As a "fundi" Christian, I'm embarrassed by outrageous ANTI scientific Young-earth creationism. Science and the Bible need not be in conflict. Yes, God created everything, yes, the universe is 13 bil. yrs. old. Yes, there was a flood of Noah, NO, it was NOT global, but regional (Mesopetania). Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION", you'll find a website that employs current scientific knowledge and demonstrates it's compatability with the Bible. Also teaches what is and isn't literal in the Bible.
And how do you determine what is and isn't literal in the Bible? Keep in mind that opinions on that have changed over time. How can you suddenly and definitively say where that line is?
3. Gene Duplication followed by Divergence Misalignment of non-sister chromatids of homologous chromosomes can occur during synapsis of prophase I of meisosis, leading to unequal crossing over. In such instances, it is possible for one chromatid to lose one or more genes and for the other chromatid to gain them in the exchange, producing one or more gene duplications in the recipient chromatid.
@DNAunion you need me to explain? ...um ok. evolutionists believe the universe to be 14 billion years old. i have a God to believe in. their belief and i emphasize belief that the universe is that old is rediculious. i know because i am taking a science class right now that is saying about it. no proof of that. science is about knowing the facts. as soon as you can prove that the universe is that old then there is nothing more to be said.
Oh, so not only are you to stupid to formulate meaningful statements, you are also scientifically ignorant. At least now I know why kind of lowly intellect I am dealing with. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am an evolution, and I don't BELIEVE the universe is 13.7 billion years old, I accept it as a fact because of the evidence supporting.
Belief is for things for which there is no evidence, or worse, for which the evidence points away from ... like God. You believe in God, not because of evidence and despite evidence.
@DNAunion but there is evidence. but since you are not a christian, i don't expect you to find it. it is all on how we view everything. you believe that science can prove about the first atom or whatever it is. there is nothing i can say to make you change your mind. i guess the only way for you to prove it yourself is that you do the dating method yourself on something that you know to be dead. that would be something observable and help you understand it.
In many cases, an exon codes for a particular functional protein domain. ‘Shuffling’ of exons creates novel combinations of exons and therefore novel proteins
Endosymbiotic Theory: A theory (proposed earlier but) championed by Lynn Margulis that states the ‘ancestors’ of mitochondria and chloroplasts (organelles in eukaryote cells) were once free-living prokaryotes.
Proof? Thanks for showing again how ignorant you are of science!
Science isn't about proof. It's about hypothesis construction and testing; testing and refuting theories, and those that continue to survive are considered more likely to be true.
Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty.
Religion speaks of absolute certainity without having facts.
@DNAunion i know that. what you still didn't tell me is the part of where it explains about the universe being billions of years old. facts are the proof that people need to refute anything. so far there is none that support it.
1) The reciprocal of the Hubble "constant" gives an estimate for the age of the universe. More accurate measurements of the Hubble constant continue to be made. Taking the reciprocal of the best measurement to date puts the universe at 13.5 billion years.
I told you about accurate measurements of the Hubble constant, and that taking its reciprocal gives an estimate for the age of the universe. And that doing so produces an age of about 13.5 billion years.
I know you don't like science because religion has infected and damanged your brain. Your problem.
2) Scientists have multiple modern radiometric techniques - such as isochrons - that produce reliable ages. A slew of ancient earth rocks have been multiply subjected to isochrons and found to be about 3.8 billion years old.
The oldest rocks on earth dated so far are about 4.2 billion years old; oldest moon rocks to about 4.4 billion years old, and numerous meteorites have been dated to 4.5 billion years old.
@DNAunion yeah i know about this. rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. your dating methods are wrong. there have been many times and im quoting my science professor on this where incorrect data comes back a lot of times because its to young. they "know" that that can't be right and they will try again and again until it comes back older. doesn't sound very scientific to me.
3) Scientists have studied elements and radioisotopes on our earth, as well as those from the moon and meteorites; we have also created elements and radioisotopes in the lab that are not found in nature. From these investigations, we can create a list of all known radioisotopes and arrange them in a list in descending order of half-life (longest half-life at the top running to shortest half-life at the bottom).
@DNAunion boy it would really mess up your dating methods say if a flood would have mixed everything in different orders. still nothing can be from this to prove or a fact found that changes anything. don't call me names to come up with ways of making me sound stupid and you sound smart.
Man, if the Egyptians had a continuous recorded history going back past the time of the Biblical flood, that would really screw up the flood story, showing it for the myth it is.
It is common knowledge, easily confirmed, that the Egyptians have a recorded history going back to prior to the time the Biblical flood would have happened. It is not a legitimate challenge of a claim.
@DNAunion i don't need to prove that God exists. science already proves that. so "common knowledge" eh, well then it should be easy to find and show me.
Having an extra copy of a gene allows mutations to freely accumulate in one of them. The random changes in nucleotide sequence can lead to the mutated copy:
(1) becoming non-functional (that is, a pseudogene)
Most mammals (rats and mice, squirrels, goats, New World monkeys, and so on) have dichromatic (2-color) vision. They have 2 proteins called opsins, each encoded by a different gene, that respond maximally to different wavelengths of light in the visible region of the spectrum.
The additional gene arose when an ancestral opsin gene was duplicated and then a few point mutations – each of which slightly shifted the wavelength absorbed by the protein – accumulated in one copy.
@DNAunion thats amazing that you know this. you truely have studied this. or at least got it from someone who has. now prove that they did not have this in the past. oh mutations are never good. they always hinder. that is scientific
Sorry, you're wrong. It depends on the environment. For example, polycythemia (more red blood cells than normal) can be harmful, but those with a mutation for it in Europe during the Middle Ages likely survived the Plague because of it. Likewise, Sickle Cell Trait protects against malaria, but having two genes for it can be harmful.
From our studies we know how various radioisotopes are continually formed in nature. For example, dust particles in the upper atmosphere are bombarded by cosmic rays, continually forming small amounts of beryllium-10 (all beryllium has 4 protons, so beryllium-10 would have 4 protons and 6 neutrons; beryllium-10 is radioactive – that it, its nucleus will spontaneously decay).
@DNAunion there was a study i remember a little ways back when they tried this dating method. they tried it on something that died and they knew when this animal had died btw. they tried to get a good read on the dating method. it came back wrong. which proves there that the dating method it inaccurate to begin with.
@DNAunion im sorry i can't remember where i found it but i know its true. all of what you said isn't fact either. stop calling me names. you know that when arguing with someone, the one calling the names is always the one who looks like a fool, regardless of what they are saying. just thought id give you that.
No, that stuff about the dates is not true, dumbass. You are just a gullible idiot who is too stupid to know when you are being told lies and distortions.
If we eliminate from our list of all known radioisotopes those that are continually produced in nature and those produced only by humans, what remain are, of course, those natural radioisotopes that are not still being continually produced in nature. And what does this list show us? That those radioisotopes at the top of the list remain while those at the bottom of the list are removed. This clear distinction occurs at a half-life of about 80 million years.
