing to contemplate the obstacles" - Not true, obstacles are theorized to fuel evolution by eliminateing the nonviable. Any Evolutionist who discounts obstacles isn't fully appreciating the idea of what evolution is.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
A genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the infomation in the genome:
Down's Syndrome
Kleinfelter's Syndrom
Next question?
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systemS were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
"but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either."
Indeed, but it is more irrational to assume that an invisible, all powerful being did it as well.
True science reserves presumptions as to a cause until data supports it irrefutably.
Religion screams "We have the answer" without evidence at all, then threatens eternal damnation to anyone that says, "Sorry dude, but that isn't proof"
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This is not an answer to the question posed. The question wasn't is change over time possible in bacteria through a process of trait selection. That is like saying can you select traits in dogs and breed them with other dogs to enhance those traits? Of course you can. If this example was the only example then the answer would be a clear no. Sticking to the question and giving a straight forward yeas or no shouldn't be a problem.
Kromwell2005 4 months ago
Regardless of rather Dawkins could reply or not..which if you watch other vids involving him you will see that he is a great long term thinker, but not much of an on the spot guy...An answer is available bellow explaining Klinefelters as an example to the question...Those backing the interviewers question as some sort of disproof, pleasse read.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Adressing the Question:
Klinefelter's syndrome: The average human genome contains 46 Chromosomes while an individual with Klinefelter's syndrome has 47 due to the XXY trippling at the end rather than the XY or XX coupling normaly seen. Result, 1 full gene's worth of "increase the information"
Downs syndrome is similar in nature, but with diferent genes and different effects
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
A) You didn't answer the question. A bacteria mutating to become resilliant to penicillin is not the same as adding information. There are no examples of information being added to a genome via mutation.
B) Change within a species (micro-evolution) is observable and measureable. Change from one species into another (macro-evolution) is not. Belief in the latter is arrived at by a leap of faith, not scientific evidence.
northmag 4 months ago
@northmag Your statement assumes that there are distinct species. That is also a leap of faith. There is no scientific difference in saying that two human's are different species, from saying a human and a tree are different species. Both simply differ in their DNA by some percentage. That is completely arbitrary. You can say that identical twins are the same species... that is all. So your belief in the categories macro & micro evolution is a fallacy.
dmg46664 4 months ago
He didn't answer because 1) he was pissed off that the people interviewing him had lied about their reasons for doing so 2) he didn't want to get quote mined 3) it's perfectly fine to take your time on a question
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence if after some pause he decided to answer- then it's his fault if he couldn't answer the question which he was asked.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa He did end up answering the question he posted it on a website ( don't remember which website), but the people interviewing him did lie about their intentions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence no he didnt reply- what he replied was not an answer to the question which was asked. read yourself the question and what he answered on his website.
They lied or not- is not an issue and cant be proven now.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa YES he did, on austrailian skeptics in an article called the information challenge is where you can find it. He answered the question fully and yes they did lie, they were acting disingenuous and in return tried to make him look foolish by cutting him off. Why don't you go there now and read it before jumping to conclusions.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You call this reply? : The answer in practise is complicated and contraversial. All bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. So tell me where is that single example of a genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in the genome??? so where is the answer in that artice??
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Read the article before commenting, but here is a simplificationThe kind of mutation called a 'gene duplication' when coupled with ANY other kind of mutation that changes the properties of one of the copies, will increase the amount of information in the genome.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa The second kind of mutation can occur at the same time as the gene duplication ... i.e. a duplication that does not result in two identical copies of the original gene, but two slightly different copies.
Or the second mutation can occur much later ... perhaps millions of years later ... on one of the two duplicates.
Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is an "increase in information" no matter how you define it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa The second kind of mutation can occur at the same time as the gene duplication ... i.e. a duplication that does not result in two identical copies of the original gene, but two slightly different copies.
Or the second mutation can occur much later ... perhaps millions of years later ... on one of the two duplicates.
Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is an "increase in information" no matter how you define it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so why he couldnt reply like that even on his website if everything is that simple as you've told????
