NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
@Mogley52 the problem with ICR is all their articles are peer-reviewed among their own little community. That's equivalent to a lab only letting its article peer-reviewed by other labs within the same university. Creation scientists have yet to produce an article that is good enough for mainstream scientific publishing, like Nature or Science. In fact, I challenge you to produce me a creation scientist research that has led to major scientific breakthrough. Just name me 1!
You really have to research outside of your dogmatic point of view. No one has ever claimed that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. What is scientifically incompatible is the non-scientific claim that random mutations/natural selection is responsible for something that is actually a non-random genetic or cellular process that pre-exists in living systems. So if evolution is true (variation and niche filling), there is more and more evidence suggesting it is guided.
@circusOFprecision lol i'm actually more of a theistic evolutionist than an atheistic one, so you made the false assumption that I am an atheist. And also, the term ID is very ambiguous, as it can be either a creationist or a theistic evolutionist or somewhere in between. So yes, ID and evolution can be exclusive, depending on how you use it. And lastly, while i hate to admit it, there is zero evidence for a supernatural creator to guide evolution, if there is i like to hear.
Why does it have to be supernatural? If you phrase it that way, you automatically make it beyond the reach of science, which is just ignorant? How about be more realistic. Living processes exhibit ACTUAL, real time intelligent activity. Take all of your random mutations and ask yourself, did I actually see how those changes were made? Do I have proof they were mutations, or might they have been changes orchestrated by gene expression? Clue, it's not mechanistic.
@circusOFprecision you need to make your position clear cuz before you sound like you are a theistic evolutionist, and now you sound like you are an atheist. Which are you? This is important to clearing up what you mean by ID. You seem to be using the word "intelligence" within biology as "wow it's so amazing, i'll call it intelligence!", when most people would confuse that with a supernatural-related concept. Be precise and tell me which side are you.
Take bacteria for example. They ARE intelligent, and I mean that literally. The intelligence within bacteria is very much ACTIVE (not beyond nature). It is cognitive/computational based, not mechanistic. So you have to ask yourself, where does this intelligence come from? It's acting in the universe, but where is it's source? Those are second order questions. But use your brain here, where do you think this active intelligence comes from?
And as for your confusion about my theism, that's ridiculous. Of course I'm a theist. Just think about what I am saying. Intelligent Design should not be metaphorically correlated with the activity of human beings, because the design is far grander and so is the intelligence behind it.
@circusOFprecision 3 things. 1) You are employing the logic of "wow, look, nature is so amazing, i don't know how they got to be so complex and so smart. Since I can't understand it, someone greater must have done it, and lets call it God!". Can't do that. 2) Yes life such as even bacteria are amazing and intelligent in their own way, but we have evidence to highly suggest this is due to evolution. Whether you want to say God is behind it or not is irrelevant.
1. No I'm not. I'm embracing a cognitive/computational model (i.e. intelligence) and rejecting a mechanistic model because the cognitive model has FAR superior explanatory power in light of the depth and intricacy of biological information. I never said it was God. But if doesn't come from a superior intelligence, it can't simply be explained away as emergence (which is not an explanation). It must be inherent, and it still requires a more fundamental explanation.
@circusOFprecision Addressing #1 and #2: you are assuming intelligence has to be there for evolution to take place. That's not correct. New genes can arise by de novo mutations, and over time these genes can take on novel functions. Is there intelligence at work here? No. Did you see any invisible fairies telling the genes what functions to take? Did you see God's pair of hands twinkling the genes? No. Through nature itself the genes gradually acquired functions.
I'm not assuming intelligence HAS to be there, I'm pointing out that it IS there. Read Shapiro's work on bacteria. The mechanisms are there. In your comment, you express a mechanistic, deterministic view of genetics. Genes don't operate exclusively. Their subsequent mutations, if asserted to arise by chance, require explanation. You can't just say "copying error" if you didn't observe it.
@circusOFprecision um..you refer me to Shapiro, yet you do realize he is not a proponent of ID, right? If anything, he is agnostic about it, not committing strongly to either side until further info comes up. And I am NOT denying there is intelligence today. Bacteria are smart, I don't deny this! But I am telling you before you can claim that X is the reason why bacteria is smart, first prove me the existence of X! (i.e. your God)
Okay, take a couple of steps back. The reason bacteria are smart is because nature is smart. Nature is intelligent and I don't mean that in the materialistic, self organizing/emergent sense. I mean it in the cognitive sense that choices are made based upon the ability to process information, and based upon an inherent drive to survive and experience. If you want to leave God out of it, fine. But my intent is to get the proper perspective (world view) first.
People personify nature all the time, especially Darwinists when they glorify the role of natural selection. But I'm not making nature an entity. I would say intelligence is fundamental to what happens in nature.
"Through nature itself the genes gradually acquired functions."
First, did you observe what caused the genes in the first place? How about their apparent mutation or duplication? You are begging the question and ignoring well documented evidence of intelligent computational processes that can account for genomic changes directly within the life cycle of an individual cell (adaptive not random). Speak to that instead of resorting to vague unverifiable "appearances".
2. Wrong order of causality. Evolution doesn't produce intelligence. Intelligence produces evolution. It's called learning. Bacteria have learned some incredible tricks. But that presupposes the capacity to learn and experience, to exercise the ability of intelligence. You better sit down and really think about this one.
@circusOFprecision 3) Not all things are so intelligent to attribute to the quality of an intelligent creator. Look up the study on the manipulation of food, environment and wasp. Its simple brain is just like a machine, primitive yet efficient for its means, though clearly not capable of anything more complex than what it needs to survive (as expected from evolution). Another example is a creationist who thinks Earth is 6000 years old LOL
3. Basically you are asserting that intelligence can just emerge on it's own (miraculously). What I am saying is that intelligence comes from intelligence. So recognizing intelligence in nature as fundamental logically requires an intelligent source. Your wasp example presupposes that the wasp has means. If it isn't intelligent and experiencing "something", what means is there? There is none. Also, you seem to correlate intelligence with human intelligence, which is wrong.
But you contradict yourself when you admit that the level of intelligence increase with the level of organization--humans are "smarter" than a bacteria.
It isn't merely the level of organization, it's the amount of information that is being processed and interpreted. An increase in information and organization doesn't contradict the reality of an atomistic view of intelligence, although I wouldn't call it atomistic, I would call it quantum.
@circusOFprecision Point on #3: while i have already said i myself am leaning towards theistic evolution point of view, you CANNOT say variable X created intelligence that later lead to more intelligence. Prove this variable X for me first. You can't use one unproven variable to prove another. Oh wait, let me guess: God is not provable, right? Have to take it on faith, as the Bible says? How convenient for you :)
I didn't say God created intelligence. I said that we observe intelligence in nature and I inferred that said intelligence has an intelligent source because a) intelligence begets intelligence; b) nature is intelligible, therefore intelligence MUST be fundamental.
Your last statement is just ridiculous. If you lean towards theistic evolution, what reason do you have? Your logic is incompatible with any true theistic account of reality that actually means anything.
@circusOFprecision My reason for leaning towards theistic is purely a personal reason which I gladly admit is non-scientific, therefore I don't justify it or use it to argue against science. Nor do I make it sound like I am right 100%. You, meanwhile is saying intelligence has to come from intelligence, and therefore, eventually logically lead to something that is eternal, and has to be God. If not, what else?
@circusOFprecision "nature is intelligible, therefore intelligence MUST be fundamental." => so when you connect a string of nucleotides together to form RNA, and this RNA becomes self-replicative, at which point does this fundamental intelligence kick in? You seem to be describing intelligence merely in terms of the outcome of the physical laws of nature. If you want to call that intelligence...sure, but it's misleading.
To grasp what I am saying, you need to set aside the reductionist/mechanical mode of thinking. Look at bacteria, it's the best example of what I am talking about because it's so overwhelming and in your face. Bacteria literally sense their environment and make decisions according to the electrochemical signals they receive. That's where we are at, we don't have the whole thing, but we do have a deeper level of understanding. The intelligence is in the notion of experience.
@circusOFprecision We understand quite well how bacteria sense their environment, and how they respond. We know quite detailed the precise genes involved, the motor control, and cellular contraction. We can even knock out certain genes and prevent them from responding to the environment. We can even manipulate it for bacteria to react to environment and carry out goals according to the way we want (i.e. cellular programming). We know all this quite well. It's intelligent, but it's also nature
Do you know that bacteria can reorganize their genomes in order to adapt to stressful environments? Did you know that they can insert pieces of genetic information from the environment? Or they can insert and shuffle genetic elements in order to alter enzymes and proteins? Yes, it's intelligent. But it isn't mechanistic or chemical determinism. It's cognitive/computational information processing. Yes, as humans we can muck with it even though we don't fully understand it.
@circusOFprecision We dance around and around, but we actually already agree on the main issue, which is that nature has intelligence. Our difference is you think this intelligence has to come from God. And I'm telling you it doesn't. Intelligence in the end comes from interaction of the genes/relevant products with environment. And we have good evidence to show genes + relevant chemicals evolve naturally, without God. So there's no reason to say why this intelligence has to come from God.
But if they do evolve "naturally", what does that even mean? You agree with me that nature is intelligent, so wouldn't the evolution be due to intelligence? Also, I lean towards the idea that nature thinks, it processes things in a cognitive fashion, much like we do, from moment to moment. Experience is knowledge, so nature collects the back log of what was experienced and learns. That's the intelligence, it's a kind of "technology" of mind if you will.
@circusOFprecision If you want to say this intelligence COULD come from God, no problem here. Sure, i'll admit it's a possibility. But is it a fact? No. It's simply a guess. You can't state it like as if it's a fact until you offer actual proof for this creator of intelligence, cuz like i told you, there are plenty of other theories that explain how this intelligence could have come about in a naturalistic way.
What I am saying is that existence is coherent, logical it IS. Why? Because intelligence is fundamental to the proposition of something rather than nothing. There IS existence because intelligence is fundamental, nature is the artifact, the ever changing manifestation of the intelligence behind it, the mind behind it. This is highly philosophical, but it aids me in interpreting nature scientifically, but at a more powerful conceptual level.
Also, I don't think that mechanical ideas (thus brute naturalistic theories) about intelligence make any sense. I don't think intelligence simply emerges. I think that the intelligible is intelligent. And I'm not making this idea up, I'm borrowing it from others who I tend to agree with. That means the ability of intelligence comes first and it grows. That is what I see in the living world especially.
@circusOFprecision yea...but now we are getting into the idea of "i think this...you think that...", and in the end, neither of us can really debunk each other...i get what you are saying, but i gotta say...you won't convince me until 2 things. 1) Concrete evidence for a creator capable of bestowing intelligence into nature 2) all competing theories, especially naturalistic ones, are debunked thoroughly.
I can't debunk you, and my guess is neither can you debunk me. I think we leave it as that.
No need to try and debunk each other. You have a hunch, I have a slightly different one. I could be wrong. Either way, at least we had a productive conversation, that's always beneficial.
@circusOFprecision yea good discussion. It's good to hear you admit that you could be wrong (just like i did). That's very important, it's the key trait that makes you not a religious freak. Those hardcore theists are always claiming that their belief is 100% right, cuz they are on the side of their God, despite no concrete proof to show for it. Nice to hear you admit you could be wrong.
It depends on what level you are talking about. At the molecular level, an individual cell trumps a brain. On the macro level, a brain trumps an individual cell.
"It depends on what level you are talking about. At the molecular level, an individual cell trumps a brain. On the macro level, a brain trumps an individual cell."
Its too bad you never follow through on your thought process on these threads---you might actually learn something.
So, since a brain is a collection of cells, it wins right?
According to your statement here, its got the best of both worlds.
@circusOFprecision I'm getting confuse as to what's your point...you seem striving to tell me 2 things :1) nature is intelligent, it's inherent. Which I do agree! 2) this intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, therefore logically points to God. If this is your 2nd point, then I disagree. Self-replicative RNA molecules, the most simplest life form, is smart. They can self-replicate. How did they do that? By simply following laws of nature. Sure, there's intelligence, but not divine.
Self replicating RNA outside of a genetic system? No such thing.
My point is that nature thinks. It isn't a bunch of molecules bouncing off of one another and then miracles happen. Existence from bottom up is intelligent. Why is that? That's what leads you to a designer. But you really have to think about it deeply.
These are more than just opinions. And they line up with the ID quite nicely. As for the YEC folks, they have a much tougher task, but I tend to agree with much of their way of looking at things, even if I have issues with some of their direct claims. This is about how we view the living world and nature in general. You obviously have a set way of looking at nature that effects every piece of evidence that falls into your lap. Think about it.
I've provided plenty of facts. But the scope of this is enormous. Again, it's about world view. Theories are concepts, they aren't mental copies of the actual world. How we tend to construct reality at the most fundamental level is going to lead to different interpretations and hopefully better concepts. But concepts are always going to be limited. I really think you should study Atomism, because that is NOT what I am alluding to.
But aside from your lack of evidence for your more extreme claims--to which you simply admit that the evidence doesn't exist yet--how is it that you don't recognize the fact that your opinions are much closer to modern scientific claims than any YEC theism?
Didn't we already have this conversation? The scientific claims may put a relative age on things, or may claim that life evolved. But they don't go as far as to say that the universe is NOT intelligent or that the Bible is false, and so on. So be careful not to make the mistake you have made many times before: conflating science with Darwinism and/or Atheism. It is because of science that I say the intelligible IS intelligent.
No, if you want my opinion, "What the Bleep..." was a stupid movie. I'm not peddling material. I'm presenting my opinions based upon the knowledge that I have, which comes from many different sources from YEC to hardcore evolutionists and so on.
No. Here is the thing. At the quantum level there are just flashes of energy that pop in and out of existence (with no material properties what so ever). That is where OUR consciousness PERCEPTION breaks down. But we are part of the universe, we exhibit the fundamental reality of existence. The difficulty is truly understanding this. And I can't even begin to get it across to you in little comment boxes. I suggest reading some David Bohm if you want to go quantum.
@circusOFprecision "Self replicating RNA outside of a genetic system? No such thing." => what's a genetic system? lol your wording is always very weird...you either don't have a bachelors in biology yet...or English is not your first language, cuz you choose VERY weird words to describe your thoughts...if you mean a cell, then no, we have examples of RNA capable of self-replicating OUTSIDE of a cell. This is part of abiogenesis evidence concerning RNA-world hypothesis.
"or might they have been changes orchestrated by gene expression?"
Tell us how gene expression controls itself in BOTH organisms required to produce offspring in such a way that there is a qualitative difference between the INTELLIGENCE you are claiming and the "random" it appears to be.
The sad part is that if you actually look at the genetic and molecular research, none of this emerges because of random mutations and selection, but from the intelligence of the genetic expression system itself. If one applies a cognitive, computational model and dismisses with the nonsensical mechanistic model, it becomes quite clear that informational decision making is what runs the show.
Face the reality of the history that we actually have.
There is not nearly enough actual verifiable human history for any significant evolution to occur.
You cannot even suggest any such thing as evolution without accounting for the origin of the hundreds of consecutive layers in the strata that contain fossils.
The starting assumptions one uses as axioms really do tend to shape everthing else that follows.
It doesn't matter if the evidence is thin. If a hypothesis has support, scientists will stick with it and seek to confirm it. I suppose eventually a wrong hypothesis will be accepted as such, but sometimes it can take hundreds of years to realize that.
What's my point?
Don't insist certain ideas must be accepted while others must be suppressed. Science will sort it all out eventually.
@tubewatch59 Your point is valid, but I question the steps used to reach it. "This could also indicate Intelligent Design just as easily, and an entirely different scenario/set of evidence could also alternately be used to support a slightly different form of Evolution."
I consider the above summary of your argument (as I read it, of course; I cannot be 100% certain it is correct) valid, but problematic in that it fails to note that this is not the only evidence for the model of Evolution.
@Saavykaas And as a minor followup to my previous comment, I actually agree that this set of evidence in this video is probably some of the least compelling evidence toward the accuracy of the theory of Evolution (or even just common descent) when taken on its own. Were I to only see this video and nothing else on the subject, it would not be sufficient for me to form a conclusion at all.
I agree. I didn't cover much in the way of topics. I didn't actually argue for ID much at all, mainly making the point that quite often the same evidences can be taken to support different worldviews. But I also think that holds with the other lines of evidence in origins as well. You have anything particular in mind?
A piece of evidence that I think is more strongly in support of ID is the existence of irreducibly complex protein machines. Controverisal, but interesting.
What if all life forms were completely different to each other? On it's face that would look like special creation. But on the other hand, it would also be compatible with the idea of a type of common descent via sudden genetic changes. It would be taken as evidence that biochemistry can suddenly transform into something completely different. It might be referred to as "punctuated biochemical morphosis". Scientists would be tallying up the similarities between the very different lifeforms.
These observations are certainly compatible with common descent.
However these observations are also compatible with intelligent design.
What if these arguments were not true?
What if there were different DNA codes, etc?
That would still be evidence of common descent, but from multiple ancestor life forms. We'd likely be trying to figure out which of the ancestors developed first. And they'd still be compatible with intelligent design.
@daddyleon Yeah it actually uses Arsenic to build it's genetic chains with, which any carbon based life form can tell you is likely the most poisonous compound one could ingest. Poke around Google, NASA has a lot of information about this, the study of course will continue.
This video just summerized all of College level Biology for me :/ i wish i had discovered this last semester.. i wouldn't of gotten that 75 on that final :S bwahahahaha oh well WOO SCIENCE FUCKING ROCKS! i just hate the stupid terminology. :/
Videos like this one are just ignored by creationist's, they just say 'it's false, a fraud, my bible tells me so". The fear factor has them so scared, they refuse to question the bible and it's supposed author. All we can do is keep pushing the truth on them, andf hopefully they'll lose that fear.
AWESOME VIDEOS! I've been an Atheist for ~1 year. I've always been skeptical about the Bible, esp. more so as I got older. This made learning on my own difficult. I then became Agnostic/Atheist at times since I was about 13. Now, I know the Bible is ABSOLUTE BS! I wish my religious grandparents would watch videos like these! My grandfather asked me on THANKSGIVING; "Kyle, do you believe in the "young" or "old" Earth? "Old", I replied. How can a 77 year old man ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS!? *FACEPALM*
Thing about science is it can be backed up time and time again--even by people trying to disprove or debunk something, and yet they come up with the same result. That is how a theory is created. A theory is NOT some random thought. A theory has been tested numerous times and has yet to be disproved.
The bible is a bunch of fictional stories that historians have tried to find proof of--and most often failed. Thus the Bible is bullshit.
@APOLOGETICIENCE Although, don't mistake me for one of the foolish Atheists. I'm a writer. I'm studying religion right now, even. I know religion is not evil. Well, except Scientology, but that's another story. >_>
However, unlike an Atheist, I know what religion can do for people to improve their lives. I also know there's plenty that science has yet to properly research, such as the possibility of an afterlife. Though I digress, that is once more another story.
++ “two words hume: Majungatholus atopus. isnt it funny how a lung system supposedly unique to birds, exists in something other than birds that just happens to be what evolution predicts is the ancestor of a bird?” ++
A blind man will take the hand of falsehood if he walks with deception in mind. Your suggested ancestor of birds allegedly lived about 70 million years ago; thus you ignore the fact that …..
"Your suggested ancestor of birds allegedly lived about 70 million years ago; thus you ignore the fact that our bird Archaeopteryx already lived allegedly 80"
- hume i already addressed that in my last set of replies to you LEARN TO READ and try again.
"Thus your evidence is pure conjecture based on dogma" - and that statement is a non-sequitar. YOU FAIL.
@types10000 Tell us, guru, what are dinosaur traits? What traits does man have today from his ancestors the dinosaurs? If all life came from a single source as claimed in this video. Enlighten us, plz. 2 eyes? Skin? Nails? Teeth? Which of the dinosaurs did man evolve from?
….. our bird Archaeopteryx already lived allegedly 80 million years earlier thus disposing your fossil out of the air. Plus the Nature paper confirms that this one fossil is subject to an "implied" fact re the existence. Thus your evidence is pure conjecture based on dogma.
….. is a genus of abelisaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in Madagascar from 70 to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Only one species (M. crenatissimus) has been identified.
++ “these specializations imply the existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.” ++
Google:
Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs, nature
++ “archeopteryx's dinosaur ancestry is evident from it's huge array of dinosaur traits.” ++
No true scientist would argue this falsehood. It is pure blind dogma. Only a fool would ignore the science and believe that a parrot descended from a dinosaur.
QUOTE:
++ “"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who …..
"No true scientist would argue this falsehood. It is pure blind dogma" - incorrect, scientists already accept archeopteryx as an intermediate form and the fact it contains a huge array of dinosaur traits is just one of the reasons.
hume your the one ignoring the science, your dogma forces you to completely reject comparitive anatomy, carbon dating, the foundational principles of modern geology and biology .etc
….. completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."
However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable …..
….. thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution. .....
….. "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. …..
….. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.” ++
Google:
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links, sciencedaily
""However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed"
two words hume:
Majungatholus atopus
wiki: Majungasaurus - Respiratory system
isnt it funny how a lung system supposedly unique to birds, exists in something other than birds that just happens to be what evolution predicts is the ancestor of a bird?
haha why do you think it's so dumbed-down? we dont think they're capable of understanding horizontal gene transfer or how archeopteryx is an intermediatre form regardless of simply being an offshoot of the bird lineage....hell most of them dont even understand something can be a bird and still be an intermediate, TAXONOMY FAIL lol
Seriously, do you really think you can have an honest debate with someone who says "The subject is not religion. You attempt to defend the theory of evolution a pagan idea" , thinks Genesis says the Sun and Moon were created on the 1st day (it clearly states day 4), and has the most bizarre (and unexplainable) conspiracy theory stating that all of biology and most of the rest of science is out to disprove God in an atheist agenda.
@fkbryce I agree, sent him a valid blunt message about quopte mining, advised him to go and read the article he quoted in full or SHUT THE FUCK UP, happy guys?
@fkbryce I agree, sent him a valid blunt message about quopte mining, advised him to go and read the article he quoted in full or SHUT THE F*&^ UP, happy guys?
++ "Beware the Hume Troll, the eyes that cross, the brain that hurts..." ++
When defeated and they have no answers to the direct evidence that confirms their dogma the theory of evolution is flawed, they run away crying abuse.
Humus, it is absolute hypocracy for you to accuse anyone of lying, and as for the having no answers- when have you ever provided one that wasn't discredited.
You are a sack of deciet working for AiG or one of its YECS cousins. You spam constantly, lie always and have never, not once responded decently to posts that prove you to have been misquoting (lying) quotemining (lying) or twisting peoples' words (lying).
++ "You are a sack of deciet working for AiG or one of its YECS cousins. You spam constantly, lie always and have never, not once responded decently to posts that prove you to have been misquoting (lying) quotemining (lying) or twisting peoples' words (lying). It is confirmed you are; 1) Not a Christian 2) Act on behalf of a cult." ++
"When defeated" - hume, your not intelligent enough to defeat anyone, you think that proevolution articles are evidence against evolution and deny the existance of intermediate forms even after being shown how tiktaalic and archeopteryx are the very definition of intermediate form.
