~ 1tmoch, funny part is, not all, but some of the evo crew have a few clues, many try to grasp hold of the fantasy religion of "once upon a time there was a large bang & here we all are", ...yet because their not totally clueless, even they know, that if the world & all things there in didn't "just happen all by itself & for no reason or purpose",... the only other option is a designer. It is one or the other, fluke or brilliant design. The natural man is not thrilled about accountability.
The picture in science is drastically changing. It is going to take time to trickle down into popular culture, but "Newtonian Biology", as some like to call it, is being replaced with Quantum Biology. In quantum biology, there is room for intelligence down in the order of cellular activity. But as I see it, it points to a universal mind, through which our minds come and are a reflection. I don't know, but that sounds uncannily like what theists have been saying since the dawn of mysticism.
To reject evolution is to reject all scientific advancments from the 20th centery! What scientific advancements has creationism given us? NOTHING, if we still went along with creationism we would still be in the dark ages! Just think if everyone in america excepted evolution we would be more advanced then china and japan technology wise because we rejected old world theology!
@pbrskater26 Ok, you've just proven yourself to be a moronic troll. Ideas on origins of the universe have nothing to do with modern science, and therefore should not be expected to give us any sort of ideas for technological advancement. It is because of the biblical worldview that we have a philosophical basis and justification for scientific inquiry to be possible and trustworthy. The bible mandates that we engage in discovering things about the universe.
@1tmoch I never said it did. I just find it strange that someone argues for the existence of a god yet admits it's a presupposition instead of a proven, demonstrable fact.
@extrovertedthinker Then you misunderstand the usage of the term applied here. Everyone has a starting point presupposition upon which their most fundamental convictions are built on. And this ultimate authority must be self authenticating.
I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes watching this. The vast majority of this video was nonsensical rhetoric. The segments where you said something of meaning were highly diluted or ignorant. I would correct you on some of your points but I know my words would simply be lost on you. Thank you for the suppression of science.
@thehamsammich002 Great! Thanks there, ham-head. You would correct me, but you are full of crap. That is why your only argument is mere rhetoric about my supposed rhetoric. Actually, evolution is a suppression of scientific progress. Years of research time and billions of dollars wasted on this non sense.
@Revinius The first 2 of them are from the "expelled" soundtrack ("academy," and "car ride"), then the last song is from the latest terminator movie, and i forgot where the 3rd song came from.
abiogenesis Preformationism then you try to transform science into a religion.
none of whatever you would call these series of statements could be said to be a argument against evoulution maybe a shallow thiests fantasy "no mutations that ive seen are beneficial" has to take the award for most ironic thing ever said on at least 2 levels
@youwillbesaved No, i don't turn science into religion, it is just that evolution is not a part of science. It is complete fiction, which is religious in nature. You make a claim in your second sentence, but don't back it up with a SPECIFIC. Hmmmm, very typical of people going against the facts.
GREAT VIDEO! Hello I am a female Christian Rapper. I don't mean to spam, but I don't know how else to get my music out to all of you wonderful people. Please check out my page and subscribe! God has given me the fire for this kind of expression. God bless you all and again sorry about the spamming :( .
@buttlord123 Negative. Scientific inquiry can only take you so far in explanations. God is the "who" part, not the "how" part of how God controls His universe. Scientific endeavor is a biblical principle.
Type: haq boersma ommatartus and see Prothero's summary of this evolutionary sequence in the first search result (Google books, pp. 182-3 of "Evolution: what the fossils say ...").
Type: byrne nichols culex. Go to the first result (wikipedia). Scroll down to Reference 5 and click the doi link for the entire article.
C'mon -- do I really have to do your research for you?
@conallk Not the reading. I'm not asking you to copy and paste, but i need you to give me specifics that you agree with on the net, because someone else could write on x,y,z and you think they didn't go deep enough, or are wrong, etc. "C'mon -- do i really have to explain my request to you?" I'll check those references.
The formation of a new species, such as the mosquito C. molestus arising from C. pipiens is speciation. This gets at the heart of evolutionary change. Microevolutionary processes can certainly lead to speciation. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this observed example of evolutionary change? This has occurred in historical times, so your bias against fossil evidence is irrelevant here.
1moch: So you define kind = species. Your concept of kind and your refusal of transition from kind to kind ("I disregard that which has not been observed ... all that sort of transition from kind to kind") therefore denies plain evidence of cases of speciation (the formation of new species).
Past gradual speciation: fossil radiolarians (Haq & Boersma 1978).
Recent speciation: mosquito Culex in London subway (Byrne & Nichols 1999).
Radiolarians: observed gradual change in fossil record, spanning 50 million years.
Culex: new species (C. molestus) arising from C. pipiens in historical times.
Salamanders: hybrid of two subspecies is less ecologically viable than either parent, suggesting incipient speciation (reproductive isolation of two populations).
What is "species within a kind?" It is difficult following your reasoning when you mix and match terms and concepts.
@conallk The "fossil record" is not observation, and if we try and deduce and interpret from what we CURRENTLY see, we'd conclude that evolutionists are so very confused (the "record" is jumbled up all over the place). You mix and match terms, not me. Your last 2 examples are not evolution. Try again.
@1tmoch Are you quite wrong about the radiolarian fossil record. It consists of core samples of marine sediment -- not "jumbled up all over the place." A beautiful record of gradualistic change from one species to the next, with specimens directly on top of older forms. I strongly urge you to examine real evidence before dismissing it so carelessly.
How do I mix and match terms? I've been careful to define terms. You went from kind = "genus or family or whatever" to now kind = species.
@conallk No i haven't. I have no problem with speciation as we've defined. I think you are careless by the fact that you've not seen the discombobulated mess the supposed "record" is in. Also, you've assumed other things about the fossils placement even if they were uniform across the globe, like why they are in a certain position, and the age of them (that's another issue though).
1tmoch: OK, so if kind = species, do we need to define species now? I offer "biological species", taken from Futuyma (2008) Evolution.
Biological species: "a population or group of populations within which genes are actually or potentially exchanged by interbreeding, and which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Do you agree that this is species, and that this is also a valid definition of "kind?"
@1tmoch The idea of "potentially" is relevant to include populations that are geographically separate, but still belong to the same species. For example, Eurasian and Canadian populations of gray wolf (Canis lupus) -- they have the same genome, morphology, physiology, etc. so are classified in the same species. Eurasian and Canadian populations do not interbreed in nature, but they are physiologically capable of doing so (ie. "potentially"). This can be tested by pairing them in captivity.
I do care about the terms you use, which is why I am trying to understand them. Please don't be so dismissive about established biological study.
So, it sounds like a "kind" is equivalent to species ("that which can reproduce with each other") -- yes? If this is the case, then why not just use the term "species?"
If I am not interpreting you correctly, then please give some examples of "kinds."
@conallk Forgive me for not being clear. I am not dismissive of any real findings, i am just dismissive about how some people use linguistic tricks. If we can understand each other under the term species, then ok, but what i find is that some people may have different assumptions about what is a species, etc. So ok, species, like cat, dog, eel, etc.
Yes, the definition that I quoted from Futuyma's textbook can be called "microevolution." But microevolution looks at the change in a _population's_ genetic composition, not at how one offspring resembles a parent. This is a crucial and fundamentally important concept.
The term "kind" is not part of the Linnean taxonomic system, and does not occur in population genetics.
@conallk It may be considered a synonym with "genus" or "family" or whatever. I'd have to look at the evolutionists terminology again (its been a while) to give the equivalent term. Anyway....
@1tmoch You are using "kind", which does not appear in biology textbooks. I have with me 8 textbooks on various biological disciplines: 1 general biology, 1 zoology, 1 biodiversity, 2 evolution, 2 ecology, 1 animal behavior. None of these employ "kind." There is an obvious disconnect here.
Perhaps if you provided a clear defintion of "kind." Your attempt: "It may be considered as a synonym with 'genus' or 'family' or whatever" does not help, as this covers alot of taxonomical ground.
@conallk I don't care what your books say, as much as you don't care about the terms i use. Clarification is the issue for communication. A "kind" is most easily defined as that which can reproduce with each other (given that it is not because of some sort of defect/fertility issue).
Looking at the comments, I see that I unfortunately missed the lively debate/exchanges with MolecularBioVids2.
1tmoch: please realize that you are confounding cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution. These are distinctly different fields of scientific inquiry, which might explain how this video comes across as so confused and muddled.
This video mashes together three very broad fields of science: cosmogony (origin of universe), abiogenesis (origin of life), and the titular evolution. Let's start with defining evolution: "change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits" (Futuyma 2009 Evolution).
Another point -- there are indeed beneficial mutations, readily observable in the short term in bacteria (Kassen & Bataillon 2006 Nature Genetics 38).
@conallk No, i understand this, and sorry if i didn't make clearer distinctions, but they are all still interrelated and when dealing with atheists, all must be discussed. I contend that each area individually and collectively BOTH fail the test of reality.
@1tmoch Thank you. Since the title of this video has "evolution" in it, can you please explain how evolution fails "the test of reality?"
I offer my previous definition of evolution: "change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits." Alternatively, you can think about this as change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. How is this not rooted in reality?
@conallk Like you may know, the term "evolution" is stretchy, and depends on who you are talking to, thus the prefix word in front of it, e.g. "Darwinian" E, Chemical E, Macro E, Micro E, etc. I explained partly in the video how it fails the test and have done so elsewhere in other vids, and yet more to come. I also think it is pretty plain which aspect of "evolution" i am talking about, so that when i am discussing Darwinianism, you should know, since your radar seems keen enough.
