The individuals in this video failed to mention the other mainstream scientific theory which explains how relatively primitive civilizations were able to construct gargantuan structures and lift incredibly heavy stones through use of their collective psychic powers.
I am deeply offended that our organization -- the "Institute of Psychic Heavy Upright Construction of Kingdoms" (IPHUCK) -- which is at the forefront of researching this scientific theory was not also invited to discuss the issue.
Why the suppression of the Boobquake theory? I think that they should present the Boobquake theory and the Earthquake theory in class. Simply present the evidence
Hypothetical conversation or not, there is plenty of evidence we came from different human races form all over the universe. There is not a single piece of evidence of evolution from one species to another, or from ape to man. Our current human civilization swings between two forms of belief with the terrible results we see around us: wars, pollution, destruction, overpopulation and division.
evolution is mistaken for natural selection.. the latter is simply genetic heretage. our fathers pass down genes, small changes occur. tens of thousands of years bring weaker changes to fade, in the sense that their barers are (on a huge time scale) more likely to die before mating. evolution is the big picture, that is to say, cause and effect of nat sel. not all mutations are good or bad, any important change is more likely to be unstable and therefore dangerous
to not believe in either is quite the display of intolerance, we have plenty of proof of mutation and selection. the problem is not belief in either, but rather dependance and satisfaction wrought in either concept. this is true to every theory.. it can help us, and be acceptable compatible with reality but it will one day be updated, or better yet, replaced with a new paradigm. outside intervention lines the thread of my thoughts when human intelligence and origin is concerned
No, Dawkins did not proclaim Aliens created life; he stated it as the only possible alternative to Panspermia and NOT some confabulated Bronze Age fantasy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You can appreciate how weird the video is then. Darwinians are the ones that believe in aliens already so why not open up the classroom to all possible viewpoints.
Darwinians don't have any evidence and ID folks have reasonable logic to support their claims also.
The debate is actually healthy rather than just doing indoctrination...
The class room is already open to the idea that processes, like that occurred on Earth, is a likely scenario, maybe with some different chemicals and environmental conditions, but recognizable as life.
Well here's the flaw in your entire argument, bio-evolutionary science is observed and used as fact in everyday life around the word whether you deny it or not.
If you have the need to prove your faith with facts, then you really never had any faith to begin with.
ID proponents have reasonable logic? "Things exist and are complex, therefore they must have been designed, despite all of the contrary empirical evidence otherwise."
ID is actually more reasonable than Darwinian beliefs. Darwinians argue that they can't demonstrate their theories because it takes millions and billions of years...LOL
ID at least can look at the present and demonstrate the limts of evolution. Darwinians simply have a blind belief while hoping and praying that ID proponents are wrong.
Just remember that money is currently tied to Darwinian beliefs so that is why they engage in censorship
"Darwinians argue that they can't demonstrate their theories because it takes millions and billions of years" -- more lies. Evolution is easy to demonstrate in the laboratory or in the environment. However, it is unreasonable to directly observe large-scale changes that take millions of years. just like you can observe the entire life-cycle of a star, which also takes millions (usually billions) of years.
"ID at least can look at the present and demonstrate the limts of evolution." -- Wrong again. ID can only point out the limits of our knowledge about evolution. Without a mechanism or testable model, ID can't actually demonstrate anything about itself.
Evoluion is based on soild evidence. ID is based on a lack of evidence. "we don't know how this works, so God did it" -- It's no wonder that ID produces no new discoveries.
"Just remember that money is currently tied to Darwinian beliefs so that is why they engage in censorship"
No excuses. The Discovery Institute has an annual operating budget in the millions. They have several scientists on their staff. But after all the years, they have produced nada! And all they would have to is take data that already exists, like DNA sequences from Genebank, and demonstrate how ID is a better explanation than evolution. But they can't even do that.
ID has clearly demonstrated the limits of evolution. Just pick up Behe's book, The EDGE OF EVOLUTION. It has clearly been demonstrated and will shake your faith in Darwinian evolution.
If you follow Discovery, they are constantly making predictions on their site so they do have a testable model.
The problem is that with Darwinians theory, it is unfalsifiable. Nothing in Darwinian theory can ever be false for Darwinians. Darwinians have been wrong over and over again but they have faith
I've read all of Behe's books and they do no such thing. His arguments are flawed and have been exposed elsewhere.
Behe testified in Dover that ID has no explanatory power and under that definition of science, you would have to include astrology as well. Behe also believes that humans are related to chimpanzees.
The DI model only predicts things we shouldn't be able to figure. That is not a model. A model includes a mechanism of how something WORKS. ID doen't have this.
Glover stated it properly. Instead of God done it, Darwinians argument that billions of years done it.
They simply replace God will billions of years.
Of course, evolution should not take billions of years or even 10 years. We should see it happening with new knobs etc..limbs constantly forming all the time; however, we don't have any evidence of this.
Discovery Institute operates on a very limited budget and they have to do all their fund raising. So glover you are dishonest
OK -- Here is trick question. Did God create you or were you created by a 9-month natural process? How would you answer this with your limited understanding of creation?
Do you replace God with 9 months? Or is your brian large enough to comprehend that God uses ordinary natural process to bring about his creative will?
We do have plenty examples of evlution happening right before our very eyes.
How DI gets its money has nothing to do with their budget. Their budget is in the millions. They spend hudreds of thousands on research -- nothing to show for it.
If they had a model that could actually "discover" something, they wouldn't have to do fundraising. Real science that produces results gets funded when it works. Nobody wants to throw their money away on bogus nonsense. DI has got nothing.
106 Billion people have walked the face of the earth so far and nothing has happened in terms of evolution my friend. Darwinian evolution is just a myth and since it has not been demonstrated, there is no 'HOW'
Therefore, it is not scientific, it is just a belief!
Evolution has not been observed in humans as far as I know, but in other creatures that replicate much faster, like guppies and E. coli, evolution has been observed. Even bacteria evolve new structures that make them resistant to antibiotics.
I agree that God works through natural processes; however, the genome demonstrates jumps in between animals that cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. They just have a lot of talk and no evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Human for instance have a jump of 250 genes that are not shared by any lower species. There is no ladder to humanity and there is no ladder within humanity.
Darwinians don't even have a response to it holding to a blind belief and lots of talk with no demonstration. Just another failed prediction by the Darwinians.
2) Offspring of two different parents will vary from both parents.
Why is this so hard to understand? This is all evolution is. There are theories, from Natural Selection to Genetic Drift, but this is the basis of evolution. Things die, Things reproduce, The offspring will have some genetic variation.
This isn't claiming a horse turns into a dog, or a cow becomes a flower, It's as simple as that.
Correct me if i am wrong but, if we did evolve.. would there not be evidence?
The only evidence i see in all cultures are beings from the heavens came down to the earth and mingled around.
Where are the evidence of the transcendent from point A to B? Give me some hard facts of evolution please. Bacteria adapted to antibiotics is not evolution, it was intervened by the antibiotics to cause the changes. So what or who intervened with us to cause such a change.
Where is this motivation to dumb down the idea of non-Earth intelegence?
Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku both discussed these possibilities as more than just a theory. I feel confident they refrained from openly endorsing the concept non-terrestrial contact for lack of evidence and fear of sabotaging their career by associating with the academically ridiculed "Ancient astronaut theory", but other wise they were in agreement.
Why is it so difficult to contemplate the existence of a non-terrestrial intelligence?
The Universe is 13.7bil yrs old, there are on average a 100mil stars/galaxy, 100bil estimated observable galaxies, possibly a multiverses, and multidimensional realities, all per reviewed science.
With all these factors extrapolated upon known terrestrial factors, I would give it a 99% probability that intelligent life is very old, its everywhere, and Earth is likely known quite well by such intelligence
Teach the controversy and let the students decide for themselves what is true :p
I vote we apply this to religion as well. every day in church a mandatory 30 minutes of preaching for a different holy book. Let's see if the creationists like to teach the controversy themselves.
Actually, Christians have empirical evidence demonstrating that Christ rose from the dead.
Darwinians still have no evidence that life comes from non-life. In fact, all Darwinians believe by faith that nature created and designed itself. LOL
We have more evidence making Christians more rational.
Dawkins is the one who keeps on talking about aliens on other planets. That is why the video is really weird because Darwinians already believe this stuff.
Wow, that's quite an achievement. I never one one single post could show the mind of a creationist so perfectly.
In fact, I may have just stumbled along the core strategy of all creationists everywhere. Seriously, all you nee is some made-up statistics, some tax evasion and you're like the gestalt creationist.
and of course, let's not forget that none of what you just posted is actually about evolution, so it wouldn't matter if you were, be magic, right on all counts (instead of horrible wrong).
Oh, if only you were kidding instead of actually delusional, it'd be so much less sad.
Christians have no evidence, all you have is a shared delusion with such a heavy emotional investment that you don't dare question it thoroughly.
You prefer to reinforce your flawed beliefs by selection only those people and data that match your beliefs, without seriously and objectively checking all data.
either show evidence, go away and bother someone more gullible.
@amandarandom89 This exact argument applies to atheists as well, or really anyone making a metaphysical claim. It's called conformational bias, and if you allow a delusional belief like, "There is no God," to dominate your mind, you will select only people and data that match your beliefs.
And no one has ever reproduced the feats that the ancients supposedly undertook every day, without cheating (using modern technology). That should say something.
@Morpheus04200 Who said I hold that belief? I just haven't seen sufficient evidence for a god, and so I don't believe one exists.
Also, you're talking about confirmation bias. Don't use big words if you can't spell them properly. Besides, I've asked plenty of people with beliefs opposite my own to provide the evidence for me, but for some reason, they can't manage anything better than vague, uncited anecdotes or fallacious arguments.
@amandarandom89 :P I felt like spelling it that way, and resorting to criticism of spelling is not a valid argument. And no one said you hold any specific belief... Persecution Bias? I was talking about ALL irrational belief, which Atheism is.
And I have no problem proving God, because I am God, and so are you; the truth is self-evident. Evidence for this can be readily observed in dream-state, using lucid dreaming. And in consensus reality, we can also readily create and destroy.
@Morpheus04200 Oh well, if you want to call "you and me" "god", then yeah, I'm pretty sure we exist. Of course, I've got a perfectly good word for that already, it's called "us".
@amandarandom89 by definition everything is god, which would include "us". and since we have awareness, and thought, and the ability to create, it is evidenced that so might everything else. This gives a possible solution to the question, "What is our origin?" So the belief that there is no god really cripples a mind, because it closes it to valid possibilities, especially if you believe that we are aspects of god ourselves.
@Morpheus04200 "By definition"? You mean you've gotten every single religious person on earth to agree on that? No? Then you mean "by your personal definition".
but hey, if you say "everything is god", then of course, I believe in god, because there is evidence that "everything" exists. Of course, that's where we stop agreeing.
I'd love go 12 rounds with you, but I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so we'll have to put this on hold.
@amandarandom89 The damn 500 character limit, makes it hard to be specific. Yes, my personal definition of god, which is also generally accepted in most world religions. god is the force that created everything, and is everything. of course, when you start going into any sort of further description then that, things start turning to bullshit. people start projecting their own "ness" onto god, and things get stupid. aka religion...
@amandarandom89 And by the way, so much less sad? If you're gonna be a spelling Nazi you should use proper grammar... :P
The problem with giving evidence for a god is, how do you define god? If you don't narrow it down, a high tech society could be considered god. If you mean, created the heavens, the earth, and all life kinda god, then I still think the most likely candidate is, us.
Of course, you don't care about any of that. Your religion has turned you so completely immune to evidence, you don't even understand what I'm saying when I ask for empirical data to back up your claims.
I'm willing to wager 10 pounds equivalent with anyone willing that you won't actually produce any evidence, if you respond to my post at all.
It is strange to have this video up because Dawkins and Sagan both believe in Aliens. Sagan even started the Planetary society in order to look for aliens
But they also understand how science works, so they would never have alien theories replace standard theories in public schools unless they have evidence to back up their speculations.
The point is that science if it does not know the answer should be open to all possibilities. O'Reilly was right when he stated that Dawkins was a fascist for not being open to all the possibilities.
Darwinian evolution has been disproven by both the Genome and by the fossil record.
If there was a Creator, we should expect to see evidence of a common designer and something like punctuated equilibrium which is exactly what we see in the Genome and the fossil record.
The genome overwhelmingly confirms evolution. Molecular genetics is the icing on the cake! It confirms evolution beyond all reasonble doubt. Even the spotty fossil record contains enough transitions between major groups to confirm evolution without biogeography or molecular genetic. You just repeat lies over and over again, hoping that they will become true.
And once again, PE is a theory of evolution, not of special creation. Get it?
As a sheep he is just repeating what his owner(the pastor) told him to repeat...he has no hope that anything will become true...he is just mindless automata ....treat him with contempt and ridicule...you'll have better luck debating a door then this sort of imbecile.
PE does not require millions of years. You could do PE very quickly. PE is a Creationist model. The Bible contains the order of creation Earth Water Organic Life Sea Animals Birds Larger Land Animals Human Life The Bible demonstrates a process of creation, not a moment of creation. PE is a Creationist model It has been confirmed in both the genome and the fossil record. It is now a fact.
Science. I already know about the genome and the fossil record. The only honest explanation is creation. Darwinian evolution has not come even close to explaining what we see in our world. The fact is that we see a clearly guided design that is directed. Just watch Discovery Channel and you will be amazed at the awesome Creation too!
You are a textbook case of self-dilusion. Everything around you says one thing, yet you cling to something with no evidence to back it up -- all the while saying that the evidence proves your point. Funny howthe worlds smartest minds can't even see what you see. Unbelievable.
They have seen the problem. That is why Stephen Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium.
Darwinian theory is just untenable based on the evidence. Gould simply didn't realize that he was stating a Creationist model. The smartest people sometimes can see what is sitting directly in front of them.
It is obvious from the workings of the proteins alone that life was designed. Just study the proteins!
Gould is just inconsistent unable to see that he is articulating a Creationist teaching. I love it that you only respond by saying "YOUR WRONG" and YOUR A LIAR" So mature.
You need to know the love of God so you can also show others proper respect. People are more than accidents and dirt. People have immense value having been made in God's image.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gould is clearly an evolutionist; however, his theory was a Creationist viewpoint. Punctuated Equilibrium requires a Creator. Darwinian evolution is required to move slowly over millions of years. Gould simply saw the problem in the evidence which we tried to rectify with a new theory.
That's ridiculous. PE is a slight modification to Darwin's evolution by natural selection. It simply states that the rate of evolutionary change is not constant; evolution can occur in fits and starts, rather than slow, steady incrementalism. No deity required, and no alteration of the basic hundreds of millions of years evolutionary timetable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
PE is not a Darwinian belief as a result! You stated it correctly. Darwinian evolution cannot experience rapid change by definition...What would cause it to move faster at different times? Only a mind!
Gould just proves that the fossil record can't be explained by Darwinian evolution.
"Darwinian evolution cannot experience rapid change by definition"
By whose definition? It's a simple fact of genetics that a small genetic change can have a large impact on various parts of an organism.
The rate of change is not controlled by the Flying Spagetti Monster. It's controlled by variables such as when favorable mutations occur and when exploitable niches are available in an ecosystem (new colonists on an island, after major extinction events, etc.)
Huh? Obviously you've ZERO understanding of evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is well understood and explained. When a species develops a new feature that allows it to exploit a niche in its environment, it competes within it for maximum exploitation of that niche till its feature that allowed it to exploit the niche is rapidly optimized to its full capacity. Henceforth, that species exists in stasis for very long periods until the environs change or another niche opens up.
Lol, you believe Bill O' Reilly? By that I assume you also watch Fox News, the most biased network in history. Now I understand why you believe your own lies. If something is repeated enough eventually people will start believing it. But seriously if not by all this creation bs, the fact that you watch Bill O' Reilly just destroys all your arguments.
Also, you know if DI sees it, they will invent some lame excuse to get it taken down, like saying that particular view of Seattle is copyrighted or something...
Holy frickin' crap, that was spectacular. Perfect deadpan, great effects, accurate look, spotless editing- if it wasn't so obvious that this was a joke, I'd be hard-pressed to realize it. Your point is well made, too; this is exactly the type of video I want to show to everyone who doesn't realize just how ridiculous the whole ID/"teach the controversy" thing is.
Regarding rafikgl's assertions that (a) aliens do not exist; and (b) God does exist. These are simply not supported by science presently. One could certainly form a philosophical argument for or against either assertion and present such arguments in a philosophy class.
Aliens could exist and gods could exist. However there is no evidence for aliens visiting earth; many definitions of gods fail simple logic tests. Lack of samples makes it hard to test for aliens or gods also
it's sad that you get better reporting in fake news than in real news. Can you even imagine a reporter asking questions anywhere near as good as the ones asked by this fake reporter?
1.) The argument of ID is not that we have any proof for our creation theory, but we will demonstrate the problems with your theory and create a controversy where none exists in the professional community. Tha analogy holds.
2.) Agreed. But the point of science is not confirm or deny God's and aliens, but to figure how things work according to known processes that can be observed and demonstrated - like natural selection acting on variation, or like moving large stones with simple tools.
Dawkins already believes that aliens are a real possiblility. I am not surprise that the Darwinians would want to also include alien indoctrination now.
"Dawkins already believes that aliens are a real possiblility."
This is simply a disgraceful lie, put about by dishonest anti-evolutionists who obviously don't understand English, as he said no such thing in that mendacious piece of propaganda "Expelled."
Haven't you heard of SETI. The Darwinians have been looking for aliens for awhile now. Dawkins simly joined the club. The reason they believe in aliens is because the conditions on ancient earth do not support abiogenesis occuring.
I am surprised you are not aware of this. All knowledgeable Darwinians believe in aliens and that is the whole purpose of SETI.
I think the guy that made the video should do another making fun of Darwinians.
SETI has nothing to do with origin of life research. Dawkins does not think aliens had anything to do with life on earth. All he said was that in his view if we accept the premise of intelligent design (which he doesn't) then it would be more likely that the designer of life on earth was an alien, that was the result of a prior evolutionary process elsewhere in the cosmos, than a deity. That is all he said.
And by the way, origin of life researchers don't agree with you - watch?v=YrMuFpGlcpk
apologist? Only religions have apologists, the rest of us have scientists. We don't need someone to make up an answer that fits the conclusion we want; we look at what actually happens and draw the conclusions to which the evidence points.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwinianism is a religion. There is no evidence to support the idea that the creation created itself and desgined itself. In addition, there is no evidence that life came from non-life. These are all believed by faith by Darwinians.
The fact is now Darwinians are out looking for aliens. Sagan started SETI along with a few others. In addition, Dawkins had admitted that aliens exist.
Darwinians already believe in aliens so the whole point in the video is mute.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Indeed, this video appears to be using one branch of mainstream science to mock another branch of mainstream science while attempting to mock intelligent design.
It's either the worst strawman argument video ever made or just really funny! I think it's both!
Even if there were such a thing as "Darwinianism," it wouldn't be a religion. There is, in fact, mountains of evidence that abiogenisis occurred and the evolution is the process by which organisms developed. If you were at all interested in understanding why the vast majority of people who actually know something about science accept evolution, you could pick up a textbook and read about the evidence yourself.
Whether or not the same process that lead to the development of intelligent life on this planet also occurred on some other planet is fairly irrelevant. You seem to think that if you can show that there are some people who accept evolution accept that it might have happened elsewhere you show them all to be stupid. Guess what, my mother and her sister are both young earth creationist Christians and both believe in aliens. Does that make all creationists stupid?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If a person believes something for which we do not have evidence, then they cannot be considered rational. Dawkins believes in aliens as well as Sagan so they cannot be rational since we have no evidence of these things.
Darwinian evolution has never demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome so Darwinian evolution is merely a theory that has never been demonstrated.
We do know that variations take place due to lost of information in the Genome; however, no new information
"If a person believes something for which we do not have evidence, then they cannot be considered rational. "
Wow, you just threw all of your fellow Christians, including me, under the bus. Nice going.
"Darwinian evolution has never demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome so Darwinian evolution is merely a theory that has never been demonstrated. "
Lie. I can think of several instances where this has been demonstrated. Trichromatic vision is just one example.
"We do know that variations take place due to lost of information in the Genome; however, no new information."
We? So you work in the field of molecular genetics? If you did, then you are either woefully ignorant on the subject, or a blatant liar. Everytime a gene duplicates itself, it adds new information. Several features can be traced back to gene duplication where the new gene is slightly modified to create a nevel function. This is just one example of how a genome can add new info.
Dawkins said that aliens were the most reasonable way in which intelligent design could be even remotely plausible. He does NOT believe this is what happened.
Carl Sagan thought it was probable that there were aliens. That is different from saying that there are aliens.
"information [can't] be added to the Genome"
You aren't paying attention. Gene duplication. Look it up. Point insertion. Look it up. Those are two ways in which there can be information added to genomes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwinians are all involved in a religion as a result. They believe in Nature creating and designing itself. They believe that life came from non-life, they believe in aliens and they als believe in evolution which is something else we have no evidence for.
Darwinians are not rational at all. They simply have a blind belief system that lack any evidence at all to support it. It is merely another unsupported religion like Islam and Buddhism.
I know you think that when you grab a talking point from a Christian website, it must be true. But you have no idea what you're talking about, and you have obviously never investigated these things for yourself. Or if you have, you are just as guilty of intentionally lying as AiG, ICR, RTB and the DI.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have entire video serious about this, starting with #10 if you care to educate yourself. If not, then go try your talking point on another site.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution in order to be true who have to demonstrate that life comes from non-life. It also has to demostrate that information can be added to the Genome. Both of these things have no evidence.
Christianity on the other hand has the empirically verified resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christians at least have evidence Darwinians still have no evidence.
The human genome has 250 unique genes not shared by lower species. There is no ladder to humanity in the genome.
I find it amazing that you can possibly claim that other people are irrational for claiming that something might have happened because it is similar to something that we know happened. The fact that similar things can happen under similar circumstances isn't evidence enough for you, yet you hold beliefs entirely contrary to demonstrated evidence.
It's really not much fun to argue with someone who knows so little about what evolution actually is. Go learn something about it before you dis it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The mapping of the Genome is demonstrating that species are unique as well as having commonalities.
We have both a common designer and we also know that unique genes exist.
All genes on the evolutionary model would have to develop. For instance, the gene that built the eye would have to be added. This is new information added to the Genome.
Darwinians have never demonstrated that new information can be added to the Genome. Mutations always result in the loss of information.
Firstly, that you seem to think there is a single "gene that built the eye" demonstrates how woefully uneducated you are on the subject. Secondly, a great many researchers (regardless of their views of Darwin or his theories) have in fact demonstrated that "new information" can be added to the genome.
Since you seem to think you know so much about the issue, why don't you tell me where nylonase came from?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nylonase is the result of a mutation that removed information from the Genome. It did not add. In fact, it has never been demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome.
The human genome for instance has 250 unique genes. There is no ladder from a lower species to humanity. In fact, you can't tell the difference between races so there is also no ladder even with the race of man.
Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance... doesn't that get old?
There have been several studies of nylonase evolution but it seems as though the group of enzymes appeared as the result of a frame shift followed by a duplication. If this isn't "new information" I don't know what is. Actually, I don't know what is either way because creationists stubbornly refuse to define their terms (usually the first step for real scientists). I guess that makes it harder to keep moving the goals.
"250 unique genes"? Who's butt did you pull that number out of? I think you don't even know what a gene is. A gene is the smallest unit of heredity; in most species this corresponds to a segment of DNA or RNA. Notice that word segment. When cells undergo duplication, the DNA splits down the middle to be copied. The base pairs fill in one by one, not in chunks of genes. Occasionally there is a copy error that leads to things like nylonase.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Genes create proteins in life that determine their characteristics. You should know that.
Here is an example. Mice have 13,500 genes. Humans have 25,000 specific genes. In order for mice to become humans, you have to add thousands of new genes. A mututation only takes information away, it never adds information to the gene pool.
I do know that the coding for the production of proteins is stored in the genetic code. What you don't seem to get is that there isn't a physical block of "stuff" that you could put on a slide under a microscope and say that's "a gene." That's just not the way it works. Trying to identify "a gene" is like trying to identify "a molecule" in a salt crystal. To say that there are "25,000 specific genes" in anything is patently absurd.
Quite apart from your evident lack of comprehension of basic genetics, it is completely untrue to say that mutations "never add information." Firstly, you have never, despite a direct request, defined what you mean by the word "information." Until you do so, any statement you make regarding "information" is ill-defined and thus indefensible in any rigorous sense.
So you think God physically reached down from heaven about 65 million years ago (the start of mamailian radiation) and started adding genes? So if God can only do this via a miracle, then why did God design all primates with a mouse GULO gene (the gene that creates the last of 3 enzymes used to synthesize vitamin C) with a built-in point mutation that makes it unintelligible? The primate GULO gene, like everything else in biology, only makes sense in terms of evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science has already confirmed that that universe had a beginning. We also know that God can do miracles such as create a universe. When Jesus turned water into wine, it was aged wine. It is consistent.
On top of that, the resurrection has been empirically confirmed so the miracle of creation, the miralce of life and the miracles of the resurrection are all acts of God.
Secondly, if, by information, you mean the ability to code for the production of previously unseen proteins (which is the most sensible definition in this context), than you have already admitted that such mutations occur in the appearance of nylonase. Since you seem to think that the appearance of novel proteins in this case was the result of "removing information" from the genome, I assume that you are refering to the hypothesis that the mutation was the result of a frame shift.
If you accept that frame shift occurs, and provide this as an example of "lost information," what do you call the mutation known as duplication? Duplication mutations have been demonstrated in controlled experiments. Is this not "new information?"
Sloppy thinking and sloppy definitions go together. Define your terms, then we might get somewhere.
One last question. Where does all of the "information" about the position and velocity of each raindrop come from?
If you add 'the same information' then you change the copy, what do you call that compared to where you were before the duplication?
You have the information that was there before. AND you have... information that was not there before. NEW INFORMATION. Even by your lame definition of information.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You don't seem to understand evolution. Evolution says that information was slowly over a period of millions of years.
You have to demonstrate that information can be added to the Genome. You have to demonstrate that a single gene can expand to 4,000,000 genes such as we have in the Ameoba.
Can you imagine 4,000,000 genes simply coming into existence all by itself even with billions of years?
Since I'm corresponding with you primarily for the benefit of others who might read this, rather than ask you again to define the term "information," I'd simply like to point out that you have still not defined your terms. To those readers, this avoidance likely indicates that zdenny is simply parroting creationist talking points, which also never define their terms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DNA works just like a computer program. The different genes create proteins that inform different characteristics. For example, genes can determine the bone structure, eye color, brain parts, etc... Each part has a protein that builds the part in the body. DNA is like the blueprint for the body that directs the construction of the characteristics in the body. Even Darwinians talk about it as a type of language that has to be interpreted.
"Even Darwinians talk about it as a type of language that has to be interpreted."
... No. It's a chemical. There are chemical reactions that always produce the same products. The inputs to these reactions can be affected by changes in the environment. There is no more "interpretation" in protein construction than there is in the combining of sodium and chlorine into table salt.
"Holes you want to ... fill with aliens."
ImMichaelTaylor 7 months ago
they should also teach the intellight conspirser theory in history class, unlease that theory explain all the holes in 911 and the JFK assassination
abarrathemaster 9 months ago
Wonderful, excellent video. Thank you for teaching the controversy hehe.
GreeenBaron 9 months ago
very nice comparison =)
dingo2306 1 year ago
Lol 2 trolls talking
Too much sarcasm in their faces.
Sw0rdm3nz 1 year ago
my God, men you are amazing, without doubt im subscribing to you, keep it up with the good science.
Cience4thewin 1 year ago
fake, and gay
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
Irony: Your parody of Casey Luskin is more intelligent than the real thing.
lowcomedy 1 year ago
Dude, you should quit your day job. This is great stuff. Keep it coming. I'm literally laughing out loud.
heperrinjr 1 year ago
@heperrinjr
yea, that would be fun but my day job is pretty good!
glovergj 1 year ago 3
The individuals in this video failed to mention the other mainstream scientific theory which explains how relatively primitive civilizations were able to construct gargantuan structures and lift incredibly heavy stones through use of their collective psychic powers.
I am deeply offended that our organization -- the "Institute of Psychic Heavy Upright Construction of Kingdoms" (IPHUCK) -- which is at the forefront of researching this scientific theory was not also invited to discuss the issue.
comingatchu 1 year ago 2
Why the suppression of the Boobquake theory? I think that they should present the Boobquake theory and the Earthquake theory in class. Simply present the evidence
grendelee 1 year ago
nooob with that glasses i think its a
Noviticus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"All Evolution is is this;
1) All things that live will eventually die.
2) Offspring of two different parents will vary from both parents."
If it was left at that then there would be no controversy. Unfortunately, it's not, and we both know it.
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Hypothetical conversation or not, there is plenty of evidence we came from different human races form all over the universe. There is not a single piece of evidence of evolution from one species to another, or from ape to man. Our current human civilization swings between two forms of belief with the terrible results we see around us: wars, pollution, destruction, overpopulation and division.
sorellman 2 years ago
Content A -
Execution C +
Nhurm 2 years ago
evolution is mistaken for natural selection.. the latter is simply genetic heretage. our fathers pass down genes, small changes occur. tens of thousands of years bring weaker changes to fade, in the sense that their barers are (on a huge time scale) more likely to die before mating. evolution is the big picture, that is to say, cause and effect of nat sel. not all mutations are good or bad, any important change is more likely to be unstable and therefore dangerous
ibajem 2 years ago
to not believe in either is quite the display of intolerance, we have plenty of proof of mutation and selection. the problem is not belief in either, but rather dependance and satisfaction wrought in either concept. this is true to every theory.. it can help us, and be acceptable compatible with reality but it will one day be updated, or better yet, replaced with a new paradigm. outside intervention lines the thread of my thoughts when human intelligence and origin is concerned
ibajem 2 years ago
Great video :)
Very comprehensive satire. 5*
BruceSpringsteeen 2 years ago
Phenomenal video! So perfectly scripted!
Aarya100 2 years ago 3
No, Dawkins did not proclaim Aliens created life; he stated it as the only possible alternative to Panspermia and NOT some confabulated Bronze Age fantasy.
mattghtpa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins believe that life came from non-life by faith. He also believe that aliens may be real.
We should buy Dawkins a tin foil hat and let him sit under a tree for the rest of his life and see if he picks up a message.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Actually Dawkins knows that organic molecules arose from a chemical process.
Something like a man made from mud and a woman from the mud man's rib.
A non-Earth intelligence is highly likely.
A 2000yr old Middle Eastern zombie who is his own father is highly unlikely.
The proper usage for a "Tinfoil hat" is to act as shielding, not an antennae.
However, receiving a message from hearing hallucinatory voices is only observed from schizophrenics and fundamentalist.
mattghtpa 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You can appreciate how weird the video is then. Darwinians are the ones that believe in aliens already so why not open up the classroom to all possible viewpoints.
Darwinians don't have any evidence and ID folks have reasonable logic to support their claims also.
The debate is actually healthy rather than just doing indoctrination...
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
The class room is already open to the idea that processes, like that occurred on Earth, is a likely scenario, maybe with some different chemicals and environmental conditions, but recognizable as life.
Well here's the flaw in your entire argument, bio-evolutionary science is observed and used as fact in everyday life around the word whether you deny it or not.
If you have the need to prove your faith with facts, then you really never had any faith to begin with.
mattghtpa 2 years ago 2
Popularity doesn't make it true. Science is an enterprise that is good to pursue since Christians know that reality was designed.
For instance, why do certain combinations in the DNA make a certain type of protein? There is no reason, it just is because it was designed that way.
DNA is a program that is used as a blueprint for the life of the organism....
It is truly amazing!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
ID proponents have reasonable logic? "Things exist and are complex, therefore they must have been designed, despite all of the contrary empirical evidence otherwise."