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa I was dumbing it down for you, but this is science and it's easy for christian creationists to quote mine and be deceitful which you continue to ignore. The information challenge article by dawkins explains his situation fully, if you can't believe his eye witness account then I can't help you.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence no- i dont believe his eye witness account, why should i?
nobody have asked to explain it fully. all they ve asked was one example
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Okay don't believe in eye witness accounts, it's your loss. If you can't investigate evolutionary knowledge or the truth behind this incident with a fucking computer then by all means you may as well be a vegetable.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yeah- he was very angry- you can see it in the video- no eye- witnesses needed for that.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa nope it was edited, that's why this video is called a HOAX. But then again you only care about your agenda and not the truth.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence to edit video is not a criteria that its a hoax. so if you care about others (including animals)- are you a vegetarian? its good you are aiming at unity of all, but it ll never happen on the material bases. caus if people will continue thinking that they are just these material bodies, they ll continue fighting. science cant solve it- only true religion can solve it , caus it can change peoples' hearts.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Yes editing a video is dishonest it's like quote mining. I am not a vegetarian but I also understand the way in which this world works. Religion is what is tearing people apart people think one god is truer than another along with other problems. Religion hasn't solved anything just held mankind back, sure believing in god is fine but fundamentalists like yourself are only hurting the cause of unification.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so if you are not a vegetarian you are another proof of hypocrisy. You are good just for human beings, and somebody wants to be good just for the white ones or black ones. you are killing animals just to satisfy your tongue. Just because their intellect is lower. thats a shame.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Just because I eat animals does not mean I don't care for them, they are an essential part of nature and our habitat and because I eat some animals does not mean I eat all of them or because they are of lower intellect that I don't care for them. You really can't talk either because you more than likely aren't a vegetarian either.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence i am vegetarian for 9 years. how you can tell that you care if you eat them?. Its two opposite things- to kill and to care. real care is love, and even not killing doesnt mean love, caus i lets say dont kill or beat or whatever my neighbour but doesnt mean that i care or love him, so not to kill is the foundational platform. please watch Earthlings- it ll show many things you couldnt even imagine- how horrible it is.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Well i'm not going to eat my cat or a majority of the animals on the planet, besides without domesticated animals we'd be reduced to vegetables and with the number of people on earth we'd be further reduced to eating each other. So killing a few animals to survive isn't a bad thing, and yes you can still care for animals by preserving their wildlife and keeping them from going extinct.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence
Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs a meat-free diet: 3 times more
Percentage of US topsoil lost to date: 75
Percentage of US topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
Number of acres of US forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Complaining to me isn't going to stop any of this.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence but then dont speak about unification
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa I can still speak of unification because it has nothing to do with meat consumption of animals.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Amount of meat imported to US annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds
Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence to grow animals requires land, food, water. its such a waste- i forgot the exact number how many times to produce one kilo of grains is efficient to that of an kilo of meat. so thing that we 'll be reduced to eating each other due to vegetarian diet is total nonsense. So why i and million other vegetarians on the planet are healthy, i am even working physical job and making sports as well. Pythagor, newton, plato and other great thinkers were vegetarians
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa there are currently close to 7 billion people on earth, attempting feed all of them with vegetables would be literally impossible, the amount you would have to produce would be astronomical not to mention people would not agree to it. Also being a vegetarian you don't get enough required vitamins, and numerous other problems. There's a reason we are omnivores, because we require both to be healthy.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence not only vegetables- grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, milk products. Why it would be impossible?? so with meat- which requires more land and food to feed them- its possible, but not with vegetarian stuff- then it would become impossible. oh my God- from where you get all this stuff- dont get enough vitamins??? its total crap
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa No it isn't vegetarians lack vitamins and humans need animal fats to retain their health.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Numerous other problems :) so why me and millions vegetarians are healthy?? why they dont need and you need. i and everybody else see numerous meat industry problems- just google and you ll see. I care (or better to tell at least dont kill) living beings not just human beings- to care just about human beings is selfish.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Because you lack certain vitamins needed to sustain your own existence, and meat provides many of those things that vegetables don't provide. Yes every industry has problems but guess what that's why we have food protocols and immune systems.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence oh dear..... which vitamins, which things, which fats????? you are really intelligent in science, but believe me- not in this topic
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa *facepalm* dietary matters are science and yes most vegetarians do not get enough saturated fats, vitamins, iron, and can sometimes be malnourished not to mention the cravings. Without meat it's much harder to sustain yourself.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so i heard one particular thing- Iron. I can name fruits and vegetables, nuts where i can get it from. I dont have any craving to eat meat- really- after i stopped - i dont want it at all. can you name me more vitamins or minerals which vegetarians dont get? What would be proof to you that vegetarian diet is healthy???