Humus has no capacity to accept or admit that he has erred in his misquoting. He will simply accuse you of something he deems wrong. he will not however, take the path of honesty.
He will accuse me I expect, of being a supporter of evolution (true) but will frame this as a wrong. OTOH he will paint himself as somehow being wronged. he is a disgusting liar, so such a pose is almost melodramatic.
tiktaalik and archaeopteryx are not the very definition of intermediate forms as creationists require.
Evolutionists believe everything is transitional so any similarities qualify.
Archaeoptryx is a bird & has no got scales turning into feathers as required by evolution to be factual.
Another fossil has been found 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik so it goes on the scrap heap with coelacanth as another intermediate which was not.
"tiktaalik and archaeopteryx are not the very definition of intermediate forms as creati..." - the key words in there are 'as creationists' require, however the definition of intermediate form already has an established definition and to change it now would simply be shifting the goal post (logical fallacy).
evolutionists define everything as transitional, to stop the confusion of terms between transitional and intermediate, if you want to use them interechangeably i wont stop you
" the key words in there are 'as creationists' require, however the definition of intermediate form already has an established definition and to change it now would simply be shifting the goal post "
correct and you guys have shifted them far too often.
It was clearly accepted in darwins time by darwin himself that intermediates would need to be found. Wolf like creatures dont turn into whales without trillions of intermediaries existing. How many of them should be found?
"we should find as many intermediates as we do definite whales." - this hasnt been a problem for evolution for a long time as it was explained by punctuated equilibrium in the 60's and confirmed on the microevolutionary scale in small isolated populations.
what it essentially says is that evolution occurs in bursts where less adapted intermediates are out-competed by their more well-adappted decedents.
- your information seems to be about 50 years out of date :)
++ “this hasnt been a problem for evolution for a long time as it was explained by punctuated equilibrium in the 60's and confirmed on the microevolutionary scale in small isolated populations.” ++
Nothing is a problem for evolutionists. Darwin argued that his theory is gradual mutations over vast periods of time. But the evidence did not match up; thus evolutionists made their data fit the theory of false dogma. We call that deception.
"Darwin argued that his theory is gradual mutations over vast periods of time. But the evidence did not match up"
Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can both be used to model evolution, punctuated equilibrium models it more accurately.
you see this how science works hume, when Newtonian mechanics was ditched for for Einstein's, scientists didnt throw their arms up in dismay and say all of physics is wrong, they improved physics using the new information.
This is a great video
osclarkos 3 weeks ago
Your video went viral on Nairobi
laysampson1231c 3 weeks ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
jessyjessy4 1 month ago
love the video really good
simysimss 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
distractionxx 1 month ago
good work here
msjessypp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"especially Darwinists when they glorify the role of natural selection."
Why don't you name one of these supposed "Darwinists"?
odinata 1 month ago
i enjoyed this vid
alexasmithy 1 month ago
Great video...!
Samantha03Hema 1 month ago
Good video!.. Cool..
directorygod 1 month ago
Now i'm wondering where the hurtful forms of comments are.
enarolloyd49g 2 months ago
omg jz look so cool.
saffreygirl 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 the problem with ICR is all their articles are peer-reviewed among their own little community. That's equivalent to a lab only letting its article peer-reviewed by other labs within the same university. Creation scientists have yet to produce an article that is good enough for mainstream scientific publishing, like Nature or Science. In fact, I challenge you to produce me a creation scientist research that has led to major scientific breakthrough. Just name me 1!
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr
You really have to research outside of your dogmatic point of view. No one has ever claimed that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. What is scientifically incompatible is the non-scientific claim that random mutations/natural selection is responsible for something that is actually a non-random genetic or cellular process that pre-exists in living systems. So if evolution is true (variation and niche filling), there is more and more evidence suggesting it is guided.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision lol i'm actually more of a theistic evolutionist than an atheistic one, so you made the false assumption that I am an atheist. And also, the term ID is very ambiguous, as it can be either a creationist or a theistic evolutionist or somewhere in between. So yes, ID and evolution can be exclusive, depending on how you use it. And lastly, while i hate to admit it, there is zero evidence for a supernatural creator to guide evolution, if there is i like to hear.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Why does it have to be supernatural? If you phrase it that way, you automatically make it beyond the reach of science, which is just ignorant? How about be more realistic. Living processes exhibit ACTUAL, real time intelligent activity. Take all of your random mutations and ask yourself, did I actually see how those changes were made? Do I have proof they were mutations, or might they have been changes orchestrated by gene expression? Clue, it's not mechanistic.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Clue, it's not mechanistic."
Clue, you don't have anything other than opinion.
One that is demonstrably false.
Sorry bud.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision you need to make your position clear cuz before you sound like you are a theistic evolutionist, and now you sound like you are an atheist. Which are you? This is important to clearing up what you mean by ID. You seem to be using the word "intelligence" within biology as "wow it's so amazing, i'll call it intelligence!", when most people would confuse that with a supernatural-related concept. Be precise and tell me which side are you.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Take bacteria for example. They ARE intelligent, and I mean that literally. The intelligence within bacteria is very much ACTIVE (not beyond nature). It is cognitive/computational based, not mechanistic. So you have to ask yourself, where does this intelligence come from? It's acting in the universe, but where is it's source? Those are second order questions. But use your brain here, where do you think this active intelligence comes from?
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@Casshyr
And as for your confusion about my theism, that's ridiculous. Of course I'm a theist. Just think about what I am saying. Intelligent Design should not be metaphorically correlated with the activity of human beings, because the design is far grander and so is the intelligence behind it.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision 3 things. 1) You are employing the logic of "wow, look, nature is so amazing, i don't know how they got to be so complex and so smart. Since I can't understand it, someone greater must have done it, and lets call it God!". Can't do that. 2) Yes life such as even bacteria are amazing and intelligent in their own way, but we have evidence to highly suggest this is due to evolution. Whether you want to say God is behind it or not is irrelevant.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
1. No I'm not. I'm embracing a cognitive/computational model (i.e. intelligence) and rejecting a mechanistic model because the cognitive model has FAR superior explanatory power in light of the depth and intricacy of biological information. I never said it was God. But if doesn't come from a superior intelligence, it can't simply be explained away as emergence (which is not an explanation). It must be inherent, and it still requires a more fundamental explanation.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Addressing #1 and #2: you are assuming intelligence has to be there for evolution to take place. That's not correct. New genes can arise by de novo mutations, and over time these genes can take on novel functions. Is there intelligence at work here? No. Did you see any invisible fairies telling the genes what functions to take? Did you see God's pair of hands twinkling the genes? No. Through nature itself the genes gradually acquired functions.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
I'm not assuming intelligence HAS to be there, I'm pointing out that it IS there. Read Shapiro's work on bacteria. The mechanisms are there. In your comment, you express a mechanistic, deterministic view of genetics. Genes don't operate exclusively. Their subsequent mutations, if asserted to arise by chance, require explanation. You can't just say "copying error" if you didn't observe it.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision um..you refer me to Shapiro, yet you do realize he is not a proponent of ID, right? If anything, he is agnostic about it, not committing strongly to either side until further info comes up. And I am NOT denying there is intelligence today. Bacteria are smart, I don't deny this! But I am telling you before you can claim that X is the reason why bacteria is smart, first prove me the existence of X! (i.e. your God)
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Okay, take a couple of steps back. The reason bacteria are smart is because nature is smart. Nature is intelligent and I don't mean that in the materialistic, self organizing/emergent sense. I mean it in the cognitive sense that choices are made based upon the ability to process information, and based upon an inherent drive to survive and experience. If you want to leave God out of it, fine. But my intent is to get the proper perspective (world view) first.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
"The reason bacteria are smart is because nature is smart. Nature is intelligent "
What is "nature"?
How is "nature an entity or being that you can claim is "intelligent"?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
People personify nature all the time, especially Darwinists when they glorify the role of natural selection. But I'm not making nature an entity. I would say intelligence is fundamental to what happens in nature.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Natural selection has nothing to do with the personification of nature.
It is a term that describes the process reproduction of organisms.
Now what do you think this "Nature" that has an intelligence is?
Is it everything in the universe?
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr
"Through nature itself the genes gradually acquired functions."
First, did you observe what caused the genes in the first place? How about their apparent mutation or duplication? You are begging the question and ignoring well documented evidence of intelligent computational processes that can account for genomic changes directly within the life cycle of an individual cell (adaptive not random). Speak to that instead of resorting to vague unverifiable "appearances".
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@Casshyr
2. Wrong order of causality. Evolution doesn't produce intelligence. Intelligence produces evolution. It's called learning. Bacteria have learned some incredible tricks. But that presupposes the capacity to learn and experience, to exercise the ability of intelligence. You better sit down and really think about this one.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision 3) Not all things are so intelligent to attribute to the quality of an intelligent creator. Look up the study on the manipulation of food, environment and wasp. Its simple brain is just like a machine, primitive yet efficient for its means, though clearly not capable of anything more complex than what it needs to survive (as expected from evolution). Another example is a creationist who thinks Earth is 6000 years old LOL
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
3. Basically you are asserting that intelligence can just emerge on it's own (miraculously). What I am saying is that intelligence comes from intelligence. So recognizing intelligence in nature as fundamental logically requires an intelligent source. Your wasp example presupposes that the wasp has means. If it isn't intelligent and experiencing "something", what means is there? There is none. Also, you seem to correlate intelligence with human intelligence, which is wrong.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
You are asserting that intelligence is atomistic.
But you contradict yourself when you admit that the level of intelligence increase with the level of organization--humans are "smarter" than a bacteria.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
It isn't merely the level of organization, it's the amount of information that is being processed and interpreted. An increase in information and organization doesn't contradict the reality of an atomistic view of intelligence, although I wouldn't call it atomistic, I would call it quantum.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Point on #3: while i have already said i myself am leaning towards theistic evolution point of view, you CANNOT say variable X created intelligence that later lead to more intelligence. Prove this variable X for me first. You can't use one unproven variable to prove another. Oh wait, let me guess: God is not provable, right? Have to take it on faith, as the Bible says? How convenient for you :)
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
I didn't say God created intelligence. I said that we observe intelligence in nature and I inferred that said intelligence has an intelligent source because a) intelligence begets intelligence; b) nature is intelligible, therefore intelligence MUST be fundamental.
Your last statement is just ridiculous. If you lean towards theistic evolution, what reason do you have? Your logic is incompatible with any true theistic account of reality that actually means anything.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision My reason for leaning towards theistic is purely a personal reason which I gladly admit is non-scientific, therefore I don't justify it or use it to argue against science. Nor do I make it sound like I am right 100%. You, meanwhile is saying intelligence has to come from intelligence, and therefore, eventually logically lead to something that is eternal, and has to be God. If not, what else?
Casshyr 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision "nature is intelligible, therefore intelligence MUST be fundamental." => so when you connect a string of nucleotides together to form RNA, and this RNA becomes self-replicative, at which point does this fundamental intelligence kick in? You seem to be describing intelligence merely in terms of the outcome of the physical laws of nature. If you want to call that intelligence...sure, but it's misleading.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
To grasp what I am saying, you need to set aside the reductionist/mechanical mode of thinking. Look at bacteria, it's the best example of what I am talking about because it's so overwhelming and in your face. Bacteria literally sense their environment and make decisions according to the electrochemical signals they receive. That's where we are at, we don't have the whole thing, but we do have a deeper level of understanding. The intelligence is in the notion of experience.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision We understand quite well how bacteria sense their environment, and how they respond. We know quite detailed the precise genes involved, the motor control, and cellular contraction. We can even knock out certain genes and prevent them from responding to the environment. We can even manipulate it for bacteria to react to environment and carry out goals according to the way we want (i.e. cellular programming). We know all this quite well. It's intelligent, but it's also nature
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Do you know that bacteria can reorganize their genomes in order to adapt to stressful environments? Did you know that they can insert pieces of genetic information from the environment? Or they can insert and shuffle genetic elements in order to alter enzymes and proteins? Yes, it's intelligent. But it isn't mechanistic or chemical determinism. It's cognitive/computational information processing. Yes, as humans we can muck with it even though we don't fully understand it.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision We dance around and around, but we actually already agree on the main issue, which is that nature has intelligence. Our difference is you think this intelligence has to come from God. And I'm telling you it doesn't. Intelligence in the end comes from interaction of the genes/relevant products with environment. And we have good evidence to show genes + relevant chemicals evolve naturally, without God. So there's no reason to say why this intelligence has to come from God.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
But if they do evolve "naturally", what does that even mean? You agree with me that nature is intelligent, so wouldn't the evolution be due to intelligence? Also, I lean towards the idea that nature thinks, it processes things in a cognitive fashion, much like we do, from moment to moment. Experience is knowledge, so nature collects the back log of what was experienced and learns. That's the intelligence, it's a kind of "technology" of mind if you will.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision If you want to say this intelligence COULD come from God, no problem here. Sure, i'll admit it's a possibility. But is it a fact? No. It's simply a guess. You can't state it like as if it's a fact until you offer actual proof for this creator of intelligence, cuz like i told you, there are plenty of other theories that explain how this intelligence could have come about in a naturalistic way.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
What I am saying is that existence is coherent, logical it IS. Why? Because intelligence is fundamental to the proposition of something rather than nothing. There IS existence because intelligence is fundamental, nature is the artifact, the ever changing manifestation of the intelligence behind it, the mind behind it. This is highly philosophical, but it aids me in interpreting nature scientifically, but at a more powerful conceptual level.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Also, I don't think that mechanical ideas (thus brute naturalistic theories) about intelligence make any sense. I don't think intelligence simply emerges. I think that the intelligible is intelligent. And I'm not making this idea up, I'm borrowing it from others who I tend to agree with. That means the ability of intelligence comes first and it grows. That is what I see in the living world especially.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision yea...but now we are getting into the idea of "i think this...you think that...", and in the end, neither of us can really debunk each other...i get what you are saying, but i gotta say...you won't convince me until 2 things. 1) Concrete evidence for a creator capable of bestowing intelligence into nature 2) all competing theories, especially naturalistic ones, are debunked thoroughly.
I can't debunk you, and my guess is neither can you debunk me. I think we leave it as that.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
No need to try and debunk each other. You have a hunch, I have a slightly different one. I could be wrong. Either way, at least we had a productive conversation, that's always beneficial.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision yea good discussion. It's good to hear you admit that you could be wrong (just like i did). That's very important, it's the key trait that makes you not a religious freak. Those hardcore theists are always claiming that their belief is 100% right, cuz they are on the side of their God, despite no concrete proof to show for it. Nice to hear you admit you could be wrong.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
You are being debunked as we speak.
Your inability to redraw the phylogenetic tree is the sign that your opinions can't find purchase.
You are failing.
odinata 1 month ago
@Casshyr
I'm debunking the shit out of this guy.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Hello?
Are cells as intelligent as brains?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
It depends on what level you are talking about. At the molecular level, an individual cell trumps a brain. On the macro level, a brain trumps an individual cell.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"At the molecular level, an individual cell trumps a brain."
What do you mean "at the molecular level"?
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"It depends on what level you are talking about. At the molecular level, an individual cell trumps a brain. On the macro level, a brain trumps an individual cell."
Its too bad you never follow through on your thought process on these threads---you might actually learn something.
So, since a brain is a collection of cells, it wins right?
According to your statement here, its got the best of both worlds.
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"I think that the intelligible is intelligent."
What a deliciously ironic statement!
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision I'm getting confuse as to what's your point...you seem striving to tell me 2 things :1) nature is intelligent, it's inherent. Which I do agree! 2) this intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, therefore logically points to God. If this is your 2nd point, then I disagree. Self-replicative RNA molecules, the most simplest life form, is smart. They can self-replicate. How did they do that? By simply following laws of nature. Sure, there's intelligence, but not divine.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr
Self replicating RNA outside of a genetic system? No such thing.
My point is that nature thinks. It isn't a bunch of molecules bouncing off of one another and then miracles happen. Existence from bottom up is intelligent. Why is that? That's what leads you to a designer. But you really have to think about it deeply.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Since the burden of poof is on you, and you can' provide nothing but opinions, why do you have such angry words for all who don't share your opinions?
And since this is clearly in direct contradiction with the agenda of the Young Earth Creationist, why have you allied yourself with them?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
These are more than just opinions. And they line up with the ID quite nicely. As for the YEC folks, they have a much tougher task, but I tend to agree with much of their way of looking at things, even if I have issues with some of their direct claims. This is about how we view the living world and nature in general. You obviously have a set way of looking at nature that effects every piece of evidence that falls into your lap. Think about it.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
They are only opinions circus--you have yet to provide facts.
And I don't think that the ID movement had Atomism in mind when it attempted to supplant actual science.
Think about it.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
I've provided plenty of facts. But the scope of this is enormous. Again, it's about world view. Theories are concepts, they aren't mental copies of the actual world. How we tend to construct reality at the most fundamental level is going to lead to different interpretations and hopefully better concepts. But concepts are always going to be limited. I really think you should study Atomism, because that is NOT what I am alluding to.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
"I've provided plenty of facts. "
None that have withstood scrutiny.
MAybe its not atomism--what is the name of the philosophy that claims that every tiny particle in the universe is conscious?
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
But aside from your lack of evidence for your more extreme claims--to which you simply admit that the evidence doesn't exist yet--how is it that you don't recognize the fact that your opinions are much closer to modern scientific claims than any YEC theism?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
Didn't we already have this conversation? The scientific claims may put a relative age on things, or may claim that life evolved. But they don't go as far as to say that the universe is NOT intelligent or that the Bible is false, and so on. So be careful not to make the mistake you have made many times before: conflating science with Darwinism and/or Atheism. It is because of science that I say the intelligible IS intelligent.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
You seem to get your material from "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
rather than from the YECs or the sciences.
Is this closer to true?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
No, if you want my opinion, "What the Bleep..." was a stupid movie. I'm not peddling material. I'm presenting my opinions based upon the knowledge that I have, which comes from many different sources from YEC to hardcore evolutionists and so on.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
But you are promoting the idea that the quantum mechanical world is where this consciousness is hiding, correct?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata
No. Here is the thing. At the quantum level there are just flashes of energy that pop in and out of existence (with no material properties what so ever). That is where OUR consciousness PERCEPTION breaks down. But we are part of the universe, we exhibit the fundamental reality of existence. The difficulty is truly understanding this. And I can't even begin to get it across to you in little comment boxes. I suggest reading some David Bohm if you want to go quantum.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Do you feel that intelligence rises as complexity increases--or are cells just as smart as humans?
P.S.--Didn't like Bohm that much.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision "Self replicating RNA outside of a genetic system? No such thing." => what's a genetic system? lol your wording is always very weird...you either don't have a bachelors in biology yet...or English is not your first language, cuz you choose VERY weird words to describe your thoughts...if you mean a cell, then no, we have examples of RNA capable of self-replicating OUTSIDE of a cell. This is part of abiogenesis evidence concerning RNA-world hypothesis.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
"or might they have been changes orchestrated by gene expression?"
Tell us how gene expression controls itself in BOTH organisms required to produce offspring in such a way that there is a qualitative difference between the INTELLIGENCE you are claiming and the "random" it appears to be.
odinata 1 month ago
beautiful graphics
janitarjanitar 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this video jusT pRoves that gOd is a good programmer of Life. dumb evoluLutionists.
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@nobrainQQ You clearly lack the intelligence to grasp these concepts.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago 3
@ndrthrdr1
The sad part is that if you actually look at the genetic and molecular research, none of this emerges because of random mutations and selection, but from the intelligence of the genetic expression system itself. If one applies a cognitive, computational model and dismisses with the nonsensical mechanistic model, it becomes quite clear that informational decision making is what runs the show.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
No, the sad part is that you can't back this assertion.
odinata 1 month ago
Face the reality of the history that we actually have.
There is not nearly enough actual verifiable human history for any significant evolution to occur.
You cannot even suggest any such thing as evolution without accounting for the origin of the hundreds of consecutive layers in the strata that contain fossils.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
excellent video. thank you for posting it.
macmarty2025 8 months ago
@tailsmilesprower24 yes, and closed too.
MrJohnnyrace 10 months ago
The starting assumptions one uses as axioms really do tend to shape everthing else that follows.
It doesn't matter if the evidence is thin. If a hypothesis has support, scientists will stick with it and seek to confirm it. I suppose eventually a wrong hypothesis will be accepted as such, but sometimes it can take hundreds of years to realize that.
What's my point?
Don't insist certain ideas must be accepted while others must be suppressed. Science will sort it all out eventually.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Your point is valid, but I question the steps used to reach it. "This could also indicate Intelligent Design just as easily, and an entirely different scenario/set of evidence could also alternately be used to support a slightly different form of Evolution."
I consider the above summary of your argument (as I read it, of course; I cannot be 100% certain it is correct) valid, but problematic in that it fails to note that this is not the only evidence for the model of Evolution.
Saavykaas 8 months ago
@Saavykaas And as a minor followup to my previous comment, I actually agree that this set of evidence in this video is probably some of the least compelling evidence toward the accuracy of the theory of Evolution (or even just common descent) when taken on its own. Were I to only see this video and nothing else on the subject, it would not be sufficient for me to form a conclusion at all.
Saavykaas 8 months ago
@Saavykaas
I agree. I didn't cover much in the way of topics. I didn't actually argue for ID much at all, mainly making the point that quite often the same evidences can be taken to support different worldviews. But I also think that holds with the other lines of evidence in origins as well. You have anything particular in mind?
A piece of evidence that I think is more strongly in support of ID is the existence of irreducibly complex protein machines. Controverisal, but interesting.
tubewatch59 8 months ago
What if all life forms were completely different to each other? On it's face that would look like special creation. But on the other hand, it would also be compatible with the idea of a type of common descent via sudden genetic changes. It would be taken as evidence that biochemistry can suddenly transform into something completely different. It might be referred to as "punctuated biochemical morphosis". Scientists would be tallying up the similarities between the very different lifeforms.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
These observations are certainly compatible with common descent.
However these observations are also compatible with intelligent design.
What if these arguments were not true?
What if there were different DNA codes, etc?
That would still be evidence of common descent, but from multiple ancestor life forms. We'd likely be trying to figure out which of the ancestors developed first. And they'd still be compatible with intelligent design.
These observations aren't that conclusive.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
I have heard that there now is a discouvery where they found a life-form that does NOT contain Phosphorus in its DNA (but a different atom)!!!
Life from a different origin: we are NOT alone here, in this universe, there IS life without common anchestory!! xD
daddyleon 1 year ago
@daddyleon Yeah it actually uses Arsenic to build it's genetic chains with, which any carbon based life form can tell you is likely the most poisonous compound one could ingest. Poke around Google, NASA has a lot of information about this, the study of course will continue.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod Yes, indeed ^. ^
daddyleon 1 year ago
This video just summerized all of College level Biology for me :/ i wish i had discovered this last semester.. i wouldn't of gotten that 75 on that final :S bwahahahaha oh well WOO SCIENCE FUCKING ROCKS! i just hate the stupid terminology. :/
mmmodafoca 1 year ago
Videos like this one are just ignored by creationist's, they just say 'it's false, a fraud, my bible tells me so". The fear factor has them so scared, they refuse to question the bible and it's supposed author. All we can do is keep pushing the truth on them, andf hopefully they'll lose that fear.
EddieSchultz62 1 year ago
Why didn't God use different molecules and coding for his master piece?
Biblical Creationism fail.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
AWESOME VIDEOS! I've been an Atheist for ~1 year. I've always been skeptical about the Bible, esp. more so as I got older. This made learning on my own difficult. I then became Agnostic/Atheist at times since I was about 13. Now, I know the Bible is ABSOLUTE BS! I wish my religious grandparents would watch videos like these! My grandfather asked me on THANKSGIVING; "Kyle, do you believe in the "young" or "old" Earth? "Old", I replied. How can a 77 year old man ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS!? *FACEPALM*
KarbineKyle 1 year ago
FSM in the background! 3:29 :D
frembo1 1 year ago
well this video is null and void acording to NASA and their new arsnic bacteria. Dirty science.
Maheekun 1 year ago
@Maheekun actually it's not. those findings were blown out of proportion.
Fenyxfire 1 year ago
same structure, because that is the kernel. can someone build a compiler for this? :)
jacek533 1 year ago
The common ancestor is his holy noodles the divine spaghetti of the sky.
y2zgt 1 year ago
Take that, creationists.
SpadesNeil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTIFIC VISIT MY BLOG
Is here that has or has the truth :
/watch?v=k_cEwOHi8Hg
evidence of the Bible :
/watch?v=oeoE8ZxPejU
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
Is here that has or has the truth :
/watch?v=k_cEwOHi8Hg
evidence of the Bible :
/watch?v=oeoE8ZxPejU
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
@APOLOGETICIENCE Evidence? Stories, yes. Evidence? Hardly.
Thing about science is it can be backed up time and time again--even by people trying to disprove or debunk something, and yet they come up with the same result. That is how a theory is created. A theory is NOT some random thought. A theory has been tested numerous times and has yet to be disproved.
The bible is a bunch of fictional stories that historians have tried to find proof of--and most often failed. Thus the Bible is bullshit.
SpadesNeil 1 year ago
@APOLOGETICIENCE Although, don't mistake me for one of the foolish Atheists. I'm a writer. I'm studying religion right now, even. I know religion is not evil. Well, except Scientology, but that's another story. >_>
However, unlike an Atheist, I know what religion can do for people to improve their lives. I also know there's plenty that science has yet to properly research, such as the possibility of an afterlife. Though I digress, that is once more another story.
Still, it'll get you thinking.
SpadesNeil 1 year ago
"All life processes glucose with the same ten steps, using the exact same ten enzymes."
I cannot process glucose; I lack those ten - and other - enzymes.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
then you can't be alive... ZOMBIE!
:P
pyr666 1 year ago
Wrong. I get my energy from lipids and proteins.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne
i was kidding, hence the ":P"
pyr666 1 year ago
Oh.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
great video :) is there a name for the background music?
spydrebyte 1 year ago
Yes! Thank you guys! The Cassiopeia project is the best!
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
finally! evolutionary scientist reveal the truth, evolution is a religion. See "SCIENTIFIC FRAUD" my channel!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
Correction, the lack of variety indicated common creator.
LeviHansen13 1 year ago
Common elements show common DESIGN
HURRFFF DUUURRRPP DERRRRRRRFFF
MegaLibertyPrime 1 year ago
@MegaLibertyPrime Go pray or something
BigJucas 1 year ago
Comment removed
stubbornVN 1 year ago
Take that !! Creatards.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago 32
1 / 4
types10000 @
++ “two words hume: Majungatholus atopus. isnt it funny how a lung system supposedly unique to birds, exists in something other than birds that just happens to be what evolution predicts is the ancestor of a bird?” ++
A blind man will take the hand of falsehood if he walks with deception in mind. Your suggested ancestor of birds allegedly lived about 70 million years ago; thus you ignore the fact that …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hume1947
1-2
"Your suggested ancestor of birds allegedly lived about 70 million years ago; thus you ignore the fact that our bird Archaeopteryx already lived allegedly 80"
- hume i already addressed that in my last set of replies to you LEARN TO READ and try again.
"Thus your evidence is pure conjecture based on dogma" - and that statement is a non-sequitar. YOU FAIL.
types10000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Humblestud 1 year ago
@hume1947
- I said part of the reason we KNOW archeopteryx is decended from dinosaurs is due to it's dinosaur traits
- You claimed that it had a special type of lung not present in therapod dinosaurs that threw it's lineage into question
- I showed that it's lineage was not in question AND that therapod dinosaurs DO have the same lung structure.
- You made a redherring about it being older than it's decedents (which i had already debunked)
types10000 1 year ago 9
@types10000 Tell us, guru, what are dinosaur traits? What traits does man have today from his ancestors the dinosaurs? If all life came from a single source as claimed in this video. Enlighten us, plz. 2 eyes? Skin? Nails? Teeth? Which of the dinosaurs did man evolve from?
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives
1).
"Tell us, guru, what are dinosaur traits?"
- Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
- Trunk region vertebra are free.
- Bones are pneumatic.
- Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
- Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
- Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds
types10000 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives
2).
- Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
- Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
- Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
- Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
- Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian
- The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
.etc
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElShadaiLives
"If all life came from a single source as claimed in this video. Enlighten us, plz. 2 eyes? Skin? Nails? Teeth?"
- the evolution of each of those is well documented
"Which of the dinosaurs did man evolve from?" - humans didnt evolve from dinosaurs...i'm guessing you failed biology, yes?
types10000 1 year ago
@hume1947
(1-4)
- Archeopteryx's age isn't a problem for evolution, i have already explained this. LEARN TO READ AND TRY AGAIN.
the date for archeopteryx is based on fossils that have been found at present as is the date for dinosaurs.
a).
Archeopteryx being found before it's decedents does not prove that it's decedents didnt exist prior to it.
b).
Arhcheopteryx's relatedness isnt simply based on it's position in the fossil record but more so on COMPARATIVE ANATOMY and other fields.
types10000 1 year ago
2 / 4
….. our bird Archaeopteryx already lived allegedly 80 million years earlier thus disposing your fossil out of the air. Plus the Nature paper confirms that this one fossil is subject to an "implied" fact re the existence. Thus your evidence is pure conjecture based on dogma.
Quote:
++ “Majungasaurus (pronounced /məˌdʒʌŋɡəˈsɔrəs/ mah-JUNG-gə-SOR-əs "Mahajanga lizard") …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 4
….. is a genus of abelisaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in Madagascar from 70 to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Only one species (M. crenatissimus) has been identified.
Google:
Majungasaurus, wikipedia
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
4 / 4
Quote:
++ “these specializations imply the existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.” ++
Google:
Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs, nature
hume1947 1 year ago
1 / 5
types10000 @
++ “archeopteryx's dinosaur ancestry is evident from it's huge array of dinosaur traits.” ++
No true scientist would argue this falsehood. It is pure blind dogma. Only a fool would ignore the science and believe that a parrot descended from a dinosaur.
QUOTE:
++ “"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
"No true scientist would argue this falsehood. It is pure blind dogma" - incorrect, scientists already accept archeopteryx as an intermediate form and the fact it contains a huge array of dinosaur traits is just one of the reasons.
hume your the one ignoring the science, your dogma forces you to completely reject comparitive anatomy, carbon dating, the foundational principles of modern geology and biology .etc
types10000 1 year ago
2 / 5
….. completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."