That all radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 80 million years still exist in nature, while none of those with shorter half-lives do, is in no way compatible with the earth and its surroundings being only 6 to 10 thousand years old.
4) Astronomers can see galaxies - not the first ones, by the way - that are 12 billion light years distant. Light travels at a rate of 1 lightyear per year, and thus the light we are now receiving from those distant galaxies has been traveling through the universe for about 12 billion years. Thus, the universe is at least 12 billion years old.
@DNAunion how do they know that it is 12 billion light years away? there are so many explainations for this to disprove. maybe there was something in the way that they couldn't see the light. maybe they didn't count it yet because there are so many. can't you guys come up with something better than always hearing "well a meter hit it and thats what cause this to happen" after a while, it gets old.
They know the distance to stars by various methods, stating with parallax for the closest ones. Then Cepheid variable stars are used, and so on out.
The error rate is about 2%. So when they say a galaxy is about 12 billion years distant, it could be - roughly speaking - 11.76 billion to 12.24 billion years old.
Sorry, science simply does not allow for a universe that is only a few thousand years old. The Bible is scientifically refuted.
@DNAunion wow thats a long time in between those answers. science can't even predict the weather, how can they predict the age of everything? there is nothing in the bible that is not a scientific fact. science proves the bible to be correct.
@DNAunion again, you are basing this off of abiogenesis and that can't be proven. you can say this until you are blue in the face and that is all it is. hot air. im done trying to get you to give me facts.
@DNAunion how do you know that? you keep claiming this and that. God created the earth and placed it in the exact spot that is perfect to support life. that is intellegence. believing some explosion caused all of this is mathematically impossible. also, it is mathematically impossible for life to start by chance. how does life start from non-life? at what point in all this do you step back and ask yourself, am i this gullible to BELIEVE that life could have started by an accident?
Ah, so we should believe a nobody idiot posting anti-science, superstitious crap on the Internet - you - instead of the world's cosmologists, who have actually modeled, using supercomputers, the formation of structure in the universe you claim is impossible.
@DNAunion why not question the information you got your answers from? be skeptical. you cannot believe everything that is written. i believe in the bible because i have questioned it and found every answer i was looking for and then some. use your brain. i know you have one because you were able to tell me all those useless "science facts." i will continue to pray for you that you may someday be straightened out. im finished arguing with you. may God bless you.
Second, the Genesis I Creation Myth wrongly states that angiosperms existed before the first animals. WRONG! The order is backwards. Bible = scientifically refuted.
Third, the Genesis I Creation Myth claims that the first stars and then sun were formed at the same time, when science shows that the first stars formed about 9 billion years before the sun. Bible refuted.
Fourth, the Creation Myth claims that the creation of the sun and first stars at the same time occurred AFTER plants existed. Scientifically refuted again!
@DNAunion all of this is mathmatically impossible. "Great, another a'hole who ignores what is said and claims it's all wrong. Since youare not interested in having a legitimate discussion" istill think this way of you.
"Yom" is used in the Old T. to denote an extended period of time, and sometimes many many YEARS. The Earth is certainly billions of years old. The Earth was here long before God began the first creation period....."yom one" in verse 3. This is why theologians false interpretation of Genesis 1 is such a big deal, because it causes anyone with an I.Q. of mud to laugh at the first chapter of the Scriptures. But alot of people hate the very idea of a God, so they will not even consider this.
1. plants - including angiosperms - existed before any animals. WRONG! And since the order is wrong, making a day longer just makes the error that much larger!
2. birds appeared before land animals. WRONG! And again, fiddle with the length of a "day" all you want, you can't save the Bible from science here.
3. sun formed at the same time as the first stars ... which was after plants. WRONG! And length of "day" is irrelevant.
The Hebrew Scriptures actually don't teach a Young Earth at all. You assume they do believe the majority of theologians teach a young Earth, therefore you conclude that the Bible really does teach a young Earth. But you are unaware of Christian teachers such as L. Ray Smith who teach disagree with their interpretation of Genesis 1. The Hebrew "Yom" is translated as day in Gen. 1 but of the 2,000 plus times it is used in the O.T. it is virtually NEVER used to denote a 24 hour day.
I'm sure most Young Earth Creationists would have no problem whatsoever to toss out science completely if they feel science threatens their stupid beliefs.
I am not going to cite the numerous holes in radiometric dating, the geological column, most of the (macro) evolutionary theory, the linguistic part, the speed of light... no one would really believe me, and I do not have the room to cite sources (like the geological column itself in completion hasn't been found on earth and was originally fabricated by a lawyer)... the fossil record points toward YEC anyway if it's untouched... oh yeah the entire video is post hoc as well as slippery slope...
*sighs* As I understand it, the Young Earth theory wouldn't replace evolution, merely serve as a counter-theory to at least give a less biased view of the world we see around us. Not like it would make much difference, it would basically be a book of strawmen, so I really do not like the idea... and this entire video is also nothing but a Slippery Slope fallacy; this is "worst" case scenario, you're assuming there is no way to stop or that this wouldn't even happen in the first place.
I am sorry, some things in my last comments were unclear; he is assuming there is no way to stop halfway down the slope, and that the initial initiative is accurate, although there isn't much proof for his initial proposition; that is where the post hoc comes in. Oh and the light thing... if we're assuming here that God made the stars, why wouldn't he be able to just "put" the light where the people on earth could see it? Assuming he could make the stars but not control the light is idiotic.
@imrational Oh, I'm sure that some Creationists are attempting to just eradicate evolution because they don't feel like going deep enough to unearth the large amounts of evidence against it... however, the opinions of some idiotic Creationists would not, I think, even remotely mean the decimation of everything you described.
@imrational I am for unadulterated science being taught in schools, then worldviews. From facts, they will present different interpretations of the data; that is where bias would come in, and then both sides' interpretations would be presented.
@imrational However, bare facts aren't being presented in schools without being obscured (i.e. Haeckel's embryos, Miller's experiment). Haeckel basically drew the embryos and ME was done with the wrong atmosphere, and thus proved nothing. Both examples are being taught as fact, in some schools, to support evolution and abiogenesis. I don't think I would call that science or anywhere near unbiased. What we need is a curriculum that presents facts without bias; then maybe worldview later.
If some schools are teaching things incorrectly, then it should be fixed. I am unaware of abiogenesis being taught in schools as fact.
The vast amount of evidence collected supports evolutionary theory. The theory has given predictions and also is being increasingly used in computer modeling for GMOs, computer programs, etc.
@imrational Abiogenisis as a whole, not really; ME is used as a proof that life could come from non-life, however, or else you have to include intelligent design somewhere.
Micro evolution, yes. Plenty of evidence, it's seen all the time, no problem with it. Macro evolution, however... I realize that saying macro evolution has basically no proof sounds stupid and stereotypical of an uneducated Christian, but I do not have room to elaborate here. If you really want, I could do PMs.
Why do manatees - fully aquatic mammals with no hindlimbs - have elephant-like toenails, rudimentary pelvises, and even vestigial hipsockets?