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa you need animal fats and vegetables don't carry much weight so your more likely to be malnourished. But i'm done speaking with you, good day.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence any experiment done- you are speaking like it was done- something like to take thousand vegetarians, thousand meat eaters and to test. otherwise is just speculation that person needs meat caus if vegetarian feels well and healthy where is the problem. interestingly how i am 9 years vegetarian and can do physical job and while my colleagues are complaining to be tired after job, i go to play sports 3 a week. so how i dont need animal fats?
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa It's a scientific fact, yes it is possible to live as a vegetarian but it is not the most healthy because we as humans are omnivores not herbivores. Regardless it does not matter to me.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Every animal is particular- like a man. Its the same as if i killed some guy's wife and would tell him- i still care about humans- i am for green planet stuff or smth like that. Its ridiculous.
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa There is a massive difference between cannibalism and consuming animals, you act as though you have to be a vegan to care about the planet which is ridiculous. Plenty of people do work to help the environment and still eat meat.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence you have to be vegetarian to care about animals, caus otherwise you are contributing to killing them.if i provided facts that meat industry negatively influences environment doesnt mean that i provided facts that environmentalists dont eat meat !!!
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Who made you the boss on caring for nature? Plenty of people can help the environment and eat meat which you continue to ignore. Not all environmentalists are vegans, although i'm sure most are. Isn't going to stop me or anyone else from enjoying a steak either way.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence me the boss on caring for nature???? people who kill and eat are more bosses- caus they do what they want- and thats the sign or boss. yes- they can help environment and eat meat, but then they dont care about animals. as if now i'm responsible for those environmentalists who are eating meat :)
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence if one looks to any car- even not intelligent person understands that somebody created this car- it couldnt just appear out of nothing by chance and became ferrari. same is with universe- its so perfectly designed, yet so many thinks that nobody created it, that everything happpened by chance- its like madness. and science will never find out the creator- caus they can use just material tools- but God is unaccesible by material tools
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa A car and the universe are two massively different things, a car is a machine that you can actually find the blueprints to, the manufacturers, and many other evidences. The universe is completely different as it deals in physics, and if god wanted to leave a signature he should've done so.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yeah yeah- two massively different things caus universe is even more complex machine. by the way how you would recognize my made car? how you would find manufacturers, what if i made everything myself. doesnt make sense yeah? but that everything came by chance make sense :DDD
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Your essentially comparing mcdonalds to mt.everest and then saying "god did it" because we only know what happened a few milliseconds afterword. Everything came by chance? That just shows how little you understand about BB cosmology to try and insert your belief that your particular god did it when we do not know for sure. Believe all you want but don't assume that it's the correct answer, you need to provide evidence and the methods used to do so not just say "magic" did it.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence so how you would recognise my made car? how you would recognise UFO- you would explore and tell- oh it belongs to Marsians? :) yeah- everything came by chance - if there is no Creator. If it didnt come by chance, it means there was a plan. so what evidence would prove you that it was God made?
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Cars are not the same as biological cells. You don't even understand evolution or cosmology and you continue to plug in your belief. If god created the universe, why doesn't he show up sometime and explain how he did it to our scientists? Or perhaps you could explain how magic created the universe.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Nothing is the same. I just ask how you would prove that the my made car is my made or that Ufo was made by Marsians. and how you would like Him to show up to prove that He is God- in BBC news with shining aura around him and telling- i'm God! or he should descend from the sky- but then you could tell that he is UFO not God. so what would make for you an evidence that that person is God?
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa I told you I could go to the car manufactures place, speak to the builders, look at the technological innovations, and even go to a factory to see them built by humans. Martians would be a bit harder but there would be bodies, technological innovations, possibly tools, and so forth. To prove himself to be god he would have to: appear to everyone, do some galactic magic ( make a few stars), and stop a few natural disasters as well as explain how he made the universe in detail.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yes - you told- but you would never find out that i built that car! i could get the technology and make my own car which wouldnt be for sale. thats the problem. yes- there would be some tools or whatever in UFO- but problem is that you couldnt define from where they came from. there are several problems with that- if he appeared to everyone how you would know that its God? and he would have to create few stars for every one of us? and answer all questions
sahadevaaa 4 months ago
@sahadevaaa Wrong you can find out most histories of cars by getting information on them from previous owners, and building your own car? You would have to have the materials and knowledge to do so and to do it alone would be pain staking you'd need help from other manufacturing companies just to make all the parts. Yeah just prove his ultimate galactic power and explain how he did so with precision.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago