@sculpt2live 'ERV's are showing more and more to NOT be 'junk' but to be coding information.'
Oh yeah, cite evidence of a single ERV that codes for functional proteins then. BTW, a host wouldn't want ERV's to be functional as they're RETRO VIRUSES.
@agentorange20 They're finding it codes for RNA and what was once 3% functional genome is turning out to be closer to 30% functional genome....and they're just getting started according to the ENCODE project.
Like I said, cite the paper that shows ERV's create functional proteins or even better yet why they show up in the same loci in entirely, by your creationist accounts, dissimilar, & not related species. ERV's certainty don't code for RNA, the cell itself does that.
@sculpt2liv (1) I hold my discussions here on YT almost exclusively. There are just times when I have given evidence and the other person, no matter how many times I try to explain it to them, can't grasp the concept and they constantly run back to their evolutionary 'faith' that it just happens via natural processes. At that point I ask them to skype so I can try and explain it other ways that may make more sense but I can't waste my time trying to teach evolution to the evolutionists. You guys
@sculpt (2) are responsible to know what your religion is all about. Why I should constantly have to teach you about your own religion? Doesn't make sense but when I do I like to do it over skype. Everyone can record it and put it in a video if they prefer. I have no probs with that since I have nothing to hide. I know where the evidence points. Now, in your case, you have no interest in hearing anything that doesn't fit your worldview so in that case I don't have time and hence just ignore you.
@sculpt (3) Your only interest in is trolling in the hopes that Aron might like you. It's all about personal gain within the atheist community here on YT for you and less about finding out the truth. You're just another drone without any desire to be objective at all. So why should I bother? I'd rather try to reason with a 4 year old. At least they have an excuse.
@sculpt2live It does put me in mind of TheraminTree's excellent "Religion: the Bad Parent" video
I like the analogy, may i add to it? The driver doesn't just say "you just don't like milk" he also points the helpful pedestrian he doesn't have any wheels at all, not realising the efficacy of legs
I also see what you mean about the war against an imaginary foe, you have summed up my thoughts neatly. The projection of the faith argument is bewildering, and totally baffling without that realisation
@sculpt2live I agree. To Equestions this is not about scientific truth at all, if it were it would only make sense to wish to hold these discussions in full view. Why not hang the evidence like a trophy, instead of attempting to convert the world one person at a time? He also seems to totally ignore my point that to disprove evolution requires re-explaining every known fact in biology, which is going to take a long time for just one skype call, let alone hundreds of them.
if you want the especially relevant part skip to Feynman at 3.08
If you want to assert that hypotheses about how the mechanism of error correction arose because it is unflasifiable and therefore untestable at this time, that is a reasonable criticism, however it in no way makes confidence in the rest of evolution a matter of faith
@lo2enge "however it in no way makes confidence in the rest of evolution a matter of faith" This is not so. You and I have only talked about ONE major problem in evolution. I have many more things that we haven't even touched on because we've been so busy with just error correction. Skype me and I'll throw a few others passed you.
No, clearly we do not. The species that are transitional, like eustheonopteron, pandericthys, Tiktaalik, are representative of those species at that geological time. It certainty wasn't in a single generation from fish to tetrapod.
@agentorange20 And here we go again. The problem is, now that they found 395myo tetrapod tracks, the OLDEST fossils of pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega are now found AFTER the oldest tetrapod tracks. Do you see the conundrum here? Pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega were all supposed to be 'transitional' from fish to tetrapods but you can no longer prove that to be true since it now appears that tetrapods are OLDER than Pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega.
Are dated to ~ 295 MYA, so while they're nearly parallel w/ those footprints I don't see an issue.
'ow appears that tetrapods are OLDER than Pandericthys, Tiktaalik,'
No, it just means they actually took to the shallows & land earlier than previous evidence demonstrated, maybe by some 5 MYA earlier. Fossils always show not the first immediate representatives of their genera.
I may well take you up on your offer of skyping, if only to make sure you listen to the whole of the video i posted a link to. Evolution theory is self-funding because of the scientific breakthroughs it is directly and indirectly responsible for. Creation science urges a return to the dark-ages; a voluntary surrender of the scientific method, and of curiosity itself.
Understanding evolution will help us move forward as a species, embracing superstitious dogma will see us stagnate. Try science!
No you didn't. You gave me your interpretation of the evidence. It is a typical flaw within people of faith to confuse interpretation and opinion with fact.
As i stated before, you are not interested in debunking abiogenesis, which is the area the point you raised is within, and not fully understood by science yet; you are interested in debunking the entire nested hierarchy model. Am i wrong with this assertion? Is there any point in my asking direct questions, as you don't address them?
"An organism doesn't get 1,000 beneficial mutations in one generation and change itself!"
It doesn't need to, a single mutation can spread rapidly across a population over a handful of generations, and create new areas to exploit... as this process happens long enough, enough changes are accumulated for an organism to no longer be viably reproductive with the former organism, as this process continues enough can accrue to render them unrecognisable to the naked eye. We don't need a crocoduck.
@lo2enge And yet again you run back to your religion. Man, for someone that doesn't like Christianity you sure love your evolutionary religion. Once again, you give me nothing but "it MIGHT be able to do that' or "it COULD POSSIBLY happen". I could care less about what you think MIGHT be able to be done via evolution. I want proof it DID happen. Just because it can happen doesn't mean it did happen. Two very different things. Just skype me.
@Equestions I'll reiterate this point for the last time, if you continue to ignore it i will know you are either insane or utterly morally bankrupt in intellectual terms. If you wish to disprove evolution through natural & sexual selection and genetic drift you will have to re-examine and re-explain EVERY SINGLE KNOWN BIOLOGICAL FACT. If you wish to continue to insist the world and the universe is only ca. 7000 years old you will have to do that for every major science. Feel up to it?
@lo2enge You are not going to rile me with juvenile assertions that science is a religion. Science is ultimately highly self-sceptical in the very process of peer-review. It does not cling to dogma. The theory of evolution is the only sensible way of interpreting ALL of the evidence found to date. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding, but these shall be filled eventually, and will in turn create further questions. Interpolation IS NOT the same as faith. It uses logic, not dogma.
@Equestions Furthermore, i wish to understand your wish to conduct this discussion via skype. I would rather have it in public, and i believe you should too. If you are right, this is an hugely important issue, and needs as wide an audience as possible, because it is truly earth-shattering stuff. If you are wrong, you should be publically exposed as wrong so's others do not make the same errors of preconception and misinterpretation as i think you are demonstrating.
@lo2enge I'm getting tired of you ignoring the evidence put in front of you. I gave you an obvious BIOLOGICAL FACT with the error correction and you can not stop running back to your religion with "well it MIGHT happen POSSIBLY if I just close my eyes and think hard enough it SEEMS possible even though it goes against all logic and there's NO evidence to back up the fact it happened via natural processes" and then you claim evolution isn't a religion. Wow man...really...just wow.
@Equest Did you miss where i said you'd have to re-explain EVERY BIOLOGICAL FACT in order to disprove evolution? Misapprehending, then waving your rapid and ill-thought through conclusion of evidence in a poorly understood area is not an adequate demonstration that evolution is a faith-based belief structure rather than the only conceivable means of explaining biological natural history. You are also obviously using hyperbole, which also makes you a poor polemicist as well as a poor scientist.
"You may as well say 'God did it' because there is NO way to test for something like that."
That is making an huge, supernatural assumtion that can't be falsified and therefore untestable. Why do so, what benefit does it bring apart from making a very short-term saving in research funds while you empty all universities, laboratories and research facilities because further answers are pointless. This is what you want to happen, as an IT guy?
"What shred of evidence is there that these events EVER occur?"
The evidence is there, you are just choosing to interpret it in a bizarre, supernatural way due to preconceived conditioning. I have seen them hijacked often to support the bizarre notion of a sudden great global flood.
"bash and dismiss any evidence given to you that doesn't agree with your own worldview"
No, we examine your evidence and interpret it in a different way, a way that doesn't contradict what we already know on the subject. The only person dismissing evidence out of hand here is yourself, by ignoring the overwhelming weight of it that is utterly unambiguous.
@sculpt2live This is precisely what you DON'T do. You refuse to look at the flaws of evolution and you can't get passed your own bias. The really funny part about all of this is that you actually think you're a 'critical thinker' while you bash and dismiss any evidence given to you that doesn't agree with your own worldview. HAHA! Too funny. I don't suppose you've ever watched a video on 'double standards' have you? You could learn a lot from that one.
@sculpt2live Yes indeed... i am merely an interested amateur when it comes to science, yet i can see through the bluff, brash pseudo-bravura of this particular creatin. I ought to shut up really, and allow the experts to debate this twisty little bugger, but i wouldn't ask a real scientist worth his salt to engage the spurious arguments presented on this bizarre channel.
You do know that 99% of the people "doing their job" that you praise so much, probably including the site you showed, accept evolution as an undeniable fact?
And you probably know that just cause dogs evolved from wolves, doesn't mean wolves can no longer be around. And likewise the tetrapods and their fish ancestors can have lived side by side at some point. So far all you say Don got wrong is the dates. That alone doesn't disprove much, does it? Just push it to a different time?
@Mithcoriel Man you guys can NOT understand this. Here's the problem. The OLDEST elpistostegid fossil is 10 million years AFTER these tetrapod tracks! You can NOT prove that fish evolved into tetrapods because they now appear to have 'arrived' at the same time according to the fossil record. It's not that hard to see the implications here.
@Equestions (1/3) Ah I see. Well well done then, that makes it a valid objection to Don's video. Why don't you call in to the Magic Sandwich show with this? I'd like to see them argue their point.
(2/3)It doesn't debunk the water-land transition though. I could travel from Africa to Europe and see how the skin color of the inhabitants changes from black to white. They're not each other's ancestors, they're all alive today. But they're a testimony to the transition nevertheless. Each branch of those fossil creatures left descendants that didn't evolve further, as well as descendants who evolved further towards the land.
@Mithcoriel Holy smokes. I can't make it any more clear to you. Apparently that line of reasoning is way over your head. I've tried to dumb it down as best I can but you just can't seem the grasp the implications. Even Per Ahlberg and his team understand what this means for the fish to land transition but apparently you're still a bit too young to comprehend the whole thing. PM me with your skype name and we can go over it in a chat.
@Equestions How about you cut the pointless insults and stick to the arguments? So, are you actually claiming, that the scientists who published those discoveries, think that this means evolution has been debunked? Do you claim that Per Ahlberg is a creationist after these discoveries?
@Mithcoriel Either you don't read the articles or you don't comprehend what you read. I'm curious as to which one it is. Of course Ahlberg didn't sway from evolution. Just like you that's his paradigm and no matter what he's going to stick with it. At this point he just simply has 'faith' that one day they'll find those 'transitional' fossils in rocks older than 395myo but he recognizes that at this time he has nothing for evidence of that.
@Equestions You fail to understand even the very basic difference between logical interpolation within scientific evidence and basing one's fundamental scientific outlook on a book written over a millenium and a half ago. You did not understand QualiaSoup's video, despite the thoroughness and elegance with which he presents his point. His and his brother's works are some of the very best on YouTube, i suggest you set aside a couple of hours to peruse his and TheraminTrees' channels.
@lo2enge And the running continues. You can't answer anything with evidence so you try to turn me to someone else's channel in order to avoid any further demands for actual evidence....which you can't provide....and yet you still think 'nature did it'. PM me with your skype name and let's chat about a few more things that are huge problems for evolution.
@Equestions I'm running? You tell me to do my homework, then you want me to explain every fully conceived article on evolution (a process that would take years for one person to do) to you? If i refuse you think i'm running? This is ridiculous, and an obvious attempt at point-scoring rather than serious debate. I cannot show you any better evidence than experts on the subject, like the previously mentioned YouTubers, all i can do is persuade you to view it dispassionately, without preconception
@Equestions Can you lay your belief in god down for long enough to apply the process of critical thinking to the evidence?
If you want to see how the foremost creation scientist performs against a real scientist when debating the evidence, try watching this video:
/watch?v=tnb_pmRDpqU
The fact that you're openly young-earth also means evolution is just the start. Once you have beaten the biologists (in a fantasy world) you then have to start with the geologists, chemists, physicists etc.
