Sorry my friends @HunchbackJack and @Casshyr, I will not respond to your posts anymore. I'm getting tired. Once I did a bit of research just now, I realize I could be wasting more time arguing with both of you fine people. Have a nice day.
@Casshyr I have smtg to say: if u use bioinfo to prove evolution, it has no value, still historical science, but if ToE is used in bioinfo to predict evolutionary pathway and timescale of change from a specie to another, then ToE can make scientific discoveries.
@archilles1195 "f ToE is used in bioinfo to predict evolutionary pathway and timescale of change from a specie to another, then ToE can make scientific discoveries" => it is. I just told you, an evolutionary tree contains not just the divergence pattern, but also the estimated time between species. All this information is fed into algorithm that can utilize this to make comparative analysis, such as RNA structures or protein domains.
@archilles1195 "Have they used this model to predict present microbes and how it'd evolve in the future?" => predicting presence of microbes involve matching their sequenced genome and assigning it to their taxonomic groups based on genomic comparison. This is usually done with ribosomal DNA. In this specific task, ToE is not necessarily required, but the taxonomic bins that we assign organisms to are in the end still derived based on a family tree assumption.
@Casshyr OK, you still don't answer my question. Never mind that. Let's talk smtg relevant to this video. Euglena has light sensitive spot and 6 hr is considered 1 generation. In 100 yrs, one euglena will have over 100k generations. I have no idea how long the species of Euglena has been around. According to Dawkins, it takes 364,000 years, my question is, why can't you OBSERVE any population of Euglena to evolve some dimpled eyes (2nd step) that has better acuity, like Dawkins postulated?
@archilles1195 Your question is basically asking "why doesn't simple micro-organisms evolve into more complex creatures". This is a question already addressed in "Greatest Show on Earth", so for more details I suggest you go read it. And of course, peer-reviewed scientific literatures cited in that book would ultimately be the sources you should go to. I'm not an expert on this issue, but i can give you a gist of what i understand, altho i don't guarantee the following to be 100% correct: (cont)
@archilles1195 Bacteria remain bacteria because they have become adapted to their environment. They are very good at doing what they do, and they feel no selection to become more complex. For example, how would gaining a complex eye be good for euglena? It's already very good at doing what it does, growing an eye, for all we know, could just be a waste of energy. In the past, there were no creatures with such eye, so it would be an advantage to have it. But now a lot of species have this trait
@Casshyr "how would gaining a complex eye be good for euglena?" Dude, they use this evidence for evolution of visual systems. "they feel no selection to become more complex", hmm this sentence sounds really weird. Dude, there are a lot of mutations. If a change in selective pressures favored a dimpled eyespot with a slight increase in visual acuity, this population will be selected for, and euglena with eye patch will slowly phased out. You guess too much, it's not science.
@archilles1195 An euglena with a complex eye...how is that going to be useful? It takes a lot of energy to produce a complex eye, and given that a lot of other species already have complex eye, you tell me, how is having one going to be any better than not having one? Nature doesn't work on individual complexity, you need to look at the environment.
@Casshyr You are contradicting yourself time and time again. You know what you are doing right now is defending, pushing dogma with no actual science? This is too much assumption. Do you know scientists have studied evolution in microbes and fruit flies which have fast mutation rate and observable thousands of generations (equivalent to million of years of human evolution), simulated in controlled lab? In evolution, it seems something that works well on papers won't work in real life test.
@archilles1195 "Do you know scientists have studied evolution in microbes and fruit flies which have fast mutation rate and observable thousands of generations (equivalent to million of years of human evolution)" => of course, but not as to seeing a new complex eye forming! All the mutations observed concern molecular issues such as a novel gene, a new regulatory site, a new biochemical role...etc. You are asking for a new eye! lol...
@Casshyr You did realize that I mentioned fruit flies, one of the rapidly reproducing organisms, didn't you? So it was clear that I was not asking for new eyes, but the capability to create novelty in controlled lab environment. The induced mutation by exposing to radiation and chemicals, hoping to get beneficial mutation that can form new or better species. It didn't happen.
@archilles1195 "Dude, they use this evidence for evolution of visual systems." => yes, back when NOBODY had a complex eye yet! If you are the first to achieve this, you hold great selection advantage! I'll give you an analogy: if a monkey starts evolving intelligence like us, would that monkey be at an advantage? No, because us humans already have it and we dominate over them. As long as humans are present in their enviornment, evolving human-like intelligence isn't good for the monkeys!
@archilles1195 A lot of species have this trait, so the advantage of having it is no longer significant! Do you see what I'm getting at?
of course, you can always argue, oh this is all just guesses, not science. But actually, a large part of science is indeed making educated guesses, based on the evidence at hand. If you doubt the guesses, then i suggest you go read peer-review literature and see what scientists are saying. Don't just take my word for it!
@archilles1195 "Variants in human beings? Wow, they evolve into what now?" => of course still humans. If you ever see a human evolving into something non-human that is observable within a human lifespan, let me know, that's evidence AGAINST evolution.
@Casshyr "Within a human lifespan", well let me ask you something, is evolving into being resistant to HIV, in any way, creates new genes, or just sorting existing genes? If it is not, that this example should not use as a proof for evolution. It's interesting to know some humans have become resistant to HIV, but I just wonder the mechanism of natural selection in this case. How would these mutant humans be selected for?
@archilles1195 "well let me ask you something, is evolving into being resistant to HIV, in any way, creates new genes, or just sorting existing genes?" => in this case, it's re-arranging + a bit of deletion of existing genes. If you want novel genes, look up the studies on drosophila. Novel genes have been observed mostly via gene duplication, but de novo mutations that lead to novel genes are a fact too. Formation of novel genes is not theory, it's a fact.
@Casshyr This is one example you confused that evolution really takes place with organism being resistant to HIV. This is microevolution, resistance to HIV add no new information to the genes in any ways, just shuffle and sort existing genes. The key issue is, to change microbes into multicellular organisms requires changes that increase the genetic information content. If you still insist in present microevolution as proof of evolution, there's no ending, I'll end the conversation.
@archilles1195 "increase the genetic information content" => lol wait, you can't just end the conversation when you obviously didn't understand my posts. Genetic information increase DOES occur. I already told you novel genes do get formed, and this occur as a fact. So let me ask you: if new genes can indeed get formed, so what's stopping one species to evolve into another kind, given enough time?
@Casshyr Dude, don't give me the god of gap crap "given enough time"... I have mentioned time and time again, if they are to see one species turn into another, they would have witnessed it on microbes that they have studied since 1900s, long time ago. The environment conducive to random mutation and natural selection was replicated. Sorry, no new genes. Evolutionists, like you, won't admit no matter what. Look nice on papers, failed in the test.
@archilles1195 "if they are to see one species turn into another, they would have witnessed it on microbes that they have studied since 1900s, long time ago." => No, thats your laymen interpretation of evolution. If microbes can evolve so fast in 100 years, the whole family tree would be wrong. Evolution theory actually precisely states you WON'T see microbes turning to something non-microbe in just within 100 years.
@archilles1195 "don't give me the god of gap crap "given enough time"" => i'm sorry,but i wasn't under the impression you are skilled in radiometric dating or geological columns to override the mainstream conclusions from current experts lol. And no, i'm not an atheist, is imply don't agree with creationism, so of course my arguments would be similar to an atheist. If we are talking about existence of God, then my arguments would differ from atheists.
@archilles1195 and btw, you should look up a new article on yeast published in Nature just ~2 months ago, demonstrating the changes in yeast culture as they acquire characteristics that shift them from unicellular organism to multicelluar.
I think in the end, your primary antagonism towards evolution is simply your interpretation/religion of God. Our initial discussion + your downright hostile attitude when you thought i was an atheist point that very clearly.
@Casshyr Dude, that yeast issue has not been resolved and highly debated among the scientists, especially the type of yeast used in the culture that proved "multicellularity". You should read more, although I felt stupid for doing a bit of research over a debate on YouTube. You maybe an agnostic, but your argument strongly indicated you don't believe in God, which makes you an atheist.
@archilles1195 "but I just wonder the mechanism of natural selection in this case. How would these mutant humans be selected for?" => it's interesting to see the HIV-resistant variant is most heavily observed in African prostitutes (i.e. those most likely to get AIDS). Again, you can see natural selection pressure at work, where if pressure is there, the mutation is most strongly selected for, compared to say..population in US where AIDS is not as prevalent.
@archilles1195 sry to spam, but i should say we have very few observed examples of novel genes for humans because we don't know all the human genome yet. Sure, human genome project is complete, but annotation of those genomic regions r not even close. Based on our current knowledge, when we see a new gene, we can't decide if this is due to evolution, or merely there all along. So if you ask "show me a novel gene in human via evolution", no we can't yet because our genome isn't fully mapped yet.
@Casshyr We don't know, we are not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
@Casshyr We don't know, we are not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
@Casshyr We don't know, not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
@archilles1195 and FYI, you are again doing what i tell you not to do: taking the words of me (an amateur) and forgetting to read up the actual peer-reviewed literature. Everything I told you is cited from peer-reviewed literature. It is your responsibility to read it up yourself. If you don't bother to read them, then why bother asking questions? Asking questions without expecting to take the time to learn the responses is not only rude, dishonest, and also a waste of both you and my time.
@archilles1195 As to how it'll evolve in the future, yes, ToE is important for that. I already provided you literature on that, maybe you should go read that up first, and then read up some more on google scholar or pubmed. I'm not your professor spoon-feeding you information lol. Unless you don't know how to use google, it's all there. I gave you an example to help you start.
@Casshyr Evolutionists use to say that evolution is a continuous process. Can you use your bioinformatics to predict what creature would platypus diverge to and when will it start to diverge?
@archilles1195 "Can you use your bioinformatics to predict what creature would platypus diverge to and when will it start to diverge?" => that would be a bit too far-fetch, but what we can predict is if platypus is in any danger of going to extinction, when it is going to extinct, and also what traits of it is making it go extinct.
But most importantly, we can predict what species platypus evolved from, and from there, harness the power of comparative genomics (ex. look for homologs).
