Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (9-9)

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: If you see no response to any posters below they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling and general refusal to debate by evading Qs posed.  If anyone wants to make what they feel are similar points to theirs, I will be happy to respond. However, I debate only where true scientific debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective and actually will debate.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady What really happened there was the exposition of your inability to comprehend basic operational science.

As was said, science is not a 'this is how it happened, period' venture.

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime As usual with YT evo fans you present no data but substitute personal insults instead. Learn what real science is. You're on ignore since, as said, I debate with those who are civil & objective...and actually debate. You will never answer those Qs I gave you in response to your other post on the other vid because you have no answers. That should bother you. Maybe enough to peek outside the matrix and see what real science is.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady As usual with youtube creationists, you offer nothing but projection of your ignorance and inability to answer very simple questions.

I've already answered them and pointing out your fallacy. Now stop projecting and answer mine

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: I will not respond to Broscpec since he is one of several who has had a pattern of following me around YT wtih heavy duty verbal abuse & I only debate with those who are civil & objective. In case anyone would be deceived by his "reasoning" however.. To compare gravity and evolution is to use the logical fallacy of equivocation in the sense that both are considered to be "science" and so therefore comparable. Gravity is testable, repetable & observable, however. Evolution is not.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Actually, the effects of gravity are testable while the actual process of the change in heritable traits is directly observable in populations.

[LoricaLady]

And that's a wrap. :-)

[LoricaLady]

Before leaving this vid series I would like to demonstrate just how many speculations it has contained, by listing just those in 9/9, starting at 0:01 "We think they originated...the building blocks of life might be... it's an attractive idea...he argues it's actually almost predisposed....knowing this guy, in a few years he's probably going to succed [in creating life from inanimate chemicals]...I think that's pretty close...I'm certainly confident that's how it took place...Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady That post alone sums up your glaring ignorance of science in general quite nicely. Science is not about definitive proof, it's about the best explanation given the data.

[LoricaLady]

8:35 We are given to believe that maybe "self replicating molecules" led to abiogenesis. So far we have been given at least 3 "could have....scientists are working on this..." plus a reference to early earth conditions as if they are known. They are not. They only have a bunch of theories, guesswork, as usual which are presented as if they are somehow as good as actual facts. Abopgenesis "didn't leave much evidence." That is not an accurate statement. "Abiogenesis" left 0 evidence. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8:12 "How soon is it going to be before we have an answer as to how life originated on this planet." Earlier we were told with certainly, tho no supporting data at all, that life HAD originated on this planet through inorganic chemicals. Now we are being told that we don't know how it could have happened. So, we know it happened, but we don't know how it could have happened? Folks, this is not science. This is...faith. This is why many people think of evolution as a type of religioin. Cont.

[brospec]

@LoricaLady "How soon is it going to be before we have an answer as to how life originated on this planet" How soon is it going to be before we have an answer as to what is the cause of gravity ? Do you argue we should abandon the theory of gravitation (yes , sweetie, the THEORY) because we have not found the graviton? You have been posting the same mindless bullshit for years. Why dont you give it a rest and read some basic high school science - you make Christians sound like idiots

[LoricaLady]

Cont. This,& the Craig Venter experiment are actually showing 0 about abiogenesis, only about evolutionists telling people that they had done something which they have no way done. Craig Ventner never ever got close to abiogenesis. He used an already living cell for his experiment and simply altered it. This is genetic engineering, using pre-existing material and info from nature, not abiogenesis. Cont.

He just a said "abiogenesis is life coming from inanimate matter." Ventner didn' to it.

[LoricaLady]

7;21 Re a Q. about abiogenesis we hear about "a DNA virus particle" being REconstructed. A partilce of a virus is not a virus. As usual we are supposed to see invisible lines in our heads between something that is infinitesimally small to something that is astronomically complex - i.e. a completely new virus. As usual we are supposed to see imaginary lines between something that happened in a hi tech lab with intelligent design (ahem!) to what could theoretically happen in nature. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. 4:24 Eugenics "is generally described as the process of using genetics to improve our own species." When the term eugenics was coined, as Miller said, by Darwin's nephew, they had very little understanding of genetics. The truth is eugenics was and is associated with "genetics" in the sense that the self declared "elite" decide who has good genetic material & should breed & who should not breed. I'll give credit to Miller for this - he does speak out against such practices. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