(3/3)You're making it sound like Don was deliberately lying, when the article you cite came out long after he made the video. You seem to have tried to talk around it in the comments, implying your definition of lying includes accidentally saying something wrong which you couldn't have known was wrong at the time, but quotes like "We'd appreciate if you did your homework" and "He doesn't care about the truth, he just wants you to click on his adds" suggest otherwise. That's definitely dishonest.
You believe the tracks were made 360 million years (otherwise quoting this source is intellectually dishonest), presumably you believe in micro-evolution, so please explain to me the mechanism which prevents micro-evolution from bringing about vast changes over billions of generations? I can maybe guess, though... magicmandunnit?
@lo2enge The tracks were made 390mya. You should spend more time trying to comprehend what you read. I don't have to 'believe' they were made that long ago. Per Ahlberg and his entire team stated they were.
@Equestions Okay, 390 mya... it makes little difference to my point? You wish to quibble pedantically and avoid my question, clearly. How is the process of macro-evolution stopped, if you concede such vast periods of time are involved?
@lo2enge Here's the issue. You're claiming 'well....it COULD have happened via the mechanism of micro evolution' and I'm asking to SHOW ME that it happened via the 'mechanism of micro evolution'. You're just having 'faith' that because it's POSSIBLE that it COULD have happened via micro over time that it DID happen via micro over time. That's not proof that it DID ACTUALLY happen! You're running to religion....not science.
@Equestions No, i am claiming it is inexorably logical - the process of micro-evolution MUST become macro over such a long time without an external influence preventing the changes from becoming too great. This is in no way comparable to creationism, which must require faith as no convincing evidence, nor logical argument has been presented.
If you deny that most fossils are in some way transtitional forms, of course you won't recognise the evidence, there is nbo point in me reiterating it here.
@lo2enge (1) But there you go again invoking 'faith' to show evolution as true. You just said that micro MUST become macro but there is no evidence that it does. You're ASSERTING that it does but where's the proof? We see brown moths become black or white moths (micro) but we never see moths become anything other than a moth. Now here you are ASSERTING that organisms, over time, become other organisms but where's the proof?
@lo (2) Just because 'this bone looks like that bone' does NOT prove origin! That is COMPLETELY illogical! I could say that shows common 'design' and my argument is every bit as strong as yours. You're ASSERTING it means 'common descent' but where's the proof? Where's the science that shows that just because this skull is kind of like this other skull that means they have a common ancestor? That's completely illogical and yet you swallow the kool aid as if it's absolute fact.
@Equestions 'I could say that shows common 'design' and my argument is every bit as strong as yours.'
No, it most certainly is not. 1) We have known natural mechanisms (testable & falsifiable) for how evolution occurs, while you have no known mechanisms/processes this designer (god) you assert created life with (not testable, nor falsifiable).
'You're ASSERTING it means 'common descent' but where's the proof?'
Look up human chromosome 2 fusion, ERV's, or GULO, it's not all about the fossils.
@agentorange20 ERV's are showing more and more to NOT be 'junk' but to be coding information. You really should update your knowledge. You have mechanisms that show MICRO evolution and 'faith' that micro leads to macro but you have NO proof that macro happens via testable, observable, evidence without changing the definition of 'macro' and lowering the evolutionary bar. One bird into a different type of bird is NOT macro evolution.
@Equestions Similarity of bones was just the first clue to common descent, the evidence demonstrated in DNA is so overwhelming and without a credible alternative explanation as to be utterly convincing. This is how science works. It's a religion as much as germ-theory, the theories of relativity (including the general and the special), quantum theory etc. are religions. Without comprehension and acceptance of these the world would be a much poorer place, the same cannot be said of your own faith
@lo2enge The evidence in DNA is NOT conclusive evidence of evolution in the least bit. You guys ONLY look at the parts of DNA that you think verifies your worldview but ignore the rest of the DNA evidence that shows evolution to be a joke. Error correction is just one of those evidences. Keep in mind there are THREE types of error correction in DNA. So you go ahead and show me scientific evidence for how this came about via natural processes when the world around us says the contrary.
@Equestions "ignore the rest of the DNA evidence that shows evolution to be a joke"
which is that...? Francis Collins and i are all ears.
You can't see how the process of error correction would be an obvious benefit, and so clearly naturally selected for? I have seen a few hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and none of those preclude this mechanism arising.
Picking tiny holes will not destroy the whole tapestry, no matter how ardently you believe it will. Give it up, pal.
@lo2eng Try to grasp the very simple concept here genius. By what mechanism does a natural process like mutations discern between what is and isn't an error during transcription. Then, when you're effectively done failing at that, show me how THREE of these error correction processes show up in DNA. Nat sel does NOT create error correction. It may SELECT for it but it can't CREATE it. Can you not follow this very simple concept or are you intentionally avoiding it to be intellectually dishonest?
@Equestions I will concede that it must have been a process that arose very early in the history of life, but it seems staggering to suggest that a mechanism that decreases mutation couldn't be the result of a mutation, seeing as these would have been rampant before such a mechanism arose. Organisms that are capable of retarding the process of mutation will outcompete those that cannot. The means of detection are simple enough - comparison, or a change to the spatial arrangement of the molecule
@lo2enge (1) OK. You're getting closer Lo. I do believe you may actually be worth talking to. Think about the world around you. There is NOTHING in our 'testable, observable' world that error corrects itself without some sort of intelligence on the back end. What you're saying is basically "Well, it does seem a bit odd that the computer can actually fix errors all on its own separate from any code that was written for it....but I think a computer could do that." A computer can ONLY fix errors
@lo (2) that it's been taught HOW to fix. It can't lay down a 1 and then automatically 'know' that it should have been a 0 then shut down the entire process, swap the 1 for a 0, and then tell the program to continue if there wasn't an intelligence on the back end instructing it to do so. Another example. You write down 2+2=8. If you've never done math before you have no clue that's incorrect. It takes a teacher (intelligence) to tell you that what you wrote is wrong. The teacher 'error corrects'
@lo (3) So now we have an error that's made during transcription in the DNA and the system shuts down the transcription, replaces the error with the correct letter, and then turns the transcription back on again. When that error correction fails that's how you get 'mutations'. That error correction HAD to be there in the beginning or damn near everything the transcription process pumped out would be an 'error' and we wouldn't even exist! The bad 'errors' would have piled up so fast that any
@lo 4) 'good' errors wouldn't stand a chance of making it on to the next organism. This is what they DON'T teach you in college but the truth just is what it is. So they just 'assume' this error correction was present in the very first cell (how fortunate for the cell!) and pretend it all happened via natural processes. Papers on the subject will ASSERT that it happened naturally but they use words like 'it could have' or 'maybe' or 'it possibly' because they know there is no natural explanation
@Equestions 'good' errors wouldn't stand a chance of making it on to the next organism'
Sure they would. Neutral mutations already make there way onto successive descendant generations, & beneficial ones which confer an immediate survival advantage will be highly preserved & propagated onto further generations.
@agentorange20 Wow....OK. It's clear you really don't understand how this all works. I would invite you to ask yourself this one simple question. "What actually happens when a 'beneficial' mutation occurs in the genome." Do some homework on that and let me know what you find. I think you'll be surprised at what 'beneficial' mutations actually do.
@Equestions 'Do some homework on that and let me know what you find.'
OK, I found that w/ beneficial mutations which increase the fitness of the organism, say like nylonase in which they can now digest nylon, the mutations are preserved & passed onto successive descendants. That is what actually happens.
@Equestions "I do believe you may actually be worth talking to"
Is this because i freely admit i am no expert and you believe you can run rings around my interpretation of the evidence?
I disagree with the summation that the error correction had to exist from the very beginning, in fact the hypotheses i have seen regarding abiogenesis allow for this mechanism not being present at the very earliest stages.
@lo2 I'm not 'running rings' around anything, I'm simply trying to give you another perspective on the evidence and yet you continue to run back to your evolutionary religion. Now you not only have 'faith' that 'nature did it' in the first cell but you're talking about abio which is a whole other level of 'faith'. Neither one of those arguments has any proof to back them up and yet you just continue to 'believe' that's how it happened. So you tell me who the brainwashed one is. You're in denial
@Equestions I view your perspective and find it lacking. Reiterating that it is the correct one is not going to convince me. Evolution may have gaps, but it also has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it. You are not even pleading the intelligent design view incorporating evolution, held by every believer i have met in my country, you are pleading young-earth creationism, it's akin to pointing to a grain of sand beside the mountain and asking "where is the mountain"?
@lo2enge Dude. There are LOADS of other things I can bring up to show you the gaping holes in evolution. This was just one of them. I could go on but based on how quickly you dismissed the last evidence I gave you it appears you only want to pretend like you're objective and want to look at all of the evidence but, like the other atheists, once you realize there's more to things than what you thought you're getting scared so you run back to your comfy evolutionary security blanket.
@Equestions Oh yes, evolution is the security blanket. I can't see how believing in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent would be in any way more comforting than the notion that we're in this on our own. Clearly i am seeking a return to the breast with what you laughably call my "beliefs".
If you have serious evidence, post it independently, not as an invalid call out against an existing video made in the light of evidence discovered after said video was created. You will persuade more people that way.
@lo2enge " If you have serious evidence, post it independently" I just did post serious evidence! Are you kidding me right now? The error correction problem is an extremely serious issue for the evolutionists. I totally buried you what that one little tiny fact and now you're trying to deflect and run away by telling me I didn't post any serious evidence? Do you see the denial that you're in? You are reaching the point of being ridiculous!
"That error correction HAD to be there in the beginning or damn near everything the transcription process pumped out would be an 'error' and we wouldn't even exist!"
That isn't serious evidence, i am afraid. I disagree with your assessment of the info, it doesn't have to be present at the start. Early self-replicating cells would be unrecognisable compared with modern evolved unicellular lifeforms, i see no reason to accept your (unsupported) ASSertion.
@lo2enge So what you're saying is that "it's currently in DNA and I don't' THINK it had to be there at the beginning so I just BELIEVE it came about via natural processes". How very scientific of you. There you go running back to your religion again. You have such a strong faith in nature!
@Equestions 'SHOW ME that it happened via the 'mechanism of micro evolution''
Sigh... The same principle of small, accumulated changes over long periods of time is what leads geologists to infer that the movement of tectonic plates leads to mountain formations & continental drift.
Same principle for micro evolutionary changes which are accumulative & over longer periods of time lead to more evidence macro changes.
There's no known mechanism which can transform the spine of fish (which have great horizontal flexion) to those of amphibians (which do not). The shape of vertabrae is another problem. Fish have dish shaped vertabrae, and amphibians have hockey puck shaped vertabrae. Nothing in between is known.
There is no known mechanism by with the roofing bones and snout bones of fiah can seperate from processes to become new bones. In this lineage, you see less to more to less again in these bones. Why would evolution create more bones only to remove them later? It's like a truck becoming a motorcycle then a truck again on it's way to becoming a truck. It makes no sence, is inefficient, and has no evidence.
There is so much that can be said abut this claim. For example, there are no examples in the fossil record of the translocation of parapopheses and diapopheses on the spines of fish to become those of amphibians, which are bicipital. Without this evidence, any claim of fish to land evolution is sheer faith.
Make the case for creationism. Show me how it's done. You are the PhD. I'm just a blue collar guy on youtube. You're the academic. Show me the fossils. Show me the track ways. Show me the flood evidence. Show me the cretaceous bunnies. Show me your peer reviewed literature.
.
How come I have to provide proof while all you need is to do is say "no it's not" to any evidence and "gawd dun it!" when asked for an explanation? Come on Doc. educate us!
@Noisegator@Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You still can't answer my simple questions even though are apparently mountains of evidence for evolution. Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
@Equestions Come on Doc. You are the professor and I am the student. Show the class the cretaceous bunnies. I can't answer your simple questions because I am a blue collar worker posting on youtube. You, on the other hand are a PhD so go all academic on my plebian ass already. Lay some scholarship on me. Show us some positive evidence FOR creationism.
.
Since it's obvious I can't possibly refute your debunking of evolution it's time for you to cough up the goods on what really happened.
Why should, in 500 characters or less, I bother trying to convince a biblical creationist, who has demonstrated his devious nature and hostility to evidence, the truth about evolution. What possible evidence could I present that you would not ignore. Just because I won't indulge your laziness doesn't mean that you are right.
.
Get a high school text book on biology. Audit a biology 101 course. Watch some science videos. The truth is out there waiting for you, if you dare.
@Noisegator I'm right and you know it and now you're just playing games before running away from reality. I'm not asking you to explain it if you don't want to. Just copy/paste the links to the articles. Pretty simple to do actually. It's YOUR religion and I'm the lazy one for not finding the answers? These are things you should already know. I would invite you to read up on your evolution. Apparently I know more about it than you do. How does it feel to be taught evolution by a creationist?
It's not my religion, it is a science and you can find all the information on you need IF you have a genuine interest to know the truth. Using my reluctance to waste time instructing a PhD on rudimentary academic skills, as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for evolution, or as evidence against evolution, is just laziness and more intellectual dishonesty on your part. Don't blame me for your ignorance.
@Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You can't answer my simple questions and I'M the ignorant one? Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
Evolution has millions of data points over a dozen disciplines covering 150 years, developed by thousands of researchers. Not one data point out of place.
.
What do you have? A book. One book.
.
Wow. I'm blown away with the robustness of your evidence and the rigor of your science.
.
Dismiss me if you want but then you'll have no one to talk to. This isn't exactly a happening thread.
@Noisegator "Evolution has millions of data points over a dozen disciplines covering 150 years, developed by thousands of researchers" And yet you can't answer a single one of my questions with any evidence whatsoever. Not talking to you won't hurt my feelings. You don't know anything anyways. I can find a a lot of YT evo's just like you so it's not like people like you aren't hard to find.
And I'm asking you for peer reviewed POSITIVE evidence too. So what have you got? Blow me out of the water. Show me those anomalous fossils that simply must exist in the millions, if creationism is real. Show me where the geology contradicts the taxonomy or the taxonomy refutes the genetics. Prove your assertion that it was all created in a few days. Positive proof, not this lame "look, a tiny discrepancy in one lineage - WE WINNNN!!!!" Real evidence. The kind you keep ignoring from me.
@Noisegator "Show me where the geology contradicts the taxonomy" Show me in the Pre Cambrian the transitionals to the Trilobytes in the Cambrian. That should keep you busy and once again.....I've answered your question and you've answered none of mine. Are you sure you aren't Greg under a sock puppet account?
@Equestions Uh, no you have not answered one of my questions. All you have done is poo-pooed the evidence for evolution. And don't repeat that lame claim that I am responsible for spoon feeding you high school lessons.
.
You have described no mechanism for creationism. You have answered no questions about how Jehovah did it or provided any evidence FOR your position.
.
Arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR creationism. So let's hear your proof. Bring on the cretaceous bunnies.
@Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You still can't answer my simple questions even though are apparently mountains of evidence for evolution. Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
Don't be a lazy sod! It's not my job to spoon feed a purported PhD, commonly available references. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty about you you'd do a bit of your own homework. Use google, explore youtube - there are tons of resources available for a university graduate (yeah right) of even moderate ability. Trouble is you have already dismissed all the evidence so it's a waste of time to provide you with more to poo-poo. Answers in Genesis is not a credible source BTW.
@Noisegator What a surprise. Another comment and still no evidence or papers for me to read. I've been all over looking for the evidence to those questions and haven't been able to find them. It's obvious you have no interest in 'testable evidence' for ToE and are content to believe whatever someone else tells you about evolution. Way to have a mind of your own. You and DonE both need to do your homework but you obviously like your faith.
It's not enough for you to point out alleged fatal errors in the ToE (none of which are even an actual challenge, let alone a deadly one). You need to provide some positive evidence for biblical creationism. You don't get an automatic win every time a small controversy arises.
.
Where are the millions of anomalous fossils? Where are the human fossils mixed with dinosaurs? What predictions does biblical creationism make and how can they be tested?
@Noisegator Yet more questions and then you follow it up with "Where is your positive, testable evidence?" HAHA! Now THAT'S funny! I should ask you the same question! Let me explain something to you. I openly admit my religion requires FAITH. Faith in God, etc. It's YOU, as an evo, that thinks everything is backed up by 'evidence' however you provided me with zero so far. None. Nada. So here I am still waiting for your evidence to my questions......still waiting......still waiting.
@Noisegator "It's not enough for you to point out alleged fatal errors in the ToE (none of which are even an actual challenge, let alone a deadly one)." Not deadly? You have NO evidence for fish to land evolution. You have NO evidence for cold to warm evolution. You have NO evidence showing how DNA became error correcting and none of those are an actual challenge to ToE? So how do you get a cell into a human without answering those simple questions? Oh yeah...LOTS of faith! Nice religion.
"You claim that 'just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God did it!' and then at the same time try to tell me that because animals can regulate their internal temps obviously means that evolution had to have 'evolved' these creatures from cold to warm. "
.
Evidence shows that all morphology and function arose out of mutation and natural selection, including therefore, thermoregulation. What other mechanism is there to account for it and what positive evidence for it?
@Noisegator "Evidence shows that all morphology and function arose out of mutation and natural selection" Now you're baked. You've put yourself into a corner now. Give me your "positive testable evidence" for the morphology of a fish into a land animal. Another HUGE issue for ToE. You can't get a cell into a human if a fish didn't become a land animal. Come on man. These questions should be SUPER easy and should be no problem for evolutionists to explain. Looking forward to your evidence.
You have a doctorate? Really? In what and from which university?
.
This from the guy who tried to pretend he wasn't a creationist. Why should I trust you now? Nothing you have said here demonstrates the sort of skill at constructing an argument that would be required for even a minor degree. But a doctorate? Pull my other leg, it evolved with bells on it.
You are doing quite a bit of questioning yourself - in fact almost exclusively. Does that mean that YOU are deflecting as well? And again with the baseless declarations... you are "destroying" me?
.
I don't assume that animals evolved thermoregulation, the evidence supports that. But you are hostile to that evidence.
.
On the other hand you can offer no positive evidence for creationism. Only "that's impossible". There should be a myriad of mammal fossils in the cretaceous layer. Where are they?
@Noisegator "I don't assume that animals evolved thermoregulation, the evidence supports that" WHAT EVIDENCE?!?! You've provided NONE to show the evolution of thermoregulation! I hate conversations with people like you. You're so stupid you don't even know your stupid! Show me peer reviewed papers proving the evolution of thermoregulation or quit trying to claim 'evolution did it'. That's a MAJOR part of trying to get a cell into a human. Do you not understand this?
@Equestions Someone who accepts biblical creationism with it's ONLY evidence being the bible, should not be calling anyone else "stupid". There is tons of evidence for evolution and for the evolution of all the capabilities you claim (without grounds) are impossible. Any PhD worth his diploma should be able to find it in spades, eh, like with google or at a library.
.
There is evidence and you simply choose to ignore it or be hostile to it because it doesn't suit your prejudice.
@Noisegator My PhD is in IT systems and not biology. That's why I ask people like you for answers to my questions and, just like EVERY other evo that tries to debate me, NONE of them can come up with any evidence to answer my questions. You remind me of this Greg guy that commented a lot. He didn't have any answers either and still tried to claim victory. I'm asking you for peer reviewed evidence and you can't supply me with any so we're done.
@Noise. I hate dealing with people like you. You have ZERO answers to what should be simple questions and the only thing you can tell me is 'evolution has mountains of evidence to prove the questions you have but I don't have a clue what those answers are and yet I still believe in evolution. I'm not going to get the answers for you because my faith in evolution is strong so you should just go get the answers yourself." Such a dork. Go bother somebody else. I don't have time for you.
You couldn't even understand the evidence anyway - "You can't get a cell into a human if a fish didn't become a land animal." - What sort of inane statement is this? And you want me to believe you are a PhD? Oh the irony.
.
And I'm still waiting for your POSITIVE evidence FOR creationism. Where the cretaceous bunny? Where are the human / dinosaur trackways? Where's the geological record of a global flood?
.
PhD? What a joke. Let me know when you have humiliated yourself enough.
"You can get the things above by ran mut and nat sel but you must do it with FAITH because there is ZERO evidence to show that evolution did it on its own."
.
Once again you are making baseless assertions about what is and is not possible, without anything more than your misunderstanding as evidence.
.
Actually there is a ton of evidence for the ToE but you have already declared all of it invalid. And where is your positive evidence FOR creation by Jehovah?
@Noisegator Damn. I don't even know where to start with you. All you did is answer my questions by asking me other questions. Nice deflection. Normal evolutionary tactic. You can't provide papers on things so you just tell ME to go looking for the answers. Nice. You're really good at this debate thing. OK...so where to start. "Thermoregulation is something that all animals do by various means." All you're doing here is ASSUMING that because animals regulate their body temperatures that they (1)
obviously 'evolved' that ability and eventually those that were cold all the time became a full time warm animal. Assuming doesn't provide me with evidence and feel free to send me links to peer reviewed papers. I have a doctorate so I'm pretty sure I can keep up with all of the big words. You claim that 'just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God did it!' and then at the same time try to tell me that because animals can regulate their internal temps obviously means (2)
that evolution had to have 'evolved' these creatures from cold to warm. Typical evo double standard. We don't have proof for these things but evolution obviously did it. I could go on and on but you either need to give me peer reviewed evidence for my questions or just admit you have a religion and we'll move on. At this point I'm pretty much destroying you and all you're doing is answering my questions with questions and providing nothing but assumptions with no peer reviewed evidence. (3)
"The fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove a cold blooded animal changed into a warm blooded animal..."
.
Who didn't do their homework?Thermoregulation is something that all animals do by various means. Exothermic to Endothermic is NOT a sudden switch from one strategy to the other. All cold blooded creatures derive some heat from metabolism and all warmblooded creatures use the environment to regulate their internal temperature. Warmblood is not a trait that magically appeared.
"Tetrapods walking around at the same time as fish is a good start."
.
There are still tetrapods walking around and there are still fish. Your point is? Oh right! A controversy about the lineage and the timeline = automatic win for Jehovah!!!
.
Repeating an erroneous assertion doesn't make it magically correct. Bunny tracks in the cretaceous era would sink the ToE. Tetrapod tracks a few million years earlier than expected is in no way fatal to the theory.
"Evolution could NOT 'evolve' a way to know that information it's replicating was correct or incorrect."
Error correction is a function of the very chemistry of *some* DNA and associated enzymes. They don't "know" anything in the sense that you are trying to shoehorn into the discussion.
.
Sure there are peer reviewed papers on the matter but could you understand them or would you even trust them, given your penchant for misstating facts and making unsupported declarations of "truth"?
"How did random mutation and nat selection just 'evolve' electrical impulses in the body? ... Some animal got struck by ightning and the electricity just stayed with him?"
.
Wow! Strawman much? You must be desperate to offer such a crazed hypothesis (on my behalf). There are no "electrical impulses" in the body, certainly not in the sense of electrical discharges on the scale of lightning strikes. This is simply absurd, as is the rest of your "evidence". Learn some physiology, please.
This evidence isn't fatal to the Theory of Evolution or even the transition of fish to tetrapods. It merely challenges the time line for the event by presenting new evidence. Sounds like knowledge marching forward. What did you expect? "Oh, a minor discrepancy! Let's abandon science and run with superstition instead."
.
How does this make DE a liar? Can you prove he had this information and hid it? ( On the other hand, misrepresenting a mistake as malice, would be a deceitful act. Right?)
@Noisegator representing the fish to land evidence as 'scientific fact' as DonE and CDK do is LYING. This new evidence doesn't merely challenge the 'timeline' you moron...it destroys it! At this time do you have tiktaalik or any of the other so called 'transitional' fossils dated before 395mya? No? Then you have NOTHING. Keep the faith that they'll find what you want them to though. Hope you like your evolutionary religion!
@Equestions "This new evidence doesn't merely challenge the 'timeline' you moron...it destroys "
.
No it doesn't destroy it. Bunnies in the Precambrian might but not one lone trackway. If creationism is right there should be hundreds of 6,000 year old trackways where mammals, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles and amphibians cavort happily together. Got one of those?
.
You are so hasty. This trackway is hardly evidence enough to abandon reason in favour of a fairy tale about arks and magic men.
@Noisegator Nice try at a deflection. Did I mention creationism? Ummm....don't think so. Try to keep up. Prove to me that fish became land animals based on the current evidence. Hard to make a cell into a human over billions of years if you can't prove fish crawled out of the water and became land animals isn't it? You must now have 'faith' that a fish became a land animal because the current evidence shows no such thing. That's quite a religion you there!
@Equestions "Did I mention creationism? Ummm....don't think so.:"
.
Don't be disingenuous, your channel is loaded with creationist videos and you loudly toot their horn. Walks like a duck and quacks like one. Are you going to categorically do you deny you promote creationism or ID? Are you ashamed of your faith?
.
Current evidence clearly shows the transition from fish to tetrapods and these trackways do not refute that, as much as you want it to. There is no need for invoking superstition.
@Noisegator Not ashamed at all. I'm proud to be a Christian. YOU'RE the one who should be ashamed. I'm SO tired of trying to deal with people who THINK they're smart and yet have no clue. You're just another one of them. If a tetrapod existed 395mya then there is NO WAY to know if a eusthenopteron evolved into a tetrapod! Can't you see this? If tetrapods lived with eusthenopteron then it would be more logical that a tetrapod, that lived at the same time as the eusthenopteron, just evolved into
@Noise another tetrapod! DUH! It would be REALLY nice if you were smart enough to grasp the implications of these tracks but you keep ignoring the evidence that's right in front of you because it doesn't match what you want it to match. Once again, you're back to your religion. The implications of these tracks are far reaching! Answer this. Prove to me a eusthenopteron evolved into a tetrapod knowing that tetrapods lived at the same time as eusthenopteron. This should be interesting!
@Equestions I'm not ignoring the evidence. I am disagreeing with your hasty interpretation of it.
.
This trackway is evidence that the present model of tetrapod linage needs revision - that is all. There are many naturalistic possibilities to explore before we must abandon the ToE. There might be errors in the dating, for example. The presumed location and time of tetrapod emergence may need to be radically revised. This evidence is relatively new and still needs reexamination.
@Noisegator If the creationist model is true, a timeline error of 20my would be negligible and we would expect fossil anomalies of hundreds of millions of years, and even billions of years, to be extremely common. In fact they would be unavoidable and absolutely crucial to make the case. So far nothing of the sort has been unearthed.
.
So how about you prove that everything was made at the same time. You don't get to go from controversy to "god did it!!" without some conclusive evidence.
@Noisegator Dating changes are down the road. Science has done a great job of finding lots of things to prove creationism so all in good time for the dating of things. One day they'll figure out they 'may have been mistaken' about their dating techniques. Just like fish to land evolution the dating thing will be debunked by REAL science at some point.
@Noisegator Tetrapods walking around at the same time as fish is a good start. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove a cold blooded animal changed into a warm blooded animal even though is apparently MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution is pretty convincing. Can't get a cell into a human if a cold animal didn't turn warm. How about error correcting DNA? Evolution could NOT 'evolve' a way to know that information it's replicating was correct or incorrect. This is one that really
@Noise shows ignorance in evolutionists in my opinion. You have to really cover your ears and close your eyes hard to believe that evolution and nat selection just 'evolved' a way to know that information was correct or not correct and then develop a way to store extra information somewhere so that when DNA does run into an error it has a place to go get the correct information to replace it. Totally points to a creator. How about the fact that DNA has two separate strands and yet one knows it
@Noise can pull information from the other as it needs it. How about scientific evidence for the central nervous system? How did random mutation and nat selection just 'evolve' electrical impulses in the body? These electrical impulses would not have been there in the first cell so what happened? Some animal got struck by lightning and the electricity just stayed with him? Man...I could on and on with examples like this. It all points back to a creator. This isn't stuff like "The Earth is the
@Noise center of the universe" type stuff that can be disproved by simply studying the stars or launching a satellite. The things mentioned above would take a creator. You can get the things above by ran mut and nat sel but you must do it with FAITH because there is ZERO evidence to show that evolution did it on its own. And here we are back to your religion again. Always comes full circle. So your turn. Can you provide peer reviewed papers proving any of the things I pointed out above?
@Noisegator "There might be errors in the dating, for example. The presumed location and time of tetrapod emergence may need to be radically revised. This evidence is relatively new and still needs reexamination." Per Ahlberg is very clear that these are tetrapod tracks and he has no qualms about the dating being correct. You have a strong faith. I'll give you that. Nice that you make excuses for things that don't fit the model the way you'd like it to.
@Equestions You mention creationism enough times. The evidence still shows fish became tetrapods, cause the homology between fish anatomy and tetrapod anatomy, as well as their DNA, is still far too similar, suspiciously as if they were from the same family tree. And these transitional forms show how the transition from water to land could have roughly occurred, even if those exact creatures weren't each other's ancestors.
@Mithcoriel Show me the DNA results on the fish to tetrapod claim you just made and you still can't grasp the very simple point that's trying to be made here. It's like having a conversation with my eight year old. If tetrapods are as old as fish then you cannot prove that any of those forms are transitional. Why is it you can't grasp this simple concept? I've tried to explain it a million different ways. PM me with your Skype name and let's chat about it.
@Equestions "If tetrapods are as old as fish then you cannot prove that any of those forms are transitional."
How have you come to this conclusion? The evidence shown in the video merely asserts some of what we thought were transitional forms actually turned out to be a dead-end, and the transition came at a different point. Nowhere does it state the evolution of tetrapods is unambiguously simultaneous to that of fish, so your argument falls down.
@lo2enge "and the transition came at a different point" And at what point was that? Show me the transitional fossils? All we have right now is a fish and then *poof* a tetrapod. Where are the transitional in between? At what time did those transitionals live? Now you've, once again, left science and returned to your religion because that evidence doesn't exist and yet you'll just have 'faith' that it does and somewhere down the road they'll find it. That's a strong faith you have!
Anyone who continues to ask this question after having the nature of transitional fossils explained to them, as you must have if you have watched AronRa's, cdk007's and DonExodus's videos can never be shown such fossils because their eyes are closed tight. Per Ahlberg didn't just discover the tracks here, he also recognised the earliest tetrapod fossils. Recent discoveries haven't disproven evolution, merely shed new light on understood theories.
@Equestions "... a fish and then *poof* a tetrapod. Where are the transitional in between?"
People who don't understand evolution through natural selection seem to imagine it is a steady, slow process (like a sort of genetic drift with guidance, thus vindicating their belief in intelligent design), whereas in fact it happens in fits and starts (as should be evident by your own reasoning on the nature of malign, netutral and beneficial mutations and their occurance per generation).
@Equestions I am saying your interpretation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that this is how you seem to view evolution. Without that foundation your arguments make no sense, because you are not allowing for cataclysmic evolutionary events.
@lo " you are not allowing for cataclysmic evolutionary events" And why should I? What shred of evidence is there that these events EVER occur? You may as well say 'God did it' because there is NO way to test for something like that. You can't get any less scientific that making a statement like that! There you go back to your 'faith' again. Fish don't go to bed and wake up an amphibian. An organism doesn't get 1,000 beneficial mutations in one generation and change itself! You're talking crazy!
@Equestions Did you watch the entire video? Did you hear the quote (actually, an essay title) from one of biology's leading lights Dobzhanksy: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
so to debunk evolution, and the nested hierarchy model, you'll have to re-explain everything in biology. To support a belief? Do you still maintain a young-earth stance? If so, you will also have to redefine chemistry, physics, geology, paleantology, astronomy and anthropology. Good luck
@Equestions 'Fish don't go to bed and wake up an amphibian'
obviously, creationist. But then again, no evolutionary evidence indicates it's a matter of going to sleep & awaking as an amphibian, nor is there evidence in the now that we know of that it would occur in a single generation. You're comparing 2 different morphologies & asking a strawman that evolution suggests such changes occur basically overnight or in a single generation this is most disingenuous & wrong.
@agentorange20 Not true. I'm asking you if you actually believe in punctuated equilibrium. If the answer is 'yes' then I want you to explore just how irrational that is when using the evidence in today's observed world.
@Equestions 'you actually believe in punctuated equilibrium'
Not necessarily. As far as if organisms do evolve in more spurts & slow down, or if it's more gradually accumulated is harder to know. Many of the extant studies demonstrate gradualism, while in the fossil record we're only getting a very, very brief snapshot so it's harder to infer the direct linear diversification & increase in biodiversity.
@Equestions Instead of talking to everyone individually on skype, why not produce some separate, stand alone videos providing positive evidence of divine creation, instead of producing fallacious arguments against non-fundamental evidence that even if you were right about, in no way shake the foundations of evolution? I'm sure it would take less time, if there is as much as you insist. There is no point in providing links to existing videos as i haven't seen on that even *i* couldn't debunk.
@Equestions "Or you could just skype with me and we could go over a few things."
I already explained my position on that, i see you read my posts as selectively as you read peer-reviewed papers. If you keep insisting, i shall, but i will not have the time until the new year.
@Equestions You know I'm not the one to ask for DNA. Ask a biologist.
I get your point, but you don't see that even if these guys are not each other's ancestors, they still show how the transition could have occurred. While the fish we found will not be the ancestors of the first tetrapods, their great-great-grandparents could have been.
I can show you a baby, a child, a teenager and an adult, as proof that humans grow. Just cause they're not the same person, doesn't invalidate the argument.
@Mithcoriel The point still remains this. You can take all the great grandparents you want but when it's all said and done you still have a fish jumping right to a tetrapod. That fact hasn't changed so unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium you have nothing in the way of so called 'transitionals'. It's a huge issue with major implications that are simply being talked down in an attempt to keep the paradigm. Skype me sometime.
@Eq "a fish jumping right to a tetrapod... unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium you have nothing"
It is a typical conceit of creationists to insist the fossil records contain samples from every generation of every species that's ever existed.. which should apply in a yec view.
I happen to think punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism aren't mutually exclusive, but the arguments you have presented only work within the latter model, and then only upon a misconception of it.
@Equestions You're ignoring stuff that was said earlier. If a few million years from now, people find only a wolf fossil and a chihuahua fossil that lived at the same time, that doesn't mean the wolf couldn't have developed into a chihuahua over many generations, even though the wolf specimen we have is of course not the chihuahua's ancestor, but its great-great-grandparents would have been. This even works if the chihuahua they find is older than the wolf fossil.
@Equestions ' mechanisms that show MICRO evolution and 'faith' that micro leads to macro'
right, just like we have evidence for tectonic plates moving which over longer periods of time lead to macro changes like mountain formations, continental drifting, earth quakes etc. No one has ever directly observed a mountain form, yet we know the natural processes observed & can measure their accumulated changes, just like in biodiversity.
@Mithcoriel You have to be careful using words like "could" to a person who does not understand the difference between blind, uncritical faith in scripture and scientific interpolation based upon established testable principles. He's gonna jump on that with both feet.
@ScientificStandard Wiki isn't exactly the most reliable source for information. If you look up the intransitive verb definition for 'lie' at merriam-webster, you know, a reliable source like the people that actually make dictionaries for a living unlike Wikipedia, you'll see that the definition is 2 : to create a false or misleading impression, That's precisely what DonE did in this video. You forget that DonE treated the fish to land example as a known FACT, and NOT as a possibility.
how can life come from nothing?
animefan2k9 1 month ago
Hate homework? Is that why you flunked Biology?
gregrutz 6 months ago
@sculpt2live 'ERV's are showing more and more to NOT be 'junk' but to be coding information.'
Oh yeah, cite evidence of a single ERV that codes for functional proteins then. BTW, a host wouldn't want ERV's to be functional as they're RETRO VIRUSES.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 They're finding it codes for RNA and what was once 3% functional genome is turning out to be closer to 30% functional genome....and they're just getting started according to the ENCODE project.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'it codes for RNA'
Like I said, cite the paper that shows ERV's create functional proteins or even better yet why they show up in the same loci in entirely, by your creationist accounts, dissimilar, & not related species. ERV's certainty don't code for RNA, the cell itself does that.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@sculpt2liv (1) I hold my discussions here on YT almost exclusively. There are just times when I have given evidence and the other person, no matter how many times I try to explain it to them, can't grasp the concept and they constantly run back to their evolutionary 'faith' that it just happens via natural processes. At that point I ask them to skype so I can try and explain it other ways that may make more sense but I can't waste my time trying to teach evolution to the evolutionists. You guys
Equestions 1 year ago
@sculpt (2) are responsible to know what your religion is all about. Why I should constantly have to teach you about your own religion? Doesn't make sense but when I do I like to do it over skype. Everyone can record it and put it in a video if they prefer. I have no probs with that since I have nothing to hide. I know where the evidence points. Now, in your case, you have no interest in hearing anything that doesn't fit your worldview so in that case I don't have time and hence just ignore you.