@Casshyr So you said 95% of scientists subscribe to ToE. OK, if I'm one of them, I'll do the same thing, and it's not hard to find the reason why. If any scientist openly rejects evolution, what other "scientific" theory can he offer? He also risks his career, his rice bowl. This theory is weak because it has no competiting theories, so it must be true no matter what. I can't quote dr Richard Lewontin here, but what he said makes perfect sense.
@archilles1195 I personally know 5 creationists with PhD in life science, spanning workplaces either with pharmaceutical companies, oncology research, biology professor...etc, and they ALL say there's no pressure to be an evolutionist. The idea is to keep your creationistic belief to yourself, but you don't lose your job simply for being a creationist LOL
Isn't it sad that a man of Dawkins stature can provide such a simple, dumbed-down explanation for the evolution of the eye - and you STILL get dumbass Christians going "Yeah, but how did the EYE evolve!?" in the comments of the actual video? Yeah but how did light sensitive cells evolve? How did the optic nerve evolve? How did the brain evolve? How did... Hey guys, if you really are too stupid to understand, if it's all complicated? Get a new hobby, maybe a subject less threatening to you?
@bigglyguy The way to accept Dawkins's explanation blindly without questioning a bit is beyond me. It's not that the questions are too stupid, or we are too stupid to understand? It's you who are stupid because you can't provide good logical answers. OK since you don't know and started calling other people stupid, just show me some good articles (on the internet) or videos (on YouTube) on evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex.
@archilles1195 The thing is, it's not Dawkins's explanation. He is just explaining it. It seems to me in religious circles someone makes something up & people either believe it or not. Science doesn't work that way. If someone comes up with something it is researched & needs supporting evidence before it becomes an accepted theory. Dawkins is simply explaining how eyes evolved. It is not his opinion or an idea that just popped into his head.
@archilles1195 it is not just Dawkins explanation. It is explanation given by 95% (more like 99% if you only look at life scientists) of today's scientific community. Of course you can always say "they are wrong, the remaining 5% are right!". Sure, go nuts. But i have yet to see any scientific breakthrough coming from scientists who do creation research.
@Casshyr Dude, stop with this anti-creationists crap, I've seen you brought it up in almost all your posts. This video attempted to evolution of eyes, not disprove creationism.
@archilles1195 I will stop when creationists learn to keep their filthy religion to themselves. Being a science major myself, you can't expect me to just lay back and let them pollute science!
And btw, i only attack creationists who misquote science. If they go "i believe in my Bible over man-made science", then i leave them alone cuz those are delusional beyond help.
@Casshyr Dude, you, time and time again, contradict yourself. Here you said 5 creationists that you know believe in ToE (I assume to be Christians) and you respect those religious people, then you come back bashing religion with such word as "filthy". "Let them pollute science", what are you smoking man? Science is a larger enterprise, evolution is only a small portion of it. Creationists don't reject science, they reject only the theory of evolution. It's different. Comprende?
@archilles1195 their rejection is based on many false assumptions:
1) That their Bible is correct, by prior default
2) Interpretation of scientific evidence that is not part of peer-reviewed journals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but only information from peer-review journals count as actual scientific information. There's a reason why we have peer-review process.
@Casshyr Peer-review processes are extremely bias towards the ID's. If you disagree, you are a liar. So what would you expect if you give your journals to be reviewed by scientists who already made up their minds that evolution is true? Rejection of course. It's commonsense.
@archilles1195 oh jeez, mr. scientist, i didn't know you were part of a scientific review committee in peer-review to know it is bias! I didn't know you have submitted articles before! Wow, may i know what position you held in such committee, what articles you have submitted/published?
Oh wait...u don't have any?? LOL then maybe you shouldn't commit how how bias it is. Leave that to those who actually have been through the process, alright?
@Casshyr Dude, I've read many postings of yours and most of them attacked God and religion. Do you know, in a survey by Gallup, in the US, 45% of scientists believe in God, while the remaining 55% are atheists like you. Do you agree? Deep inside, those religious scientists, know by heart that it's not a good idea to reject openly the theory of evolution because some of their colleagues had suffered for doing so.
@archilles1195 acceptance of evolution theory has nothing to do with God. One can be both (i.e. theistic evolution). I'm not even arguing against idea of God here. And I myself am not even an atheist, so nice try.
@archilles1195 "You're not an atheist? I don't believe you at all, judging from your previous posts." => LMAO why would i deny this? if you r going to even doubt this, this discussion is over.
@Casshyr Good, I respect the fact that you believe in God for I believe it's arrogant of man to say for certainty that God does not exist. I, myself, believe only some part of the bible, not all. We may not agree with evolution, but we have one big common agreement - that something can't come from nothing. I think we should not argue further.
@archilles1195 "I think we should not argue further." => last point: i do wish u would not make claims like "peer-review is bias", because u do realize by saying this, u r calling millions of scientists frauds and liars, right? U are discrediting their role, their research, their reputation, without even bothering to meet them, or to even go through the peer-review process urself!
Surely you see the rudeness in such claim! I think you should be careful not ot jump onto that sort of gun so fast!
@Casshyr I think you should listen to Dr. Stephen C Meyer, the author of the best-selling The Signature in the Cell. He has made some solid argument on bias in peer-review processes. I'm with him, not with you at all. Read first what Stephen C Meyer wrote regarding this matter. Don't response about this issue, not until you have read what Stephen C Meyer wrote
@archilles1195 I think in the end, your bias is pretty clear. You want there to be a God who created everything as it said so in your Bible. Ur earlier attitude when you thought i was an atheist already show that. So of course you'll side with Meyer. I skimmed the paper once, but i will go back and read it some more. However, i should also ask you have you read the criticisms made by the other sides (both theistic + atheistic). It is only fair that you check them out too if you haven't already.
@Casshyr You haven't answered my question: Dawkins stated in Climbing Mt Improbable that it would take less than 364,000 yrs for a fully-formed human eyes to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Let's say it equals 20,000 generations. Can you observe the same evolution to occur in Euglena which has light sensitive patch in 100,000 of generations?
@Casshyr Let me ask you, which scientific theory that's so controversial, strongly debated among scientists, not so convincing, and mostly rejected by the public? Many schools don't teach evolution. Just name only one. Do you know, you atheists are the minority group in the US that's considered the most hated and distrusted, but here you are, together with your cohorts, lurk on the internet spreading your dogma.
@archilles1195 "Can biology progress without the theory of evolution?" => yes for some, not for all.
"Does theory of evolution contribute to the progress of science in general?" => yes, look up computational model in predicting protein structures in the field of bioinformatics. I've explained this to like...3 creationists on youtube now, i'm getting tired of repeating myself on this..go look it up yourself.
@Casshyr I just googled "branches of science" and there are over 160 branches of science, with theory being one of them. Science by definition doesn't state that if you reject theory of evolution, you reject all other branches of science. Only such lame person like you makes such weak claim. Comprende?
@archilles1195 Of course you can reject a subset of science, but what's the justification? cuz it's against my Bible, or cuz of actual scientific evidence published within peer-reviewed journals??
@Casshyr You are so stuck up with your atheistic peer-reviewed journals. ID proponents such as Stephen C Meyer, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells did make a peer reviewed but were rejected based on ID conclusions, even they make a strong case against theory of evolution. With reference to this video, please provide me a peer reviewed journal on the evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex. Dawkins didn't address this issue in Climbing Mt Improbable.
@archilles1195 I'm a big fan of Michael Behe btw, and he is a theistic evolutionist. I don't mind ppl who are theistic evolutionist, as long as they are not creationist.
@Casshyr So you're a fan of Behe, one of the most intelligent men I know. I like his idea about irreducible complexity and since you're his fan, I presume you would agree with me that IC has never been refuted, not by Ken Millers, not by Dawkins.
@archilles1195 It's IMPOSSIBLE to refute IC (nor to completely prove it), just like the idea of whether God exists or not. We can toy with ideas like this for all eternity...but in the end, no1 is 100% sure. I am a fan of Behe mostly cuz of his peer-reviewed work. I'm not so much of a fan in his proponent of IC. I am agnostic on IC. I think it may be possible, but i gotta ask you: what's the applicaiton of IC? (cont)
@archilles1195 "Why Behe and Miller (both supposedly are theistic evolutionists) have so much disagreement?" => I am not familiar with exactly what they disagree on. Got any interesting examples?
@archilles1195 Behe and Miller both believe in God, but they disagree about the mechanism of evolution.
Behe claims that certain biological structures are irreducibly complex, and are therefore evidence an intelligent agent intervened during life's development.
Miller disagrees that Behe has shown those structures to be irreducibly complex, and even if they were, that is not, in itself, sufficient evidence for intelligent intervention.
@HunchbackJack Dude, of course scientific consensus sides with Miller. He said unguided. I wanna ask you one q: Miller theorized that the components of an irreducibly complex system, individually or together, can serve a purpose other than that performed by the final system. OK, eyelid, lacrimal gland, lacrimal sac, orbital muscles, tears, blinking mechanism, optic nerves, and visual cortex must have different functions before incorporated in eyes, so can you name just one?
@archilles1195 The scientific consensus sides with Miller because Behe has not produced the evidence required to reach his conclusions from his premises. If he had, Miller would be the first to agree with his conclusions.
Secondly, not *every* structure evolved from components with independent functions; in the case of the eye, they evolved gradually over time, under different conditions, as this video shows.
In any case, Behe must demonstrate IC, not Miller disprove it.
@archilles1195 Well, it's much more than "conjecture, but it doesn't matter. Even if we had no clue how the eye evolved, that is no evidence for an intelligent agent.
Behe's claim is much stronger than "we don't know". He claims that he has identified structures which *can't* have evolved through natural selection, and therefore *must* be the product of an intelligent agent. He hasn't yet substantiated that, though, and there's no reason to accept his claims until he does.
@HunchbackJack Please answer honestly, is irreducible complexity of eyes satisfactorily addressed by Dawkins? and is irreducible complexity of blood clotting successfully addressed by Miller? Watch how Miller tried to refute IC of blood clotting on YouTube, it's full with logical fallacy.
@archilles1195 No one has yet demonstrated that the eye or that blood clotting *are* irreducibly complex. Until that is done, there is nothing to refute.
Even so, the process of eye evolution through natural selection that Dawkins describes in this video is quite compelling. The expanded descriptions he gives in "Climbing Mount Improbable", and in the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures are even more so.
@HunchbackJack Quite compelling? No, he purposely avoided the subject of visual cortex and optic nerves, in this video, and in Climbing Mount Improbable.
@HunchbackJack Something for you to ponder: If brain evolved before the eye, brain would have wasted time, growth, and resources on something not usable. If brain evolved after the eye means the eye's function is not immediately usable, so cannot be an advantage. If the brain and optic nerves evolved at the same time with eyes, can you expect it to occur repeatedly in all multicellular organisms on earth?
@archilles1195 "If the brain and optic nerves evolved at the same time with eyes ..."
I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that this is the case. Our complex visual mechanism evolved from a much simpler visual mechanism, all the way back to a very simple one. The components we see today did not appear as is, one at a time.
"... can you expect it to occur repeatedly in all multicellular organisms on earth?"
Yes, because it doesn't take long, and life is old.
@archilles1195 Incidentally, by "occur repeatedly", I don't mean that eyes evolved separately in every animal. Given the survival advantage that vision - even very poor vision - would impart on an animal, it likely evolved relatively early. So I'd expect that whatever animal all mammals evolved from would have already had eyes, for example.
Having said that, it seems that eyes of different kinds have evolved completely independently a number of times in life's history.
@HunchbackJack I appreciate your effort to explain but you offer nothing about the evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex. Talkorigins, Dawkins, and Millers never touched did subject in details, I wonder why... can I call them all dishonest? You should watch "evolve: eyes part 1 to 5" and you'll see what I mean. The visual system as a whole is what must be explained.
@archilles1195 Well, again, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how the optic nerve evolved. I could speculate that it was a specialization of cells from an existing nervous system - a touch-sensitive nerves gradually changing into light-sensitive nerves, for example - but there's little reason for you to accept my guesses.
We may not know yet. If so, personally, that does not undermine my acceptance of evolution as the process by which species evolved. (cont.)
@archilles1195 (cont.) You might call that faith, but I consider it reasoning. If evolution can explain how a light-sensitive patch evolved into the cornea, lens, pupil and retina, I don't see any reason not to expect that we will find an explanation for the optic nerve - nor to think that the other explanations are invalid in the absence of that finding.
Evolution is a process; I don't need an explanation of how every facet of life evolved to accept or understand it. (cont2.)
@HunchbackJack You don't realize you've been brainwashed and indoctrinated. Can't you even look at the scientific arguments from the other side, and consider if they make sense? There are resources that can be understood just like the pro-evolutionary resources. I'm very suspicious that evolutionary scientists have no clue at all about the evolution of optic nerves and cortex, that's why they avoided discussing at all about it, just google if you can find just one paper talking about it.
@archilles1195 Nor do I think I'm "brainwashed". I haven't accepted evolutionary theory without evidence. Nor do I accept it unconditionally. If a competing theory is more complete, and has more explanatory power than evolution through natural selection, then I'll prefer it.
ID is not that theory, however. It is predicated on a problem - IC - that has not been demonstrated to exist, and it introduces a solution - an intelligent agent - more mysterious than the problem.
@HunchbackJack Talkorigins, wikipedia, evowiki, Dawkins, Millers, they all never described visual system as a whole. Ignoring the main problem won't make it go away. You should read what Behe wrote about light sensitive cell and its complexity. It's not as simple as evolutionists want you to believe. In documentary "Eye Evolve", it said "the scientists still don't know how light sensitive cell evolved", and ignore the problem completely. Evolutionists are satisfied, my curios mind is not.
@archilles1195 Well, I'm not sure anyone's "ignoring" anything. If we don't yet know how the optic nerve evolved, then there's not much to say other than "we don't know". If it's really a problem for the theory as a whole, then I'm sure biologists also consider it an important question.
But again, my acceptance of evolutionary theory does not depend on there being a definitive answer to this particular problem, given how much more the theory *can* explain - even about the eye.
@archilles1195 To use an analogy, I accept that the operation of addition works on all numbers. If someone asked me if it works for numbers running to over 1000 decimal places, I would say yes, even though I've never added such numbers or seen them added.
If someone produced numbers that could not be added, then I would change my stance on addition. If someone produces life that can be *shown* to be IC, I'll agree that natural selection is not enough. Until then, both stand.
@archilles1195 If I have a novel virus infecting the human T-cell, does saying "God designed this" going to help me develop the drug to fight this? Being an IC or ID proponent brings me no closer to actually solving this scientific problem!
@Casshyr Dude, Goddidit can't solve or help develop anything, but what's your point? Theory of evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, can't solve anything at all as well. We believe in microevolution, which is an observable and testable phenomena, not what Darwin mainly proposed (the origin of species) which is macroevolution. Ask any physicians whether they used Darwinian evolution in their research to develop drugs.
@archilles1195 Many pharmaceutical companies use computational model to predict protein structures, and the top performing model rely on an evolutionary model that assumes species share common ancestry. This is a demonstrable benefit of evolution theory, regardless of whether evolution is true or not.
I earlier asked you to look this up, but you obviously didn't. Now i took the time to explain it to you.
@Casshyr Dude, they used the term "evolutionary model" because of the presumption that the mechanism of evolution has been at work and will continue to work the same way. having said that, I can use the argument "creation model" because the designer will use the same basic blueprint over and over, even in totally unrelated organisms. Actually, the ToE plays no role at all, it's only historical science, they just mention in desperate attempt to prove that it contributes something to science.
@archilles1195 It's an evolutionary model because the model accepts an alignment of protein sequences as input, and it assumes these are related in a family tree as described by evolution. This tree is then traversed using algorithms like Felsenstein. IF evolution is wrong, you would expect this model to perform poorly, because any model that makes false assumption would not have a good performance. But that is not what we see.
@archilles1195 No, under a creation model, there's no such thing as homolog or paralog. You cannot use information from other species because everything is unrelated and you cannot predict which creatures would possess the same blueprint, and also you cannot assess their divergence rate. A creation model would at best borrow information from micro-evolution, which would still fall under evolution theory.
@Casshyr Since you said the computational power of bioinformatics can predict the divergence rate of species, can you use bioinformatics to predict the divergence rate of any present microbes? Has the result of prediction published in any peer-reviewed journals?
@archilles1195 Many articles have been published studying the presence divergence of micro-organisms and using that to infer how they will diverge for a given environment! See Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 564–575 as merely 1 tiny example. In fact, this is even the basis in ecology in the design of protection programs for endangered species!
@Casshyr Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. I was just curious, according to Dawkins, it could take less than 50,000 generations to evolve from light sensitive patch to camera eyes. Can you predict by using any statistical or mathematical model, the evolution of light sensitive patch of euglena to camera eyes? If it's scientific, it can be repeated, right?
@archilles1195 Where did he say the 50,000 generations? I like to see the full context, since generation varies depending on what species you are talking about, and also "camera eyes" is not a scientific term, it could mean many different stages of eye evolution. I would like to see the whole context, if it's there, before making a comment.
@Casshyr "considering the small marine animals’ in which this camera eye would evolve generation length of (≈) 1 year, the eye would take but, roughly, 364,000 years – less than half-a-million years"
@archilles1195 "roughly, 364,000 years – less than half-a-million years"" => ok, i found the exact scientific article that shows how that number is calculated. It is in "10.1098/rspb.1994.0048 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 22 April 1994 vol. 256 no. 1345 53-58". You should go read it if you truly want to know. Simply throwing out questions without bothering to read the information explaining it is both rude and a waste of both u and my time.
@Casshyr That's the quote from Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. (Viking: London). And he did mention "camera eye", too long, I can't quote here.
@archilles1195 and there's no point presenting any evidence about optic nerves if you are going to cast doubt on peer-review literature. Until we can agree on this, this discussion goes nowhere.
@Casshyr You are another evolutionist who failed to provide me with at least a peer reviewed journal on optic nerves and visual cortex. Another failed evolutionist (who claimed he has PhD as well) was @Craigmw45.
@Casshyr Justification? Look, by looking at the explanation in this video alone, there are more questions than answers (unless you chose to accept it blindly). Dawkins stated in Climbing Mt Improbable that it would take less than 364,000 yrs for a fully-formed human eyes to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Let's say it equals 20,000 generations. Can you observe the same evolution to occur in Euglena which has light sensitive patch in 100,000 of generations?
@Casshyr Last time I discussed this issue with one of your atheist friends (Bang Goes the Theory, unfortunately it got deleted) and he consistently stressed that there are hundreds of peer reviewed journals on eyes evolution, and when I asked him to provide only one journal that discuss the optic nerve and visual cortex, he gave me one a totally irrelevant journal, and disappeared forever. Don't be like him.
@MrTheblackmessenger I would suggest you present your evidences of evolution of light sensitive cells (extracted from thousands of peer reviewed journals) to the scientists who made the documentary so that they won't say something that funny anymore. But call them stupid first for ignoring thousands of journals before making a documentary that will be watched by millions.
@MrTheblackmessenger "Scientists do not know how the light sensitive cells evolved"... Dude, you obviously didn't read my previous posts. I didn't make this statement, I merely quoted from the 45-min documentary "Evolve: Eyes" shown on Nat Geo. Go watch the video (pt 1-5), it's on YouTube, and go laugh at them, not me, understand?
bigglyguy PM's me, calls me names and then blocks me. What a coward! Take a look at his contradictory reasoning.
"You know it's not random, it's selection, including sexual, you know it only requires steps for us to see how it could happen etc etc."
"Each step does not HAVE to be an advantage, just not a serious disadvantage."
So according to bigglyguy, RANDOM mutations don't need to be selected by natural selection as long as they are not a serious disadvantage, but it's still not random.
Dorkins showed about 5 or so different designs for eyes. Right at the end the girl said it is estimated that it only took about 400 000 generations to reach a human eye. 399995/400000 X 100 = 99.99875% speculation. So to believe the human eye evolved from nothing you just need 99.99875% faith and the remaining 0.00125% is pure evidence. Evolution is pseudoscience.
Now this might get a little tricky if you are lacking in intelligence, but at 4:10 the girls says SHE can see the "A". So SHE can see the "A" because SHE has her eye wired up to her brain. This step misses a whole heap of necessary equipment that had to evolve simulataneously for the organism to take advantage of this "pin whole camera". Those missing steps are not mentioned not even give to us as someones imagination, it's up to the evo's imagination to fill in the gaps, that is called faith.
OK, after wading through about 4 or 5 pages of "discussion" it is clear this video has a handful of trolls. They are NOT attempting actual debate, merely attempting to muddy the waters by pretending that the subject is debatable. It is not; the debate was over a long time ago. This video is to show the basics of how, not to argue if the eye did evolve or not, BECAUSE WE KNOW IT DID. No is no point in feeding or entertaining the trolls any further.
@bigglyguy You are delusional. You take a few different DESIGNS of eyes and SPECULATE that there are even steps in between the different desgns that could come about by random directionless mutations, to end up at a much more complex design. Making statements like "over a long period of time", is not science. that is spectulation. Evolution is pseudoscience.
@archilles1195 what is wrong with you? i told you i was getting a PhD i didn't say i have one already. but you see, even after getting it i will still have a lot to learn even in my field which is neurology.I'm actually preparing to present my thesis in may i can invite u if you want. I'm sometimes bored that's why i come here to have some fun because it's really funny to know that there are still people out there dismissing the Darwinian theory of evolution.
@MrTheblackmessenger Sorry dude, on the internet, you can claim anything you want to be and there's no way for me to know your actual credentials unless you provide some validations, which of course you can't. There are so many self-proclaimed experts on YouTube who claimed, based on their "credentials", they are right and everyone else disagreed with them is wrong. Neurology? Wow I never know it's coming?
@archilles1195 i told i can send you and invitation to come my presentation in two month, or a link to show you what I'm working on? but you can still disagree , i have got nothing to prove. i normally don't speak English , i do it only on internet or for my studies. it's strange to me that you seem to think that the fact that somebody has a PhD makes him an expert , most of people i know or work with have a PhD but they don't know everything.
@MrTheblackmessenger Haha have you no shame at all? I thought by saying "BYE", that's the end of conversation, and you'll ignore me. Obviously you can't get enough of me LOL.
"The scientists still do not know how and why light sensitive cell evolved" just go to sciencemag or nature and search for"evolution of the eye" and see the results yourself but if that's not enough you can still go to pubmed or scientific american ,those are some of the most peer reviewed journals in the world today but if you want to keep deluding yourself you can still go to answeringenesis,but u'll be laugh at every time u say sth this funny.
@TrueMetis OK since scientists know that life is simply organic chemistry and arranging amino acids in right sequence can produce life, why don't they simulate this in lab? This result will be far more convincing than producing life's building block in reducing atmosphere and continuous lightning spark. Throwing "given enough time" won't prove anything.
@archilles1195 They're working on that actually, and the first steps for creating synthetic life have been set. But to give an example; you might know how a computer works, but building one is a whole different story. This is even more complex, but given enough time, some scientists will figure it out. It will open the door to a whole new era with possibilities we can't even imagine. You just gotta have faith.
@archilles1195 Not saying all evidence for the theory of evolution is yet accurate or verifiable, but most of the evidence is. Besides, any shred of evidence there is for evolution is already more evidence than for any given religion. You reject the entire theory of evolution?
@OhReallyNoWai I reject the Darwinian evolution, but do not reject microevolution / adaptation and variation within the species which is verifiable and testable.
@archilles1195 do you have any mechanism that would stop speciation from happening? You refuting Evolution does not remove anything from the fact that it is .
@archilles1195 Thats because it cannot, see this is the thing, the Greatest Bio-chemists on earth cannot synthezie Bio-DNA yet blind chance and time could???, its impossible!, nobody has yet even come close, and yes we have the building blocks and all we need for life but a simple test tube experiment with a living cell proves that no matter if all the ingrediants for life are right there, life will never just make itself, there needs to be intelligence behind it.
Scientists have not had a billion years to test this, nor can it be assumed they have had the perfect conditions. What are you basing your assertion that life needs to originate from intelligence on? If life can never just make itself, how can the intelligent designer just make itself? What intelligence designed the intelligent designer?
Because we don't know how life originated we can not assign a designer, but we can speculate.
@XiaoPow That's circular reasoning. I can always say that God is eternal and does not need to be created since He exists outside time and space. OK, if I ask you, what is your opinion about things outside the big bang, has the universe (or beyond) always existed?
I responded to a commenter who claimed to know more than he could, that life can not rise abiologically and that life requires an intelligent being to have created it. These are two things he/she can not know.
I take it you were saying it hypothetically, but how could you assert "God is eternal and and does not need to be created since He exists outside time and space" without realizing that you know nothing of the kind and are just guessing?
@archilles1195 which god are you talking about? Bumba, yahweh allah buddha , zeus thor , adonis mithra or Ra? in what basis are you stating that go is eternal? what was before the big bang if there was a " before" is being studied by physicists . do you really believe that you know all the answers to these questions?and btw micro and marcorvolution both work on Darwinian principles so it's both dishonest and ignorant to say one is true and the other isn't.
@MrTheblackmessenger "micro and marcorvolution both work on Darwinian principles". Don't just talk, give modern day examples of any microevolution that leads to macroevolution.
@archilles1195 We have had bacteria change species in front of our eyes, we see transitional fossils, we see animals such as the platypus, an egg-laying venomous mammal with a bird's reproductive system, we see that 99% of the early creatures are now extinct, we can trace the DNA lineage - but hey, ignore all that, because you're a little troll. Just go away, as you're evidently disinterested in actual discussion or facts.
@bigglyguy Talking about platypus, what is the evolutionary process of platypus? "We have had bacteria change species in front of our eyes", don't talk bullshit here, give examples to backup your claim.
@85Aheadstix Why "intelligence"? How do we know the amino acids we have today were the same as existed billions of years ago? We don't - and "we" does include you. You don't know, at best you can go on what other learned types can tell you. For that you have a choice, specialist scientists who study this stuff in depth and with peer review, or people who are "experts on the bible", a 2000 year old book written by desert dwelling nomads, most of whom could not read or write. Pick one?
@bigglyguy Haha, ok, so do you?, and what makes you think there really where "billions of years?" have you seen the evidence of that or are you just lapping up what the evos tell ya?.
id you know there are over 3,000 scientists with PHds that reject Darwinism as it does not actually lake sense?, Just go read Dr Jerry bergmans book.
I thin billions of years is simply an assumed date made up by evos to make evolution seem possible, there is no actual conclusive evidence to back any of it up.
@85Aheadstix And did YOU know that to counter that bunch of disparate PHds someone started the Steve Project? They found more actual biology scientists called Steve that support evolution than Bergman could find, of any name, that don't. If you want to argue with what scientists say then you already lost, as they're crushingly, overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, in fact it's how most drugs work and so on. Don't even go there!
@85Aheadstix most of people you refer to people with PhD completely non related to biology or paleontology, having a PhD doesn't mean u r an expert in every thing, I'm getting mine in two month but there r still a lot of stuff only in my field that i don't understand. Darwinism is not the theory of evolution by natural selection, the common use of the world means social Darwinism and have nothing to do with the scientific theory.
@TrueMetis "Conditions that are close to early earth"... what makes you so sure that early earth's atm. was reducing? Very recent findings published by Science Daily and Nature proved otherwise. Reducing atmosphere is highly speculative and not supported by empirical data. You atheists are desperate. Miller admitted he needed reducing atmosphere otherwise his experiment won't work.
The eye is amongst the most complex organsims on the planet!, second only to the human brain!, the most complex organism in the physical universe, and while no longer perfect, no man made camera will ever be close to the clarity of the human eye.
And This guy Dawkins said it just "evolved?!?!?" from nothing or natural selection?!?!?
So dawkins where did this magical gene just pop up from seeing as there is no mechanism for adding a gene in darwinian evolution??.
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry my friends @HunchbackJack and @Casshyr, I will not respond to your posts anymore. I'm getting tired. Once I did a bit of research just now, I realize I could be wasting more time arguing with both of you fine people. Have a nice day.
archilles1195 1 day ago
Comment removed
archilles1195 1 day ago
@Casshyr I have smtg to say: if u use bioinfo to prove evolution, it has no value, still historical science, but if ToE is used in bioinfo to predict evolutionary pathway and timescale of change from a specie to another, then ToE can make scientific discoveries.
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 "f ToE is used in bioinfo to predict evolutionary pathway and timescale of change from a specie to another, then ToE can make scientific discoveries" => it is. I just told you, an evolutionary tree contains not just the divergence pattern, but also the estimated time between species. All this information is fed into algorithm that can utilize this to make comparative analysis, such as RNA structures or protein domains.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr You didn't answer my question. Have they used this model to predict present microbes and how it'd evolve in the future?
archilles1195 4 days ago
Comment removed
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 "Have they used this model to predict present microbes and how it'd evolve in the future?" => predicting presence of microbes involve matching their sequenced genome and assigning it to their taxonomic groups based on genomic comparison. This is usually done with ribosomal DNA. In this specific task, ToE is not necessarily required, but the taxonomic bins that we assign organisms to are in the end still derived based on a family tree assumption.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr OK, you still don't answer my question. Never mind that. Let's talk smtg relevant to this video. Euglena has light sensitive spot and 6 hr is considered 1 generation. In 100 yrs, one euglena will have over 100k generations. I have no idea how long the species of Euglena has been around. According to Dawkins, it takes 364,000 years, my question is, why can't you OBSERVE any population of Euglena to evolve some dimpled eyes (2nd step) that has better acuity, like Dawkins postulated?
archilles1195 3 days ago
@archilles1195 Your question is basically asking "why doesn't simple micro-organisms evolve into more complex creatures". This is a question already addressed in "Greatest Show on Earth", so for more details I suggest you go read it. And of course, peer-reviewed scientific literatures cited in that book would ultimately be the sources you should go to. I'm not an expert on this issue, but i can give you a gist of what i understand, altho i don't guarantee the following to be 100% correct: (cont)
Casshyr 3 days ago
@archilles1195 Bacteria remain bacteria because they have become adapted to their environment. They are very good at doing what they do, and they feel no selection to become more complex. For example, how would gaining a complex eye be good for euglena? It's already very good at doing what it does, growing an eye, for all we know, could just be a waste of energy. In the past, there were no creatures with such eye, so it would be an advantage to have it. But now a lot of species have this trait
Casshyr 3 days ago
@Casshyr "how would gaining a complex eye be good for euglena?" Dude, they use this evidence for evolution of visual systems. "they feel no selection to become more complex", hmm this sentence sounds really weird. Dude, there are a lot of mutations. If a change in selective pressures favored a dimpled eyespot with a slight increase in visual acuity, this population will be selected for, and euglena with eye patch will slowly phased out. You guess too much, it's not science.