Yeah, that's logic.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago 2
ID is actually more reasonable than Darwinian beliefs. Darwinians argue that they can't demonstrate their theories because it takes millions and billions of years...LOL
ID at least can look at the present and demonstrate the limts of evolution. Darwinians simply have a blind belief while hoping and praying that ID proponents are wrong.
Just remember that money is currently tied to Darwinian beliefs so that is why they engage in censorship
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Darwinians argue that they can't demonstrate their theories because it takes millions and billions of years" -- more lies. Evolution is easy to demonstrate in the laboratory or in the environment. However, it is unreasonable to directly observe large-scale changes that take millions of years. just like you can observe the entire life-cycle of a star, which also takes millions (usually billions) of years.
glovergj 2 years ago
"ID at least can look at the present and demonstrate the limts of evolution." -- Wrong again. ID can only point out the limits of our knowledge about evolution. Without a mechanism or testable model, ID can't actually demonstrate anything about itself.
Evoluion is based on soild evidence. ID is based on a lack of evidence. "we don't know how this works, so God did it" -- It's no wonder that ID produces no new discoveries.
glovergj 2 years ago
"Just remember that money is currently tied to Darwinian beliefs so that is why they engage in censorship"
No excuses. The Discovery Institute has an annual operating budget in the millions. They have several scientists on their staff. But after all the years, they have produced nada! And all they would have to is take data that already exists, like DNA sequences from Genebank, and demonstrate how ID is a better explanation than evolution. But they can't even do that.
glovergj 2 years ago
ID has clearly demonstrated the limits of evolution. Just pick up Behe's book, The EDGE OF EVOLUTION. It has clearly been demonstrated and will shake your faith in Darwinian evolution.
If you follow Discovery, they are constantly making predictions on their site so they do have a testable model.
The problem is that with Darwinians theory, it is unfalsifiable. Nothing in Darwinian theory can ever be false for Darwinians. Darwinians have been wrong over and over again but they have faith
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I've read all of Behe's books and they do no such thing. His arguments are flawed and have been exposed elsewhere.
Behe testified in Dover that ID has no explanatory power and under that definition of science, you would have to include astrology as well. Behe also believes that humans are related to chimpanzees.
The DI model only predicts things we shouldn't be able to figure. That is not a model. A model includes a mechanism of how something WORKS. ID doen't have this.
glovergj 2 years ago
Glover stated it properly. Instead of God done it, Darwinians argument that billions of years done it.
They simply replace God will billions of years.
Of course, evolution should not take billions of years or even 10 years. We should see it happening with new knobs etc..limbs constantly forming all the time; however, we don't have any evidence of this.
Discovery Institute operates on a very limited budget and they have to do all their fund raising. So glover you are dishonest
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
OK -- Here is trick question. Did God create you or were you created by a 9-month natural process? How would you answer this with your limited understanding of creation?
Do you replace God with 9 months? Or is your brian large enough to comprehend that God uses ordinary natural process to bring about his creative will?
We do have plenty examples of evlution happening right before our very eyes.
glovergj 2 years ago
How DI gets its money has nothing to do with their budget. Their budget is in the millions. They spend hudreds of thousands on research -- nothing to show for it.
If they had a model that could actually "discover" something, they wouldn't have to do fundraising. Real science that produces results gets funded when it works. Nobody wants to throw their money away on bogus nonsense. DI has got nothing.
glovergj 2 years ago
106 Billion people have walked the face of the earth so far and nothing has happened in terms of evolution my friend. Darwinian evolution is just a myth and since it has not been demonstrated, there is no 'HOW'
Therefore, it is not scientific, it is just a belief!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Evolution has not been observed in humans as far as I know, but in other creatures that replicate much faster, like guppies and E. coli, evolution has been observed. Even bacteria evolve new structures that make them resistant to antibiotics.
glovergj 2 years ago
I agree that God works through natural processes; however, the genome demonstrates jumps in between animals that cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. They just have a lot of talk and no evidence.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
That is false. The genome is the best evidence for common ancestry. What "jumps" are you talking about?
glovergj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Human for instance have a jump of 250 genes that are not shared by any lower species. There is no ladder to humanity and there is no ladder within humanity.
Darwinians don't even have a response to it holding to a blind belief and lots of talk with no demonstration. Just another failed prediction by the Darwinians.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
What's the point in arguing with somebody who has no concept of what evolution is or how it works?
glovergj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ditto. I would recommend doing some reading. You will find that there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Di you ever see the horse chart? Even though it has been debunked, they still have it posted as proof of Darwinian evolution....
Did you know that the horse use to eat other animals like a fox. The wild speculation they do is incredible!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
lol. This just keeps getting better.
glovergj 2 years ago
All Evolution is is this;
1) All things that live will eventually die.
2) Offspring of two different parents will vary from both parents.
Why is this so hard to understand? This is all evolution is. There are theories, from Natural Selection to Genetic Drift, but this is the basis of evolution. Things die, Things reproduce, The offspring will have some genetic variation.
This isn't claiming a horse turns into a dog, or a cow becomes a flower, It's as simple as that.
Yoshimiko951 2 years ago
@zdennyfamily you are so funny!
eleminatus 8 months ago
Correct me if i am wrong but, if we did evolve.. would there not be evidence?
The only evidence i see in all cultures are beings from the heavens came down to the earth and mingled around.
Where are the evidence of the transcendent from point A to B? Give me some hard facts of evolution please. Bacteria adapted to antibiotics is not evolution, it was intervened by the antibiotics to cause the changes. So what or who intervened with us to cause such a change.
Genukie 2 years ago
Where is this motivation to dumb down the idea of non-Earth intelegence?
Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku both discussed these possibilities as more than just a theory. I feel confident they refrained from openly endorsing the concept non-terrestrial contact for lack of evidence and fear of sabotaging their career by associating with the academically ridiculed "Ancient astronaut theory", but other wise they were in agreement.
mattghtpa 2 years ago
Why is it so difficult to contemplate the existence of a non-terrestrial intelligence?
The Universe is 13.7bil yrs old, there are on average a 100mil stars/galaxy, 100bil estimated observable galaxies, possibly a multiverses, and multidimensional realities, all per reviewed science.
With all these factors extrapolated upon known terrestrial factors, I would give it a 99% probability that intelligent life is very old, its everywhere, and Earth is likely known quite well by such intelligence
mattghtpa 2 years ago
GREAT Video btw.
AcusticDave 2 years ago
Comment removed
thetubegazer 2 years ago
Teach the controversy and let the students decide for themselves what is true :p
I vote we apply this to religion as well. every day in church a mandatory 30 minutes of preaching for a different holy book. Let's see if the creationists like to teach the controversy themselves.
amandarandom89 2 years ago 16
Brilliant.
Meejoe27 2 years ago 2
You are stating then that evolution is a religion then.
If that is the case and since the public has to fund it, we should teach all scientific views on origins and let the students decide.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Let's put it this way...
Evolution is about as much a religion as creationism is science :p
amandarandom89 2 years ago 2
Actually, Christians have empirical evidence demonstrating that Christ rose from the dead.
Darwinians still have no evidence that life comes from non-life. In fact, all Darwinians believe by faith that nature created and designed itself. LOL
We have more evidence making Christians more rational.
Dawkins is the one who keeps on talking about aliens on other planets. That is why the video is really weird because Darwinians already believe this stuff.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Let's dissect that post by paragraph, shall we?
Unproven assertion and Non-sequitur.
Lie, lie and appeal to ignorance.
Unproven assertion.
Quotemine, lie.
Wow, that's quite an achievement. I never one one single post could show the mind of a creationist so perfectly.
In fact, I may have just stumbled along the core strategy of all creationists everywhere. Seriously, all you nee is some made-up statistics, some tax evasion and you're like the gestalt creationist.
amandarandom89 2 years ago
and of course, let's not forget that none of what you just posted is actually about evolution, so it wouldn't matter if you were, be magic, right on all counts (instead of horrible wrong).
amandarandom89 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You can't get to evolution without life coming from non-life.
LOL
You can easily see why Christianity is rational and Atheim is based on dogma.
We have evidence and you don't
Christianity is also about living within the reality of God's love for eternity; however, all you have are chemicals...
So sad that your hopelessness is based total on faith.