Equestions 1 year ago
@sculpt (3) Your only interest in is trolling in the hopes that Aron might like you. It's all about personal gain within the atheist community here on YT for you and less about finding out the truth. You're just another drone without any desire to be objective at all. So why should I bother? I'd rather try to reason with a 4 year old. At least they have an excuse.
Equestions 1 year ago
@sculpt2live It does put me in mind of TheraminTree's excellent "Religion: the Bad Parent" video
I like the analogy, may i add to it? The driver doesn't just say "you just don't like milk" he also points the helpful pedestrian he doesn't have any wheels at all, not realising the efficacy of legs
I also see what you mean about the war against an imaginary foe, you have summed up my thoughts neatly. The projection of the faith argument is bewildering, and totally baffling without that realisation
lo2enge 1 year ago
@sculpt2live I agree. To Equestions this is not about scientific truth at all, if it were it would only make sense to wish to hold these discussions in full view. Why not hang the evidence like a trophy, instead of attempting to convert the world one person at a time? He also seems to totally ignore my point that to disprove evolution requires re-explaining every known fact in biology, which is going to take a long time for just one skype call, let alone hundreds of them.
lo2enge 1 year ago
/watch?v=aU0-3tMSj4o
if you want the especially relevant part skip to Feynman at 3.08
If you want to assert that hypotheses about how the mechanism of error correction arose because it is unflasifiable and therefore untestable at this time, that is a reasonable criticism, however it in no way makes confidence in the rest of evolution a matter of faith
/watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us&feature=BF&list=PLD4F7816B052B8643&index=1
If you want to disprove evolution try refuting the points raised in this series
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge "however it in no way makes confidence in the rest of evolution a matter of faith" This is not so. You and I have only talked about ONE major problem in evolution. I have many more things that we haven't even touched on because we've been so busy with just error correction. Skype me and I'll throw a few others passed you.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'fish jumping right to a tetrapod.'
No, clearly we do not. The species that are transitional, like eustheonopteron, pandericthys, Tiktaalik, are representative of those species at that geological time. It certainty wasn't in a single generation from fish to tetrapod.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 And here we go again. The problem is, now that they found 395myo tetrapod tracks, the OLDEST fossils of pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega are now found AFTER the oldest tetrapod tracks. Do you see the conundrum here? Pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega were all supposed to be 'transitional' from fish to tetrapods but you can no longer prove that to be true since it now appears that tetrapods are OLDER than Pandericthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'OLDEST fossils of pandericthys'
Are dated to ~ 295 MYA, so while they're nearly parallel w/ those footprints I don't see an issue.
'ow appears that tetrapods are OLDER than Pandericthys, Tiktaalik,'
No, it just means they actually took to the shallows & land earlier than previous evidence demonstrated, maybe by some 5 MYA earlier. Fossils always show not the first immediate representatives of their genera.
agentorange20 1 year ago
I may well take you up on your offer of skyping, if only to make sure you listen to the whole of the video i posted a link to. Evolution theory is self-funding because of the scientific breakthroughs it is directly and indirectly responsible for. Creation science urges a return to the dark-ages; a voluntary surrender of the scientific method, and of curiosity itself.
Understanding evolution will help us move forward as a species, embracing superstitious dogma will see us stagnate. Try science!
lo2enge 1 year ago
No you didn't. You gave me your interpretation of the evidence. It is a typical flaw within people of faith to confuse interpretation and opinion with fact.
As i stated before, you are not interested in debunking abiogenesis, which is the area the point you raised is within, and not fully understood by science yet; you are interested in debunking the entire nested hierarchy model. Am i wrong with this assertion? Is there any point in my asking direct questions, as you don't address them?
lo2enge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"An organism doesn't get 1,000 beneficial mutations in one generation and change itself!"
It doesn't need to, a single mutation can spread rapidly across a population over a handful of generations, and create new areas to exploit... as this process happens long enough, enough changes are accumulated for an organism to no longer be viably reproductive with the former organism, as this process continues enough can accrue to render them unrecognisable to the naked eye. We don't need a crocoduck.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge And yet again you run back to your religion. Man, for someone that doesn't like Christianity you sure love your evolutionary religion. Once again, you give me nothing but "it MIGHT be able to do that' or "it COULD POSSIBLY happen". I could care less about what you think MIGHT be able to be done via evolution. I want proof it DID happen. Just because it can happen doesn't mean it did happen. Two very different things. Just skype me.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I'll reiterate this point for the last time, if you continue to ignore it i will know you are either insane or utterly morally bankrupt in intellectual terms. If you wish to disprove evolution through natural & sexual selection and genetic drift you will have to re-examine and re-explain EVERY SINGLE KNOWN BIOLOGICAL FACT. If you wish to continue to insist the world and the universe is only ca. 7000 years old you will have to do that for every major science. Feel up to it?
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge You are not going to rile me with juvenile assertions that science is a religion. Science is ultimately highly self-sceptical in the very process of peer-review. It does not cling to dogma. The theory of evolution is the only sensible way of interpreting ALL of the evidence found to date. Yes, there are gaps in our understanding, but these shall be filled eventually, and will in turn create further questions. Interpolation IS NOT the same as faith. It uses logic, not dogma.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions Furthermore, i wish to understand your wish to conduct this discussion via skype. I would rather have it in public, and i believe you should too. If you are right, this is an hugely important issue, and needs as wide an audience as possible, because it is truly earth-shattering stuff. If you are wrong, you should be publically exposed as wrong so's others do not make the same errors of preconception and misinterpretation as i think you are demonstrating.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge I'm getting tired of you ignoring the evidence put in front of you. I gave you an obvious BIOLOGICAL FACT with the error correction and you can not stop running back to your religion with "well it MIGHT happen POSSIBLY if I just close my eyes and think hard enough it SEEMS possible even though it goes against all logic and there's NO evidence to back up the fact it happened via natural processes" and then you claim evolution isn't a religion. Wow man...really...just wow.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equest Did you miss where i said you'd have to re-explain EVERY BIOLOGICAL FACT in order to disprove evolution? Misapprehending, then waving your rapid and ill-thought through conclusion of evidence in a poorly understood area is not an adequate demonstration that evolution is a faith-based belief structure rather than the only conceivable means of explaining biological natural history. You are also obviously using hyperbole, which also makes you a poor polemicist as well as a poor scientist.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions "I'm getting tired of you ignoring the evidence put in front of you."
It was a measly, insubstantial portion, why not take a look at the banquet that supports evolution? Far healthier and more nutritious.
It's an obvious cliche, but you really cannot see the forest, because the bloody trees keep getting in the way, don't they?
lo2enge 1 year ago
"You may as well say 'God did it' because there is NO way to test for something like that."
That is making an huge, supernatural assumtion that can't be falsified and therefore untestable. Why do so, what benefit does it bring apart from making a very short-term saving in research funds while you empty all universities, laboratories and research facilities because further answers are pointless. This is what you want to happen, as an IT guy?
lo2enge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What shred of evidence is there that these events EVER occur?"
The evidence is there, you are just choosing to interpret it in a bizarre, supernatural way due to preconceived conditioning. I have seen them hijacked often to support the bizarre notion of a sudden great global flood.
lo2enge 1 year ago
"bash and dismiss any evidence given to you that doesn't agree with your own worldview"
No, we examine your evidence and interpret it in a different way, a way that doesn't contradict what we already know on the subject. The only person dismissing evidence out of hand here is yourself, by ignoring the overwhelming weight of it that is utterly unambiguous.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@sculpt2live This is precisely what you DON'T do. You refuse to look at the flaws of evolution and you can't get passed your own bias. The really funny part about all of this is that you actually think you're a 'critical thinker' while you bash and dismiss any evidence given to you that doesn't agree with your own worldview. HAHA! Too funny. I don't suppose you've ever watched a video on 'double standards' have you? You could learn a lot from that one.
Equestions 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Yes indeed... i am merely an interested amateur when it comes to science, yet i can see through the bluff, brash pseudo-bravura of this particular creatin. I ought to shut up really, and allow the experts to debate this twisty little bugger, but i wouldn't ask a real scientist worth his salt to engage the spurious arguments presented on this bizarre channel.
lo2enge 1 year ago
You do know that 99% of the people "doing their job" that you praise so much, probably including the site you showed, accept evolution as an undeniable fact?
And you probably know that just cause dogs evolved from wolves, doesn't mean wolves can no longer be around. And likewise the tetrapods and their fish ancestors can have lived side by side at some point. So far all you say Don got wrong is the dates. That alone doesn't disprove much, does it? Just push it to a different time?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Man you guys can NOT understand this. Here's the problem. The OLDEST elpistostegid fossil is 10 million years AFTER these tetrapod tracks! You can NOT prove that fish evolved into tetrapods because they now appear to have 'arrived' at the same time according to the fossil record. It's not that hard to see the implications here.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions (1/3) Ah I see. Well well done then, that makes it a valid objection to Don's video. Why don't you call in to the Magic Sandwich show with this? I'd like to see them argue their point.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
(2/3)It doesn't debunk the water-land transition though. I could travel from Africa to Europe and see how the skin color of the inhabitants changes from black to white. They're not each other's ancestors, they're all alive today. But they're a testimony to the transition nevertheless. Each branch of those fossil creatures left descendants that didn't evolve further, as well as descendants who evolved further towards the land.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Holy smokes. I can't make it any more clear to you. Apparently that line of reasoning is way over your head. I've tried to dumb it down as best I can but you just can't seem the grasp the implications. Even Per Ahlberg and his team understand what this means for the fish to land transition but apparently you're still a bit too young to comprehend the whole thing. PM me with your skype name and we can go over it in a chat.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions How about you cut the pointless insults and stick to the arguments? So, are you actually claiming, that the scientists who published those discoveries, think that this means evolution has been debunked? Do you claim that Per Ahlberg is a creationist after these discoveries?
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Either you don't read the articles or you don't comprehend what you read. I'm curious as to which one it is. Of course Ahlberg didn't sway from evolution. Just like you that's his paradigm and no matter what he's going to stick with it. At this point he just simply has 'faith' that one day they'll find those 'transitional' fossils in rocks older than 395myo but he recognizes that at this time he has nothing for evidence of that.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions You fail to understand even the very basic difference between logical interpolation within scientific evidence and basing one's fundamental scientific outlook on a book written over a millenium and a half ago. You did not understand QualiaSoup's video, despite the thoroughness and elegance with which he presents his point. His and his brother's works are some of the very best on YouTube, i suggest you set aside a couple of hours to peruse his and TheraminTrees' channels.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge And the running continues. You can't answer anything with evidence so you try to turn me to someone else's channel in order to avoid any further demands for actual evidence....which you can't provide....and yet you still think 'nature did it'. PM me with your skype name and let's chat about a few more things that are huge problems for evolution.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I'm running? You tell me to do my homework, then you want me to explain every fully conceived article on evolution (a process that would take years for one person to do) to you? If i refuse you think i'm running? This is ridiculous, and an obvious attempt at point-scoring rather than serious debate. I cannot show you any better evidence than experts on the subject, like the previously mentioned YouTubers, all i can do is persuade you to view it dispassionately, without preconception
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions Can you lay your belief in god down for long enough to apply the process of critical thinking to the evidence?
If you want to see how the foremost creation scientist performs against a real scientist when debating the evidence, try watching this video:
/watch?v=tnb_pmRDpqU
The fact that you're openly young-earth also means evolution is just the start. Once you have beaten the biologists (in a fantasy world) you then have to start with the geologists, chemists, physicists etc.
lo2enge 1 year ago
(3/3)You're making it sound like Don was deliberately lying, when the article you cite came out long after he made the video. You seem to have tried to talk around it in the comments, implying your definition of lying includes accidentally saying something wrong which you couldn't have known was wrong at the time, but quotes like "We'd appreciate if you did your homework" and "He doesn't care about the truth, he just wants you to click on his adds" suggest otherwise. That's definitely dishonest.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
You believe the tracks were made 360 million years (otherwise quoting this source is intellectually dishonest), presumably you believe in micro-evolution, so please explain to me the mechanism which prevents micro-evolution from bringing about vast changes over billions of generations? I can maybe guess, though... magicmandunnit?