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 An euglena with a complex eye...how is that going to be useful? It takes a lot of energy to produce a complex eye, and given that a lot of other species already have complex eye, you tell me, how is having one going to be any better than not having one? Nature doesn't work on individual complexity, you need to look at the environment.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr You are contradicting yourself time and time again. You know what you are doing right now is defending, pushing dogma with no actual science? This is too much assumption. Do you know scientists have studied evolution in microbes and fruit flies which have fast mutation rate and observable thousands of generations (equivalent to million of years of human evolution), simulated in controlled lab? In evolution, it seems something that works well on papers won't work in real life test.
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 "Do you know scientists have studied evolution in microbes and fruit flies which have fast mutation rate and observable thousands of generations (equivalent to million of years of human evolution)" => of course, but not as to seeing a new complex eye forming! All the mutations observed concern molecular issues such as a novel gene, a new regulatory site, a new biochemical role...etc. You are asking for a new eye! lol...
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr You did realize that I mentioned fruit flies, one of the rapidly reproducing organisms, didn't you? So it was clear that I was not asking for new eyes, but the capability to create novelty in controlled lab environment. The induced mutation by exposing to radiation and chemicals, hoping to get beneficial mutation that can form new or better species. It didn't happen.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "Dude, they use this evidence for evolution of visual systems." => yes, back when NOBODY had a complex eye yet! If you are the first to achieve this, you hold great selection advantage! I'll give you an analogy: if a monkey starts evolving intelligence like us, would that monkey be at an advantage? No, because us humans already have it and we dominate over them. As long as humans are present in their enviornment, evolving human-like intelligence isn't good for the monkeys!
Casshyr 2 days ago
@archilles1195 A lot of species have this trait, so the advantage of having it is no longer significant! Do you see what I'm getting at?
of course, you can always argue, oh this is all just guesses, not science. But actually, a large part of science is indeed making educated guesses, based on the evidence at hand. If you doubt the guesses, then i suggest you go read peer-review literature and see what scientists are saying. Don't just take my word for it!
Casshyr 3 days ago
@Casshyr "Do you see what I'm getting at?", yeah, very obvious, about making lame excuses that evolution no longer happens.
archilles1195 3 days ago
@archilles1195 who says it no longer happens? Variants in human beings that lead to AIDS resistance is one example!
Casshyr 3 days ago
@Casshyr Variants in human beings? Wow, they evolve into what now?
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 "Variants in human beings? Wow, they evolve into what now?" => of course still humans. If you ever see a human evolving into something non-human that is observable within a human lifespan, let me know, that's evidence AGAINST evolution.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr "Within a human lifespan", well let me ask you something, is evolving into being resistant to HIV, in any way, creates new genes, or just sorting existing genes? If it is not, that this example should not use as a proof for evolution. It's interesting to know some humans have become resistant to HIV, but I just wonder the mechanism of natural selection in this case. How would these mutant humans be selected for?
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 "well let me ask you something, is evolving into being resistant to HIV, in any way, creates new genes, or just sorting existing genes?" => in this case, it's re-arranging + a bit of deletion of existing genes. If you want novel genes, look up the studies on drosophila. Novel genes have been observed mostly via gene duplication, but de novo mutations that lead to novel genes are a fact too. Formation of novel genes is not theory, it's a fact.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr This is one example you confused that evolution really takes place with organism being resistant to HIV. This is microevolution, resistance to HIV add no new information to the genes in any ways, just shuffle and sort existing genes. The key issue is, to change microbes into multicellular organisms requires changes that increase the genetic information content. If you still insist in present microevolution as proof of evolution, there's no ending, I'll end the conversation.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "increase the genetic information content" => lol wait, you can't just end the conversation when you obviously didn't understand my posts. Genetic information increase DOES occur. I already told you novel genes do get formed, and this occur as a fact. So let me ask you: if new genes can indeed get formed, so what's stopping one species to evolve into another kind, given enough time?
Casshyr 1 day ago
@Casshyr Dude, don't give me the god of gap crap "given enough time"... I have mentioned time and time again, if they are to see one species turn into another, they would have witnessed it on microbes that they have studied since 1900s, long time ago. The environment conducive to random mutation and natural selection was replicated. Sorry, no new genes. Evolutionists, like you, won't admit no matter what. Look nice on papers, failed in the test.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "if they are to see one species turn into another, they would have witnessed it on microbes that they have studied since 1900s, long time ago." => No, thats your laymen interpretation of evolution. If microbes can evolve so fast in 100 years, the whole family tree would be wrong. Evolution theory actually precisely states you WON'T see microbes turning to something non-microbe in just within 100 years.
Casshyr 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "don't give me the god of gap crap "given enough time"" => i'm sorry,but i wasn't under the impression you are skilled in radiometric dating or geological columns to override the mainstream conclusions from current experts lol. And no, i'm not an atheist, is imply don't agree with creationism, so of course my arguments would be similar to an atheist. If we are talking about existence of God, then my arguments would differ from atheists.
Casshyr 1 day ago
@archilles1195 and btw, you should look up a new article on yeast published in Nature just ~2 months ago, demonstrating the changes in yeast culture as they acquire characteristics that shift them from unicellular organism to multicelluar.
I think in the end, your primary antagonism towards evolution is simply your interpretation/religion of God. Our initial discussion + your downright hostile attitude when you thought i was an atheist point that very clearly.
Casshyr 1 day ago
@Casshyr Dude, that yeast issue has not been resolved and highly debated among the scientists, especially the type of yeast used in the culture that proved "multicellularity". You should read more, although I felt stupid for doing a bit of research over a debate on YouTube. You maybe an agnostic, but your argument strongly indicated you don't believe in God, which makes you an atheist.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "highly debated among the scientists" => um...like who? creationists? lmao
Casshyr 1 day ago
@archilles1195 "but I just wonder the mechanism of natural selection in this case. How would these mutant humans be selected for?" => it's interesting to see the HIV-resistant variant is most heavily observed in African prostitutes (i.e. those most likely to get AIDS). Again, you can see natural selection pressure at work, where if pressure is there, the mutation is most strongly selected for, compared to say..population in US where AIDS is not as prevalent.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@archilles1195 sry to spam, but i should say we have very few observed examples of novel genes for humans because we don't know all the human genome yet. Sure, human genome project is complete, but annotation of those genomic regions r not even close. Based on our current knowledge, when we see a new gene, we can't decide if this is due to evolution, or merely there all along. So if you ask "show me a novel gene in human via evolution", no we can't yet because our genome isn't fully mapped yet.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@Casshyr We don't know, we are not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
archilles1195 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr We don't know, we are not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
archilles1195 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr We don't know, not sure, it would have, could have, possibly, we imagine, perhaps, we do not directly observe the evolution of microbes and fruit flies in lab after thousands of generations, but Darwinian evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact. Evolution is a weak theory since it's accepted uncontested by atheists, rejected by many others, and no competing hypothesis. Athiests infiltrate YouTube to shove their dogma down everyone's throat. Think about it.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 and FYI, you are again doing what i tell you not to do: taking the words of me (an amateur) and forgetting to read up the actual peer-reviewed literature. Everything I told you is cited from peer-reviewed literature. It is your responsibility to read it up yourself. If you don't bother to read them, then why bother asking questions? Asking questions without expecting to take the time to learn the responses is not only rude, dishonest, and also a waste of both you and my time.
Casshyr 3 days ago
@archilles1195 As to how it'll evolve in the future, yes, ToE is important for that. I already provided you literature on that, maybe you should go read that up first, and then read up some more on google scholar or pubmed. I'm not your professor spoon-feeding you information lol. Unless you don't know how to use google, it's all there. I gave you an example to help you start.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr Evolutionists use to say that evolution is a continuous process. Can you use your bioinformatics to predict what creature would platypus diverge to and when will it start to diverge?
archilles1195 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@archilles1195 "Can you use your bioinformatics to predict what creature would platypus diverge to and when will it start to diverge?" => that would be a bit too far-fetch, but what we can predict is if platypus is in any danger of going to extinction, when it is going to extinct, and also what traits of it is making it go extinct.
But most importantly, we can predict what species platypus evolved from, and from there, harness the power of comparative genomics (ex. look for homologs).
Casshyr 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr I'm talking about one species to another, not variation and adaptation within the species.
archilles1195 4 days ago
Smokin' hot science chick
crocodylus73 5 days ago
Comment removed
archilles1195 1 week ago
@Casshyr So you said 95% of scientists subscribe to ToE. OK, if I'm one of them, I'll do the same thing, and it's not hard to find the reason why. If any scientist openly rejects evolution, what other "scientific" theory can he offer? He also risks his career, his rice bowl. This theory is weak because it has no competiting theories, so it must be true no matter what. I can't quote dr Richard Lewontin here, but what he said makes perfect sense.