@1tmoch Your definition sounded a lot like micro evolution, which i agree with. My childs genetic traits will differ from mine. I disregard that which has not been observed, rather philosophical 2 cents worth imported not based in reality of animals having a common ancestor and all that sort of transition from kind to kind, like reptile to bird, etc.
You know,people who claim God can't exist is as silly as all the little 1s and 0s getting together in a computer and claiming to each other,that the computer maker doesn't exist because they've looked all over the computer and can't find the maker anywhere,therefore he doesn't exist and if he did exist he'd be bound by the computer programs,so as we 1s and 0s can see,the computer created itself.
You believe the old testament stories although there is absolutely no physical evidence for the Hebrew enslavement by the Egyptians, the wanderings in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.
I hope you see your hypocrisy.
By the way, evolutionists believe those ideas that can be proved.
@joethemoproductions No proof of the Hebrew enslavement!!! You've got a case of tunnel vision perhaps. Evolutionists can believe all they want, that doesn't produce reality. It's a pathetically broke joke that cannot even begin to get off the ground in order to attempt in proving it.
@1tmoch How's it goin Brother Tom,I been showing my wife all your videos and she loves them too.Are you gonna be out at the mall this weekend?I sure would love to see some more of your open air preaching videos,they're the bomb.
@CBALLEN Thanks dude. I have so much footage already that is usable for clips (over 100 hours worth). We went last Saturday and it turned out good. My battery ran out before this one conversation this was just killer. Luis was schooling the crap out of 2 evolutionists. Not only that, but it was funny as well. Jokes intermingled. I hope i can find someone who recorded it. It's just a question of getting more time available. I have so many videos i want to do.
@CBALLEN Well, now i'm not sure as last night i tried to upload a dvd and my hard drive space is about maxed out. I tried to delete unused scraps in the trash and to transfer other video files to an external hard drive and i wasn't successful. We'll see if i can get someone to help me figure it out. Oh well, within due time.
I'll stick to real archelogists. "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman is a synthesis of the last 40 yrs of archeology in the mid. east.
Come to find out that there is no physical evidence for Egyptian enslavement, 40 yrs in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.
What is a joke is believing the mythology of the bible. Believing that the world is 6,000 yrs old, that a virgin gave birth, or a resurrection is just plain stupid.
@joethemoproductions So, they are considered real archaeologists when they agree with your bias presuppositions. What is a REAL joke is believing in the mythology of atheism and evolution. The magical explosion story, morphing into goo, and through the zoo, to you, gaining things un-gainable all along the way. You have sky morals, and sky logic, which have zero accounting all because you live in denial of as atheists call Him, the "sky daddy." Talk about plain stupid!
Real archeologist use the conventions of their science. This is discussed thoroughly in "The Bible Unearthed."
Science is not mythology. When you wrote that is was you were either lying about science or you don't understand the scientific method. I think it is likely that both are true.
Antibiotics are products of science. Cars are products of science. Computers are products of science. Evolution is the product of science. Mythology doesn't produce testable, usable ideas.
@joethemoproductions Repeat the mantra, repeat the mantra, maybe one day they'll believe it. Evolution is not a part of science, and so listing other things along side it is non-sequitir. I agree to the pragmatics of the utilization of the scientific method, but i don't agree with your quack philosophical hypothesis assertion. You sir are in a cult and you don't even realize it.
What is obvious is that you don't want it to be science because it contradicts your religion. Evolution is a part of biology. Actually, it is the foundation for biology.
Evolution is falsifiable: if a rabbit skeleton were found in the cretaceous that was disprove the theory as we know it. Evolution allow repeatable tests. Evolution uses peer review.
Evolution is science. Your claim is so ridiculous that it just proves christians are willfully stupid. What else may one conclude?
@joethemoproductions Evolution is as much a part of biology as talking about how spiderman had some sort of gene transfer, etc. For you to say it is the foundation really shows you have lost your marbles. Evolution is not even testable. Supposed index fossils are circular in appealing to layers of rock, while the rock appeals to what fossil is found therein. Fossils and rock age say nothing of evolution. Plus many fully formed fossils have been found below where they were "supposed" to be. SAD!
@1tmoch Let's say for example there is no god? Now.. live your life.. and tell me what has changed.. Do you still experience love and wisdom and does the world still live.. and evolve.
So.. until we see a god pop out in the sky and end all time...until then there is no reason to truly believe in a god.
Believing something without being able to prove it is the difference between science and religion.
Why do you need a authoritative source? are you a slave? can you not govern yourself?8:15 HAHAHA!
@joethemoproductions Why don't you tell us how many new species have been created by the hundreds of thousand or possibly millions of evolutionary experiments performed on fruit flies hum?
@joethemoproduct I do believe all those things,they were prophesied and witnessed by many people and brought to us in a God preserved book,and if you would check out the naked archeologist on the history channel,you can see that Egypt has all the proof you would need for the Exodus and the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red sea.I think that the stone tablets depicting these events are in the Cairo Museum,I believe,but it may be in another museum,you can probably google it,and find out.
@hraban77 No, i delete nonsense assertions and name callings. Notice that Molecularbiovid guys comments stayed? That is because he actually has a head on his shoulders, and was respectful. I am not into wasting time refuting one misunderstanding, and/or fallacy after another, especially with people who like to argue with a chip on their shoulder. I already have a tendency towards pride, so i don't need to add another to the mix.
@hraban77 No, i well understand that survival of the fittest says nothing of any sort of evolution. That is an assumption on the part of the evolutionist. Stronger or luckier individuals "happens," but there is no proof that once they survived, that they morphed into other creatures. No one has followed and observed any such progression, regression, or whatever. Hypothesizing is all they have engaged, and yet these educated ninnies continue to make philosophical fools of themselves claiming fact
@1tmoch BTW, invoking God, is just relaying the WHO part, not the HOW part. This is not intellectual or scientific laziness, but rather praise. The scientist can say "God did it" and yet still go and try to find out how certain things work that God ordered in creation. This is a category error you are guilty of. Evolutionists do the same sort of "naturalism of the gaps" claiming "we don't know yet, but it's still true, and we'll figure it out one day."
@1tmoch Also, if a God exists who has no beginning, it is absurd to ask, “Who made God?” It is a category mistake (again) to ask, “Who made the Unmade?” or “Who created the Uncreated?” One may as well ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” God is not God if He is made, the entity that created Him would be God, and we are involved in an impossible infinite regress. Your question is almost as sophomoric as "can God create a rock so big He can't lift it."
Science is about making measurements of the observable, and using them to infer things about that with is not observed, i.e. constructing models that most parsimoniously fit the most evidence. This includes models of past events based on current configurations. The models of common ancestry and evolution are models of past events based on configurations of morphology, developmental processes/stages, genetics, etc.
2) Natural selection requires rational thought of the organisms undergoing it.
This is flat wrong. As new variation is introduced by mutation, modifications to proteins, such as the way the catalyze reactions and configure to form anatomical structures, that allow for more efficient performance of tasks in the organisms' environment, the organisms become either more or less able to both survive and compete for resources (thrive) in their environment.
The measure of this efficiency is called fitness. Configurations that increase fitness make the organism more able—and thus more likely—to make significant contributions to their populations' gene pools. This increases the frequencies of the alleles with those configurations, with time. Likewise, the frequencies of alleles with configurations that decrease fitness decrease, with time. This process is called natural selection.
@MolecularBioVids2 Natuaral selection selects from available information. There is no new data being developed. To say this explains long scale evolution is an assumption at best. As for the environment, wouldn't the environment have to be evolving also, and what is it adapting to, and wouldn't migration be a lot more efficient than "evolve?" That is what creatures today do. If their environment doesn't suit them, they get the hell out of there.
"[Natural] selection selects from available information. There is no new data being developed."
You seem to be forgetting about the addition of variation that mutation continuously provides. As new configurations occur, it is natural selection that retains the ones that convey useful information.
@MolecularBioVids2 Aside from having not observed many (even debatable) beneficial mutations in the long haul, this becomes strange to propose if the whole mechanism is chugging along on this principle whereby the whole process must take its course will billions of such mutations. Second, all the info of everything then would have to be there in the first anything, whatever it was.
"Second, all the info of everything then would have to be there in the first anything, whatever it was."
That makes no sense. A dust cloud in space does not contain the information of a ball before it gravitationally coalesces into one. Nor do a hydrochloric acid solution and iron solution contain the information of an iron(III) chloride solution with hydrogen gas floating above it.
"Aside from having not observed many (even debatable) beneficial mutations in the long haul, this becomes strange to propose if the whole mechanism is chugging along on this principle whereby the whole process must take its course will billions of such mutations."
You are decades out of date in your understanding. Observed beneficial mutations—as well as natural selection acting on them to retain the new useful information—abound:
For instance, when the D2 domain of coliphage fd's g3p minor coat protein (which it needs to be infectious) was replaced with a random sequence of 139 amino acids and subjected to random mutagenesis. A 240-fold increase in fitness was observed after only 7 generations, eventually reaching a maximum of a 17,000-fold increase (Hayashi et al., 2006).
@MolecularBioVids2 Determined how and what other factors are not noticed. There is just too much missing to come to this (even if the stories they are telling you are accurate) conclusion. A-priori assumptions woven into the data is all i see with your examples.
Or, for a more ordinary example, look at research on the triplicate α-globin genes of Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mice). They found evidence of positive selection in HBA-T3, and that the resulting increase in hemoglobin isoforms with differing oxygen affinities allows deer mice to stave of oxygen deprivation at the high altitudes they sometimes live (Storz et al., 2008).