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge The tracks were made 390mya. You should spend more time trying to comprehend what you read. I don't have to 'believe' they were made that long ago. Per Ahlberg and his entire team stated they were.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Okay, 390 mya... it makes little difference to my point? You wish to quibble pedantically and avoid my question, clearly. How is the process of macro-evolution stopped, if you concede such vast periods of time are involved?
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge Here's the issue. You're claiming 'well....it COULD have happened via the mechanism of micro evolution' and I'm asking to SHOW ME that it happened via the 'mechanism of micro evolution'. You're just having 'faith' that because it's POSSIBLE that it COULD have happened via micro over time that it DID happen via micro over time. That's not proof that it DID ACTUALLY happen! You're running to religion....not science.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions No, i am claiming it is inexorably logical - the process of micro-evolution MUST become macro over such a long time without an external influence preventing the changes from becoming too great. This is in no way comparable to creationism, which must require faith as no convincing evidence, nor logical argument has been presented.
If you deny that most fossils are in some way transtitional forms, of course you won't recognise the evidence, there is nbo point in me reiterating it here.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge (1) But there you go again invoking 'faith' to show evolution as true. You just said that micro MUST become macro but there is no evidence that it does. You're ASSERTING that it does but where's the proof? We see brown moths become black or white moths (micro) but we never see moths become anything other than a moth. Now here you are ASSERTING that organisms, over time, become other organisms but where's the proof?
Equestions 1 year ago
@lo (2) Just because 'this bone looks like that bone' does NOT prove origin! That is COMPLETELY illogical! I could say that shows common 'design' and my argument is every bit as strong as yours. You're ASSERTING it means 'common descent' but where's the proof? Where's the science that shows that just because this skull is kind of like this other skull that means they have a common ancestor? That's completely illogical and yet you swallow the kool aid as if it's absolute fact.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'I could say that shows common 'design' and my argument is every bit as strong as yours.'
No, it most certainly is not. 1) We have known natural mechanisms (testable & falsifiable) for how evolution occurs, while you have no known mechanisms/processes this designer (god) you assert created life with (not testable, nor falsifiable).
'You're ASSERTING it means 'common descent' but where's the proof?'
Look up human chromosome 2 fusion, ERV's, or GULO, it's not all about the fossils.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 ERV's are showing more and more to NOT be 'junk' but to be coding information. You really should update your knowledge. You have mechanisms that show MICRO evolution and 'faith' that micro leads to macro but you have NO proof that macro happens via testable, observable, evidence without changing the definition of 'macro' and lowering the evolutionary bar. One bird into a different type of bird is NOT macro evolution.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Similarity of bones was just the first clue to common descent, the evidence demonstrated in DNA is so overwhelming and without a credible alternative explanation as to be utterly convincing. This is how science works. It's a religion as much as germ-theory, the theories of relativity (including the general and the special), quantum theory etc. are religions. Without comprehension and acceptance of these the world would be a much poorer place, the same cannot be said of your own faith
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge The evidence in DNA is NOT conclusive evidence of evolution in the least bit. You guys ONLY look at the parts of DNA that you think verifies your worldview but ignore the rest of the DNA evidence that shows evolution to be a joke. Error correction is just one of those evidences. Keep in mind there are THREE types of error correction in DNA. So you go ahead and show me scientific evidence for how this came about via natural processes when the world around us says the contrary.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "ignore the rest of the DNA evidence that shows evolution to be a joke"
which is that...? Francis Collins and i are all ears.
You can't see how the process of error correction would be an obvious benefit, and so clearly naturally selected for? I have seen a few hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and none of those preclude this mechanism arising.
Picking tiny holes will not destroy the whole tapestry, no matter how ardently you believe it will. Give it up, pal.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2eng Try to grasp the very simple concept here genius. By what mechanism does a natural process like mutations discern between what is and isn't an error during transcription. Then, when you're effectively done failing at that, show me how THREE of these error correction processes show up in DNA. Nat sel does NOT create error correction. It may SELECT for it but it can't CREATE it. Can you not follow this very simple concept or are you intentionally avoiding it to be intellectually dishonest?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I will concede that it must have been a process that arose very early in the history of life, but it seems staggering to suggest that a mechanism that decreases mutation couldn't be the result of a mutation, seeing as these would have been rampant before such a mechanism arose. Organisms that are capable of retarding the process of mutation will outcompete those that cannot. The means of detection are simple enough - comparison, or a change to the spatial arrangement of the molecule
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge (1) OK. You're getting closer Lo. I do believe you may actually be worth talking to. Think about the world around you. There is NOTHING in our 'testable, observable' world that error corrects itself without some sort of intelligence on the back end. What you're saying is basically "Well, it does seem a bit odd that the computer can actually fix errors all on its own separate from any code that was written for it....but I think a computer could do that." A computer can ONLY fix errors
Equestions 1 year ago
@lo (2) that it's been taught HOW to fix. It can't lay down a 1 and then automatically 'know' that it should have been a 0 then shut down the entire process, swap the 1 for a 0, and then tell the program to continue if there wasn't an intelligence on the back end instructing it to do so. Another example. You write down 2+2=8. If you've never done math before you have no clue that's incorrect. It takes a teacher (intelligence) to tell you that what you wrote is wrong. The teacher 'error corrects'
Equestions 1 year ago
@lo (3) So now we have an error that's made during transcription in the DNA and the system shuts down the transcription, replaces the error with the correct letter, and then turns the transcription back on again. When that error correction fails that's how you get 'mutations'. That error correction HAD to be there in the beginning or damn near everything the transcription process pumped out would be an 'error' and we wouldn't even exist! The bad 'errors' would have piled up so fast that any
Equestions 1 year ago
@lo 4) 'good' errors wouldn't stand a chance of making it on to the next organism. This is what they DON'T teach you in college but the truth just is what it is. So they just 'assume' this error correction was present in the very first cell (how fortunate for the cell!) and pretend it all happened via natural processes. Papers on the subject will ASSERT that it happened naturally but they use words like 'it could have' or 'maybe' or 'it possibly' because they know there is no natural explanation
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'good' errors wouldn't stand a chance of making it on to the next organism'
Sure they would. Neutral mutations already make there way onto successive descendant generations, & beneficial ones which confer an immediate survival advantage will be highly preserved & propagated onto further generations.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Wow....OK. It's clear you really don't understand how this all works. I would invite you to ask yourself this one simple question. "What actually happens when a 'beneficial' mutation occurs in the genome." Do some homework on that and let me know what you find. I think you'll be surprised at what 'beneficial' mutations actually do.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'Do some homework on that and let me know what you find.'
OK, I found that w/ beneficial mutations which increase the fitness of the organism, say like nylonase in which they can now digest nylon, the mutations are preserved & passed onto successive descendants. That is what actually happens.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@Equestions "I do believe you may actually be worth talking to"
Is this because i freely admit i am no expert and you believe you can run rings around my interpretation of the evidence?
I disagree with the summation that the error correction had to exist from the very beginning, in fact the hypotheses i have seen regarding abiogenesis allow for this mechanism not being present at the very earliest stages.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2 I'm not 'running rings' around anything, I'm simply trying to give you another perspective on the evidence and yet you continue to run back to your evolutionary religion. Now you not only have 'faith' that 'nature did it' in the first cell but you're talking about abio which is a whole other level of 'faith'. Neither one of those arguments has any proof to back them up and yet you just continue to 'believe' that's how it happened. So you tell me who the brainwashed one is. You're in denial
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I view your perspective and find it lacking. Reiterating that it is the correct one is not going to convince me. Evolution may have gaps, but it also has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it. You are not even pleading the intelligent design view incorporating evolution, held by every believer i have met in my country, you are pleading young-earth creationism, it's akin to pointing to a grain of sand beside the mountain and asking "where is the mountain"?
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge Dude. There are LOADS of other things I can bring up to show you the gaping holes in evolution. This was just one of them. I could go on but based on how quickly you dismissed the last evidence I gave you it appears you only want to pretend like you're objective and want to look at all of the evidence but, like the other atheists, once you realize there's more to things than what you thought you're getting scared so you run back to your comfy evolutionary security blanket.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Oh yes, evolution is the security blanket. I can't see how believing in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent would be in any way more comforting than the notion that we're in this on our own. Clearly i am seeking a return to the breast with what you laughably call my "beliefs".
If you have serious evidence, post it independently, not as an invalid call out against an existing video made in the light of evidence discovered after said video was created. You will persuade more people that way.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge " If you have serious evidence, post it independently" I just did post serious evidence! Are you kidding me right now? The error correction problem is an extremely serious issue for the evolutionists. I totally buried you what that one little tiny fact and now you're trying to deflect and run away by telling me I didn't post any serious evidence? Do you see the denial that you're in? You are reaching the point of being ridiculous!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions are you referring to this:
"That error correction HAD to be there in the beginning or damn near everything the transcription process pumped out would be an 'error' and we wouldn't even exist!"
That isn't serious evidence, i am afraid. I disagree with your assessment of the info, it doesn't have to be present at the start. Early self-replicating cells would be unrecognisable compared with modern evolved unicellular lifeforms, i see no reason to accept your (unsupported) ASSertion.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge So what you're saying is that "it's currently in DNA and I don't' THINK it had to be there at the beginning so I just BELIEVE it came about via natural processes". How very scientific of you. There you go running back to your religion again. You have such a strong faith in nature!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'SHOW ME that it happened via the 'mechanism of micro evolution''
Sigh... The same principle of small, accumulated changes over long periods of time is what leads geologists to infer that the movement of tectonic plates leads to mountain formations & continental drift.
Same principle for micro evolutionary changes which are accumulative & over longer periods of time lead to more evidence macro changes.
agentorange20 1 year ago
by "doing his homework", do you mean that don should have searched the web, back in sep' 2009, to see if there was an artical, writen in jan' 2010?
Don may get a great you-tuber (or a lier), but he can't tell the future.
eyallev 1 year ago
There's no known mechanism which can transform the spine of fish (which have great horizontal flexion) to those of amphibians (which do not). The shape of vertabrae is another problem. Fish have dish shaped vertabrae, and amphibians have hockey puck shaped vertabrae. Nothing in between is known.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
You are borderline retarded, you ignorant drunk. Die.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
There is no known mechanism by with the roofing bones and snout bones of fiah can seperate from processes to become new bones. In this lineage, you see less to more to less again in these bones. Why would evolution create more bones only to remove them later? It's like a truck becoming a motorcycle then a truck again on it's way to becoming a truck. It makes no sence, is inefficient, and has no evidence.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
There is so much that can be said abut this claim. For example, there are no examples in the fossil record of the translocation of parapopheses and diapopheses on the spines of fish to become those of amphibians, which are bicipital. Without this evidence, any claim of fish to land evolution is sheer faith.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
the atheist deny the global flood. there is still enough water trapped under the crust of the earth to flood the world again.
animefan2k9 1 year ago
If this video isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
Anonoo 1 year ago
Just copy and paste the AiG quotes...
.
Make the case for creationism. Show me how it's done. You are the PhD. I'm just a blue collar guy on youtube. You're the academic. Show me the fossils. Show me the track ways. Show me the flood evidence. Show me the cretaceous bunnies. Show me your peer reviewed literature.
.
How come I have to provide proof while all you need is to do is say "no it's not" to any evidence and "gawd dun it!" when asked for an explanation? Come on Doc. educate us!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator @Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You still can't answer my simple questions even though are apparently mountains of evidence for evolution. Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Come on Doc. You are the professor and I am the student. Show the class the cretaceous bunnies. I can't answer your simple questions because I am a blue collar worker posting on youtube. You, on the other hand are a PhD so go all academic on my plebian ass already. Lay some scholarship on me. Show us some positive evidence FOR creationism.
.
Since it's obvious I can't possibly refute your debunking of evolution it's time for you to cough up the goods on what really happened.