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 I personally know 5 creationists with PhD in life science, spanning workplaces either with pharmaceutical companies, oncology research, biology professor...etc, and they ALL say there's no pressure to be an evolutionist. The idea is to keep your creationistic belief to yourself, but you don't lose your job simply for being a creationist LOL
Casshyr 1 week ago
I think he's kinda sexy.....hmmmm .....maybe its his accent but I don't know why.
ashtongrist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't it sad that a man of Dawkins stature can provide such a simple, dumbed-down explanation for the evolution of the eye - and you STILL get dumbass Christians going "Yeah, but how did the EYE evolve!?" in the comments of the actual video? Yeah but how did light sensitive cells evolve? How did the optic nerve evolve? How did the brain evolve? How did... Hey guys, if you really are too stupid to understand, if it's all complicated? Get a new hobby, maybe a subject less threatening to you?
bigglyguy 1 week ago
@bigglyguy The way to accept Dawkins's explanation blindly without questioning a bit is beyond me. It's not that the questions are too stupid, or we are too stupid to understand? It's you who are stupid because you can't provide good logical answers. OK since you don't know and started calling other people stupid, just show me some good articles (on the internet) or videos (on YouTube) on evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex.
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 The thing is, it's not Dawkins's explanation. He is just explaining it. It seems to me in religious circles someone makes something up & people either believe it or not. Science doesn't work that way. If someone comes up with something it is researched & needs supporting evidence before it becomes an accepted theory. Dawkins is simply explaining how eyes evolved. It is not his opinion or an idea that just popped into his head.
shananagans5 1 week ago
@archilles1195 it is not just Dawkins explanation. It is explanation given by 95% (more like 99% if you only look at life scientists) of today's scientific community. Of course you can always say "they are wrong, the remaining 5% are right!". Sure, go nuts. But i have yet to see any scientific breakthrough coming from scientists who do creation research.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Dude, stop with this anti-creationists crap, I've seen you brought it up in almost all your posts. This video attempted to evolution of eyes, not disprove creationism.
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 I will stop when creationists learn to keep their filthy religion to themselves. Being a science major myself, you can't expect me to just lay back and let them pollute science!
And btw, i only attack creationists who misquote science. If they go "i believe in my Bible over man-made science", then i leave them alone cuz those are delusional beyond help.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Dude, you, time and time again, contradict yourself. Here you said 5 creationists that you know believe in ToE (I assume to be Christians) and you respect those religious people, then you come back bashing religion with such word as "filthy". "Let them pollute science", what are you smoking man? Science is a larger enterprise, evolution is only a small portion of it. Creationists don't reject science, they reject only the theory of evolution. It's different. Comprende?
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 their rejection is based on many false assumptions:
1) That their Bible is correct, by prior default
2) Interpretation of scientific evidence that is not part of peer-reviewed journals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but only information from peer-review journals count as actual scientific information. There's a reason why we have peer-review process.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Peer-review processes are extremely bias towards the ID's. If you disagree, you are a liar. So what would you expect if you give your journals to be reviewed by scientists who already made up their minds that evolution is true? Rejection of course. It's commonsense.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 oh jeez, mr. scientist, i didn't know you were part of a scientific review committee in peer-review to know it is bias! I didn't know you have submitted articles before! Wow, may i know what position you held in such committee, what articles you have submitted/published?
Oh wait...u don't have any?? LOL then maybe you shouldn't commit how how bias it is. Leave that to those who actually have been through the process, alright?
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Dude, I've read many postings of yours and most of them attacked God and religion. Do you know, in a survey by Gallup, in the US, 45% of scientists believe in God, while the remaining 55% are atheists like you. Do you agree? Deep inside, those religious scientists, know by heart that it's not a good idea to reject openly the theory of evolution because some of their colleagues had suffered for doing so.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 acceptance of evolution theory has nothing to do with God. One can be both (i.e. theistic evolution). I'm not even arguing against idea of God here. And I myself am not even an atheist, so nice try.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr You're not an atheist? Nice try, I don't believe you at all, judging from your previous posts.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 "You're not an atheist? I don't believe you at all, judging from your previous posts." => LMAO why would i deny this? if you r going to even doubt this, this discussion is over.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@archilles1195 In case u r wondering, i'm a deist. Ever heard of that? jeez..
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Good, I respect the fact that you believe in God for I believe it's arrogant of man to say for certainty that God does not exist. I, myself, believe only some part of the bible, not all. We may not agree with evolution, but we have one big common agreement - that something can't come from nothing. I think we should not argue further.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 "I think we should not argue further." => last point: i do wish u would not make claims like "peer-review is bias", because u do realize by saying this, u r calling millions of scientists frauds and liars, right? U are discrediting their role, their research, their reputation, without even bothering to meet them, or to even go through the peer-review process urself!
Surely you see the rudeness in such claim! I think you should be careful not ot jump onto that sort of gun so fast!
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr I think you should listen to Dr. Stephen C Meyer, the author of the best-selling The Signature in the Cell. He has made some solid argument on bias in peer-review processes. I'm with him, not with you at all. Read first what Stephen C Meyer wrote regarding this matter. Don't response about this issue, not until you have read what Stephen C Meyer wrote
archilles1195 5 days ago
@archilles1195 I think in the end, your bias is pretty clear. You want there to be a God who created everything as it said so in your Bible. Ur earlier attitude when you thought i was an atheist already show that. So of course you'll side with Meyer. I skimmed the paper once, but i will go back and read it some more. However, i should also ask you have you read the criticisms made by the other sides (both theistic + atheistic). It is only fair that you check them out too if you haven't already.
Casshyr 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr You haven't answered my question: Dawkins stated in Climbing Mt Improbable that it would take less than 364,000 yrs for a fully-formed human eyes to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Let's say it equals 20,000 generations. Can you observe the same evolution to occur in Euglena which has light sensitive patch in 100,000 of generations?
archilles1195 5 days ago
@Casshyr Let me ask you, which scientific theory that's so controversial, strongly debated among scientists, not so convincing, and mostly rejected by the public? Many schools don't teach evolution. Just name only one. Do you know, you atheists are the minority group in the US that's considered the most hated and distrusted, but here you are, together with your cohorts, lurk on the internet spreading your dogma.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 "Can biology progress without the theory of evolution?" => yes for some, not for all.
"Does theory of evolution contribute to the progress of science in general?" => yes, look up computational model in predicting protein structures in the field of bioinformatics. I've explained this to like...3 creationists on youtube now, i'm getting tired of repeating myself on this..go look it up yourself.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Bioinformatics need theory of evolution to progress? No, it's vice versa.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@Casshyr I just googled "branches of science" and there are over 160 branches of science, with theory being one of them. Science by definition doesn't state that if you reject theory of evolution, you reject all other branches of science. Only such lame person like you makes such weak claim. Comprende?
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 Of course you can reject a subset of science, but what's the justification? cuz it's against my Bible, or cuz of actual scientific evidence published within peer-reviewed journals??
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr You are so stuck up with your atheistic peer-reviewed journals. ID proponents such as Stephen C Meyer, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells did make a peer reviewed but were rejected based on ID conclusions, even they make a strong case against theory of evolution. With reference to this video, please provide me a peer reviewed journal on the evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex. Dawkins didn't address this issue in Climbing Mt Improbable.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 I'm a big fan of Michael Behe btw, and he is a theistic evolutionist. I don't mind ppl who are theistic evolutionist, as long as they are not creationist.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr So you're a fan of Behe, one of the most intelligent men I know. I like his idea about irreducible complexity and since you're his fan, I presume you would agree with me that IC has never been refuted, not by Ken Millers, not by Dawkins.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@archilles1195 It's IMPOSSIBLE to refute IC (nor to completely prove it), just like the idea of whether God exists or not. We can toy with ideas like this for all eternity...but in the end, no1 is 100% sure. I am a fan of Behe mostly cuz of his peer-reviewed work. I'm not so much of a fan in his proponent of IC. I am agnostic on IC. I think it may be possible, but i gotta ask you: what's the applicaiton of IC? (cont)
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr I have one question for you about Behe. Why Behe and Miller (both supposedly are theistic evolutionists) have so much disagreement?
archilles1195 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@archilles1195 "Why Behe and Miller (both supposedly are theistic evolutionists) have so much disagreement?" => I am not familiar with exactly what they disagree on. Got any interesting examples?
Casshyr 5 days ago
@archilles1195 Behe and Miller both believe in God, but they disagree about the mechanism of evolution.
Behe claims that certain biological structures are irreducibly complex, and are therefore evidence an intelligent agent intervened during life's development.
Miller disagrees that Behe has shown those structures to be irreducibly complex, and even if they were, that is not, in itself, sufficient evidence for intelligent intervention.
Scientific consensus sides with Miller.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 5 days ago
@HunchbackJack Dude, of course scientific consensus sides with Miller. He said unguided. I wanna ask you one q: Miller theorized that the components of an irreducibly complex system, individually or together, can serve a purpose other than that performed by the final system. OK, eyelid, lacrimal gland, lacrimal sac, orbital muscles, tears, blinking mechanism, optic nerves, and visual cortex must have different functions before incorporated in eyes, so can you name just one?
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 The scientific consensus sides with Miller because Behe has not produced the evidence required to reach his conclusions from his premises. If he had, Miller would be the first to agree with his conclusions.
Secondly, not *every* structure evolved from components with independent functions; in the case of the eye, they evolved gradually over time, under different conditions, as this video shows.
In any case, Behe must demonstrate IC, not Miller disprove it.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 4 days ago
@HunchbackJack Dude, you have nothing to back up your claim, just pure conjecture. If you consider it scientific, I don't know.
archilles1195 3 days ago
@archilles1195 Well, it's much more than "conjecture, but it doesn't matter. Even if we had no clue how the eye evolved, that is no evidence for an intelligent agent.
Behe's claim is much stronger than "we don't know". He claims that he has identified structures which *can't* have evolved through natural selection, and therefore *must* be the product of an intelligent agent. He hasn't yet substantiated that, though, and there's no reason to accept his claims until he does.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 3 days ago
@HunchbackJack Please answer honestly, is irreducible complexity of eyes satisfactorily addressed by Dawkins? and is irreducible complexity of blood clotting successfully addressed by Miller? Watch how Miller tried to refute IC of blood clotting on YouTube, it's full with logical fallacy.
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 No one has yet demonstrated that the eye or that blood clotting *are* irreducibly complex. Until that is done, there is nothing to refute.