I have an idea...become a Christian to discover the love of God! The life of love is the best life!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Oh, if only you were kidding instead of actually delusional, it'd be so much less sad.
Christians have no evidence, all you have is a shared delusion with such a heavy emotional investment that you don't dare question it thoroughly.
You prefer to reinforce your flawed beliefs by selection only those people and data that match your beliefs, without seriously and objectively checking all data.
either show evidence, go away and bother someone more gullible.
amandarandom89 2 years ago 12
@amandarandom89 This exact argument applies to atheists as well, or really anyone making a metaphysical claim. It's called conformational bias, and if you allow a delusional belief like, "There is no God," to dominate your mind, you will select only people and data that match your beliefs.
And no one has ever reproduced the feats that the ancients supposedly undertook every day, without cheating (using modern technology). That should say something.
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 Who said I hold that belief? I just haven't seen sufficient evidence for a god, and so I don't believe one exists.
Also, you're talking about confirmation bias. Don't use big words if you can't spell them properly. Besides, I've asked plenty of people with beliefs opposite my own to provide the evidence for me, but for some reason, they can't manage anything better than vague, uncited anecdotes or fallacious arguments.
so, feel free to do better.
amandarandom89 1 year ago
@amandarandom89 :P I felt like spelling it that way, and resorting to criticism of spelling is not a valid argument. And no one said you hold any specific belief... Persecution Bias? I was talking about ALL irrational belief, which Atheism is.
And I have no problem proving God, because I am God, and so are you; the truth is self-evident. Evidence for this can be readily observed in dream-state, using lucid dreaming. And in consensus reality, we can also readily create and destroy.
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 Oh well, if you want to call "you and me" "god", then yeah, I'm pretty sure we exist. Of course, I've got a perfectly good word for that already, it's called "us".
amandarandom89 1 year ago
@amandarandom89 by definition everything is god, which would include "us". and since we have awareness, and thought, and the ability to create, it is evidenced that so might everything else. This gives a possible solution to the question, "What is our origin?" So the belief that there is no god really cripples a mind, because it closes it to valid possibilities, especially if you believe that we are aspects of god ourselves.
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 "By definition"? You mean you've gotten every single religious person on earth to agree on that? No? Then you mean "by your personal definition".
but hey, if you say "everything is god", then of course, I believe in god, because there is evidence that "everything" exists. Of course, that's where we stop agreeing.
I'd love go 12 rounds with you, but I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so we'll have to put this on hold.
amandarandom89 1 year ago
@amandarandom89 The damn 500 character limit, makes it hard to be specific. Yes, my personal definition of god, which is also generally accepted in most world religions. god is the force that created everything, and is everything. of course, when you start going into any sort of further description then that, things start turning to bullshit. people start projecting their own "ness" onto god, and things get stupid. aka religion...
Have a good vacation!
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
@Morpheus04200 Dam, you nailed it!
bastardoftheparty1 7 months ago
@amandarandom89 And by the way, so much less sad? If you're gonna be a spelling Nazi you should use proper grammar... :P
The problem with giving evidence for a god is, how do you define god? If you don't narrow it down, a high tech society could be considered god. If you mean, created the heavens, the earth, and all life kinda god, then I still think the most likely candidate is, us.
Morpheus04200 1 year ago
Of course, you don't care about any of that. Your religion has turned you so completely immune to evidence, you don't even understand what I'm saying when I ask for empirical data to back up your claims.
I'm willing to wager 10 pounds equivalent with anyone willing that you won't actually produce any evidence, if you respond to my post at all.
any takers?
amandarandom89 2 years ago 3
the guys are so blurry and the background is so clear, its annoying lol
shinjeh 2 years ago
Ahahaha. Good stuff.
MunsterAtheist 2 years ago 3
same guy = stupid
StormyWeather21 2 years ago
It is strange to have this video up because Dawkins and Sagan both believe in Aliens. Sagan even started the Planetary society in order to look for aliens
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
But they also understand how science works, so they would never have alien theories replace standard theories in public schools unless they have evidence to back up their speculations.
glovergj 2 years ago
The point is that science if it does not know the answer should be open to all possibilities. O'Reilly was right when he stated that Dawkins was a fascist for not being open to all the possibilities.
Darwinian evolution has been disproven by both the Genome and by the fossil record.
If there was a Creator, we should expect to see evidence of a common designer and something like punctuated equilibrium which is exactly what we see in the Genome and the fossil record.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You lie worse than Obama!
The genome overwhelmingly confirms evolution. Molecular genetics is the icing on the cake! It confirms evolution beyond all reasonble doubt. Even the spotty fossil record contains enough transitions between major groups to confirm evolution without biogeography or molecular genetic. You just repeat lies over and over again, hoping that they will become true.
And once again, PE is a theory of evolution, not of special creation. Get it?
glovergj 2 years ago
As a sheep he is just repeating what his owner(the pastor) told him to repeat...he has no hope that anything will become true...he is just mindless automata ....treat him with contempt and ridicule...you'll have better luck debating a door then this sort of imbecile.
ltbelial 2 years ago
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Where do you come up with this dishonest garbage?
glovergj 2 years ago
Science. I already know about the genome and the fossil record. The only honest explanation is creation. Darwinian evolution has not come even close to explaining what we see in our world. The fact is that we see a clearly guided design that is directed. Just watch Discovery Channel and you will be amazed at the awesome Creation too!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You are a textbook case of self-dilusion. Everything around you says one thing, yet you cling to something with no evidence to back it up -- all the while saying that the evidence proves your point. Funny howthe worlds smartest minds can't even see what you see. Unbelievable.
glovergj 2 years ago
They have seen the problem. That is why Stephen Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium.
Darwinian theory is just untenable based on the evidence. Gould simply didn't realize that he was stating a Creationist model. The smartest people sometimes can see what is sitting directly in front of them.
It is obvious from the workings of the proteins alone that life was designed. Just study the proteins!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Wrong again. You obviously have never even read Gould, or you are a pathological liar.
glovergj 2 years ago
Gould is just inconsistent unable to see that he is articulating a Creationist teaching. I love it that you only respond by saying "YOUR WRONG" and YOUR A LIAR" So mature.
You need to know the love of God so you can also show others proper respect. People are more than accidents and dirt. People have immense value having been made in God's image.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Gould ... is articulating a Creationist teaching."
Wow. Steven Jay Gould was a creationist. The Pope is a Hindu. Glenn Beck is a liberal. Shaquille O'Neal is a midget.
If you want a rational debate, you need to start with a point that isn't absurd.
mistergarth 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gould is clearly an evolutionist; however, his theory was a Creationist viewpoint. Punctuated Equilibrium requires a Creator. Darwinian evolution is required to move slowly over millions of years. Gould simply saw the problem in the evidence which we tried to rectify with a new theory.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Punctuated Equilibrium requires a Creator. "
That's ridiculous. PE is a slight modification to Darwin's evolution by natural selection. It simply states that the rate of evolutionary change is not constant; evolution can occur in fits and starts, rather than slow, steady incrementalism. No deity required, and no alteration of the basic hundreds of millions of years evolutionary timetable.
mistergarth 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PE is not a Darwinian belief as a result! You stated it correctly. Darwinian evolution cannot experience rapid change by definition...What would cause it to move faster at different times? Only a mind!
Gould just proves that the fossil record can't be explained by Darwinian evolution.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Darwinian evolution cannot experience rapid change by definition"
By whose definition? It's a simple fact of genetics that a small genetic change can have a large impact on various parts of an organism.
The rate of change is not controlled by the Flying Spagetti Monster. It's controlled by variables such as when favorable mutations occur and when exploitable niches are available in an ecosystem (new colonists on an island, after major extinction events, etc.)
mistergarth 2 years ago 3
Huh? Obviously you've ZERO understanding of evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is well understood and explained. When a species develops a new feature that allows it to exploit a niche in its environment, it competes within it for maximum exploitation of that niche till its feature that allowed it to exploit the niche is rapidly optimized to its full capacity. Henceforth, that species exists in stasis for very long periods until the environs change or another niche opens up.
geodesicks 2 years ago
He never read Gould, he just reads creationist quotemining websites.
Who needs knowledge when you can let other people do all the thinking for you?
amandarandom89 2 years ago 4
Stupid inbred redneck sheep... you should not be allowed near a computer ...you should only use those constructed with creation science.