4:08 "We don't know where the mutations will come from." It's true that some, not all, changes in bacteria are due to mutaitons. But all the mutations actually show the very opposite of evolution since no matter how many pile up we see 0 change beyond species. None of them are seen climbing up Darwin's "Tree of Life" as evidence for microorganisms-to-man. They sit on their same little "branch" no matter what happens to them. "We see this kind of change all the time." Yes, LIMITED change. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

4:00 "So if we keep developing antibiotics we can be certain these bacteria we are trying to kill are going to evolve resistance to those antibiotics." No, they are not evolving. They are showing the innate ability of all life forms to adapt - within limits!. What "we can be certain" about is that all those bacteria are going to stay bacteria. Gazillions of them multiplying at staggering rates, ditto algae & other mirco-organisms. All staying what they were, even with minor changes. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Most people have no clue about logical fallacies and really haven't been trained in critical thinking. If the media & textoooks & "experts" keep telling them something over & over, why shouldn't they believe it? Very few people understand what natural selection and mutations can or cannot do. So if they are constantly told that these things are evidence for evo many will nod and accept it. Still though,, as Miller himself said, kess than 1/2 of the populace accepts evo. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:50 Yes, "It's natural selection that fine tunes that variation." I hate to be repetitive but since the arguments have been, I will be too. Where is evidence regaring NS? The evidence shows it can lead to new species. No evidence shows it creating a new genus. No evidence shows mutations creating a new genus or anything higher for either, also. If people hear something over & over, as they do here, they start to think it must be true. They start believing that of course N.S. is evo. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

3:26 "The genetic make up...he argues [the usual use of speculative words] is actually almost [!] predisposed to produce useful variation." Farmers have bred for useful variation for millenia. That's how they get stronger cows, pigs, chickens, maybe even kids through judicious choice of a wife. .But 0 of the offspring will climb up Darwin's "Tree of Life." Another way to describe this argument would be "bait & switch" i.e. describe 1 thing & say it leads to another w/0 evidence. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Neither natural selection nor mutations have ever been seen to create new DNA. "Errors, duplications or translocations" are nowhere seen to lead to any "Tree" climbs, but only to very minor changes.. Everything is built on instructions from DNA. Mutations, N.S. "duplication or translocations" can't cause legs to become wings, fins to be feet or apes to be homo sapiens. That would take full, brand new, DNA strands not just changes, & new ones aren't seen being built anywhere.. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:46 "Mutations... are to an extent unpredictable." They are also almost always harmful. This is why women wear lead aprons to get dental x rays. Trying to find any that give any benefits is quite difficult, none are causing any leaps up Darwin's "Tree" & those very rare beneficial ones are nowhere seen to be building one on top of another. There is no mechanism by which, say, a mutation can turn a leg into a wing. For that there would have to be radical & astronomically new DNA. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. It's been my experience that "quote mine" means: "You revealed something we don't like. We are accusing you of misquoting or quoting out of context. However don't bother to ask us to give back up quotes that any such things accusations are true because if you do we will ignore you every time." Besides it's true. There are 0 tests to show what happened to the descendants of long dead animals in the fossil record & they frequently look nothing like their reputed "descendants." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Even some world famous evolutionists have admitted that there is 0 way to tell what kinds of descendants a fossil in the rocks ever had. Google Colin Patterson Quotes. He said claims of "transitional" forms "is not science" that "there is not 1 water tight case" for any of them and that such claims "are not science for there is no way to put them to the test." He was the head paleontologist of Britain's Museum of Natural History. People usually say "Quote mine!" when told this. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:40 "Yes, I think there will continue to be breakthroughs." Discovering that speciation can happen rapidly is a breakthrough in understanding speciation. But since all these years of studying uncounted numbers of fruit flies only results in more fruit flies, the evolutionist are missing that the longer they go, the more they are piling up evidence that nothing beyond speciation is happening! 1:47 Finding new fossils is also not causing breakthroughs in evolution. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Evolution is not a tool it is a theory. Here we're told that before one has even scientifically examined the genome, one has a bias to try to prove that whatever is seen is the result of evolution. In that sense, yes, evolution is a tool. "To compare our cells to distantly related and closely related organisms...to see where natural selection has happened." You cannot see where NS has happend in the past. Once again assumptions & speculation are treated as evidence. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:22 Interestingly speciation in a fruit fly thru mutation is given as an ex. of evo when fruit fly experiments have actually been proof against evolution. Over 1000 generations (maybe far more since the intial trials) were bombarded with radiatioin ini order to make them mutate & evolve. None of them were more viable than the originals, most were deformed, some never lived, and every last one of them stayed...a fruit fly. 1:55 Evo "is the tool we used to investigate our genome". Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:50 Here we go again with the concept that speciation is evo in action. It is not. In speciation bees stay bees and peas stay peas, no climb up Darwin's "Tree.". And finches stay finches regardless of the fact that their beaks show some seasonal changes. Notice he's never gone beyond the level of species to show evo happening, for ex. giving any evidence at all for creation of a new genus. Before Darwin speciation was known. There is 0 evidence that change occurs beyond that level. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. The "building blocks:" for evo theory are the same elsewhere as here: Speculation which has no supporting data, even speculation which is contrary to what science demonstrates, is presented as if it is truth. These "building blocks" are placed square on numerous logical fallacies and all packaged together and called scientific evidence. More contradictions: 1st we're told life DID originate on earth - then we're told maybe it originated in outer space. All based on 0 evidence. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