And why have we found fossils of manatee ancestors that had 4 full-sized legs, and then later fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 legs but with the back two reduced in size, and then fossils of manatees with no hind limbs?
@DNAunion Manatees probably need the toenails to dig up plants from under the water. Vestigal hipsockets? Are there bones inserted into the sockets? If so, they are not vestigial.
They are ancestors because they look alike, and they look alike because they are ancestors; first of all, that's circular reasoning. How do we know that these are in fact manatee ancestors? For such a process you'd need a few thousand fossils at least, I would guess.
No, there are no bones (femurs or otherwise) inserted into the hipsockets of manatees. The hipsockets are vestigial.
So yet another case of you not knowing what you are talking about, or being able to counter the evidence FOR MACROevolution and AGAINST Intelligent Design.
Why do whale and dolphin embryos begin developing hind legs?
Who do they not form their blowholes on top of their skulls, but first form two nostrils just above their mouth - like land mammals have - that then must migrate to the top of the head and fuse to form the blowhole? Why do we have fossils that document the migration of the nostrils to the top of the head over time?
Why do they form a full coat of hair - like land mammals have - just to lose it before birth?
@DNAunion I have not looked into this subject as much as the others, but if I remember correctly, the "developing hind legs" had some other use... and again. Ambigious structures do not represent DNA similarities or common anscestor without enough transitional fossils to prove such.
Evolution within species. Too many holes in the fossil record to prove otherwise.
I was not aware of this so I cannot form a rebuttal, although I suppose the hair could have some other use while in utero.
No, and you should stop speaking when you don't know WTF you are talking about.
The developing hind legs in dolphins are just that; legs.
The embryonic dolpin hind legs are constructed using the same genes, interacting in the same way, as occurs in the development of the legs of 4-legged land mammals.
Further, some whales have leg bones -- not just some odd structure, but a femur and tibia - projecting from their bodies.
But you are wrong. The hind limbs in developing dolphins DO represent DNA similarities. It is the same "master genes" doing the same jobs in dolpins and the hind limbs of frogs and even chickens.
The dolphin hind limbs are not ambiguous structures; they are developing legs.
And in addition to genetic and antomical evidence that modern cetaceans have an evolutionary origin, there is also the fossil record.
We have a set of fossils in which whale ancestors have 4 legs, then have 4 legs but with the hind ones reduced, then with the hind 2 reduced even further, then with the hind ones like they are today.
Genetics, anatomy, and the fossil record: it's all there, but your religiously brainwashed mind won't accept them.
Why have we found fossil species that have characteristics of both reptiles and birds, which are now two very different groups of animals?
Why do we have fossils of reptiles with feathers - various kinds. Why do we have fossil species of reptile that had unidirectional air flow through the lungs, accessory air sacs, and hollowed out bones; a cluster of characteristics thought to be unique to birds?
@DNAunion Similar structures do not have to indicate DNA similarities or a common anscestor; i.e., human and fly eyes have a lot of the same DNA.
Then it's not unique to birds. Some reptiles have the same as well. However, there are nowhere near enough tranistional fossils to begin to say they evolved from each other. There would need to be literally millions. Why does the scientific community scrounging for even a few? Going as far to have factories that forge transitional fossils.
@DNAunion I know, that wasn't the point; the point was that DNA similarities- ah, never mind. All of this is really circumstantial without a substantial fossil record, and yes, I know I keep going back to that, but its flaws are what mainly convince me that Darwinian evolution is not in fact, valid.
We have a fossil record that supports MACROevolution, even the specific examples I have mentioned.
We the fossil showing the evolutionary origin of manatees,with the hind legs reducing in size over time and ending absent; so it's not just the vestigial hipsocket - which has no femur or other bone articulating with it - and the rudimentary pelvis that tell us manatees evolved from four-legged land animals, it is also the fossil record.
Right. It was long thought to be unique to birds, but now we know that some reptiles also have unidirectional flow of air through the lungs.
THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION since evolution says that birds evolved from reptiles.
If only birds and cats had unidirectional airflow, accessory airsacs, and hollowed out bones, then that would pose a problem for evolution. But that's not what we find: we find what we would expect to find were evolution true.
There are a ton of fossils that indicate birds evolved from reptiles. We have Archaeopteryx, which possesses features of BOTH reptiles and birds. We have fossils - too large to fly - with feathers; and not just one type of feather, but all the various kinds of feathers found on birds. We have dinosaur fossils with unidirectional airflow through the lungs, accessory airsacs, and hollowed out bones for those airsacs ... just like birds have.
@DNAunion About how many? I do know that a numerous amount of trnsitional fossils are forged so I cannot take your words at face value. We are once more at the problem of sources, which is why arguing on the Internet never gets anywhere; you need sources to back up various claims.
The second (Archaerptor?) was a forgery not made by a scientist, but by someone trying to sell fossils. And the fraud was caught before making it into peer-reviewed scientific literature (and no, National Geographic is not peer-reviewed scientific literature).
That's 2; they do not discredit the literally thousands of legitimate, evolution-supporting fossils found across the globe, by people of various races, religions, and national origins.
1. Every single attempted "counter" to evolution you gave failed. That leaves all of the evidence I gave supporting evolution - MACROevolution - untouched and valid.
2. When it came to the Bible, you were forced to stoop to most grossly immoral standards; that killing children for no reason is okay.
Why do human embryos form a tail? In fact, some times, rarely, a human is born with a tail, complete with muscles, bones, blood vessels, and nerves.
Why do human embryos form transient pharyngeal slits ("gill slits")?
Why do human embryos start off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then must undergo much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangement?
@DNAunion If you are referring to the tailbone, it supports a lot of our digestive system.
The "gill slits" are not those at all, but the ridges of the backbone.
If you are referring to Haeckel's embryos here, which I think you are, Haeckel basically copied a few woodcuts then practically drew a few according to how he wanted them to look if his theory was correct. That is how sure he was that his theory was correct.
No, I am talking about what I said ... pay attention dumbass!
Human embryos form a TAIL. We form a postanal tail, just like that of developing dogs, cats, mice, etd . During further development in us, our embryonic tail is then REDUCED to leave us with just our coccyx.
And occassionally, a human is born with a tail: complete with blood vessels, bone, nerves, and muscle. This is a TAIL, not just a bone or flap of skin.
@DNAunion I apologize then. And that comes from Haeckel's embryos, I think... if there are other sources, please point me towards them, but Haeckel's embryos were a flaw.
In that case, a mutation. And again, we have the issue of DNA not equaling similar structures, etc...
“If, and when, the branchial plate ruptures, a passageway is formed between the pharyngeal lumen and the exterior of the animal. This passageway is a pharyngeal slit. The slits may be permanent, as in fishes in which they are exits for respiratory water from the gills, or they are temporary, as in most tetrapods."