@MolecularBioVids2 Also, these examples are not even necessarily examples of anything more than adaptation from info. already included in the organism.
"To say this explains long scale evolution is an assumption at best."
No, it is clearly not an assumption, since the differences between species are observed to be structural and functional differences that maximize fitness in the organisms' environments—this is clear evidence that these differences were the result of descent with modification caused by mutation and natural selection.
@MolecularBioVids2 Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive. Similar design only proves that there are similarities. Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer. Based off of your logic: (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)? It is just one assumption after another.
"Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive. Similar design only proves that there are similarities. Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer."
This is a common misconception; it's not just the similarities; it is the both the similarities and the differences, as well as their hierarchical relationship with one another. And it just falls apart completely when discussing genetics. I'll explain:
The 'same sequence—same designer' fails to address the nested hierarchy of non-synonymous exon SNPs, and especially intron SNPs (since they are noncoding) and synonymous exon SNPs (since they code for the same amino acids).
And it says nothing about shared pseudogene inactivations (like the frame-shifting deletion in haplorrhine L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase exon 10), shared ERVs (since they're endogenized/fixed proviral insertions), the presents and ratio pattern of their shared 5'/3' LTR mutations (which must be mutations, since the repeats must hybridize during reverse transcription, and the U3 and U5 sections are copied on the spot), and the corroboratory nested hierarchies of their mutation and distribution.
Let's focus on ERVs, for example: they cannot be part of any original design, since (as I said) they are past endogenized/fixed proviral insertions. So even the sharing among genre itself is inexplicable, given the model of uncommon ancestry. Add onto that shared LTR mutations, that both are hierarchically grouped, and that both nested hierarchies corroborate one another (as well as the pattern of LTR discontinuity ratio), and it's clear that humans share common ancestry with the other primates.
@MolecularBioVids2 You say you are answering or explaining, and then you just lay out more "examples" that supposedly support your view, which don't really address my points directly. I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but it appears like a flexing of muscles display snowballing, all the while only grazing (not a direct hit) on what i said. I understand most of what you've said here, and i also understand that probably 2% or less of the people on youtube can understand it. K.I.S.S.
Based off of your logic: (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)? It is just one assumption after another."
No, it's not assumption at all. I would suggest you read the following research publications:
Gradual progression of intermediates:
Nilsson, D. E., and S. Pelger. "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve." Proc Biol Sci. 256.1345 (1994 Apr 22): 53-58.
Further details, such as gene duplication, exaptation, scaffolding, and a bit on the evolution of photopigments and photoreceptors:
Gregory, T. R. "The Evolution of Complex Organs." Evolution: Education and Outreach 1.4 (2008): 358-89.
In-depth explanation of the genetics and biochemistry of eye evolution:
Oakley, T. H., and S. M. Pankey. "Opening the “Black Box”: The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution." Evolution: Education and Outreach 1.4 (2008 Oct): 390-402.
"As for the environment, wouldn't the environment have to be evolving also, and what is it adapting to..."
By 'evolving' do you just mean changing? Because yes; some environments change more than others. But environments are not mortal entities in competition for resources; so no, they do not 'evolve,' in the 'phenotype frequency-altering retention of fitness-maximizing structural/functional modification to individuals of populations' sense of the word.
"...and wouldn't migration be a lot more efficient than 'evolve?' That is what creatures today do. If their environment doesn't suit them, they get the hell out of there."
What you are describing is a major cause of allopatric speciation. Such migrations often result in subpopulations not only being sexually isolated by geography, but also subject to different environ mental pressures. That is to say; the sets of beneficial, neutral, and detrimental genomic configurations is rearranged.
Another example is that of the warbler species, Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus and Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus. They wrap around the Himalayas, and unlike Ensatina, P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridanus actually meet in Russia. This model of gradual speciation with living intermediaries in P. trochiloides has even been confirmed on the genetic level.
Not only do the allele frequencies—and thus the phenotypes—then progress differently, but the lack of gene flow with other populations means that those modification remain unique to the subpopulation in question.
Since the questions you pose are definitely worth asking, 1tmoch, I would recommend that you purchase a textbook on the evolutionary model—these types of questions are answered in such texts.
@MolecularBioVids2 Most texts i've read going through college were not too in depth, but they no less, just provided assertions, piled on top of more assertions.
"Most texts i've read going through college were not too in depth, but they no less, just provided assertions, piled on top of more assertions. What book would you recommend?"
Well, it depends on what you're looking for. If you are looking to answers to some of the simple questions you have asked me, a good textbook is the one called 'Evolution.' Here’s a bit on it:
If, on the other hand you want detailed information on every last piece of each explanation, there is no substitute for taking a few months to read some of a few decades of research publications on the subject. After all, that is where the textbooks get their information from.
As you can see thought has nothing to do with it. In fact, life is not even a prerequisite. This also has major implications on a separate model; abiogenesis. Take, for instance, lipid vesicles near hydrothermal vents:
Difference in size allows some vesicles to take and thermodynamically integrate lipids from others. Since differences in enveloped self-replicating RNA polymers cause differing proficiencies at lipid integration, RNA mutations can either make a vesicle more or less able to persist in the environment, i.e. more or less fit. And since the vesicles mechanically divide, the resulting fission products contain the same RNA sequences, causing the domination of those sequences in the "populations."
Natural selection works, even though they are not alive, and no thought is taking place—only the same old chemical forces.
Furthermore, mutations to their RNA that caused them to better catalyze RNA polymerization, synthesize nucleotides and lipids, and modify lipids to be impermeable to the membrane would also be naturally selected for.
And being aided by micropeptide cofactors would allow the formation of ribosomes (transfer RNA precursors) which could polymerize these micropeptides; further allowing the formation of both polymers that aided in the coupling of these ribosomes (messenger RNA precursors) and the formation of peptide bonds (modern ribosome precursors).
The polymerization of longer polypeptides could then give rise to proteins with enzymatic activity, with those coding section being some of the first genes in the first simple cells.
But the fact is, 1tmoch, that you're going to have to do a lot more research before coming to a conclusion on the models of common ancestry and evolution. From my own studies of molecular biology and phylogenetics I can confidently say the following:
Judging by the hierarchical grouping of non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms in heavily conserved genes (like Cytochrome C/B) and the corroboration that they're mutation-derived by the matching nested hierarchies of pseudogene (like GULOP) and orthologous transposon (like endogenous retroviruses) distribution, and of intron SNPs, 5'/3' full-length ERV LTR SNPs, and synonymous exon SNPs, it's clear that prokaryotes (like bacteria) and eukaryotes (like humans) do share common ancestry.
@MolecularBioVids2 No, but what is clear is that you think giving more broken down elaborate EXPLANATIONS of certain processes, makes any vindication for your position or any refutation of mine. Thanks for your effort though.
"No, but what is clear is that you think giving more broken down elaborate EXPLANATIONS of certain processes, makes any vindication for your position or any refutation of mine. Thanks for your effort though."
What? Let's take a step back; you said that natural selection requires rational thought of the organisms undergoing it, and I specifically explained how that is incorrect...
I explained it step-by-step, and made sure to point out how conspicuously absent thought was from the process. And now you are brushing it all off with an insultingly transparent 'well, that's just an explanation...'
"Historical science is riddled with bias presupposition implanting, and people mistake it for true hard science."
Give me a definition of "historical science" and "hard science," and it will be plainly apparent that the observations of the effects of natural selection and the use of genes, pseudogenes, and transposons as phylogenetic signal renders the models of evolution and common ancestry "hard science."
Also, you remain silent on the genetic data I presented. Care to address it?
@MolecularBioVids2 Historical has to do with after the fact analysis, as with a crime scene, and "hard" is in reference to demonstration of things in real time. It is much more solid than the historical. What is to address?
"Historical has to do with after the fact analysis, as with a crime scene, and "hard" is in reference to demonstration of things in real time. It is much more solid than the historical. What is to address?"
That isn't how research works. You perform an experiment and you then propose a model to explain what just happened... in the past. You then infer things about what is/was happening that you cannot observe from what you could and did observe.
As for the models of common ancestry and evolution, they make predictions about what should currently be the case, and those predictions are routinely confirmed. Predictions like the placement of genes, the type and place of deactivating frameshifts and/or stop/start codon formations in pseudogenes, the placement of ERVs and their LTR SNPs, as well as the degree of LTR-LTR discontinuity, etc.
It is this corroboration of multiple sources of data and the predictions they make that so powerfully confirms the models. So yes, they are formed and confirmed in the same way the models of the current composition/operation of living organisms are formed and confirmed. As I said, it is clearly 'hard science.' Have you not read any phylogenetic research publications?
Also I not sure what your think evolution predicts, if a bear gave birth to a cat that would disprove evolution.
same thing if a wolf gave birth to a poodle. Yet we know poodles are descended from wolfs. but this happened over many generations of human breeding and some natural selection of random changes.
@gusb232 I am saying that in order for it to be hard science, you can't assume something was the case back in "the day." As for a wolf birthing a poodle, that would be less fantastic than Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I agree with your last 2 statements. That is observed and natural selection or breeding happens, but that doesn't produce new information, just weaker vessels with less genetic information in that particular "kind." You can use your word equivalent of "genus."
@1tmoch 'you can't assume something was the case back in "the day."
What do mean by this, This is NOT what evolution does, We have Mountains of evidence to support how animals descended thru history.
You can take the word of christians if you like, most scientist that are christian support evolution search Ken miller, Francis Collins , don exodus here on YT.