Even so, the process of eye evolution through natural selection that Dawkins describes in this video is quite compelling. The expanded descriptions he gives in "Climbing Mount Improbable", and in the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures are even more so.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 days ago
@HunchbackJack Quite compelling? No, he purposely avoided the subject of visual cortex and optic nerves, in this video, and in Climbing Mount Improbable.
archilles1195 2 days ago
@HunchbackJack Something for you to ponder: If brain evolved before the eye, brain would have wasted time, growth, and resources on something not usable. If brain evolved after the eye means the eye's function is not immediately usable, so cannot be an advantage. If the brain and optic nerves evolved at the same time with eyes, can you expect it to occur repeatedly in all multicellular organisms on earth?
archilles1195 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@archilles1195 "If the brain and optic nerves evolved at the same time with eyes ..."
I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that this is the case. Our complex visual mechanism evolved from a much simpler visual mechanism, all the way back to a very simple one. The components we see today did not appear as is, one at a time.
"... can you expect it to occur repeatedly in all multicellular organisms on earth?"
Yes, because it doesn't take long, and life is old.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 days ago
@archilles1195 Incidentally, by "occur repeatedly", I don't mean that eyes evolved separately in every animal. Given the survival advantage that vision - even very poor vision - would impart on an animal, it likely evolved relatively early. So I'd expect that whatever animal all mammals evolved from would have already had eyes, for example.
Having said that, it seems that eyes of different kinds have evolved completely independently a number of times in life's history.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 2 days ago
@HunchbackJack I appreciate your effort to explain but you offer nothing about the evolution of optic nerves and visual cortex. Talkorigins, Dawkins, and Millers never touched did subject in details, I wonder why... can I call them all dishonest? You should watch "evolve: eyes part 1 to 5" and you'll see what I mean. The visual system as a whole is what must be explained.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 Well, again, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how the optic nerve evolved. I could speculate that it was a specialization of cells from an existing nervous system - a touch-sensitive nerves gradually changing into light-sensitive nerves, for example - but there's little reason for you to accept my guesses.
We may not know yet. If so, personally, that does not undermine my acceptance of evolution as the process by which species evolved. (cont.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 day ago
@archilles1195 (cont.) You might call that faith, but I consider it reasoning. If evolution can explain how a light-sensitive patch evolved into the cornea, lens, pupil and retina, I don't see any reason not to expect that we will find an explanation for the optic nerve - nor to think that the other explanations are invalid in the absence of that finding.
Evolution is a process; I don't need an explanation of how every facet of life evolved to accept or understand it. (cont2.)
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 day ago
@HunchbackJack You don't realize you've been brainwashed and indoctrinated. Can't you even look at the scientific arguments from the other side, and consider if they make sense? There are resources that can be understood just like the pro-evolutionary resources. I'm very suspicious that evolutionary scientists have no clue at all about the evolution of optic nerves and cortex, that's why they avoided discussing at all about it, just google if you can find just one paper talking about it.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 Nor do I think I'm "brainwashed". I haven't accepted evolutionary theory without evidence. Nor do I accept it unconditionally. If a competing theory is more complete, and has more explanatory power than evolution through natural selection, then I'll prefer it.
ID is not that theory, however. It is predicated on a problem - IC - that has not been demonstrated to exist, and it introduces a solution - an intelligent agent - more mysterious than the problem.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 day ago
@HunchbackJack Talkorigins, wikipedia, evowiki, Dawkins, Millers, they all never described visual system as a whole. Ignoring the main problem won't make it go away. You should read what Behe wrote about light sensitive cell and its complexity. It's not as simple as evolutionists want you to believe. In documentary "Eye Evolve", it said "the scientists still don't know how light sensitive cell evolved", and ignore the problem completely. Evolutionists are satisfied, my curios mind is not.
archilles1195 1 day ago
@archilles1195 Well, I'm not sure anyone's "ignoring" anything. If we don't yet know how the optic nerve evolved, then there's not much to say other than "we don't know". If it's really a problem for the theory as a whole, then I'm sure biologists also consider it an important question.
But again, my acceptance of evolutionary theory does not depend on there being a definitive answer to this particular problem, given how much more the theory *can* explain - even about the eye.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 day ago
@archilles1195 To use an analogy, I accept that the operation of addition works on all numbers. If someone asked me if it works for numbers running to over 1000 decimal places, I would say yes, even though I've never added such numbers or seen them added.
If someone produced numbers that could not be added, then I would change my stance on addition. If someone produces life that can be *shown* to be IC, I'll agree that natural selection is not enough. Until then, both stand.
HBJ
HunchbackJack 1 day ago
@archilles1195 If I have a novel virus infecting the human T-cell, does saying "God designed this" going to help me develop the drug to fight this? Being an IC or ID proponent brings me no closer to actually solving this scientific problem!
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Dude, Goddidit can't solve or help develop anything, but what's your point? Theory of evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, can't solve anything at all as well. We believe in microevolution, which is an observable and testable phenomena, not what Darwin mainly proposed (the origin of species) which is macroevolution. Ask any physicians whether they used Darwinian evolution in their research to develop drugs.
archilles1195 5 days ago
@archilles1195 Many pharmaceutical companies use computational model to predict protein structures, and the top performing model rely on an evolutionary model that assumes species share common ancestry. This is a demonstrable benefit of evolution theory, regardless of whether evolution is true or not.
I earlier asked you to look this up, but you obviously didn't. Now i took the time to explain it to you.
Casshyr 5 days ago
@Casshyr Dude, they used the term "evolutionary model" because of the presumption that the mechanism of evolution has been at work and will continue to work the same way. having said that, I can use the argument "creation model" because the designer will use the same basic blueprint over and over, even in totally unrelated organisms. Actually, the ToE plays no role at all, it's only historical science, they just mention in desperate attempt to prove that it contributes something to science.
archilles1195 5 days ago
@archilles1195 It's an evolutionary model because the model accepts an alignment of protein sequences as input, and it assumes these are related in a family tree as described by evolution. This tree is then traversed using algorithms like Felsenstein. IF evolution is wrong, you would expect this model to perform poorly, because any model that makes false assumption would not have a good performance. But that is not what we see.
Casshyr 5 days ago
@archilles1195 No, under a creation model, there's no such thing as homolog or paralog. You cannot use information from other species because everything is unrelated and you cannot predict which creatures would possess the same blueprint, and also you cannot assess their divergence rate. A creation model would at best borrow information from micro-evolution, which would still fall under evolution theory.
Casshyr 5 days ago
@Casshyr Since you said the computational power of bioinformatics can predict the divergence rate of species, can you use bioinformatics to predict the divergence rate of any present microbes? Has the result of prediction published in any peer-reviewed journals?
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 Many articles have been published studying the presence divergence of micro-organisms and using that to infer how they will diverge for a given environment! See Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 564–575 as merely 1 tiny example. In fact, this is even the basis in ecology in the design of protection programs for endangered species!
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. I was just curious, according to Dawkins, it could take less than 50,000 generations to evolve from light sensitive patch to camera eyes. Can you predict by using any statistical or mathematical model, the evolution of light sensitive patch of euglena to camera eyes? If it's scientific, it can be repeated, right?
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 Where did he say the 50,000 generations? I like to see the full context, since generation varies depending on what species you are talking about, and also "camera eyes" is not a scientific term, it could mean many different stages of eye evolution. I would like to see the whole context, if it's there, before making a comment.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr "considering the small marine animals’ in which this camera eye would evolve generation length of (≈) 1 year, the eye would take but, roughly, 364,000 years – less than half-a-million years"
archilles1195 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@archilles1195 "roughly, 364,000 years – less than half-a-million years"" => ok, i found the exact scientific article that shows how that number is calculated. It is in "10.1098/rspb.1994.0048 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 22 April 1994 vol. 256 no. 1345 53-58". You should go read it if you truly want to know. Simply throwing out questions without bothering to read the information explaining it is both rude and a waste of both u and my time.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr That's the quote from Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. (Viking: London). And he did mention "camera eye", too long, I can't quote here.
archilles1195 4 days ago
@archilles1195 and there's no point presenting any evidence about optic nerves if you are going to cast doubt on peer-review literature. Until we can agree on this, this discussion goes nowhere.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr You are another evolutionist who failed to provide me with at least a peer reviewed journal on optic nerves and visual cortex. Another failed evolutionist (who claimed he has PhD as well) was @Craigmw45.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@Casshyr Justification? Look, by looking at the explanation in this video alone, there are more questions than answers (unless you chose to accept it blindly). Dawkins stated in Climbing Mt Improbable that it would take less than 364,000 yrs for a fully-formed human eyes to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Let's say it equals 20,000 generations. Can you observe the same evolution to occur in Euglena which has light sensitive patch in 100,000 of generations?
archilles1195 6 days ago
@Casshyr Last time I discussed this issue with one of your atheist friends (Bang Goes the Theory, unfortunately it got deleted) and he consistently stressed that there are hundreds of peer reviewed journals on eyes evolution, and when I asked him to provide only one journal that discuss the optic nerve and visual cortex, he gave me one a totally irrelevant journal, and disappeared forever. Don't be like him.
archilles1195 6 days ago
@Casshyr If you said theory of evolution is biology, rather than being historical science, answer two questions:
1. Can biology progress without the theory of evolution?
2. Does theory of evolution contribute to the progress of science in general?
archilles1195 6 days ago
Comment removed
bigglyguy 1 week ago
You have to love a good story...
Awake4Truth 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger I would suggest you present your evidences of evolution of light sensitive cells (extracted from thousands of peer reviewed journals) to the scientists who made the documentary so that they won't say something that funny anymore. But call them stupid first for ignoring thousands of journals before making a documentary that will be watched by millions.
archilles1195 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "Scientists do not know how the light sensitive cells evolved"... Dude, you obviously didn't read my previous posts. I didn't make this statement, I merely quoted from the 45-min documentary "Evolve: Eyes" shown on Nat Geo. Go watch the video (pt 1-5), it's on YouTube, and go laugh at them, not me, understand?
archilles1195 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger OK please give me the link, I wanna see what topic in neurology you are working on.
archilles1195 1 week ago
bigglyguy PM's me, calls me names and then blocks me. What a coward! Take a look at his contradictory reasoning.
"You know it's not random, it's selection, including sexual, you know it only requires steps for us to see how it could happen etc etc."