Let me stop there in order to point out that humans are tetrapods. We have temporary pharyngeal slits. The following states it more explicitly
"Only one or two of the more anterior pouches of mammals may rupture. Cervical fistulas occasionally seen in human beings are usually the result of the failure of the cervical sinus, housing the third and fourth slits, to close.”
IN HUMANS, failure of the cervical sinus, housing the 3rd and 4th slits, to close leads to cervical fistulas.
And more ... from a different source. This one is written by a well-known biologist, but is targeted for the general public, so uses less technical terminology. The source is:
Neil Shubin, ''Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion Year History of the Human Body', Pantheon Books, 2008, p90
“Fish embryos have these bulges [pharyngeal arches] and indentations [ectodermal grooves], too. In fish, the indentations ultimately open up to form the spaces between the gills where water flows. In us, the indentations normally seal over. In abnormal cases, gill [pharyngeal] slits fail to close and remain open as pouches or cysts."
Again, we humans transiently develop fishlike pharyngeal slits, but they normally close up; when they don't, a cyst develops.
"A branchial cyst, for example, is often a benign fluid-filled cyst that forms in an open pouch inside the neck; the pouch is created by the failure of the third or fourth arch to close. Rarely, children are born with an actual vestige of an ancient gill arch cartilage, a little rod that represents a gill bar from the third arch.”
Even sometimes, rarely, a human child is born with an actual vestige of a gill arch cartilage.
"But in other vertebrates that don’t have gills as adult, these arches turn into very different structures … Sometimes the embryonic gill [pharyngeal] slits fail to close in human embryos, producing a baby with a cyst on the neck. This condition, an atavistic remnant of our fishy ancestors, can be corrected with surgery.”
Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Evolution is True”, Viking, 2009, p74-75
As a "fundi" Christian, I'm embarrassed by outrageous ANTI scientific Young-earth creationism. Science and the Bible need not be in conflict. Yes, God created everything, yes, the universe is 13 bil. yrs. old. Yes, there was a flood of Noah, NO, it was NOT global, but regional (Mesopetania). Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION", you'll find a website that employs current scientific knowledge and demonstrates it's compatability with the Bible. Also teaches what is and isn't literal in the Bible.
Timbrock1000 3 months ago
@Timbrock1000
And how do you determine what is and isn't literal in the Bible? Keep in mind that opinions on that have changed over time. How can you suddenly and definitively say where that line is?
imrational 3 months ago
@Timbrock1000 As a fundi you have to believe that Earth/Terra is 6 or 7,000 years old, just behind the universe, or how did your god put it?
SorrellsAV 4 weeks ago
Fuck religion
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. Just 3 amino acid substitutions account for most of the 30-nm difference in wavelength maxima.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. There are only 15 amino acid differences between the MWS and LWS proteins
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 lines of Evidence that just a few point mutations shifted the wavelength:
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. Gene Duplication followed by Divergence Misalignment of non-sister chromatids of homologous chromosomes can occur during synapsis of prophase I of meisosis, leading to unequal crossing over. In such instances, it is possible for one chromatid to lose one or more genes and for the other chromatid to gain them in the exchange, producing one or more gene duplications in the recipient chromatid.
DNAunion 11 months ago
prove universe is 14 billion years old. you wanted blind belief not science. you can't
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Your posts doesn't make sense. Care to take another stab at it???
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion you need me to explain? ...um ok. evolutionists believe the universe to be 14 billion years old. i have a God to believe in. their belief and i emphasize belief that the universe is that old is rediculious. i know because i am taking a science class right now that is saying about it. no proof of that. science is about knowing the facts. as soon as you can prove that the universe is that old then there is nothing more to be said.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Oh, so not only are you to stupid to formulate meaningful statements, you are also scientifically ignorant. At least now I know why kind of lowly intellect I am dealing with. Thanks for clearing that up.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion first of all, whats with the name calling? did i ever call you any names?
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
"evolutionists believe the universe to be 14 billion years old"
The correct statement is:
"COSMOLOGISTS have DETERMINED BY SCIENTIFIC MEANS that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old".
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion ask any evolutionist, they will tell you that is what they BELIEVE to be. i don't care what you call them.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
I am an evolution, and I don't BELIEVE the universe is 13.7 billion years old, I accept it as a fact because of the evidence supporting.
Belief is for things for which there is no evidence, or worse, for which the evidence points away from ... like God. You believe in God, not because of evidence and despite evidence.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion but there is evidence. but since you are not a christian, i don't expect you to find it. it is all on how we view everything. you believe that science can prove about the first atom or whatever it is. there is nothing i can say to make you change your mind. i guess the only way for you to prove it yourself is that you do the dating method yourself on something that you know to be dead. that would be something observable and help you understand it.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
1. The MWS and LWS genes are located on the same chromosome: the X chromosome (SWS is on a separate chromosome, chromosome 7).
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
2. The MWS and LWS genes lie right next to one another – one right after the other – on the X-chromosome, in a head-to-tail orientation.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
3. The MWS and LWS genes have nucleotide sequences that are 98% identical.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
4. Exon/Domain Shuffling
In many cases, an exon codes for a particular functional protein domain. ‘Shuffling’ of exons creates novel combinations of exons and therefore novel proteins
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
5. Endosymbiogenesis
The origin of an organelle from a previously free-living organism that became an endosymbiont of a host cell.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Endosymbiotic Theory: A theory (proposed earlier but) championed by Lynn Margulis that states the ‘ancestors’ of mitochondria and chloroplasts (organelles in eukaryote cells) were once free-living prokaryotes.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
"no proof of that. "
Proof? Thanks for showing again how ignorant you are of science!
Science isn't about proof. It's about hypothesis construction and testing; testing and refuting theories, and those that continue to survive are considered more likely to be true.
Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty.
Religion speaks of absolute certainity without having facts.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion i know that. what you still didn't tell me is the part of where it explains about the universe being billions of years old. facts are the proof that people need to refute anything. so far there is none that support it.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
It does tell us how old the universe is. You are stupid and pigheaded and willingly ignorant. That's not name calling, that's pointing out facts.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
1) The reciprocal of the Hubble "constant" gives an estimate for the age of the universe. More accurate measurements of the Hubble constant continue to be made. Taking the reciprocal of the best measurement to date puts the universe at 13.5 billion years.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion you haven't told me anything with this statement. no proof. no facts
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
I told you about accurate measurements of the Hubble constant, and that taking its reciprocal gives an estimate for the age of the universe. And that doing so produces an age of about 13.5 billion years.
I know you don't like science because religion has infected and damanged your brain. Your problem.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
2) Scientists have multiple modern radiometric techniques - such as isochrons - that produce reliable ages. A slew of ancient earth rocks have been multiply subjected to isochrons and found to be about 3.8 billion years old.
The oldest rocks on earth dated so far are about 4.2 billion years old; oldest moon rocks to about 4.4 billion years old, and numerous meteorites have been dated to 4.5 billion years old.