Go crawl and kiss the boot of your imaginary alpha male in the sky.
ltbelial 2 years ago
Lol, you believe Bill O' Reilly? By that I assume you also watch Fox News, the most biased network in history. Now I understand why you believe your own lies. If something is repeated enough eventually people will start believing it. But seriously if not by all this creation bs, the fact that you watch Bill O' Reilly just destroys all your arguments.
horribleBO 2 years ago
Verrrrry good!
Let's hope this hits them where it hurts!
olunda 2 years ago
I'd love to see the reaction of the ID crowd if someone tried this for real :)
AGrandt 2 years ago
Via PZ, Very good guys.. When I wasn't looking at the screen I couldn't tell the difference from an actual creationist. What does that tell ya?
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago
this is AWESOME! well done!
whaddayaknow17 2 years ago
Documentary = Stargate SG.1
Very nice guys... very nice...
daymyth 2 years ago
This was amazing! Awesome job! I love it!
It was featured on Pharyngula btw.
Koss42 2 years ago
If the sound quality is improves, I'd say it could compete against TheOnion
Nades129 2 years ago
oh man i wonder if anybody has sent this to casey luskin
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
I've got nothing personal against him. I'm just providing you entertainment at the expense of silly science!
glovergj 2 years ago
Also, you know if DI sees it, they will invent some lame excuse to get it taken down, like saying that particular view of Seattle is copyrighted or something...
glovergj 2 years ago
Holy frickin' crap, that was spectacular. Perfect deadpan, great effects, accurate look, spotless editing- if it wasn't so obvious that this was a joke, I'd be hard-pressed to realize it. Your point is well made, too; this is exactly the type of video I want to show to everyone who doesn't realize just how ridiculous the whole ID/"teach the controversy" thing is.
Bravo.
DaggerPen 2 years ago
Thanks. Glad you liked it!
glovergj 2 years ago
This is epic... just epic...
uvauva2 2 years ago
Great Video..Send it to all the I.D.iots (creatards) out there.
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago
Really well written. Nice job!
NonStampCollector 2 years ago
here via PZ
this video hits all the talking points
5 stars
johnnyringo27 2 years ago
This is GOLDEN.
FreePlay 2 years ago
Got here via PZ
:D
Take Care and RAmen!!
Ven
Venator70 2 years ago
Nice how the reporter doesn't stop the interviewe every time he makes a dumb statement. Great writing guys!
HinZ3 2 years ago
Great stuff glovergj.
Regarding rafikgl's assertions that (a) aliens do not exist; and (b) God does exist. These are simply not supported by science presently. One could certainly form a philosophical argument for or against either assertion and present such arguments in a philosophy class.
Aliens could exist and gods could exist. However there is no evidence for aliens visiting earth; many definitions of gods fail simple logic tests. Lack of samples makes it hard to test for aliens or gods also
puttanesca621 2 years ago
A+ for concept
C- for execution
andyjunction 2 years ago
Satire no doubt.
mixupnow 2 years ago
Bravo.
middlekk 2 years ago
it's sad that you get better reporting in fake news than in real news. Can you even imagine a reporter asking questions anywhere near as good as the ones asked by this fake reporter?
PBDPBD 2 years ago 6
Not in the US.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
False analogy :
1. you are comparing 2 intelligent design theories in archeology, while comparing intelligent design versus random mutations in evolution.
2. aliens do not exist while God does.
rafikgl 2 years ago
1.) The argument of ID is not that we have any proof for our creation theory, but we will demonstrate the problems with your theory and create a controversy where none exists in the professional community. Tha analogy holds.
2.) Agreed. But the point of science is not confirm or deny God's and aliens, but to figure how things work according to known processes that can be observed and demonstrated - like natural selection acting on variation, or like moving large stones with simple tools.
glovergj 2 years ago
Do you know you're on pharyngula? Well done.
Balabaw2 2 years ago 2
Uh, that's cool - I guess. Myers would probably like my other one about "ID vs. Alien Intervention" better.
glovergj 2 years ago
It isn't a false analogy; There's no evidence for god, and no evidence for alien interference with human history.
And of course there's no god, that's something that backwards, childish people believe in.
Zamboro 2 years ago 2
Oh wow! What assertion. Pity about the proof though.
If just saying something into existence were an olympic sport, you'd come trailing as the janitor was sweeping the stadium.
TheModestAgnostic 2 years ago 2
Nice video, thanks for posting.
adamredwine 2 years ago
I'm loving these videos, Gordon. Keep 'em coming.
ryanshmyan 2 years ago
Dawkins already believes that aliens are a real possiblility. I am not surprise that the Darwinians would want to also include alien indoctrination now.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Dawkins already believes that aliens are a real possiblility."
This is simply a disgraceful lie, put about by dishonest anti-evolutionists who obviously don't understand English, as he said no such thing in that mendacious piece of propaganda "Expelled."
peehead99 2 years ago
Haven't you heard of SETI. The Darwinians have been looking for aliens for awhile now. Dawkins simly joined the club. The reason they believe in aliens is because the conditions on ancient earth do not support abiogenesis occuring.
I am surprised you are not aware of this. All knowledgeable Darwinians believe in aliens and that is the whole purpose of SETI.
I think the guy that made the video should do another making fun of Darwinians.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
SETI has nothing to do with origin of life research. Dawkins does not think aliens had anything to do with life on earth. All he said was that in his view if we accept the premise of intelligent design (which he doesn't) then it would be more likely that the designer of life on earth was an alien, that was the result of a prior evolutionary process elsewhere in the cosmos, than a deity. That is all he said.
And by the way, origin of life researchers don't agree with you - watch?v=YrMuFpGlcpk
peehead99 2 years ago 2
Darwinians started SETI. They are right now looking for aliens. I guess you have to deny facts in order to be a Darwinian apologist.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
apologist? Only religions have apologists, the rest of us have scientists. We don't need someone to make up an answer that fits the conclusion we want; we look at what actually happens and draw the conclusions to which the evidence points.
adamredwine 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinianism is a religion. There is no evidence to support the idea that the creation created itself and desgined itself. In addition, there is no evidence that life came from non-life. These are all believed by faith by Darwinians.
The fact is now Darwinians are out looking for aliens. Sagan started SETI along with a few others. In addition, Dawkins had admitted that aliens exist.
Darwinians already believe in aliens so the whole point in the video is mute.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Indeed, this video appears to be using one branch of mainstream science to mock another branch of mainstream science while attempting to mock intelligent design.
It's either the worst strawman argument video ever made or just really funny! I think it's both!
groundhog0339 2 years ago
Uhh... thanks, I think...
glovergj 2 years ago
Even if there were such a thing as "Darwinianism," it wouldn't be a religion. There is, in fact, mountains of evidence that abiogenisis occurred and the evolution is the process by which organisms developed. If you were at all interested in understanding why the vast majority of people who actually know something about science accept evolution, you could pick up a textbook and read about the evidence yourself.
adamredwine 2 years ago 6
Whether or not the same process that lead to the development of intelligent life on this planet also occurred on some other planet is fairly irrelevant. You seem to think that if you can show that there are some people who accept evolution accept that it might have happened elsewhere you show them all to be stupid. Guess what, my mother and her sister are both young earth creationist Christians and both believe in aliens. Does that make all creationists stupid?
adamredwine 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If a person believes something for which we do not have evidence, then they cannot be considered rational. Dawkins believes in aliens as well as Sagan so they cannot be rational since we have no evidence of these things.
Darwinian evolution has never demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome so Darwinian evolution is merely a theory that has never been demonstrated.
We do know that variations take place due to lost of information in the Genome; however, no new information
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"If a person believes something for which we do not have evidence, then they cannot be considered rational. "
Wow, you just threw all of your fellow Christians, including me, under the bus. Nice going.
"Darwinian evolution has never demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome so Darwinian evolution is merely a theory that has never been demonstrated. "
Lie. I can think of several instances where this has been demonstrated. Trichromatic vision is just one example.
glovergj 2 years ago
"We do know that variations take place due to lost of information in the Genome; however, no new information."