"Each step does not HAVE to be an advantage, just not a serious disadvantage."
So according to bigglyguy, RANDOM mutations don't need to be selected by natural selection as long as they are not a serious disadvantage, but it's still not random.
ian9toes 1 week ago
Dorkins showed about 5 or so different designs for eyes. Right at the end the girl said it is estimated that it only took about 400 000 generations to reach a human eye. 399995/400000 X 100 = 99.99875% speculation. So to believe the human eye evolved from nothing you just need 99.99875% faith and the remaining 0.00125% is pure evidence. Evolution is pseudoscience.
ian9toes 1 week ago
Now this might get a little tricky if you are lacking in intelligence, but at 4:10 the girls says SHE can see the "A". So SHE can see the "A" because SHE has her eye wired up to her brain. This step misses a whole heap of necessary equipment that had to evolve simulataneously for the organism to take advantage of this "pin whole camera". Those missing steps are not mentioned not even give to us as someones imagination, it's up to the evo's imagination to fill in the gaps, that is called faith.
ian9toes 1 week ago
OK, after wading through about 4 or 5 pages of "discussion" it is clear this video has a handful of trolls. They are NOT attempting actual debate, merely attempting to muddy the waters by pretending that the subject is debatable. It is not; the debate was over a long time ago. This video is to show the basics of how, not to argue if the eye did evolve or not, BECAUSE WE KNOW IT DID. No is no point in feeding or entertaining the trolls any further.
bigglyguy 1 week ago
@bigglyguy You are delusional. You take a few different DESIGNS of eyes and SPECULATE that there are even steps in between the different desgns that could come about by random directionless mutations, to end up at a much more complex design. Making statements like "over a long period of time", is not science. that is spectulation. Evolution is pseudoscience.
ian9toes 1 week ago
@ian9toes "Evolution is pseudoscience." if u can find any pseudoscience with 25000 peer reviewed paper then come back to me.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger You got PhD? LMAO congratulation! Now everyone has PhD.
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 what is wrong with you? i told you i was getting a PhD i didn't say i have one already. but you see, even after getting it i will still have a lot to learn even in my field which is neurology.I'm actually preparing to present my thesis in may i can invite u if you want. I'm sometimes bored that's why i come here to have some fun because it's really funny to know that there are still people out there dismissing the Darwinian theory of evolution.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Sorry dude, on the internet, you can claim anything you want to be and there's no way for me to know your actual credentials unless you provide some validations, which of course you can't. There are so many self-proclaimed experts on YouTube who claimed, based on their "credentials", they are right and everyone else disagreed with them is wrong. Neurology? Wow I never know it's coming?
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 i told i can send you and invitation to come my presentation in two month, or a link to show you what I'm working on? but you can still disagree , i have got nothing to prove. i normally don't speak English , i do it only on internet or for my studies. it's strange to me that you seem to think that the fact that somebody has a PhD makes him an expert , most of people i know or work with have a PhD but they don't know everything.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Haha have you no shame at all? I thought by saying "BYE", that's the end of conversation, and you'll ignore me. Obviously you can't get enough of me LOL.
archilles1195 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@archilles1195
"The scientists still do not know how and why light sensitive cell evolved" just go to sciencemag or nature and search for"evolution of the eye" and see the results yourself but if that's not enough you can still go to pubmed or scientific american ,those are some of the most peer reviewed journals in the world today but if you want to keep deluding yourself you can still go to answeringenesis,but u'll be laugh at every time u say sth this funny.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
Fantastic show. Hard to believe people still do not agree with evolution.
jgrimmier 2 weeks ago
@jgrimmier What's so fantastic about it??
archilles1195 1 week ago
@archilles1195 u r still here? seriously do you believe that lying for Jesus is not a sin?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@TrueMetis OK since scientists know that life is simply organic chemistry and arranging amino acids in right sequence can produce life, why don't they simulate this in lab? This result will be far more convincing than producing life's building block in reducing atmosphere and continuous lightning spark. Throwing "given enough time" won't prove anything.
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
@archilles1195 They're working on that actually, and the first steps for creating synthetic life have been set. But to give an example; you might know how a computer works, but building one is a whole different story. This is even more complex, but given enough time, some scientists will figure it out. It will open the door to a whole new era with possibilities we can't even imagine. You just gotta have faith.
OhReallyNoWai 3 weeks ago
@OhReallyNoWai Faith? I already have it.
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
@archilles1195 In the scientists I hope ;)
OhReallyNoWai 3 weeks ago
@OhReallyNoWai In scientists in general, YES, in evolutionary scientists, NO.
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
@archilles1195 Not saying all evidence for the theory of evolution is yet accurate or verifiable, but most of the evidence is. Besides, any shred of evidence there is for evolution is already more evidence than for any given religion. You reject the entire theory of evolution?
OhReallyNoWai 3 weeks ago
@OhReallyNoWai I reject the Darwinian evolution, but do not reject microevolution / adaptation and variation within the species which is verifiable and testable.
archilles1195 2 weeks ago
@archilles1195 do you have any mechanism that would stop speciation from happening? You refuting Evolution does not remove anything from the fact that it is .
MrTheblackmessenger 2 weeks ago
@archilles1195 Thats because it cannot, see this is the thing, the Greatest Bio-chemists on earth cannot synthezie Bio-DNA yet blind chance and time could???, its impossible!, nobody has yet even come close, and yes we have the building blocks and all we need for life but a simple test tube experiment with a living cell proves that no matter if all the ingrediants for life are right there, life will never just make itself, there needs to be intelligence behind it.
85Aheadstix 2 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix
Scientists have not had a billion years to test this, nor can it be assumed they have had the perfect conditions. What are you basing your assertion that life needs to originate from intelligence on? If life can never just make itself, how can the intelligent designer just make itself? What intelligence designed the intelligent designer?
Because we don't know how life originated we can not assign a designer, but we can speculate.
XiaoPow 2 weeks ago
@XiaoPow That's circular reasoning. I can always say that God is eternal and does not need to be created since He exists outside time and space. OK, if I ask you, what is your opinion about things outside the big bang, has the universe (or beyond) always existed?
archilles1195 2 weeks ago
@archilles1195
I responded to a commenter who claimed to know more than he could, that life can not rise abiologically and that life requires an intelligent being to have created it. These are two things he/she can not know.
I take it you were saying it hypothetically, but how could you assert "God is eternal and and does not need to be created since He exists outside time and space" without realizing that you know nothing of the kind and are just guessing?
XiaoPow 2 weeks ago
@archilles1195 which god are you talking about? Bumba, yahweh allah buddha , zeus thor , adonis mithra or Ra? in what basis are you stating that go is eternal? what was before the big bang if there was a " before" is being studied by physicists . do you really believe that you know all the answers to these questions?and btw micro and marcorvolution both work on Darwinian principles so it's both dishonest and ignorant to say one is true and the other isn't.
MrTheblackmessenger 2 weeks ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "micro and marcorvolution both work on Darwinian principles". Don't just talk, give modern day examples of any microevolution that leads to macroevolution.
archilles1195 2 weeks ago
@archilles1195 We have had bacteria change species in front of our eyes, we see transitional fossils, we see animals such as the platypus, an egg-laying venomous mammal with a bird's reproductive system, we see that 99% of the early creatures are now extinct, we can trace the DNA lineage - but hey, ignore all that, because you're a little troll. Just go away, as you're evidently disinterested in actual discussion or facts.
bigglyguy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigglyguy Talking about platypus, what is the evolutionary process of platypus? "We have had bacteria change species in front of our eyes", don't talk bullshit here, give examples to backup your claim.
archilles1195 2 weeks ago in playlist dawkins evolution
@85Aheadstix Why "intelligence"? How do we know the amino acids we have today were the same as existed billions of years ago? We don't - and "we" does include you. You don't know, at best you can go on what other learned types can tell you. For that you have a choice, specialist scientists who study this stuff in depth and with peer review, or people who are "experts on the bible", a 2000 year old book written by desert dwelling nomads, most of whom could not read or write. Pick one?
bigglyguy 2 weeks ago
@bigglyguy Haha, ok, so do you?, and what makes you think there really where "billions of years?" have you seen the evidence of that or are you just lapping up what the evos tell ya?.
id you know there are over 3,000 scientists with PHds that reject Darwinism as it does not actually lake sense?, Just go read Dr Jerry bergmans book.
I thin billions of years is simply an assumed date made up by evos to make evolution seem possible, there is no actual conclusive evidence to back any of it up.
85Aheadstix 2 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix And did YOU know that to counter that bunch of disparate PHds someone started the Steve Project? They found more actual biology scientists called Steve that support evolution than Bergman could find, of any name, that don't. If you want to argue with what scientists say then you already lost, as they're crushingly, overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, in fact it's how most drugs work and so on. Don't even go there!
bigglyguy 2 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix argument from authority is a well known logical fallacy, plus Darwinism is a social ideology not a scientific one.
MrTheblackmessenger 2 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix most of people you refer to people with PhD completely non related to biology or paleontology, having a PhD doesn't mean u r an expert in every thing, I'm getting mine in two month but there r still a lot of stuff only in my field that i don't understand. Darwinism is not the theory of evolution by natural selection, the common use of the world means social Darwinism and have nothing to do with the scientific theory.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 week ago
@TrueMetis "Conditions that are close to early earth"... what makes you so sure that early earth's atm. was reducing? Very recent findings published by Science Daily and Nature proved otherwise. Reducing atmosphere is highly speculative and not supported by empirical data. You atheists are desperate. Miller admitted he needed reducing atmosphere otherwise his experiment won't work.
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
The eye is amongst the most complex organsims on the planet!, second only to the human brain!, the most complex organism in the physical universe, and while no longer perfect, no man made camera will ever be close to the clarity of the human eye.
And This guy Dawkins said it just "evolved?!?!?" from nothing or natural selection?!?!?
So dawkins where did this magical gene just pop up from seeing as there is no mechanism for adding a gene in darwinian evolution??.
85Aheadstix 3 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix
DNA isn't being added. It's a change in the sequence of DNA. Mutations happen every generation. Allowing a slight genetic variation.
PolarityFuck 3 weeks ago