Noisegator 1 year ago
Why should, in 500 characters or less, I bother trying to convince a biblical creationist, who has demonstrated his devious nature and hostility to evidence, the truth about evolution. What possible evidence could I present that you would not ignore. Just because I won't indulge your laziness doesn't mean that you are right.
.
Get a high school text book on biology. Audit a biology 101 course. Watch some science videos. The truth is out there waiting for you, if you dare.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator I'm right and you know it and now you're just playing games before running away from reality. I'm not asking you to explain it if you don't want to. Just copy/paste the links to the articles. Pretty simple to do actually. It's YOUR religion and I'm the lazy one for not finding the answers? These are things you should already know. I would invite you to read up on your evolution. Apparently I know more about it than you do. How does it feel to be taught evolution by a creationist?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "I'm right and you know it ..."
.
Which playground did you just run home from?
.
It's not my religion, it is a science and you can find all the information on you need IF you have a genuine interest to know the truth. Using my reluctance to waste time instructing a PhD on rudimentary academic skills, as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for evolution, or as evidence against evolution, is just laziness and more intellectual dishonesty on your part. Don't blame me for your ignorance.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You can't answer my simple questions and I'M the ignorant one? Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
Equestions 1 year ago
Evolution has millions of data points over a dozen disciplines covering 150 years, developed by thousands of researchers. Not one data point out of place.
.
What do you have? A book. One book.
.
Wow. I'm blown away with the robustness of your evidence and the rigor of your science.
.
Dismiss me if you want but then you'll have no one to talk to. This isn't exactly a happening thread.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator "Evolution has millions of data points over a dozen disciplines covering 150 years, developed by thousands of researchers" And yet you can't answer a single one of my questions with any evidence whatsoever. Not talking to you won't hurt my feelings. You don't know anything anyways. I can find a a lot of YT evo's just like you so it's not like people like you aren't hard to find.
Equestions 1 year ago
And I'm asking you for peer reviewed POSITIVE evidence too. So what have you got? Blow me out of the water. Show me those anomalous fossils that simply must exist in the millions, if creationism is real. Show me where the geology contradicts the taxonomy or the taxonomy refutes the genetics. Prove your assertion that it was all created in a few days. Positive proof, not this lame "look, a tiny discrepancy in one lineage - WE WINNNN!!!!" Real evidence. The kind you keep ignoring from me.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator "Show me where the geology contradicts the taxonomy" Show me in the Pre Cambrian the transitionals to the Trilobytes in the Cambrian. That should keep you busy and once again.....I've answered your question and you've answered none of mine. Are you sure you aren't Greg under a sock puppet account?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Uh, no you have not answered one of my questions. All you have done is poo-pooed the evidence for evolution. And don't repeat that lame claim that I am responsible for spoon feeding you high school lessons.
.
You have described no mechanism for creationism. You have answered no questions about how Jehovah did it or provided any evidence FOR your position.
.
Arguments AGAINST evolution are not arguments FOR creationism. So let's hear your proof. Bring on the cretaceous bunnies.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Another comment and still no evidence. You still can't answer my simple questions even though are apparently mountains of evidence for evolution. Evolution has no answers to even the simplest of questions and yet you blindly believe it with no evidence to back it up. It's a pity you run from reality and the truth like you do. Just copy/paste the peer reviewed links in your next comment and we'll start from there.
Equestions 1 year ago
Don't be a lazy sod! It's not my job to spoon feed a purported PhD, commonly available references. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty about you you'd do a bit of your own homework. Use google, explore youtube - there are tons of resources available for a university graduate (yeah right) of even moderate ability. Trouble is you have already dismissed all the evidence so it's a waste of time to provide you with more to poo-poo. Answers in Genesis is not a credible source BTW.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator What a surprise. Another comment and still no evidence or papers for me to read. I've been all over looking for the evidence to those questions and haven't been able to find them. It's obvious you have no interest in 'testable evidence' for ToE and are content to believe whatever someone else tells you about evolution. Way to have a mind of your own. You and DonE both need to do your homework but you obviously like your faith.
Equestions 1 year ago
It's not enough for you to point out alleged fatal errors in the ToE (none of which are even an actual challenge, let alone a deadly one). You need to provide some positive evidence for biblical creationism. You don't get an automatic win every time a small controversy arises.
.
Where are the millions of anomalous fossils? Where are the human fossils mixed with dinosaurs? What predictions does biblical creationism make and how can they be tested?
.
Where is your positive, testable evidence?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Yet more questions and then you follow it up with "Where is your positive, testable evidence?" HAHA! Now THAT'S funny! I should ask you the same question! Let me explain something to you. I openly admit my religion requires FAITH. Faith in God, etc. It's YOU, as an evo, that thinks everything is backed up by 'evidence' however you provided me with zero so far. None. Nada. So here I am still waiting for your evidence to my questions......still waiting......still waiting.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noisegator "It's not enough for you to point out alleged fatal errors in the ToE (none of which are even an actual challenge, let alone a deadly one)." Not deadly? You have NO evidence for fish to land evolution. You have NO evidence for cold to warm evolution. You have NO evidence showing how DNA became error correcting and none of those are an actual challenge to ToE? So how do you get a cell into a human without answering those simple questions? Oh yeah...LOTS of faith! Nice religion.
Equestions 1 year ago
"You claim that 'just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God did it!' and then at the same time try to tell me that because animals can regulate their internal temps obviously means that evolution had to have 'evolved' these creatures from cold to warm. "
.
Evidence shows that all morphology and function arose out of mutation and natural selection, including therefore, thermoregulation. What other mechanism is there to account for it and what positive evidence for it?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator "Evidence shows that all morphology and function arose out of mutation and natural selection" Now you're baked. You've put yourself into a corner now. Give me your "positive testable evidence" for the morphology of a fish into a land animal. Another HUGE issue for ToE. You can't get a cell into a human if a fish didn't become a land animal. Come on man. These questions should be SUPER easy and should be no problem for evolutionists to explain. Looking forward to your evidence.
Equestions 1 year ago
You have a doctorate? Really? In what and from which university?
.
This from the guy who tried to pretend he wasn't a creationist. Why should I trust you now? Nothing you have said here demonstrates the sort of skill at constructing an argument that would be required for even a minor degree. But a doctorate? Pull my other leg, it evolved with bells on it.
Noisegator 1 year ago
You are doing quite a bit of questioning yourself - in fact almost exclusively. Does that mean that YOU are deflecting as well? And again with the baseless declarations... you are "destroying" me?
.
I don't assume that animals evolved thermoregulation, the evidence supports that. But you are hostile to that evidence.
.
On the other hand you can offer no positive evidence for creationism. Only "that's impossible". There should be a myriad of mammal fossils in the cretaceous layer. Where are they?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator "I don't assume that animals evolved thermoregulation, the evidence supports that" WHAT EVIDENCE?!?! You've provided NONE to show the evolution of thermoregulation! I hate conversations with people like you. You're so stupid you don't even know your stupid! Show me peer reviewed papers proving the evolution of thermoregulation or quit trying to claim 'evolution did it'. That's a MAJOR part of trying to get a cell into a human. Do you not understand this?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Someone who accepts biblical creationism with it's ONLY evidence being the bible, should not be calling anyone else "stupid". There is tons of evidence for evolution and for the evolution of all the capabilities you claim (without grounds) are impossible. Any PhD worth his diploma should be able to find it in spades, eh, like with google or at a library.
.
There is evidence and you simply choose to ignore it or be hostile to it because it doesn't suit your prejudice.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator My PhD is in IT systems and not biology. That's why I ask people like you for answers to my questions and, just like EVERY other evo that tries to debate me, NONE of them can come up with any evidence to answer my questions. You remind me of this Greg guy that commented a lot. He didn't have any answers either and still tried to claim victory. I'm asking you for peer reviewed evidence and you can't supply me with any so we're done.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noise. I hate dealing with people like you. You have ZERO answers to what should be simple questions and the only thing you can tell me is 'evolution has mountains of evidence to prove the questions you have but I don't have a clue what those answers are and yet I still believe in evolution. I'm not going to get the answers for you because my faith in evolution is strong so you should just go get the answers yourself." Such a dork. Go bother somebody else. I don't have time for you.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Why dont you pick up a couple of books on the subject. You might want to read on the origin of species.
pwhittingham 1 year ago
You couldn't even understand the evidence anyway - "You can't get a cell into a human if a fish didn't become a land animal." - What sort of inane statement is this? And you want me to believe you are a PhD? Oh the irony.
.
And I'm still waiting for your POSITIVE evidence FOR creationism. Where the cretaceous bunny? Where are the human / dinosaur trackways? Where's the geological record of a global flood?
.
PhD? What a joke. Let me know when you have humiliated yourself enough.
Noisegator 1 year ago
"You can get the things above by ran mut and nat sel but you must do it with FAITH because there is ZERO evidence to show that evolution did it on its own."
.
Once again you are making baseless assertions about what is and is not possible, without anything more than your misunderstanding as evidence.
.
Actually there is a ton of evidence for the ToE but you have already declared all of it invalid. And where is your positive evidence FOR creation by Jehovah?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Damn. I don't even know where to start with you. All you did is answer my questions by asking me other questions. Nice deflection. Normal evolutionary tactic. You can't provide papers on things so you just tell ME to go looking for the answers. Nice. You're really good at this debate thing. OK...so where to start. "Thermoregulation is something that all animals do by various means." All you're doing here is ASSUMING that because animals regulate their body temperatures that they (1)
Equestions 1 year ago
obviously 'evolved' that ability and eventually those that were cold all the time became a full time warm animal. Assuming doesn't provide me with evidence and feel free to send me links to peer reviewed papers. I have a doctorate so I'm pretty sure I can keep up with all of the big words. You claim that 'just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God did it!' and then at the same time try to tell me that because animals can regulate their internal temps obviously means (2)
Equestions 1 year ago
that evolution had to have 'evolved' these creatures from cold to warm. Typical evo double standard. We don't have proof for these things but evolution obviously did it. I could go on and on but you either need to give me peer reviewed evidence for my questions or just admit you have a religion and we'll move on. At this point I'm pretty much destroying you and all you're doing is answering my questions with questions and providing nothing but assumptions with no peer reviewed evidence. (3)
Equestions 1 year ago
"The fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove a cold blooded animal changed into a warm blooded animal..."
.
Who didn't do their homework?Thermoregulation is something that all animals do by various means. Exothermic to Endothermic is NOT a sudden switch from one strategy to the other. All cold blooded creatures derive some heat from metabolism and all warmblooded creatures use the environment to regulate their internal temperature. Warmblood is not a trait that magically appeared.
Noisegator 1 year ago
"Tetrapods walking around at the same time as fish is a good start."
.
There are still tetrapods walking around and there are still fish. Your point is? Oh right! A controversy about the lineage and the timeline = automatic win for Jehovah!!!
.
Repeating an erroneous assertion doesn't make it magically correct. Bunny tracks in the cretaceous era would sink the ToE. Tetrapod tracks a few million years earlier than expected is in no way fatal to the theory.
.
Got any cretaceous bunny fossils?
Noisegator 1 year ago
"Evolution could NOT 'evolve' a way to know that information it's replicating was correct or incorrect."
Error correction is a function of the very chemistry of *some* DNA and associated enzymes. They don't "know" anything in the sense that you are trying to shoehorn into the discussion.
.
Sure there are peer reviewed papers on the matter but could you understand them or would you even trust them, given your penchant for misstating facts and making unsupported declarations of "truth"?
Noisegator 1 year ago
"How did random mutation and nat selection just 'evolve' electrical impulses in the body? ... Some animal got struck by ightning and the electricity just stayed with him?"
.
Wow! Strawman much? You must be desperate to offer such a crazed hypothesis (on my behalf). There are no "electrical impulses" in the body, certainly not in the sense of electrical discharges on the scale of lightning strikes. This is simply absurd, as is the rest of your "evidence". Learn some physiology, please.
Noisegator 1 year ago
Comment removed
Noisegator 1 year ago
This evidence isn't fatal to the Theory of Evolution or even the transition of fish to tetrapods. It merely challenges the time line for the event by presenting new evidence. Sounds like knowledge marching forward. What did you expect? "Oh, a minor discrepancy! Let's abandon science and run with superstition instead."
.