The universe must be at least as old as these.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion yeah i know about this. rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. your dating methods are wrong. there have been many times and im quoting my science professor on this where incorrect data comes back a lot of times because its to young. they "know" that that can't be right and they will try again and again until it comes back older. doesn't sound very scientific to me.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
" rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. "
No, dumbass, that's not radiometric dating.
You are completely clueless. Scientifically ignorant.
You've let the retarded lies of Creationists infect your mind and now your brain is worthless.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Nope. The "many incorrect dates" are distortions spread by lying Creationists because science refutes their religion.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion it wasn't even from a creationist that i heard it from. it was in a science article.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
2. Exaptation (formerly called preadaptations)
Reuse of preexisting anatomical structures for new functions.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
a. Bee & wasp stingers are modified ovipositors (explains why only females can sting)
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
b. Middle-ear bones originally used in the jaw
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
c. Gills modified pharyngeal slits: originally used for filter feeding
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
d. Feathers originally used for display and/or thermoregulation
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
"yeah i know about this"
No, you don't.
I mentioned modern radiometric dataing methods: you said "rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks". NOT EVEN CLOSE!
You're an idiot.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
3) Scientists have studied elements and radioisotopes on our earth, as well as those from the moon and meteorites; we have also created elements and radioisotopes in the lab that are not found in nature. From these investigations, we can create a list of all known radioisotopes and arrange them in a list in descending order of half-life (longest half-life at the top running to shortest half-life at the bottom).
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion boy it would really mess up your dating methods say if a flood would have mixed everything in different orders. still nothing can be from this to prove or a fact found that changes anything. don't call me names to come up with ways of making me sound stupid and you sound smart.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Hey, dumbass, floods do not alter radiometrically determined dates!
Man, you are stupid.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion look i know im not scientifically inclined. hehe i liked that label. just made it up but anyway, you haven't given me one fact.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
I've refuted the Bible in 5 ways using science.
I've given you multiple scientific facts that show the universe is billions of years old.
I cannot help it if you plug your ears, close your eyes, and mumble when facts are presented to you.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Man, if the Egyptians had a continuous recorded history going back past the time of the Biblical flood, that would really screw up the flood story, showing it for the myth it is.
Oh, wait, THAT IS THE CASE!! LOL!!!!
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion prove it. show me how the egyptians have records before, during, and after that time.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
You are the one with the burden of proof.
You claim God exists. PROVE IT!
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
It is common knowledge, easily confirmed, that the Egyptians have a recorded history going back to prior to the time the Biblical flood would have happened. It is not a legitimate challenge of a claim.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion i don't need to prove that God exists. science already proves that. so "common knowledge" eh, well then it should be easy to find and show me.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Having an extra copy of a gene allows mutations to freely accumulate in one of them. The random changes in nucleotide sequence can lead to the mutated copy:
(1) becoming non-functional (that is, a pseudogene)
or
(2) performing a new or modified function
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Origin of trichromatic vision vai gene duplication followed by divergence
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Most mammals (rats and mice, squirrels, goats, New World monkeys, and so on) have dichromatic (2-color) vision. They have 2 proteins called opsins, each encoded by a different gene, that respond maximally to different wavelengths of light in the visible region of the spectrum.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
On the other hand, humans, chimps, and other apes, as well as Old World monkeys, have trichromatic vision, because they have 3 opsin genes.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
The additional gene arose when an ancestral opsin gene was duplicated and then a few point mutations – each of which slightly shifted the wavelength absorbed by the protein – accumulated in one copy.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion thats amazing that you know this. you truely have studied this. or at least got it from someone who has. now prove that they did not have this in the past. oh mutations are never good. they always hinder. that is scientific
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Sorry, you're wrong. It depends on the environment. For example, polycythemia (more red blood cells than normal) can be harmful, but those with a mutation for it in Europe during the Middle Ages likely survived the Plague because of it. Likewise, Sickle Cell Trait protects against malaria, but having two genes for it can be harmful.
imrational 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
"mutations are never good. they always hinder. that is scientific"
Nope, that's what's called pseudoscience. It's religions masquerading as science.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Evidence of the gene duplication of an opsin gene includes: 3 pieces
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
God is just pretend. And you know it.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
From our studies we know how various radioisotopes are continually formed in nature. For example, dust particles in the upper atmosphere are bombarded by cosmic rays, continually forming small amounts of beryllium-10 (all beryllium has 4 protons, so beryllium-10 would have 4 protons and 6 neutrons; beryllium-10 is radioactive – that it, its nucleus will spontaneously decay).
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion there was a study i remember a little ways back when they tried this dating method. they tried it on something that died and they knew when this animal had died btw. they tried to get a good read on the dating method. it came back wrong. which proves there that the dating method it inaccurate to begin with.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Not one single fact in any of that blathering.
Try again, dumbass.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion im sorry i can't remember where i found it but i know its true. all of what you said isn't fact either. stop calling me names. you know that when arguing with someone, the one calling the names is always the one who looks like a fool, regardless of what they are saying. just thought id give you that.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
No, that stuff about the dates is not true, dumbass. You are just a gullible idiot who is too stupid to know when you are being told lies and distortions.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion gee and here thats what i was thinking the same way about you
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
1. Co-option
Reuse of preexisting genes or molecular pathways for new functions.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
a. Metabolic enzymes co-opted for use as lens crystallins.
1. Glyceryaldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase
2. NADPH-dependent reductase
3. Alcohol dehydrogenase
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
b. 6 main components of our visual biochemistry
1. Opsin (7-spanning transmembrane protein that has retinal bound to it)
2. Retinal (vitamin A-derived chromophore that isomerizes upon absorption of photon)
3. Transducin (G-protein activated by activated opsin)
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
4. Phosphodiesterase (enzyme that, when activated by transducin, converts cGMP into GMP)
5. cGMP (ligand that keeps Na+ channels open: when converted to GMP, released from channel)
6. Cyclic-nucleotide gated ion channel (controls membrane potential: open while cGMP is bound)
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
1. Opsin: Belongs to a large family of proteins called GPCRs.
“G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the most numerous proteins in mammalian genomes …” (1)
Bacteriorhodopsin present in Halobacterium halonium
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
2. Retinal: Present in bacteriorhodopsin, and there also undergoes isomerization when it absorbs a photon
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
3. Transducin: Common type of protein – a heterotrimeric G-protein.
heterotrimeric G-proteins are found in mycobacteria
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
4. Phosphodiesterase: Present in cyanobacteria (along with cGMP and cGMP receptors)
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
5. cGMP: used in chemotaxis in bacterium Escherichia coli
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
6. Cyclic-nucleotide gated ion channel: Present in bacteria
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
c. Hox genes co-opted for use in tetrapod limb development.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Wrong, everything I told you was fact.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
If we eliminate from our list of all known radioisotopes those that are continually produced in nature and those produced only by humans, what remain are, of course, those natural radioisotopes that are not still being continually produced in nature. And what does this list show us? That those radioisotopes at the top of the list remain while those at the bottom of the list are removed. This clear distinction occurs at a half-life of about 80 million years.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
That all radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 80 million years still exist in nature, while none of those with shorter half-lives do, is in no way compatible with the earth and its surroundings being only 6 to 10 thousand years old.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
4) Astronomers can see galaxies - not the first ones, by the way - that are 12 billion light years distant. Light travels at a rate of 1 lightyear per year, and thus the light we are now receiving from those distant galaxies has been traveling through the universe for about 12 billion years. Thus, the universe is at least 12 billion years old.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion how do they know that it is 12 billion light years away? there are so many explainations for this to disprove. maybe there was something in the way that they couldn't see the light. maybe they didn't count it yet because there are so many. can't you guys come up with something better than always hearing "well a meter hit it and thats what cause this to happen" after a while, it gets old.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
They know the distance to stars by various methods, stating with parallax for the closest ones. Then Cepheid variable stars are used, and so on out.