'doesn't produce new information'
Search Nylonase, a species of bacteria has evolved the dna 'info' to digest nylon.
@gusb232 Well, some say it is going from order to disorder, and some say from order to disorder and back to order, but no need for all the variance. The point is that these religionists have a view which is imaginary in that if you appeal to the methodology of science as your trump card, why are all the explanations of "long ago" anti-scientific or the unobserved opposite. Dog produce non dog. Whatever term you want to use, you know what i mean.
@1tmoch 'Well, some say it is going from order to disorder,'
NO , im sorry the general consensus is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct. Total Entropy is increasing this is a FACT.(also not just a fact conformable by science.)
'point is that these religionists have a view which is imaginary'
Huh , I agree religionists do believe not based things on faith not what the best evidence supports.
Evolutionary theory never predicted that organisms produce anything other then their own "kind", the mating of spiders will always produce spiders and all subsequent offspring of those spiders will also be spider, until such time as the clade 'spider' goes extinct. Now those spider can speciate, and can lead to new distinct clades, just as the arachnid clade gave rise to scorpions, ticks, and spider by gradual speciation events of 'parent' arachnid organisms.
This is part of the theory of evolution, and you miss-characterized it in this video, nothing need produce a different "kind" of animal (please define 'kind') to result in the diversity we see today.
Evolutionary theory is consistent with the active processes we observe today, and accurately explains and predicts phenomena in biology such as E.R.Vs, 'transitional' fossils, and phylogeny dictating embryological development.
Most everything "imported" by the imagination of evolutionary biologists has evidence to support it.
@Chopstewie Kind is the more broad categorization which multiple species can be sub-categories, e.g. canine, feline, etc. E.R.V's do not support Darwinian evolution, and "transitional" is arbitrary to whoever you are talking to (of which was not observed) only AGAIN imported as an after the fact assumption. You'll have to explain what you mean by phylogeny dictating the development of embryos and how that applies to any sort of promotion to your view.
What specifically dictates the limits of this sub-categorization?
E.R.Vs do support modern evolution in that the specific placemen in the genome is more likely be a genetic carry over from common ancestors then an independent and incidental placement in currently existing species.
Evolution predicted fossils that would be "common ancestors" to existing clades, and defines what morphological features it would need to qualify, these where determined before their discovery.
(cont) as such one cannot arbitrarily label a fossil traditional.
Evolutionary phylogeny demands that species follow a development pattern in utero that matches the other independently gather evidence (fossil record, genetic concordance). Which is the case, one does not find a insect that is also a duterostome, as all other insects are protostomes.
@Chopstewie Though what we are talking about here is not what the video is about, i'll entertain you one more round. Some have said categorization has to do with mating capabilities, some say phylogenetic similitude (within certain parameters). As for specifics, it depends on who you are talking to and what specific animal you are talking about. Generically speaking, a dog is a dog, and not a non dog, or an elephant. I have seen some videos refuting the whole ERV thing.
@1tmoch "Evolution" as you said does not "predict" anything, the person proposing that philosophy proposes many things. To say "i predict i may find bones in the dirt that follow my morphological model" and therefore proves evolution is not only fallacious but not in the least bit scientific. This is "hit or miss" arbitrariness, i'm sorry. I still do not understand your bit on embryo phylogeny and how that relates to demonstrating anything. Anyhow, you have one more reply on this topic.
The predictions are not so trivial, and entail and entire model (including mechanisms for evolution) , that must be comported through multiple lines of evidence, -not just- "bones in the dirt."
You are free to dictate what's in your comment section, but you miss-represented evolution and I must respond to that. If you have interest in honest discussion then you will allow my next post on "projected survival value" which is very relevant to your video.
In this video, you claim somehow this "projected survival value implies rational thought"
This is of course not that case, 'evolution' does not have a conciseness and operates only as a mindless process, the 'value' here is that species with better fitness is probabilistically prone to passing down genes that lead to better replication, not rational thought need be invoked.
also, there are ways for "altruistic" behaviors to appear in genetic predisposition, such that survival of the individual can be less important then that of the group.
If an 'altruistic' gene leads to other of the species carrying the gene replicating at a higher rate then there is not evolutionary contradiction, for instance social insects (ants) can 'sacrifice' for the colony and still have the majority of their genes survive the generation as they are close to the queen genetically
I would be happy to talk about this more over skype or something of that nature if you do not wish to have any more dialog in this section, would that be amenable?
I will try and locate some sources on ERVs, as they still constitute evidence for evolution in majority scientific literature. What specifically was refuted?
@Chopstewie No, that's cool. When i said 1 reply, i meant one more transaction, as i know the 500 character limit is, well, limited (so that means don't reply to this only). With respect to the mindless passing down of genes, that just sounds like survival of the fittest, which doesn't really say anything, but that the strong survive, that's it. Then later it sounds like you back peddle by saying there is some desire to survive and pass on genes, whether by individual or species. Oh well, later.
There is no reason to think that the thing that brings something into existence must have all the properties of the thing it creates. I can make a paper airplane, but I myself can't fly.
There is no inconsistency saying that unintelligent energy always existed and is the source for everything. It is not saying that something came from nothing like creationists think God did it.
@Godlessons OH my oh my. This is worse than any science fiction i've seen. That's ok, you are free to believe that. This is America. This is much worse than saying "God did it." Nothing did it, things that were not before popped into being. Distinct qualities can become their opposite without reference to anything. Wheeeew (whistle blow and index finger pointed, circling around side of head).
@1tmoch I'm not trying to play games with this issue, I am just letting you in on some of the genuine unknowns in modern cosmology. Your arguments make assumptions that can't be confirmed, and most people won't know that. They may just think you know something they don't about science.
Cosmologists have been unable to say that it is even possible that nothing existed at one time. I don't imagine you would want to deliberately make an ignorant statement, so I am letting you know.
@Godlessons All that proves is that certain cosmologists are idiots who let their philosophical bias run the show. Bow down and worship the professional morons. You know better. BTW, some cosmologists agree with me, but that is irrelevant.
@1tmoch Which cosmologists? I would like to know so I could look at their reasoning. I would like to avoid an appeal to authority if at all possible.
Since nobody can calculate further back than 1 Planck epoch after the beginning of the expansion, I find it rather odd that any scientist would make any claim about what existed prior to that moment. Any statement about anything prior is pure speculation at this point, and if I am wrong it would be nice to see evidence, even mathematical.
@Godlessons No need to respond to such, for the same formulation of challenge applies to the assumption you made in this response. More science fiction... Have fun with that... No offense, but i really don't have time to continue the conversation. Feel free to comment, but as you know, keep it directly relevant. Peace.
@1tmoch I'm sorry, but your reply made no sense to me. Is it science fiction to say that nobody can be positive what happened prior to a point we can't calculate past?
The real science fiction would be any speculation about the state of the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds after the expansion started, which is what you want to do.
Now, to be intellectually honest, Lawrence Krauss may be one cosmologist that kind of agrees with you, but his nothing is not really nothing.
~ 1tmoch, funny part is, not all, but some of the evo crew have a few clues, many try to grasp hold of the fantasy religion of "once upon a time there was a large bang & here we all are", ...yet because their not totally clueless, even they know, that if the world & all things there in didn't "just happen all by itself & for no reason or purpose",... the only other option is a designer. It is one or the other, fluke or brilliant design. The natural man is not thrilled about accountability.
zacqt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is Ancient from eternity. He has no beginning, but He is the beginning of everything and before anything living or dead.
“He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Hidden: and He has full knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 57:3)
akeello 4 months ago
The picture in science is drastically changing. It is going to take time to trickle down into popular culture, but "Newtonian Biology", as some like to call it, is being replaced with Quantum Biology. In quantum biology, there is room for intelligence down in the order of cellular activity. But as I see it, it points to a universal mind, through which our minds come and are a reflection. I don't know, but that sounds uncannily like what theists have been saying since the dawn of mysticism.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
To reject evolution is to reject all scientific advancments from the 20th centery! What scientific advancements has creationism given us? NOTHING, if we still went along with creationism we would still be in the dark ages! Just think if everyone in america excepted evolution we would be more advanced then china and japan technology wise because we rejected old world theology!
pbrskater26 5 months ago
@pbrskater26 Ok, you've just proven yourself to be a moronic troll. Ideas on origins of the universe have nothing to do with modern science, and therefore should not be expected to give us any sort of ideas for technological advancement. It is because of the biblical worldview that we have a philosophical basis and justification for scientific inquiry to be possible and trustworthy. The bible mandates that we engage in discovering things about the universe.
1tmoch 5 months ago
I like how around the 4 minute mark he admits that God is a presupposition. lol...
extrovertedthinker 6 months ago
@extrovertedthinker presupposition doesn't mean untrue or not real.
1tmoch 6 months ago
@1tmoch I never said it did. I just find it strange that someone argues for the existence of a god yet admits it's a presupposition instead of a proven, demonstrable fact.
extrovertedthinker 6 months ago
@extrovertedthinker It's both. I was not arguing for the existence of God, btw.
1tmoch 6 months ago
@1tmoch It's not both. God is not a proven, demonstrable fact. If it were, you wouldn't need to presuppose it.
extrovertedthinker 6 months ago
@extrovertedthinker Then you misunderstand the usage of the term applied here. Everyone has a starting point presupposition upon which their most fundamental convictions are built on. And this ultimate authority must be self authenticating.