However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
"the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function...However, every other animal that has walked on land"
- not quite hume, it's a fun fact that therapod dinosaurs have a near identical mechanism used for motion as evidenced in the sourced material here:
evolutionpages[.]com/bird_lung.htm
this is just another one of the pieces of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
types10000 1 year ago
3 / 5
….. thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution. .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
"The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs," -
you see this is what happens when you work of dodgy material and quote mine's hume, you get things completly wrong and then get caught out (AGAIN)
types10000 1 year ago
4 / 5
….. "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. …..
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
4 - 5
hey hume how about you lookup actual explanations for these instead of posting debunk claims as if they are startling new evidence.
FACT: archeopteryx is an intermediate form
Q: How do we know this?
A: it meats the definition of intermediate form as defined by darwin prior to it's discovery.
no matter how you look at it (and irrespective of whether you refuse to call it an intermediate form) IT IS A CONFIRMED PREDICTION OF EVOLUTION.
types10000 1 year ago
5 / 5
….. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.” ++
Google:
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links, sciencedaily
hume1947 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hume1947
""However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed"
two words hume:
Majungatholus atopus
wiki: Majungasaurus - Respiratory system
isnt it funny how a lung system supposedly unique to birds, exists in something other than birds that just happens to be what evolution predicts is the ancestor of a bird?
types10000 1 year ago
my goodness what a deceptive video.
The tree of life even as proposed by evolutionists is a mass of interconnections at the bottom. Ever heard of horizontal gene transfer?
Why has it been proposed if common ancestry reveals a definite line of descent by genetics?
A prediction of evolution that is entirely consistent with the predictions of specific creation are unlikely to support either.
perhaps just relabel this video "official indoctrination thru evolutionist oversimplification"
rofl
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
"specific creation" -
haha why do you think it's so dumbed-down? we dont think they're capable of understanding horizontal gene transfer or how archeopteryx is an intermediatre form regardless of simply being an offshoot of the bird lineage....hell most of them dont even understand something can be a bird and still be an intermediate, TAXONOMY FAIL lol
types10000 1 year ago
@arsjth
hoi, if you want an explanation for why this video was oversimplified so much take a look at hume's comments.
types10000 1 year ago
Beware the Hume Troll, the eyes that cross, the brain that hurts...
Hume has been trolling Youtube for years, misreading articles, stating his own conjecture as fact, and quote-mining like hell.
As with all creationists, he doesn't have a problem with science from a science perspective, he has a problem with science period.
He simply ignores anything pointed out to him that he can't answer, and will even argue about what Genesis clearly says, just to argue.
Don't feed the troll.
fkbryce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seriously, do you really think you can have an honest debate with someone who says "The subject is not religion. You attempt to defend the theory of evolution a pagan idea" , thinks Genesis says the Sun and Moon were created on the 1st day (it clearly states day 4), and has the most bizarre (and unexplainable) conspiracy theory stating that all of biology and most of the rest of science is out to disprove God in an atheist agenda.
fkbryce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fkbryce I agree, sent him a valid blunt message about quopte mining, advised him to go and read the article he quoted in full or SHUT THE FUCK UP, happy guys?
Oddessuss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fkbryce I agree, sent him a valid blunt message about quopte mining, advised him to go and read the article he quoted in full or SHUT THE F*&^ UP, happy guys?
Oddessuss 1 year ago
fkbryce @
++ "Beware the Hume Troll, the eyes that cross, the brain that hurts..." ++
When defeated and they have no answers to the direct evidence that confirms their dogma the theory of evolution is flawed, they run away crying abuse.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Humus, it is absolute hypocracy for you to accuse anyone of lying, and as for the having no answers- when have you ever provided one that wasn't discredited.
You are a sack of deciet working for AiG or one of its YECS cousins. You spam constantly, lie always and have never, not once responded decently to posts that prove you to have been misquoting (lying) quotemining (lying) or twisting peoples' words (lying).
It is confirmed you are;
1) Not a Christian
2) Act on behalf of a cult
ozowen 1 year ago
ozowen @
++ "You are a sack of deciet working for AiG or one of its YECS cousins. You spam constantly, lie always and have never, not once responded decently to posts that prove you to have been misquoting (lying) quotemining (lying) or twisting peoples' words (lying). It is confirmed you are; 1) Not a Christian 2) Act on behalf of a cult." ++
ozowen defence for the ToE.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
No you barrel of tripe. It's an attack on you, your approach and the lies you tell. Even in this you are twisting my words.
Try one single post without lies.
So far you haven't been able.
Mind you, I'll happily defend evolutionary theory, but not with you until you learn to be honest.
ozowen 1 year ago
@hume1947
"When defeated" - hume, your not intelligent enough to defeat anyone, you think that proevolution articles are evidence against evolution and deny the existance of intermediate forms even after being shown how tiktaalic and archeopteryx are the very definition of intermediate form.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
Humus has no capacity to accept or admit that he has erred in his misquoting. He will simply accuse you of something he deems wrong. he will not however, take the path of honesty.
He will accuse me I expect, of being a supporter of evolution (true) but will frame this as a wrong. OTOH he will paint himself as somehow being wronged. he is a disgusting liar, so such a pose is almost melodramatic.
ozowen 1 year ago
@types10000
tiktaalik and archaeopteryx are not the very definition of intermediate forms as creationists require.
Evolutionists believe everything is transitional so any similarities qualify.
Archaeoptryx is a bird & has no got scales turning into feathers as required by evolution to be factual.
Another fossil has been found 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik so it goes on the scrap heap with coelacanth as another intermediate which was not.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
"tiktaalik and archaeopteryx are not the very definition of intermediate forms as creati..." - the key words in there are 'as creationists' require, however the definition of intermediate form already has an established definition and to change it now would simply be shifting the goal post (logical fallacy).
evolutionists define everything as transitional, to stop the confusion of terms between transitional and intermediate, if you want to use them interechangeably i wont stop you
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
" the key words in there are 'as creationists' require, however the definition of intermediate form already has an established definition and to change it now would simply be shifting the goal post "
correct and you guys have shifted them far too often.
It was clearly accepted in darwins time by darwin himself that intermediates would need to be found. Wolf like creatures dont turn into whales without trillions of intermediaries existing. How many of them should be found?
arsjth 1 year ago
@types10000
My answer is enough to leave no room for doubt. Infact we should find as many intermediates as we do definite whales.
Why do u not require proof?
Y do u accept 3-4 completely different fossils as intermediates?
its clear that it supports your belief to do so...not becos the evidence demands it.
i know u believe that fossilization is rare...but dont rely on what isnt there as proof of what u claim happened.
The fossil record reveals stasis(gould et al) not gradualism(darwin & co)
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
"we should find as many intermediates as we do definite whales." - this hasnt been a problem for evolution for a long time as it was explained by punctuated equilibrium in the 60's and confirmed on the microevolutionary scale in small isolated populations.
what it essentially says is that evolution occurs in bursts where less adapted intermediates are out-competed by their more well-adappted decedents.
- your information seems to be about 50 years out of date :)
types10000 1 year ago
types10000 @
++ “this hasnt been a problem for evolution for a long time as it was explained by punctuated equilibrium in the 60's and confirmed on the microevolutionary scale in small isolated populations.” ++
Nothing is a problem for evolutionists. Darwin argued that his theory is gradual mutations over vast periods of time. But the evidence did not match up; thus evolutionists made their data fit the theory of false dogma. We call that deception.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
"Darwin argued that his theory is gradual mutations over vast periods of time. But the evidence did not match up"
Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can both be used to model evolution, punctuated equilibrium models it more accurately.
you see this how science works hume, when Newtonian mechanics was ditched for for Einstein's, scientists didnt throw their arms up in dismay and say all of physics is wrong, they improved physics using the new information.
types10000 1 year ago