The error rate is about 2%. So when they say a galaxy is about 12 billion years distant, it could be - roughly speaking - 11.76 billion to 12.24 billion years old.
Sorry, science simply does not allow for a universe that is only a few thousand years old. The Bible is scientifically refuted.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion wow thats a long time in between those answers. science can't even predict the weather, how can they predict the age of everything? there is nothing in the bible that is not a scientific fact. science proves the bible to be correct.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
LOL!!!
If only I had a nickel for everytime I have to show how the BIble is scientifically refuted!!!
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
First: Genesis I Creation Myth wrongly says that birds appeared BEFORE land animals. Nope, the order is backwards. Science refutes the BIble.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion again, you are basing this off of abiogenesis and that can't be proven. you can say this until you are blue in the face and that is all it is. hot air. im done trying to get you to give me facts.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Abiogenesis has more supprt for it than an invisible, impossible, magical dude in the sky does.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion how do you know that? you keep claiming this and that. God created the earth and placed it in the exact spot that is perfect to support life. that is intellegence. believing some explosion caused all of this is mathematically impossible. also, it is mathematically impossible for life to start by chance. how does life start from non-life? at what point in all this do you step back and ask yourself, am i this gullible to BELIEVE that life could have started by an accident?
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Because I have studied both abiogenesis and the Bible.
Abiogenesis has lots of valid, objective, positive support, even though no continuous path from non-living to living is yet available. God has none.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
"God created the earth and placed it in the exact spot that is perfect to support life"
A mere belief you hold. No evidence whatsoever.
And since we have a natural explanation for the formation of the earth, your "explanation" also falls to mine.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
The big bang was not an explosiong. Educate yourself.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Ah, so we should believe a nobody idiot posting anti-science, superstitious crap on the Internet - you - instead of the world's cosmologists, who have actually modeled, using supercomputers, the formation of structure in the universe you claim is impossible.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
" it is mathematically impossible for life to start by chance"
That's a claim in need of support. You need to support it or it is dismissed as invalid.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion So that means it's the god of an ancient book? Nice logic there bud..
SorrellsAV 4 weeks ago
@DNAunion why not question the information you got your answers from? be skeptical. you cannot believe everything that is written. i believe in the bible because i have questioned it and found every answer i was looking for and then some. use your brain. i know you have one because you were able to tell me all those useless "science facts." i will continue to pray for you that you may someday be straightened out. im finished arguing with you. may God bless you.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
"may God bless you"
May the magical unicorns on Omicron Persei 8 have good wishes for you, and may that magically cause good things to happen for you.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Second, the Genesis I Creation Myth wrongly states that angiosperms existed before the first animals. WRONG! The order is backwards. Bible = scientifically refuted.
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Third, the Genesis I Creation Myth claims that the first stars and then sun were formed at the same time, when science shows that the first stars formed about 9 billion years before the sun. Bible refuted.
Fourth, the Creation Myth claims that the creation of the sun and first stars at the same time occurred AFTER plants existed. Scientifically refuted again!
DNAunion 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Fifth, the Bible claims that the first human existed only about 6 thousand years ago. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Yep, another way that the Bible is scientifically refuted.
DNAunion 11 months ago
@DNAunion no, all you did was give me your opinion. thanks but no thanks.
brian101ification 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Great, another a'hole who ignores what is said and claims it's all wrong.
Since youare not interested in having a legitimate discussion ....
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brian101ification
Evolutionary novelty via reuse
1. Co-option
2. Exaptation
3. Gene Duplication followed by Divergence
4. Exon/Domain Shuffling
5. Endosymbiogenesis
DNAunion 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion all of this is mathmatically impossible. "Great, another a'hole who ignores what is said and claims it's all wrong. Since youare not interested in having a legitimate discussion" istill think this way of you.
brian101ification 11 months ago
@brian101ification
Oh, and, .... a sockpuppet says what?
DNAunion 11 months ago
"Yom" is used in the Old T. to denote an extended period of time, and sometimes many many YEARS. The Earth is certainly billions of years old. The Earth was here long before God began the first creation period....."yom one" in verse 3. This is why theologians false interpretation of Genesis 1 is such a big deal, because it causes anyone with an I.Q. of mud to laugh at the first chapter of the Scriptures. But alot of people hate the very idea of a God, so they will not even consider this.
JAKEHARRIS281 1 year ago
@JAKEHARRIS281
The first Genesis Creation Myth says:
1. plants - including angiosperms - existed before any animals. WRONG! And since the order is wrong, making a day longer just makes the error that much larger!
2. birds appeared before land animals. WRONG! And again, fiddle with the length of a "day" all you want, you can't save the Bible from science here.
3. sun formed at the same time as the first stars ... which was after plants. WRONG! And length of "day" is irrelevant.
DNAunion 1 year ago
The Hebrew Scriptures actually don't teach a Young Earth at all. You assume they do believe the majority of theologians teach a young Earth, therefore you conclude that the Bible really does teach a young Earth. But you are unaware of Christian teachers such as L. Ray Smith who teach disagree with their interpretation of Genesis 1. The Hebrew "Yom" is translated as day in Gen. 1 but of the 2,000 plus times it is used in the O.T. it is virtually NEVER used to denote a 24 hour day.
JAKEHARRIS281 1 year ago
@JAKEHARRIS281
So you reject what the Bible says, like I and other atheists do. You are in good company.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World s no 1 Russian women dating site here gettop5.info
RileyDarlem 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
haritadilani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Naughty women in the lane benaughtyman.info
yasodagangani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kind Russian girls for marriage gettop5.info
IsabjCobhy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
I'm sure most Young Earth Creationists would have no problem whatsoever to toss out science completely if they feel science threatens their stupid beliefs.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@imrational Your voice reminds me of Nicholas Cage. :D
TehLizard 1 year ago
I am not going to cite the numerous holes in radiometric dating, the geological column, most of the (macro) evolutionary theory, the linguistic part, the speed of light... no one would really believe me, and I do not have the room to cite sources (like the geological column itself in completion hasn't been found on earth and was originally fabricated by a lawyer)... the fossil record points toward YEC anyway if it's untouched... oh yeah the entire video is post hoc as well as slippery slope...