1tmoch 6 months ago
I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes watching this. The vast majority of this video was nonsensical rhetoric. The segments where you said something of meaning were highly diluted or ignorant. I would correct you on some of your points but I know my words would simply be lost on you. Thank you for the suppression of science.
thehamsammich002 11 months ago
@thehamsammich002 Great! Thanks there, ham-head. You would correct me, but you are full of crap. That is why your only argument is mere rhetoric about my supposed rhetoric. Actually, evolution is a suppression of scientific progress. Years of research time and billions of dollars wasted on this non sense.
1tmoch 11 months ago
Comment removed
thehamsammich002 11 months ago
love the background tunes, what is it?
Revinius 1 year ago
@Revinius The first 2 of them are from the "expelled" soundtrack ("academy," and "car ride"), then the last song is from the latest terminator movie, and i forgot where the 3rd song came from.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Terminator salvation song is by nine inch nails, called "the day the whole world went away."
1tmoch 1 year ago
abiogenesis Preformationism then you try to transform science into a religion.
none of whatever you would call these series of statements could be said to be a argument against evoulution maybe a shallow thiests fantasy "no mutations that ive seen are beneficial" has to take the award for most ironic thing ever said on at least 2 levels
youwillbesaved 1 year ago
@youwillbesaved No, i don't turn science into religion, it is just that evolution is not a part of science. It is complete fiction, which is religious in nature. You make a claim in your second sentence, but don't back it up with a SPECIFIC. Hmmmm, very typical of people going against the facts.
1tmoch 1 year ago
GREAT VIDEO! Hello I am a female Christian Rapper. I don't mean to spam, but I don't know how else to get my music out to all of you wonderful people. Please check out my page and subscribe! God has given me the fire for this kind of expression. God bless you all and again sorry about the spamming :( .
ChristianCutie83 1 year ago
So basically its much easier to just believe in a God, than try to use science to figure out the answers
buttlord123 1 year ago
@buttlord123 Negative. Scientific inquiry can only take you so far in explanations. God is the "who" part, not the "how" part of how God controls His universe. Scientific endeavor is a biblical principle.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch lets see if you feel the same way after the next 30 yrs of scientific studies and breakthroughs....I take it you believe in young earth?
buttlord123 1 year ago
I can give the scientific references, which is what I have --
radiolarians: Haq & Boersma (eds). 1978. Intro to marine micropaleontology. Elsevier.
Culex mosquito: Byrne & Nichols. 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels ... Heredity 82: 7-15.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk So they are only mentioned in your books? Hmmm, sounds fishy....
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Google is a wonderful thing.
Type: haq boersma ommatartus and see Prothero's summary of this evolutionary sequence in the first search result (Google books, pp. 182-3 of "Evolution: what the fossils say ...").
Type: byrne nichols culex. Go to the first result (wikipedia). Scroll down to Reference 5 and click the doi link for the entire article.
C'mon -- do I really have to do your research for you?
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Not the reading. I'm not asking you to copy and paste, but i need you to give me specifics that you agree with on the net, because someone else could write on x,y,z and you think they didn't go deep enough, or are wrong, etc. "C'mon -- do i really have to explain my request to you?" I'll check those references.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Sir,
The formation of a new species, such as the mosquito C. molestus arising from C. pipiens is speciation. This gets at the heart of evolutionary change. Microevolutionary processes can certainly lead to speciation. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this observed example of evolutionary change? This has occurred in historical times, so your bias against fossil evidence is irrelevant here.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Give me a link to some details on these. Your pronouncements are not a backing up of anything. I want to analyze the data and the claims.
1tmoch 1 year ago
1moch: So you define kind = species. Your concept of kind and your refusal of transition from kind to kind ("I disregard that which has not been observed ... all that sort of transition from kind to kind") therefore denies plain evidence of cases of speciation (the formation of new species).
Past gradual speciation: fossil radiolarians (Haq & Boersma 1978).
Recent speciation: mosquito Culex in London subway (Byrne & Nichols 1999).
Incipient speciation: Calif salamanders (Wake 1997).
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Are these examples someone has observed being produced? If not, then i have not denied species within a kind.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Not sure what you mean here.
Radiolarians: observed gradual change in fossil record, spanning 50 million years.
Culex: new species (C. molestus) arising from C. pipiens in historical times.
Salamanders: hybrid of two subspecies is less ecologically viable than either parent, suggesting incipient speciation (reproductive isolation of two populations).
What is "species within a kind?" It is difficult following your reasoning when you mix and match terms and concepts.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk The "fossil record" is not observation, and if we try and deduce and interpret from what we CURRENTLY see, we'd conclude that evolutionists are so very confused (the "record" is jumbled up all over the place). You mix and match terms, not me. Your last 2 examples are not evolution. Try again.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Are you quite wrong about the radiolarian fossil record. It consists of core samples of marine sediment -- not "jumbled up all over the place." A beautiful record of gradualistic change from one species to the next, with specimens directly on top of older forms. I strongly urge you to examine real evidence before dismissing it so carelessly.
How do I mix and match terms? I've been careful to define terms. You went from kind = "genus or family or whatever" to now kind = species.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk No i haven't. I have no problem with speciation as we've defined. I think you are careless by the fact that you've not seen the discombobulated mess the supposed "record" is in. Also, you've assumed other things about the fossils placement even if they were uniform across the globe, like why they are in a certain position, and the age of them (that's another issue though).
1tmoch 1 year ago
1tmoch: OK, so if kind = species, do we need to define species now? I offer "biological species", taken from Futuyma (2008) Evolution.
Biological species: "a population or group of populations within which genes are actually or potentially exchanged by interbreeding, and which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Do you agree that this is species, and that this is also a valid definition of "kind?"
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Except for the "potentially" bit. They have to be actually observed to procreate with one another.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch The idea of "potentially" is relevant to include populations that are geographically separate, but still belong to the same species. For example, Eurasian and Canadian populations of gray wolf (Canis lupus) -- they have the same genome, morphology, physiology, etc. so are classified in the same species. Eurasian and Canadian populations do not interbreed in nature, but they are physiologically capable of doing so (ie. "potentially"). This can be tested by pairing them in captivity.
conallk 1 year ago
I do care about the terms you use, which is why I am trying to understand them. Please don't be so dismissive about established biological study.
So, it sounds like a "kind" is equivalent to species ("that which can reproduce with each other") -- yes? If this is the case, then why not just use the term "species?"
If I am not interpreting you correctly, then please give some examples of "kinds."
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Forgive me for not being clear. I am not dismissive of any real findings, i am just dismissive about how some people use linguistic tricks. If we can understand each other under the term species, then ok, but what i find is that some people may have different assumptions about what is a species, etc. So ok, species, like cat, dog, eel, etc.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Yes, the definition that I quoted from Futuyma's textbook can be called "microevolution." But microevolution looks at the change in a _population's_ genetic composition, not at how one offspring resembles a parent. This is a crucial and fundamentally important concept.
The term "kind" is not part of the Linnean taxonomic system, and does not occur in population genetics.
Please define "kind."
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk It may be considered a synonym with "genus" or "family" or whatever. I'd have to look at the evolutionists terminology again (its been a while) to give the equivalent term. Anyway....
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch So, you're talking about something other than biology or taxonomy, then? I'm confused. You don't seem to be talking about evolution now.
Genus and family are not taxonomic synonyms.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Explain how i am not talking biology.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch You are using "kind", which does not appear in biology textbooks. I have with me 8 textbooks on various biological disciplines: 1 general biology, 1 zoology, 1 biodiversity, 2 evolution, 2 ecology, 1 animal behavior. None of these employ "kind." There is an obvious disconnect here.
Perhaps if you provided a clear defintion of "kind." Your attempt: "It may be considered as a synonym with 'genus' or 'family' or whatever" does not help, as this covers alot of taxonomical ground.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk I don't care what your books say, as much as you don't care about the terms i use. Clarification is the issue for communication. A "kind" is most easily defined as that which can reproduce with each other (given that it is not because of some sort of defect/fertility issue).
1tmoch 1 year ago
Looking at the comments, I see that I unfortunately missed the lively debate/exchanges with MolecularBioVids2.
1tmoch: please realize that you are confounding cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution. These are distinctly different fields of scientific inquiry, which might explain how this video comes across as so confused and muddled.
conallk 1 year ago
Dear Sir,
This video mashes together three very broad fields of science: cosmogony (origin of universe), abiogenesis (origin of life), and the titular evolution. Let's start with defining evolution: "change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits" (Futuyma 2009 Evolution).
Another point -- there are indeed beneficial mutations, readily observable in the short term in bacteria (Kassen & Bataillon 2006 Nature Genetics 38).
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk No, i understand this, and sorry if i didn't make clearer distinctions, but they are all still interrelated and when dealing with atheists, all must be discussed. I contend that each area individually and collectively BOTH fail the test of reality.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Thank you. Since the title of this video has "evolution" in it, can you please explain how evolution fails "the test of reality?"
I offer my previous definition of evolution: "change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits." Alternatively, you can think about this as change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. How is this not rooted in reality?
Note: this is NOT Big Bang or abiogenesis.
conallk 1 year ago
@conallk Like you may know, the term "evolution" is stretchy, and depends on who you are talking to, thus the prefix word in front of it, e.g. "Darwinian" E, Chemical E, Macro E, Micro E, etc. I explained partly in the video how it fails the test and have done so elsewhere in other vids, and yet more to come. I also think it is pretty plain which aspect of "evolution" i am talking about, so that when i am discussing Darwinianism, you should know, since your radar seems keen enough.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Your definition sounded a lot like micro evolution, which i agree with. My childs genetic traits will differ from mine. I disregard that which has not been observed, rather philosophical 2 cents worth imported not based in reality of animals having a common ancestor and all that sort of transition from kind to kind, like reptile to bird, etc.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Charles Darwin was a demon-possessed fool.