How does this make DE a liar? Can you prove he had this information and hid it? ( On the other hand, misrepresenting a mistake as malice, would be a deceitful act. Right?)
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator representing the fish to land evidence as 'scientific fact' as DonE and CDK do is LYING. This new evidence doesn't merely challenge the 'timeline' you moron...it destroys it! At this time do you have tiktaalik or any of the other so called 'transitional' fossils dated before 395mya? No? Then you have NOTHING. Keep the faith that they'll find what you want them to though. Hope you like your evolutionary religion!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "This new evidence doesn't merely challenge the 'timeline' you moron...it destroys "
.
No it doesn't destroy it. Bunnies in the Precambrian might but not one lone trackway. If creationism is right there should be hundreds of 6,000 year old trackways where mammals, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles and amphibians cavort happily together. Got one of those?
.
You are so hasty. This trackway is hardly evidence enough to abandon reason in favour of a fairy tale about arks and magic men.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Nice try at a deflection. Did I mention creationism? Ummm....don't think so. Try to keep up. Prove to me that fish became land animals based on the current evidence. Hard to make a cell into a human over billions of years if you can't prove fish crawled out of the water and became land animals isn't it? You must now have 'faith' that a fish became a land animal because the current evidence shows no such thing. That's quite a religion you there!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "Did I mention creationism? Ummm....don't think so.:"
.
Don't be disingenuous, your channel is loaded with creationist videos and you loudly toot their horn. Walks like a duck and quacks like one. Are you going to categorically do you deny you promote creationism or ID? Are you ashamed of your faith?
.
Current evidence clearly shows the transition from fish to tetrapods and these trackways do not refute that, as much as you want it to. There is no need for invoking superstition.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Not ashamed at all. I'm proud to be a Christian. YOU'RE the one who should be ashamed. I'm SO tired of trying to deal with people who THINK they're smart and yet have no clue. You're just another one of them. If a tetrapod existed 395mya then there is NO WAY to know if a eusthenopteron evolved into a tetrapod! Can't you see this? If tetrapods lived with eusthenopteron then it would be more logical that a tetrapod, that lived at the same time as the eusthenopteron, just evolved into
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noise another tetrapod! DUH! It would be REALLY nice if you were smart enough to grasp the implications of these tracks but you keep ignoring the evidence that's right in front of you because it doesn't match what you want it to match. Once again, you're back to your religion. The implications of these tracks are far reaching! Answer this. Prove to me a eusthenopteron evolved into a tetrapod knowing that tetrapods lived at the same time as eusthenopteron. This should be interesting!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I'm not ignoring the evidence. I am disagreeing with your hasty interpretation of it.
.
This trackway is evidence that the present model of tetrapod linage needs revision - that is all. There are many naturalistic possibilities to explore before we must abandon the ToE. There might be errors in the dating, for example. The presumed location and time of tetrapod emergence may need to be radically revised. This evidence is relatively new and still needs reexamination.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator If the creationist model is true, a timeline error of 20my would be negligible and we would expect fossil anomalies of hundreds of millions of years, and even billions of years, to be extremely common. In fact they would be unavoidable and absolutely crucial to make the case. So far nothing of the sort has been unearthed.
.
So how about you prove that everything was made at the same time. You don't get to go from controversy to "god did it!!" without some conclusive evidence.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Dating changes are down the road. Science has done a great job of finding lots of things to prove creationism so all in good time for the dating of things. One day they'll figure out they 'may have been mistaken' about their dating techniques. Just like fish to land evolution the dating thing will be debunked by REAL science at some point.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Ah, so you ARE a creationist. Well thank you for admitting that finally.
.
Do tell me some of this "science" that supports creationism.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Tetrapods walking around at the same time as fish is a good start. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to prove a cold blooded animal changed into a warm blooded animal even though is apparently MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution is pretty convincing. Can't get a cell into a human if a cold animal didn't turn warm. How about error correcting DNA? Evolution could NOT 'evolve' a way to know that information it's replicating was correct or incorrect. This is one that really
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noise shows ignorance in evolutionists in my opinion. You have to really cover your ears and close your eyes hard to believe that evolution and nat selection just 'evolved' a way to know that information was correct or not correct and then develop a way to store extra information somewhere so that when DNA does run into an error it has a place to go get the correct information to replace it. Totally points to a creator. How about the fact that DNA has two separate strands and yet one knows it
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noise can pull information from the other as it needs it. How about scientific evidence for the central nervous system? How did random mutation and nat selection just 'evolve' electrical impulses in the body? These electrical impulses would not have been there in the first cell so what happened? Some animal got struck by lightning and the electricity just stayed with him? Man...I could on and on with examples like this. It all points back to a creator. This isn't stuff like "The Earth is the
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noise center of the universe" type stuff that can be disproved by simply studying the stars or launching a satellite. The things mentioned above would take a creator. You can get the things above by ran mut and nat sel but you must do it with FAITH because there is ZERO evidence to show that evolution did it on its own. And here we are back to your religion again. Always comes full circle. So your turn. Can you provide peer reviewed papers proving any of the things I pointed out above?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Noisegator "There might be errors in the dating, for example. The presumed location and time of tetrapod emergence may need to be radically revised. This evidence is relatively new and still needs reexamination." Per Ahlberg is very clear that these are tetrapod tracks and he has no qualms about the dating being correct. You have a strong faith. I'll give you that. Nice that you make excuses for things that don't fit the model the way you'd like it to.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions You mention creationism enough times. The evidence still shows fish became tetrapods, cause the homology between fish anatomy and tetrapod anatomy, as well as their DNA, is still far too similar, suspiciously as if they were from the same family tree. And these transitional forms show how the transition from water to land could have roughly occurred, even if those exact creatures weren't each other's ancestors.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel Show me the DNA results on the fish to tetrapod claim you just made and you still can't grasp the very simple point that's trying to be made here. It's like having a conversation with my eight year old. If tetrapods are as old as fish then you cannot prove that any of those forms are transitional. Why is it you can't grasp this simple concept? I've tried to explain it a million different ways. PM me with your Skype name and let's chat about it.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "If tetrapods are as old as fish then you cannot prove that any of those forms are transitional."
How have you come to this conclusion? The evidence shown in the video merely asserts some of what we thought were transitional forms actually turned out to be a dead-end, and the transition came at a different point. Nowhere does it state the evolution of tetrapods is unambiguously simultaneous to that of fish, so your argument falls down.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge "and the transition came at a different point" And at what point was that? Show me the transitional fossils? All we have right now is a fish and then *poof* a tetrapod. Where are the transitional in between? At what time did those transitionals live? Now you've, once again, left science and returned to your religion because that evidence doesn't exist and yet you'll just have 'faith' that it does and somewhere down the road they'll find it. That's a strong faith you have!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions "Show me the transitional fossils?"
Anyone who continues to ask this question after having the nature of transitional fossils explained to them, as you must have if you have watched AronRa's, cdk007's and DonExodus's videos can never be shown such fossils because their eyes are closed tight. Per Ahlberg didn't just discover the tracks here, he also recognised the earliest tetrapod fossils. Recent discoveries haven't disproven evolution, merely shed new light on understood theories.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions "... a fish and then *poof* a tetrapod. Where are the transitional in between?"
People who don't understand evolution through natural selection seem to imagine it is a steady, slow process (like a sort of genetic drift with guidance, thus vindicating their belief in intelligent design), whereas in fact it happens in fits and starts (as should be evident by your own reasoning on the nature of malign, netutral and beneficial mutations and their occurance per generation).
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge Are you saying you believe in punctuated equilibrium?
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions I am saying your interpretation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that this is how you seem to view evolution. Without that foundation your arguments make no sense, because you are not allowing for cataclysmic evolutionary events.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo " you are not allowing for cataclysmic evolutionary events" And why should I? What shred of evidence is there that these events EVER occur? You may as well say 'God did it' because there is NO way to test for something like that. You can't get any less scientific that making a statement like that! There you go back to your 'faith' again. Fish don't go to bed and wake up an amphibian. An organism doesn't get 1,000 beneficial mutations in one generation and change itself! You're talking crazy!
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions Did you watch the entire video? Did you hear the quote (actually, an essay title) from one of biology's leading lights Dobzhanksy: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
so to debunk evolution, and the nested hierarchy model, you'll have to re-explain everything in biology. To support a belief? Do you still maintain a young-earth stance? If so, you will also have to redefine chemistry, physics, geology, paleantology, astronomy and anthropology. Good luck
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions 'Fish don't go to bed and wake up an amphibian'
obviously, creationist. But then again, no evolutionary evidence indicates it's a matter of going to sleep & awaking as an amphibian, nor is there evidence in the now that we know of that it would occur in a single generation. You're comparing 2 different morphologies & asking a strawman that evolution suggests such changes occur basically overnight or in a single generation this is most disingenuous & wrong.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Not true. I'm asking you if you actually believe in punctuated equilibrium. If the answer is 'yes' then I want you to explore just how irrational that is when using the evidence in today's observed world.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions 'you actually believe in punctuated equilibrium'
Not necessarily. As far as if organisms do evolve in more spurts & slow down, or if it's more gradually accumulated is harder to know. Many of the extant studies demonstrate gradualism, while in the fossil record we're only getting a very, very brief snapshot so it's harder to infer the direct linear diversification & increase in biodiversity.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@Equestions Instead of talking to everyone individually on skype, why not produce some separate, stand alone videos providing positive evidence of divine creation, instead of producing fallacious arguments against non-fundamental evidence that even if you were right about, in no way shake the foundations of evolution? I'm sure it would take less time, if there is as much as you insist. There is no point in providing links to existing videos as i haven't seen on that even *i* couldn't debunk.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge Or you could just skype with me and we could go over a few things.
Equestions 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Equestions "Or you could just skype with me and we could go over a few things."
I already explained my position on that, i see you read my posts as selectively as you read peer-reviewed papers. If you keep insisting, i shall, but i will not have the time until the new year.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions You know I'm not the one to ask for DNA. Ask a biologist.
I get your point, but you don't see that even if these guys are not each other's ancestors, they still show how the transition could have occurred. While the fish we found will not be the ancestors of the first tetrapods, their great-great-grandparents could have been.
I can show you a baby, a child, a teenager and an adult, as proof that humans grow. Just cause they're not the same person, doesn't invalidate the argument.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel The point still remains this. You can take all the great grandparents you want but when it's all said and done you still have a fish jumping right to a tetrapod. That fact hasn't changed so unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium you have nothing in the way of so called 'transitionals'. It's a huge issue with major implications that are simply being talked down in an attempt to keep the paradigm. Skype me sometime.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Eq "a fish jumping right to a tetrapod... unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium you have nothing"
It is a typical conceit of creationists to insist the fossil records contain samples from every generation of every species that's ever existed.. which should apply in a yec view.
I happen to think punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism aren't mutually exclusive, but the arguments you have presented only work within the latter model, and then only upon a misconception of it.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@Equestions You're ignoring stuff that was said earlier. If a few million years from now, people find only a wolf fossil and a chihuahua fossil that lived at the same time, that doesn't mean the wolf couldn't have developed into a chihuahua over many generations, even though the wolf specimen we have is of course not the chihuahua's ancestor, but its great-great-grandparents would have been. This even works if the chihuahua they find is older than the wolf fossil.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
@Equestions ' mechanisms that show MICRO evolution and 'faith' that micro leads to macro'
right, just like we have evidence for tectonic plates moving which over longer periods of time lead to macro changes like mountain formations, continental drifting, earth quakes etc. No one has ever directly observed a mountain form, yet we know the natural processes observed & can measure their accumulated changes, just like in biodiversity.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@Mithcoriel You have to be careful using words like "could" to a person who does not understand the difference between blind, uncritical faith in scripture and scientific interpolation based upon established testable principles. He's gonna jump on that with both feet.
lo2enge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid video lol, you should be ashamed of yourself.
C0nstellati0ns 1 year ago
@ScientificStandard Wiki isn't exactly the most reliable source for information. If you look up the intransitive verb definition for 'lie' at merriam-webster, you know, a reliable source like the people that actually make dictionaries for a living unlike Wikipedia, you'll see that the definition is 2 : to create a false or misleading impression, That's precisely what DonE did in this video. You forget that DonE treated the fish to land example as a known FACT, and NOT as a possibility.