This is a continuation of a critcal analysis starting at vid 1/9. When we are told that something is a fact and there is 0 evidence to support that it is a fact, and there is even evidence to the contrary, then we are hearing pseudo science. In the 1st few sentences here we are asked to believe there might be life in the solar system based on what has happened on earth - no, based on what has never been observed to happen on earth, i.e. life coming from inanimate "building blocks." Cont.

[RebelRay]

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."

Evolutionist Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, 2001

[nethius]

Obviously Mayr/Ernst dont understand how hard it is for fossils to be created. We usually only see fossils from mass extintions or under specific circumstances.

Not every animal that ever lived left a fossil.... I dont see how that is so hard to understand...

[LoricaLady]

@nethius Why do you feel your understanding of how fossils form is superior to that of M. Ernst? "We usually only see fossils from mass extinctions..." How true, & it usually takes water.Supposedly milliions of years of just 1 kind of nautiloid alone are in the Grand Canyon. How odd. A bunch of mass extinctions, so they say,over aeons, yet it's so hard to find 1 modern nautiloid - or any modern animal - fossilized. Now 1 mass catastrophe could pile up millions of fossils real fast. Hmm...

[ch3ckm8]

@nethius

good point brothah

[DADShadowFox]

There's one question I'd like to ask Dr. Miller if I ever had the chance:

Evolution seems to discount there ever being an "Adam and Eve" (in the biblical sense). But without an Adam and Eve to cast the origional sin, what role does Jesus Christ play as a savior?

I would be anxious to hear responses from Christians who accept evolution on this matter.

[deljugo]

I think we all have a common father

[DADShadowFox]

Ken Miller is to biology as neil degrasse tyson is to astrophysics.

the world needs more charismatic "rockstar" educators like these.

[LoricaLady]

@DADShadowFox You say the world needs more "rockstar" educators like Ken Miller. I think the world needs more people who have been taught to do critical analysis and to recognize and reject logical fallacies. I am currently doing a critical analysis of Miller's presentation on Fossils, Genes, Mousetraps. I started at 1/9 and now am on 9/9. Can you debunk my debunks with logic and science (w/o the too frequent insults and strawmen logical fallacy of attacking Diety & Scriptures?)

[DelusionOrReality]

Excellent Lecture, Ken Miller is again showing how good he is at using theories & facts to obliterate ID's distortions & stories, while still keeping his faith.

A good selection of videos Thank you nethius

[saken]

I love how he says he is "religious" it does a very good job of not creating a division reaction to what he is saying. I hope theists can watch this and not reject it due to its conflict with their beliefs.

[KittyGotSued]

great lecture! thanks for the upload! Not many lectures are that good, he's one of the few who can do this, among Richard Dawkins & Carl Sagan.

[deljugo]

I dont think Richard Dawkins is as good as him; Richard Dawkins always "insults" the other side lol

[LogicRising]

You can't compare the two...Richard Dawkins talks mainly about atheism...Ken Miller is a scientist who happens to be a christian.

[KittyGotSued]

Actually, that's only inrecent years. (due to his latest book) Watch Dawkins' older stuff, like his Royal Society X-mas lectures, totally awesome :)

[InReasonWeTrust]

Ken is sharp. I wonder what it would be like to have Ken and Sam Harris debate about faith.

[thargimpaler]

Who's Sam Harris?

[cyril957]

Sam Harris is an atheist writer/speaker, one of the four "Horsemen of the Atheist Apocalypse" (along with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett).

[hanzo138]

Ken Miller knows his stuff!

[deadman1144]

i mite us this in my movie

[comodocomodos]

Thanks so much. Your videos always rock.

[FunkyJogaBonito]

Thanks nethius. Much appreciated.

[neowondertwilight]

Absolutely brilliant! Thank you so much for posting this series!