ChristianZionist 1 year ago
You know,people who claim God can't exist is as silly as all the little 1s and 0s getting together in a computer and claiming to each other,that the computer maker doesn't exist because they've looked all over the computer and can't find the maker anywhere,therefore he doesn't exist and if he did exist he'd be bound by the computer programs,so as we 1s and 0s can see,the computer created itself.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
Evolutionists can be made to believe anything,but the truth.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN
You believe a virgin gave birth.
You believe a dead man came to life.
You believe the old testament stories although there is absolutely no physical evidence for the Hebrew enslavement by the Egyptians, the wanderings in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.
I hope you see your hypocrisy.
By the way, evolutionists believe those ideas that can be proved.
joethemoproductions 1 year ago
@joethemoproductions No proof of the Hebrew enslavement!!! You've got a case of tunnel vision perhaps. Evolutionists can believe all they want, that doesn't produce reality. It's a pathetically broke joke that cannot even begin to get off the ground in order to attempt in proving it.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch How's it goin Brother Tom,I been showing my wife all your videos and she loves them too.Are you gonna be out at the mall this weekend?I sure would love to see some more of your open air preaching videos,they're the bomb.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Thanks dude. I have so much footage already that is usable for clips (over 100 hours worth). We went last Saturday and it turned out good. My battery ran out before this one conversation this was just killer. Luis was schooling the crap out of 2 evolutionists. Not only that, but it was funny as well. Jokes intermingled. I hope i can find someone who recorded it. It's just a question of getting more time available. I have so many videos i want to do.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Alright,PRAISE THE LORD ,when do you think you MIGHT have them loaded?I can't wait.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Within the week. I've been slacking on my "bahnsenapologetics" channel as well.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Sounds great!
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Well, now i'm not sure as last night i tried to upload a dvd and my hard drive space is about maxed out. I tried to delete unused scraps in the trash and to transfer other video files to an external hard drive and i wasn't successful. We'll see if i can get someone to help me figure it out. Oh well, within due time.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Well if you're having problems I understand,I just really enjoy them a whole lot.I learn something new on all of them.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@1tmoch
I'll stick to real archelogists. "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman is a synthesis of the last 40 yrs of archeology in the mid. east.
Come to find out that there is no physical evidence for Egyptian enslavement, 40 yrs in the desert, or the conquest of Canaan.
What is a joke is believing the mythology of the bible. Believing that the world is 6,000 yrs old, that a virgin gave birth, or a resurrection is just plain stupid.
joethemoproductions 1 year ago
@joethemoproductions So, they are considered real archaeologists when they agree with your bias presuppositions. What is a REAL joke is believing in the mythology of atheism and evolution. The magical explosion story, morphing into goo, and through the zoo, to you, gaining things un-gainable all along the way. You have sky morals, and sky logic, which have zero accounting all because you live in denial of as atheists call Him, the "sky daddy." Talk about plain stupid!
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
Real archeologist use the conventions of their science. This is discussed thoroughly in "The Bible Unearthed."
Science is not mythology. When you wrote that is was you were either lying about science or you don't understand the scientific method. I think it is likely that both are true.
Antibiotics are products of science. Cars are products of science. Computers are products of science. Evolution is the product of science. Mythology doesn't produce testable, usable ideas.
joethemoproductions 1 year ago
@joethemoproductions Repeat the mantra, repeat the mantra, maybe one day they'll believe it. Evolution is not a part of science, and so listing other things along side it is non-sequitir. I agree to the pragmatics of the utilization of the scientific method, but i don't agree with your quack philosophical hypothesis assertion. You sir are in a cult and you don't even realize it.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
What is obvious is that you don't want it to be science because it contradicts your religion. Evolution is a part of biology. Actually, it is the foundation for biology.
Evolution is falsifiable: if a rabbit skeleton were found in the cretaceous that was disprove the theory as we know it. Evolution allow repeatable tests. Evolution uses peer review.
Evolution is science. Your claim is so ridiculous that it just proves christians are willfully stupid. What else may one conclude?
joethemoproductions 1 year ago
@joethemoproductions Evolution is as much a part of biology as talking about how spiderman had some sort of gene transfer, etc. For you to say it is the foundation really shows you have lost your marbles. Evolution is not even testable. Supposed index fossils are circular in appealing to layers of rock, while the rock appeals to what fossil is found therein. Fossils and rock age say nothing of evolution. Plus many fully formed fossils have been found below where they were "supposed" to be. SAD!
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Let's say for example there is no god? Now.. live your life.. and tell me what has changed.. Do you still experience love and wisdom and does the world still live.. and evolve.
So.. until we see a god pop out in the sky and end all time...until then there is no reason to truly believe in a god.
Believing something without being able to prove it is the difference between science and religion.
Why do you need a authoritative source? are you a slave? can you not govern yourself?8:15 HAHAHA!
GravDiga 1 year ago
@joethemoproductions Why don't you tell us how many new species have been created by the hundreds of thousand or possibly millions of evolutionary experiments performed on fruit flies hum?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@joethemoproduct I do believe all those things,they were prophesied and witnessed by many people and brought to us in a God preserved book,and if you would check out the naked archeologist on the history channel,you can see that Egypt has all the proof you would need for the Exodus and the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red sea.I think that the stone tablets depicting these events are in the Cairo Museum,I believe,but it may be in another museum,you can probably google it,and find out.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
Warning, don't discuss with 1tmoch he will deleting opinions he doesn't like or block you.
hraban77 1 year ago
@hraban77 No, i delete nonsense assertions and name callings. Notice that Molecularbiovid guys comments stayed? That is because he actually has a head on his shoulders, and was respectful. I am not into wasting time refuting one misunderstanding, and/or fallacy after another, especially with people who like to argue with a chip on their shoulder. I already have a tendency towards pride, so i don't need to add another to the mix.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@hraban77 No, i well understand that survival of the fittest says nothing of any sort of evolution. That is an assumption on the part of the evolutionist. Stronger or luckier individuals "happens," but there is no proof that once they survived, that they morphed into other creatures. No one has followed and observed any such progression, regression, or whatever. Hypothesizing is all they have engaged, and yet these educated ninnies continue to make philosophical fools of themselves claiming fact
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch BTW, invoking God, is just relaying the WHO part, not the HOW part. This is not intellectual or scientific laziness, but rather praise. The scientist can say "God did it" and yet still go and try to find out how certain things work that God ordered in creation. This is a category error you are guilty of. Evolutionists do the same sort of "naturalism of the gaps" claiming "we don't know yet, but it's still true, and we'll figure it out one day."
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Also, if a God exists who has no beginning, it is absurd to ask, “Who made God?” It is a category mistake (again) to ask, “Who made the Unmade?” or “Who created the Uncreated?” One may as well ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” God is not God if He is made, the entity that created Him would be God, and we are involved in an impossible infinite regress. Your question is almost as sophomoric as "can God create a rock so big He can't lift it."
1tmoch 1 year ago
You made two main arguments, 1tmoch:
1) Science is restricted to the observable.
Science is about making measurements of the observable, and using them to infer things about that with is not observed, i.e. constructing models that most parsimoniously fit the most evidence. This includes models of past events based on current configurations. The models of common ancestry and evolution are models of past events based on configurations of morphology, developmental processes/stages, genetics, etc.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
2) Natural selection requires rational thought of the organisms undergoing it.
This is flat wrong. As new variation is introduced by mutation, modifications to proteins, such as the way the catalyze reactions and configure to form anatomical structures, that allow for more efficient performance of tasks in the organisms' environment, the organisms become either more or less able to both survive and compete for resources (thrive) in their environment.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
The measure of this efficiency is called fitness. Configurations that increase fitness make the organism more able—and thus more likely—to make significant contributions to their populations' gene pools. This increases the frequencies of the alleles with those configurations, with time. Likewise, the frequencies of alleles with configurations that decrease fitness decrease, with time. This process is called natural selection.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Natuaral selection selects from available information. There is no new data being developed. To say this explains long scale evolution is an assumption at best. As for the environment, wouldn't the environment have to be evolving also, and what is it adapting to, and wouldn't migration be a lot more efficient than "evolve?" That is what creatures today do. If their environment doesn't suit them, they get the hell out of there.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"[Natural] selection selects from available information. There is no new data being developed."
You seem to be forgetting about the addition of variation that mutation continuously provides. As new configurations occur, it is natural selection that retains the ones that convey useful information.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Aside from having not observed many (even debatable) beneficial mutations in the long haul, this becomes strange to propose if the whole mechanism is chugging along on this principle whereby the whole process must take its course will billions of such mutations. Second, all the info of everything then would have to be there in the first anything, whatever it was.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"Second, all the info of everything then would have to be there in the first anything, whatever it was."
That makes no sense. A dust cloud in space does not contain the information of a ball before it gravitationally coalesces into one. Nor do a hydrochloric acid solution and iron solution contain the information of an iron(III) chloride solution with hydrogen gas floating above it.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
In reality, the random mutations add information, and natural selection simply retains and fixes the useful bits in the populations.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 so you've been told.
1tmoch 1 year ago
"Aside from having not observed many (even debatable) beneficial mutations in the long haul, this becomes strange to propose if the whole mechanism is chugging along on this principle whereby the whole process must take its course will billions of such mutations."