Llawliet246 1 year ago
*sighs* As I understand it, the Young Earth theory wouldn't replace evolution, merely serve as a counter-theory to at least give a less biased view of the world we see around us. Not like it would make much difference, it would basically be a book of strawmen, so I really do not like the idea... and this entire video is also nothing but a Slippery Slope fallacy; this is "worst" case scenario, you're assuming there is no way to stop or that this wouldn't even happen in the first place.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
I am sorry, some things in my last comments were unclear; he is assuming there is no way to stop halfway down the slope, and that the initial initiative is accurate, although there isn't much proof for his initial proposition; that is where the post hoc comes in. Oh and the light thing... if we're assuming here that God made the stars, why wouldn't he be able to just "put" the light where the people on earth could see it? Assuming he could make the stars but not control the light is idiotic.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
I wish I could believe you, but if you google some of the things I mention, you'll see that Creationists are actually attempting those very things!
So, yes... I am using a slippery slope argument, but apparently, some Creationists are sliding down that very slope as we converse.
imrational 1 year ago
@imrational Oh, I'm sure that some Creationists are attempting to just eradicate evolution because they don't feel like going deep enough to unearth the large amounts of evidence against it... however, the opinions of some idiotic Creationists would not, I think, even remotely mean the decimation of everything you described.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@imrational I am for unadulterated science being taught in schools, then worldviews. From facts, they will present different interpretations of the data; that is where bias would come in, and then both sides' interpretations would be presented.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
We don't have any other competing testable theories for the diversification of life on earth that answers as much as evolution does.
Teaching evolutionary theory is important in a ton of ways. For example, DNA and genetics were predicted by it.
imrational 1 year ago
@imrational However, bare facts aren't being presented in schools without being obscured (i.e. Haeckel's embryos, Miller's experiment). Haeckel basically drew the embryos and ME was done with the wrong atmosphere, and thus proved nothing. Both examples are being taught as fact, in some schools, to support evolution and abiogenesis. I don't think I would call that science or anywhere near unbiased. What we need is a curriculum that presents facts without bias; then maybe worldview later.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
If some schools are teaching things incorrectly, then it should be fixed. I am unaware of abiogenesis being taught in schools as fact.
The vast amount of evidence collected supports evolutionary theory. The theory has given predictions and also is being increasingly used in computer modeling for GMOs, computer programs, etc.
imrational 1 year ago
@imrational Abiogenisis as a whole, not really; ME is used as a proof that life could come from non-life, however, or else you have to include intelligent design somewhere.
Micro evolution, yes. Plenty of evidence, it's seen all the time, no problem with it. Macro evolution, however... I realize that saying macro evolution has basically no proof sounds stupid and stereotypical of an uneducated Christian, but I do not have room to elaborate here. If you really want, I could do PMs.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Why do manatees - fully aquatic mammals with no hindlimbs - have elephant-like toenails, rudimentary pelvises, and even vestigial hipsockets?
And why have we found fossils of manatee ancestors that had 4 full-sized legs, and then later fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 legs but with the back two reduced in size, and then fossils of manatees with no hind limbs?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion Manatees probably need the toenails to dig up plants from under the water. Vestigal hipsockets? Are there bones inserted into the sockets? If so, they are not vestigial.
They are ancestors because they look alike, and they look alike because they are ancestors; first of all, that's circular reasoning. How do we know that these are in fact manatee ancestors? For such a process you'd need a few thousand fossils at least, I would guess.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
No, there are no bones (femurs or otherwise) inserted into the hipsockets of manatees. The hipsockets are vestigial.
So yet another case of you not knowing what you are talking about, or being able to counter the evidence FOR MACROevolution and AGAINST Intelligent Design.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
We know they are manatee ancestors because they share a cluster of skeletal features unique to modern manatees.
I see you desperately trying to fight the facts, but they won't go away simply because you want to believe in ancient mythology.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Why do whale and dolphin embryos begin developing hind legs?
Who do they not form their blowholes on top of their skulls, but first form two nostrils just above their mouth - like land mammals have - that then must migrate to the top of the head and fuse to form the blowhole? Why do we have fossils that document the migration of the nostrils to the top of the head over time?
Why do they form a full coat of hair - like land mammals have - just to lose it before birth?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion I have not looked into this subject as much as the others, but if I remember correctly, the "developing hind legs" had some other use... and again. Ambigious structures do not represent DNA similarities or common anscestor without enough transitional fossils to prove such.
Evolution within species. Too many holes in the fossil record to prove otherwise.
I was not aware of this so I cannot form a rebuttal, although I suppose the hair could have some other use while in utero.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
No, and you should stop speaking when you don't know WTF you are talking about.
The developing hind legs in dolphins are just that; legs.
The embryonic dolpin hind legs are constructed using the same genes, interacting in the same way, as occurs in the development of the legs of 4-legged land mammals.
Further, some whales have leg bones -- not just some odd structure, but a femur and tibia - projecting from their bodies.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion You are correct, I don't know a lot about this subject; as I said. I was making guesses, and they were incorrect.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
But you are wrong. The hind limbs in developing dolphins DO represent DNA similarities. It is the same "master genes" doing the same jobs in dolpins and the hind limbs of frogs and even chickens.
The dolphin hind limbs are not ambiguous structures; they are developing legs.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
And in addition to genetic and antomical evidence that modern cetaceans have an evolutionary origin, there is also the fossil record.
We have a set of fossils in which whale ancestors have 4 legs, then have 4 legs but with the hind ones reduced, then with the hind 2 reduced even further, then with the hind ones like they are today.
Genetics, anatomy, and the fossil record: it's all there, but your religiously brainwashed mind won't accept them.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Why do birds have genes for making teeth?
Why have we found fossil species that have characteristics of both reptiles and birds, which are now two very different groups of animals?
Why do we have fossils of reptiles with feathers - various kinds. Why do we have fossil species of reptile that had unidirectional air flow through the lungs, accessory air sacs, and hollowed out bones; a cluster of characteristics thought to be unique to birds?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion Similar structures do not have to indicate DNA similarities or a common anscestor; i.e., human and fly eyes have a lot of the same DNA.
Then it's not unique to birds. Some reptiles have the same as well. However, there are nowhere near enough tranistional fossils to begin to say they evolved from each other. There would need to be literally millions. Why does the scientific community scrounging for even a few? Going as far to have factories that forge transitional fossils.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Yes, human and fly eyes DO share a lot of genetics ... BECAUSE OF common ancestry!!!
I like how someone who is supposedly not against science so distorts it for his own religious purposes.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion I know, that wasn't the point; the point was that DNA similarities- ah, never mind. All of this is really circumstantial without a substantial fossil record, and yes, I know I keep going back to that, but its flaws are what mainly convince me that Darwinian evolution is not in fact, valid.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
We have a fossil record that supports MACROevolution, even the specific examples I have mentioned.