We? So you work in the field of molecular genetics? If you did, then you are either woefully ignorant on the subject, or a blatant liar. Everytime a gene duplicates itself, it adds new information. Several features can be traced back to gene duplication where the new gene is slightly modified to create a nevel function. This is just one example of how a genome can add new info.
glovergj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would love to see the mapping of the Genome showing a new Gene being added if you have it. I know you don't...LOL
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I assume you can use google.
glovergj 2 years ago
New genes are added all the time, its a common occurrence.
edwardv54 2 years ago 4
Dawkins said that aliens were the most reasonable way in which intelligent design could be even remotely plausible. He does NOT believe this is what happened.
Carl Sagan thought it was probable that there were aliens. That is different from saying that there are aliens.
"information [can't] be added to the Genome"
You aren't paying attention. Gene duplication. Look it up. Point insertion. Look it up. Those are two ways in which there can be information added to genomes.
Bozeman42 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinians are all involved in a religion as a result. They believe in Nature creating and designing itself. They believe that life came from non-life, they believe in aliens and they als believe in evolution which is something else we have no evidence for.
Darwinians are not rational at all. They simply have a blind belief system that lack any evidence at all to support it. It is merely another unsupported religion like Islam and Buddhism.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I know you think that when you grab a talking point from a Christian website, it must be true. But you have no idea what you're talking about, and you have obviously never investigated these things for yourself. Or if you have, you are just as guilty of intentionally lying as AiG, ICR, RTB and the DI.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have entire video serious about this, starting with #10 if you care to educate yourself. If not, then go try your talking point on another site.
glovergj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution in order to be true who have to demonstrate that life comes from non-life. It also has to demostrate that information can be added to the Genome. Both of these things have no evidence.
Christianity on the other hand has the empirically verified resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christians at least have evidence Darwinians still have no evidence.
The human genome has 250 unique genes not shared by lower species. There is no ladder to humanity in the genome.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I find it amazing that you can possibly claim that other people are irrational for claiming that something might have happened because it is similar to something that we know happened. The fact that similar things can happen under similar circumstances isn't evidence enough for you, yet you hold beliefs entirely contrary to demonstrated evidence.
It's really not much fun to argue with someone who knows so little about what evolution actually is. Go learn something about it before you dis it.
adamredwine 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The mapping of the Genome is demonstrating that species are unique as well as having commonalities.
We have both a common designer and we also know that unique genes exist.
All genes on the evolutionary model would have to develop. For instance, the gene that built the eye would have to be added. This is new information added to the Genome.
Darwinians have never demonstrated that new information can be added to the Genome. Mutations always result in the loss of information.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Firstly, that you seem to think there is a single "gene that built the eye" demonstrates how woefully uneducated you are on the subject. Secondly, a great many researchers (regardless of their views of Darwin or his theories) have in fact demonstrated that "new information" can be added to the genome.
Since you seem to think you know so much about the issue, why don't you tell me where nylonase came from?
adamredwine 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nylonase is the result of a mutation that removed information from the Genome. It did not add. In fact, it has never been demonstrated that information can be added to the Genome.
The human genome for instance has 250 unique genes. There is no ladder from a lower species to humanity. In fact, you can't tell the difference between races so there is also no ladder even with the race of man.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance... doesn't that get old?
There have been several studies of nylonase evolution but it seems as though the group of enzymes appeared as the result of a frame shift followed by a duplication. If this isn't "new information" I don't know what is. Actually, I don't know what is either way because creationists stubbornly refuse to define their terms (usually the first step for real scientists). I guess that makes it harder to keep moving the goals.
adamredwine 2 years ago 6
"250 unique genes"? Who's butt did you pull that number out of? I think you don't even know what a gene is. A gene is the smallest unit of heredity; in most species this corresponds to a segment of DNA or RNA. Notice that word segment. When cells undergo duplication, the DNA splits down the middle to be copied. The base pairs fill in one by one, not in chunks of genes. Occasionally there is a copy error that leads to things like nylonase.
adamredwine 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Genes create proteins in life that determine their characteristics. You should know that.
Here is an example. Mice have 13,500 genes. Humans have 25,000 specific genes. In order for mice to become humans, you have to add thousands of new genes. A mututation only takes information away, it never adds information to the gene pool.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I do know that the coding for the production of proteins is stored in the genetic code. What you don't seem to get is that there isn't a physical block of "stuff" that you could put on a slide under a microscope and say that's "a gene." That's just not the way it works. Trying to identify "a gene" is like trying to identify "a molecule" in a salt crystal. To say that there are "25,000 specific genes" in anything is patently absurd.
adamredwine 2 years ago 4
Quite apart from your evident lack of comprehension of basic genetics, it is completely untrue to say that mutations "never add information." Firstly, you have never, despite a direct request, defined what you mean by the word "information." Until you do so, any statement you make regarding "information" is ill-defined and thus indefensible in any rigorous sense.
adamredwine 2 years ago 5
So you think God physically reached down from heaven about 65 million years ago (the start of mamailian radiation) and started adding genes? So if God can only do this via a miracle, then why did God design all primates with a mouse GULO gene (the gene that creates the last of 3 enzymes used to synthesize vitamin C) with a built-in point mutation that makes it unintelligible? The primate GULO gene, like everything else in biology, only makes sense in terms of evolution.
glovergj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science has already confirmed that that universe had a beginning. We also know that God can do miracles such as create a universe. When Jesus turned water into wine, it was aged wine. It is consistent.
On top of that, the resurrection has been empirically confirmed so the miracle of creation, the miralce of life and the miracles of the resurrection are all acts of God.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Science has already confirmed that that universe had a beginning."
It has confirmed that there is a point in time before which we know nothing. There is a difference.
"We also know that God can do miracles such as create a universe. When Jesus turned water into wine, it was aged wine. It is consistent."
What? We KNOW god can do miracles? How do we know that?
"the resurrection has been empirically confirmed"
That's news to me! Where can I see this research?
Bozeman42 2 years ago 6
Secondly, if, by information, you mean the ability to code for the production of previously unseen proteins (which is the most sensible definition in this context), than you have already admitted that such mutations occur in the appearance of nylonase. Since you seem to think that the appearance of novel proteins in this case was the result of "removing information" from the genome, I assume that you are refering to the hypothesis that the mutation was the result of a frame shift.
adamredwine 2 years ago 4
If you accept that frame shift occurs, and provide this as an example of "lost information," what do you call the mutation known as duplication? Duplication mutations have been demonstrated in controlled experiments. Is this not "new information?"
Sloppy thinking and sloppy definitions go together. Define your terms, then we might get somewhere.
One last question. Where does all of the "information" about the position and velocity of each raindrop come from?
adamredwine 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Duplications is simply the addition of the same information. There is no new information added.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
No new information added with duplication?
If you add 'the same information' then you change the copy, what do you call that compared to where you were before the duplication?
You have the information that was there before. AND you have... information that was not there before. NEW INFORMATION. Even by your lame definition of information.
Think a little bit. Please.
Bozeman42 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't seem to understand evolution. Evolution says that information was slowly over a period of millions of years.
You have to demonstrate that information can be added to the Genome. You have to demonstrate that a single gene can expand to 4,000,000 genes such as we have in the Ameoba.
Can you imagine 4,000,000 genes simply coming into existence all by itself even with billions of years?
It is rationally impossible
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Since I'm corresponding with you primarily for the benefit of others who might read this, rather than ask you again to define the term "information," I'd simply like to point out that you have still not defined your terms. To those readers, this avoidance likely indicates that zdenny is simply parroting creationist talking points, which also never define their terms.
adamredwine 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA works just like a computer program. The different genes create proteins that inform different characteristics. For example, genes can determine the bone structure, eye color, brain parts, etc... Each part has a protein that builds the part in the body. DNA is like the blueprint for the body that directs the construction of the characteristics in the body. Even Darwinians talk about it as a type of language that has to be interpreted.
Pretty simple concept.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Even Darwinians talk about it as a type of language that has to be interpreted."
... No. It's a chemical. There are chemical reactions that always produce the same products. The inputs to these reactions can be affected by changes in the environment. There is no more "interpretation" in protein construction than there is in the combining of sodium and chlorine into table salt.
FreePlay 2 years ago 2