You are decades out of date in your understanding. Observed beneficial mutations—as well as natural selection acting on them to retain the new useful information—abound:
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
For instance, when the D2 domain of coliphage fd's g3p minor coat protein (which it needs to be infectious) was replaced with a random sequence of 139 amino acids and subjected to random mutagenesis. A 240-fold increase in fitness was observed after only 7 generations, eventually reaching a maximum of a 17,000-fold increase (Hayashi et al., 2006).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Determined how and what other factors are not noticed. There is just too much missing to come to this (even if the stories they are telling you are accurate) conclusion. A-priori assumptions woven into the data is all i see with your examples.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Or, for a more ordinary example, look at research on the triplicate α-globin genes of Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mice). They found evidence of positive selection in HBA-T3, and that the resulting increase in hemoglobin isoforms with differing oxygen affinities allows deer mice to stave of oxygen deprivation at the high altitudes they sometimes live (Storz et al., 2008).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Also, these examples are not even necessarily examples of anything more than adaptation from info. already included in the organism.
1tmoch 1 year ago
"To say this explains long scale evolution is an assumption at best."
No, it is clearly not an assumption, since the differences between species are observed to be structural and functional differences that maximize fitness in the organisms' environments—this is clear evidence that these differences were the result of descent with modification caused by mutation and natural selection.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive. Similar design only proves that there are similarities. Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer. Based off of your logic: (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)? It is just one assumption after another.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive. Similar design only proves that there are similarities. Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer."
This is a common misconception; it's not just the similarities; it is the both the similarities and the differences, as well as their hierarchical relationship with one another. And it just falls apart completely when discussing genetics. I'll explain:
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
The 'same sequence—same designer' fails to address the nested hierarchy of non-synonymous exon SNPs, and especially intron SNPs (since they are noncoding) and synonymous exon SNPs (since they code for the same amino acids).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 How would same designer fail to address anything?
1tmoch 1 year ago
And it says nothing about shared pseudogene inactivations (like the frame-shifting deletion in haplorrhine L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase exon 10), shared ERVs (since they're endogenized/fixed proviral insertions), the presents and ratio pattern of their shared 5'/3' LTR mutations (which must be mutations, since the repeats must hybridize during reverse transcription, and the U3 and U5 sections are copied on the spot), and the corroboratory nested hierarchies of their mutation and distribution.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Let's focus on ERVs, for example: they cannot be part of any original design, since (as I said) they are past endogenized/fixed proviral insertions. So even the sharing among genre itself is inexplicable, given the model of uncommon ancestry. Add onto that shared LTR mutations, that both are hierarchically grouped, and that both nested hierarchies corroborate one another (as well as the pattern of LTR discontinuity ratio), and it's clear that humans share common ancestry with the other primates.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 You say you are answering or explaining, and then you just lay out more "examples" that supposedly support your view, which don't really address my points directly. I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but it appears like a flexing of muscles display snowballing, all the while only grazing (not a direct hit) on what i said. I understand most of what you've said here, and i also understand that probably 2% or less of the people on youtube can understand it. K.I.S.S.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Based off of your logic: (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)? It is just one assumption after another."
No, it's not assumption at all. I would suggest you read the following research publications:
Gradual progression of intermediates:
Nilsson, D. E., and S. Pelger. "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve." Proc Biol Sci. 256.1345 (1994 Apr 22): 53-58.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Further details, such as gene duplication, exaptation, scaffolding, and a bit on the evolution of photopigments and photoreceptors:
Gregory, T. R. "The Evolution of Complex Organs." Evolution: Education and Outreach 1.4 (2008): 358-89.
In-depth explanation of the genetics and biochemistry of eye evolution:
Oakley, T. H., and S. M. Pankey. "Opening the “Black Box”: The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution." Evolution: Education and Outreach 1.4 (2008 Oct): 390-402.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
"As for the environment, wouldn't the environment have to be evolving also, and what is it adapting to..."
By 'evolving' do you just mean changing? Because yes; some environments change more than others. But environments are not mortal entities in competition for resources; so no, they do not 'evolve,' in the 'phenotype frequency-altering retention of fitness-maximizing structural/functional modification to individuals of populations' sense of the word.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
"...and wouldn't migration be a lot more efficient than 'evolve?' That is what creatures today do. If their environment doesn't suit them, they get the hell out of there."
What you are describing is a major cause of allopatric speciation. Such migrations often result in subpopulations not only being sexually isolated by geography, but also subject to different environ mental pressures. That is to say; the sets of beneficial, neutral, and detrimental genomic configurations is rearranged.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Ok, so now that you've identified in fancier terms what i am talking about, what of it?
1tmoch 1 year ago
Another example is that of the warbler species, Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus and Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus. They wrap around the Himalayas, and unlike Ensatina, P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridanus actually meet in Russia. This model of gradual speciation with living intermediaries in P. trochiloides has even been confirmed on the genetic level.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Not only do the allele frequencies—and thus the phenotypes—then progress differently, but the lack of gene flow with other populations means that those modification remain unique to the subpopulation in question.
Since the questions you pose are definitely worth asking, 1tmoch, I would recommend that you purchase a textbook on the evolutionary model—these types of questions are answered in such texts.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Most texts i've read going through college were not too in depth, but they no less, just provided assertions, piled on top of more assertions.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch What book would you recommend?
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"Most texts i've read going through college were not too in depth, but they no less, just provided assertions, piled on top of more assertions. What book would you recommend?"
Well, it depends on what you're looking for. If you are looking to answers to some of the simple questions you have asked me, a good textbook is the one called 'Evolution.' Here’s a bit on it:
evolution-textbook(DOT)org
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
If, on the other hand you want detailed information on every last piece of each explanation, there is no substitute for taking a few months to read some of a few decades of research publications on the subject. After all, that is where the textbooks get their information from.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
As you can see thought has nothing to do with it. In fact, life is not even a prerequisite. This also has major implications on a separate model; abiogenesis. Take, for instance, lipid vesicles near hydrothermal vents:
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Difference in size allows some vesicles to take and thermodynamically integrate lipids from others. Since differences in enveloped self-replicating RNA polymers cause differing proficiencies at lipid integration, RNA mutations can either make a vesicle more or less able to persist in the environment, i.e. more or less fit. And since the vesicles mechanically divide, the resulting fission products contain the same RNA sequences, causing the domination of those sequences in the "populations."
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Natural selection works, even though they are not alive, and no thought is taking place—only the same old chemical forces.
Furthermore, mutations to their RNA that caused them to better catalyze RNA polymerization, synthesize nucleotides and lipids, and modify lipids to be impermeable to the membrane would also be naturally selected for.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
And being aided by micropeptide cofactors would allow the formation of ribosomes (transfer RNA precursors) which could polymerize these micropeptides; further allowing the formation of both polymers that aided in the coupling of these ribosomes (messenger RNA precursors) and the formation of peptide bonds (modern ribosome precursors).
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
The polymerization of longer polypeptides could then give rise to proteins with enzymatic activity, with those coding section being some of the first genes in the first simple cells.
But the fact is, 1tmoch, that you're going to have to do a lot more research before coming to a conclusion on the models of common ancestry and evolution. From my own studies of molecular biology and phylogenetics I can confidently say the following:
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
Judging by the hierarchical grouping of non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms in heavily conserved genes (like Cytochrome C/B) and the corroboration that they're mutation-derived by the matching nested hierarchies of pseudogene (like GULOP) and orthologous transposon (like endogenous retroviruses) distribution, and of intron SNPs, 5'/3' full-length ERV LTR SNPs, and synonymous exon SNPs, it's clear that prokaryotes (like bacteria) and eukaryotes (like humans) do share common ancestry.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 No, but what is clear is that you think giving more broken down elaborate EXPLANATIONS of certain processes, makes any vindication for your position or any refutation of mine. Thanks for your effort though.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"No, but what is clear is that you think giving more broken down elaborate EXPLANATIONS of certain processes, makes any vindication for your position or any refutation of mine. Thanks for your effort though."
What? Let's take a step back; you said that natural selection requires rational thought of the organisms undergoing it, and I specifically explained how that is incorrect...
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
I explained it step-by-step, and made sure to point out how conspicuously absent thought was from the process. And now you are brushing it all off with an insultingly transparent 'well, that's just an explanation...'
How frustrating.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Historical science is riddled with bias presupposition implanting, and people mistake it for true hard science.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"Historical science is riddled with bias presupposition implanting, and people mistake it for true hard science."
Give me a definition of "historical science" and "hard science," and it will be plainly apparent that the observations of the effects of natural selection and the use of genes, pseudogenes, and transposons as phylogenetic signal renders the models of evolution and common ancestry "hard science."
Also, you remain silent on the genetic data I presented. Care to address it?
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
@MolecularBioVids2 Historical has to do with after the fact analysis, as with a crime scene, and "hard" is in reference to demonstration of things in real time. It is much more solid than the historical. What is to address?
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
"Historical has to do with after the fact analysis, as with a crime scene, and "hard" is in reference to demonstration of things in real time. It is much more solid than the historical. What is to address?"
That isn't how research works. You perform an experiment and you then propose a model to explain what just happened... in the past. You then infer things about what is/was happening that you cannot observe from what you could and did observe.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
As for the models of common ancestry and evolution, they make predictions about what should currently be the case, and those predictions are routinely confirmed. Predictions like the placement of genes, the type and place of deactivating frameshifts and/or stop/start codon formations in pseudogenes, the placement of ERVs and their LTR SNPs, as well as the degree of LTR-LTR discontinuity, etc.