We the fossil showing the evolutionary origin of manatees,with the hind legs reducing in size over time and ending absent; so it's not just the vestigial hipsocket - which has no femur or other bone articulating with it - and the rudimentary pelvis that tell us manatees evolved from four-legged land animals, it is also the fossil record.
Same with whales and dolphins.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
No, what has convinced you that Darwinian evolution is not valid is OUTDATED RELIGION!
Your outdated religion - which is not in touch with the facts of the world - tells you that evolution is not valid, so you blindly accept that.
The thing that lets you fall prey to their lies and distortions is YOUR IGNORANCE of the science and evidence of evolution.
You reject evolution because of your ignorance and the outdated religious beliefs you hold, not because of logic/eviden
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Right. It was long thought to be unique to birds, but now we know that some reptiles also have unidirectional flow of air through the lungs.
THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION since evolution says that birds evolved from reptiles.
If only birds and cats had unidirectional airflow, accessory airsacs, and hollowed out bones, then that would pose a problem for evolution. But that's not what we find: we find what we would expect to find were evolution true.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Wrong. You need to keep up.
There are a ton of fossils that indicate birds evolved from reptiles. We have Archaeopteryx, which possesses features of BOTH reptiles and birds. We have fossils - too large to fly - with feathers; and not just one type of feather, but all the various kinds of feathers found on birds. We have dinosaur fossils with unidirectional airflow through the lungs, accessory airsacs, and hollowed out bones for those airsacs ... just like birds have.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion About how many? I do know that a numerous amount of trnsitional fossils are forged so I cannot take your words at face value. We are once more at the problem of sources, which is why arguing on the Internet never gets anywhere; you need sources to back up various claims.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
Comment removed
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
The second (Archaerptor?) was a forgery not made by a scientist, but by someone trying to sell fossils. And the fraud was caught before making it into peer-reviewed scientific literature (and no, National Geographic is not peer-reviewed scientific literature).
That's 2; they do not discredit the literally thousands of legitimate, evolution-supporting fossils found across the globe, by people of various races, religions, and national origins.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
We have transitional fossils supporting major transitions, such as:
1. certain fish to amphibians
2. certain reptiles to mammals
3. certain reptiles to birds
4. certain 4-legged land mammal to whales
We have "living intermediates" that show how the following can occur:
5. unicellularity to multicellularity
6. origin of two distinct sex cells (egg and sperm)
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
Quick recap.
1. Every single attempted "counter" to evolution you gave failed. That leaves all of the evidence I gave supporting evolution - MACROevolution - untouched and valid.
2. When it came to the Bible, you were forced to stoop to most grossly immoral standards; that killing children for no reason is okay.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Why do human embryos form a tail? In fact, some times, rarely, a human is born with a tail, complete with muscles, bones, blood vessels, and nerves.
Why do human embryos form transient pharyngeal slits ("gill slits")?
Why do human embryos start off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then must undergo much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangement?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion If you are referring to the tailbone, it supports a lot of our digestive system.
The "gill slits" are not those at all, but the ridges of the backbone.
If you are referring to Haeckel's embryos here, which I think you are, Haeckel basically copied a few woodcuts then practically drew a few according to how he wanted them to look if his theory was correct. That is how sure he was that his theory was correct.
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
No, I am talking about what I said ... pay attention dumbass!
Human embryos form a TAIL. We form a postanal tail, just like that of developing dogs, cats, mice, etd . During further development in us, our embryonic tail is then REDUCED to leave us with just our coccyx.
And occassionally, a human is born with a tail: complete with blood vessels, bone, nerves, and muscle. This is a TAIL, not just a bone or flap of skin.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion I apologize then. And that comes from Haeckel's embryos, I think... if there are other sources, please point me towards them, but Haeckel's embryos were a flaw.
In that case, a mutation. And again, we have the issue of DNA not equaling similar structures, etc...
Llawliet246 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
NO. IT DOES NOT COME FROM HAECKEl"S DRAWINGS!!
Damn, I sat right here and told it doesn't, but you continue to claim it does.
Here you go. Actual photos of embryos.
w w w . m y s p a c e . c o m / d n a u n i o n / p h o t o s / 1 6 3 5 4 5 9
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
And again, you are wrong!!!
We DO have not only the similar embryonic structures in fish and humans, but also the same genes doing the same jobs in forming them!
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
Wrong on the "gill slits" too.
Pharyngeal slits are openings that pass from the inside (pharynx) to the outside of the embryo: that is why they are called SLITS ... dumbass!
They are genetically formed, too; they are not simple folds of skin that result from a downturning of the head, as other ignorant Christians claim.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion Sources, please (on the gill slits)?
Llawliet246 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
1 of 3(+)
I will have to spread the source on pharyngeal slits in human embryos across multiple posts.
The source for the quote is George C. Kent & Robert K Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2001, p7
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
2 of 3(?)
“If, and when, the branchial plate ruptures, a passageway is formed between the pharyngeal lumen and the exterior of the animal. This passageway is a pharyngeal slit. The slits may be permanent, as in fishes in which they are exits for respiratory water from the gills, or they are temporary, as in most tetrapods."
Let me stop there in order to point out that humans are tetrapods. We have temporary pharyngeal slits. The following states it more explicitly
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
"Only one or two of the more anterior pouches of mammals may rupture. Cervical fistulas occasionally seen in human beings are usually the result of the failure of the cervical sinus, housing the third and fourth slits, to close.”
IN HUMANS, failure of the cervical sinus, housing the 3rd and 4th slits, to close leads to cervical fistulas.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
1 of 3(?)
And more ... from a different source. This one is written by a well-known biologist, but is targeted for the general public, so uses less technical terminology. The source is:
Neil Shubin, ''Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion Year History of the Human Body', Pantheon Books, 2008, p90
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
2 of 3(?)
“Fish embryos have these bulges [pharyngeal arches] and indentations [ectodermal grooves], too. In fish, the indentations ultimately open up to form the spaces between the gills where water flows. In us, the indentations normally seal over. In abnormal cases, gill [pharyngeal] slits fail to close and remain open as pouches or cysts."
Again, we humans transiently develop fishlike pharyngeal slits, but they normally close up; when they don't, a cyst develops.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Llawliet246
3 of 3(?)
"A branchial cyst, for example, is often a benign fluid-filled cyst that forms in an open pouch inside the neck; the pouch is created by the failure of the third or fourth arch to close. Rarely, children are born with an actual vestige of an ancient gill arch cartilage, a little rod that represents a gill bar from the third arch.”
Even sometimes, rarely, a human child is born with an actual vestige of a gill arch cartilage.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llawliet246
And from yet another source ...
"But in other vertebrates that don’t have gills as adult, these arches turn into very different structures … Sometimes the embryonic gill [pharyngeal] slits fail to close in human embryos, producing a baby with a cyst on the neck. This condition, an atavistic remnant of our fishy ancestors, can be corrected with surgery.”
Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Evolution is True”, Viking, 2009, p74-75
DNAunion 1 year ago