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
It is this corroboration of multiple sources of data and the predictions they make that so powerfully confirms the models. So yes, they are formed and confirmed in the same way the models of the current composition/operation of living organisms are formed and confirmed. As I said, it is clearly 'hard science.' Have you not read any phylogenetic research publications?
MolecularBioVids2 1 year ago
'Dog produce non dog.
Also I not sure what your think evolution predicts, if a bear gave birth to a cat that would disprove evolution.
same thing if a wolf gave birth to a poodle. Yet we know poodles are descended from wolfs. but this happened over many generations of human breeding and some natural selection of random changes.
gusb232 1 year ago
@gusb232 I am saying that in order for it to be hard science, you can't assume something was the case back in "the day." As for a wolf birthing a poodle, that would be less fantastic than Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I agree with your last 2 statements. That is observed and natural selection or breeding happens, but that doesn't produce new information, just weaker vessels with less genetic information in that particular "kind." You can use your word equivalent of "genus."
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch 'you can't assume something was the case back in "the day."
What do mean by this, This is NOT what evolution does, We have Mountains of evidence to support how animals descended thru history.
You can take the word of christians if you like, most scientist that are christian support evolution search Ken miller, Francis Collins , don exodus here on YT.
'doesn't produce new information'
Search Nylonase, a species of bacteria has evolved the dna 'info' to digest nylon.
gusb232 1 year ago
@1tmoch 'As for a wolf birthing a poodle, that would be less fantastic than Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium.'
I dont see how?
'You can use your word equivalent of "genus." '
Yes organism never produce other genus in one generation. You can look at the evolution of fish to amphibians as an example of at this scale.
Some anphibians like newts even have gills then lungs then gills again depending of there stage in life.
gusb232 1 year ago
So you saying things that happen in the past are all part of a fairy tale land?
No scientist believes most of the claims you attribute to them.
The universe is not going from disorder to order.
Impersonal to personal, Yes there was not any persons in the past , now there are.
Scienctist dont beleve thing produce or dont produce after there 'kind' because 'kind' is not a word scientist use to differentiate organisms.
gusb232 1 year ago
@gusb232 Well, some say it is going from order to disorder, and some say from order to disorder and back to order, but no need for all the variance. The point is that these religionists have a view which is imaginary in that if you appeal to the methodology of science as your trump card, why are all the explanations of "long ago" anti-scientific or the unobserved opposite. Dog produce non dog. Whatever term you want to use, you know what i mean.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch 'Well, some say it is going from order to disorder,'
NO , im sorry the general consensus is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct. Total Entropy is increasing this is a FACT.(also not just a fact conformable by science.)
'point is that these religionists have a view which is imaginary'
Huh , I agree religionists do believe not based things on faith not what the best evidence supports.
'Dog produce non dog.'
no dogs are wolfs.
yet they are related.
gusb232 1 year ago
You have never seen a beneficial mutation?
Try this: INDY gene mutation which dramatically increased the lifespans of the affected fruit-flies, caused by as single-point addition-mutation.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
Evolutionary theory never predicted that organisms produce anything other then their own "kind", the mating of spiders will always produce spiders and all subsequent offspring of those spiders will also be spider, until such time as the clade 'spider' goes extinct. Now those spider can speciate, and can lead to new distinct clades, just as the arachnid clade gave rise to scorpions, ticks, and spider by gradual speciation events of 'parent' arachnid organisms.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie You're welcome to assert, but that is all it is to extrapolate out like that.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
Extrapolate out -like what-?
This is part of the theory of evolution, and you miss-characterized it in this video, nothing need produce a different "kind" of animal (please define 'kind') to result in the diversity we see today.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie It all has to do with what we observe today vs. what is imported in the equation with the imagination.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
You're still being cryptic.
Evolutionary theory is consistent with the active processes we observe today, and accurately explains and predicts phenomena in biology such as E.R.Vs, 'transitional' fossils, and phylogeny dictating embryological development.
Most everything "imported" by the imagination of evolutionary biologists has evidence to support it.
(Define "kind" please.)
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie Kind is the more broad categorization which multiple species can be sub-categories, e.g. canine, feline, etc. E.R.V's do not support Darwinian evolution, and "transitional" is arbitrary to whoever you are talking to (of which was not observed) only AGAIN imported as an after the fact assumption. You'll have to explain what you mean by phylogeny dictating the development of embryos and how that applies to any sort of promotion to your view.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
What specifically dictates the limits of this sub-categorization?
E.R.Vs do support modern evolution in that the specific placemen in the genome is more likely be a genetic carry over from common ancestors then an independent and incidental placement in currently existing species.
Evolution predicted fossils that would be "common ancestors" to existing clades, and defines what morphological features it would need to qualify, these where determined before their discovery.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@1tmoch
(cont) as such one cannot arbitrarily label a fossil traditional.
Evolutionary phylogeny demands that species follow a development pattern in utero that matches the other independently gather evidence (fossil record, genetic concordance). Which is the case, one does not find a insect that is also a duterostome, as all other insects are protostomes.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie Though what we are talking about here is not what the video is about, i'll entertain you one more round. Some have said categorization has to do with mating capabilities, some say phylogenetic similitude (within certain parameters). As for specifics, it depends on who you are talking to and what specific animal you are talking about. Generically speaking, a dog is a dog, and not a non dog, or an elephant. I have seen some videos refuting the whole ERV thing.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch "Evolution" as you said does not "predict" anything, the person proposing that philosophy proposes many things. To say "i predict i may find bones in the dirt that follow my morphological model" and therefore proves evolution is not only fallacious but not in the least bit scientific. This is "hit or miss" arbitrariness, i'm sorry. I still do not understand your bit on embryo phylogeny and how that relates to demonstrating anything. Anyhow, you have one more reply on this topic.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
The predictions are not so trivial, and entail and entire model (including mechanisms for evolution) , that must be comported through multiple lines of evidence, -not just- "bones in the dirt."
You are free to dictate what's in your comment section, but you miss-represented evolution and I must respond to that. If you have interest in honest discussion then you will allow my next post on "projected survival value" which is very relevant to your video.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@1tmoch
In this video, you claim somehow this "projected survival value implies rational thought"
This is of course not that case, 'evolution' does not have a conciseness and operates only as a mindless process, the 'value' here is that species with better fitness is probabilistically prone to passing down genes that lead to better replication, not rational thought need be invoked.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@1tmoch
also, there are ways for "altruistic" behaviors to appear in genetic predisposition, such that survival of the individual can be less important then that of the group.
If an 'altruistic' gene leads to other of the species carrying the gene replicating at a higher rate then there is not evolutionary contradiction, for instance social insects (ants) can 'sacrifice' for the colony and still have the majority of their genes survive the generation as they are close to the queen genetically
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@1tmoch
I would be happy to talk about this more over skype or something of that nature if you do not wish to have any more dialog in this section, would that be amenable?
I will try and locate some sources on ERVs, as they still constitute evidence for evolution in majority scientific literature. What specifically was refuted?
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie No, that's cool. When i said 1 reply, i meant one more transaction, as i know the 500 character limit is, well, limited (so that means don't reply to this only). With respect to the mindless passing down of genes, that just sounds like survival of the fittest, which doesn't really say anything, but that the strong survive, that's it. Then later it sounds like you back peddle by saying there is some desire to survive and pass on genes, whether by individual or species. Oh well, later.
1tmoch 1 year ago
There is no reason to think that the thing that brings something into existence must have all the properties of the thing it creates. I can make a paper airplane, but I myself can't fly.
There is no inconsistency saying that unintelligent energy always existed and is the source for everything. It is not saying that something came from nothing like creationists think God did it.
Godlessons 1 year ago
@Godlessons OH my oh my. This is worse than any science fiction i've seen. That's ok, you are free to believe that. This is America. This is much worse than saying "God did it." Nothing did it, things that were not before popped into being. Distinct qualities can become their opposite without reference to anything. Wheeeew (whistle blow and index finger pointed, circling around side of head).
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch I'm not trying to play games with this issue, I am just letting you in on some of the genuine unknowns in modern cosmology. Your arguments make assumptions that can't be confirmed, and most people won't know that. They may just think you know something they don't about science.
Cosmologists have been unable to say that it is even possible that nothing existed at one time. I don't imagine you would want to deliberately make an ignorant statement, so I am letting you know.
Godlessons 1 year ago
@Godlessons All that proves is that certain cosmologists are idiots who let their philosophical bias run the show. Bow down and worship the professional morons. You know better. BTW, some cosmologists agree with me, but that is irrelevant.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Which cosmologists? I would like to know so I could look at their reasoning. I would like to avoid an appeal to authority if at all possible.
Since nobody can calculate further back than 1 Planck epoch after the beginning of the expansion, I find it rather odd that any scientist would make any claim about what existed prior to that moment. Any statement about anything prior is pure speculation at this point, and if I am wrong it would be nice to see evidence, even mathematical.
Godlessons 1 year ago
@Godlessons No need to respond to such, for the same formulation of challenge applies to the assumption you made in this response. More science fiction... Have fun with that... No offense, but i really don't have time to continue the conversation. Feel free to comment, but as you know, keep it directly relevant. Peace.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch I'm sorry, but your reply made no sense to me. Is it science fiction to say that nobody can be positive what happened prior to a point we can't calculate past?
The real science fiction would be any speculation about the state of the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds after the expansion started, which is what you want to do.
Now, to be intellectually honest, Lawrence Krauss may be one cosmologist that kind of agrees with you, but his nothing is not really nothing.
Godlessons 1 year ago
Comment removed
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN Sound and fury (poetic as it sounds) signifying nothing.
1tmoch 1 year ago