Of course you call him a moron you base everything you think on a God rejecting outlook which is unscientific and bias. Lucky for humanity not all scientist are atheist or we would be learning bias science.
@odinata I don't see why they'd be worthless, even the opinions from a religious intolerant have some value in the sense that they expose an dangerous mentality.
Also, claims about mutations being increased in newborns can never be worthless, quite the contrary, it's very important to remember that due to the errors in meiosis, every action that speeds up it's rate is dangerous for future generations, this includes any kind of fornication.
@odinata what about the fact that "Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome."?
That's from naturenews, go google the quote
So, yes, every human embryo has 100+ denovo mutations and most come from the paternal germline, so every action that speeds up it's rate is dangerous for future generations, this includes any kind of fornication.
For example, ppl who commits any kind of fornication are actually adding mutations to their gametes, they are giving mutations to their children bcuz of their selfish practices. Will they ever listen to the word of God?
It's interesting that Sanford's book gives a scientific foundation for the inmorality of non marital sex, since it would increase the mutations in the male germline by increasing the rate of meiosis. And just as we dislike the genetic load mankind is suffering right now, we should hold fast the word of God if we care for the future generations.
Evolution does not match up with what archaeology has revealed to us about human history. Even when I was an atheist, evolution made zero sense because it is contradicted by human history.
@TheScienceFoundation It is common sense to say that we started primitive and worked to a higher level of civilization. However, archaeology has revealed that there was a highly advanced civilization in our ancient past. Gobekli Tepe, in Turkey, is about 12,000 years old. It shows a high level of intelligence. The temple of jupiter in lebanon has 1200 ton stones, we cannot physically move them today.
@TheScienceFoundation I believe the base of the temple, which was built on top of much later, has stones weighing approximately 1000 tons. Estimates range between 800 and 1200 tons. The stone of the pregnant woman, which was cut and quarried, but never set into place is estimated to be 1000 tons.
@emekonen Hopkins showed that one man with a series of rollers can move a 3 ton block by himself with one hand and that it can be incrementally raised and shimmed.
@TheScienceFoundation 3 tons and 300 tons are very different. 300 tons crushes rollers. Not only that, Tell Baalebek pre dates the roman settlement and is dated to be from 550-330 BCE.
@TheScienceFoundation I am not sure if we know enough about the Tell Baalbek civilization to really gauge exactly how it was done. It is difficult terrain and high above sea level, two very difficult problems even for modern machinery. The fact is, simple people dont go to these lengths to create something that could have been done much easier with smaller stones. So, like Abu Rawash in Egypt, there is a serious problem.
@TheScienceFoundation Abu Rawash was built on a mountain. They had to carve these supposedly with copper tools. The idea that they rolled them is kind of silly given that there were only palm trees to use, and not many of them. In Egypt, no it was not possible with the knowledge of the day, unless maybe they only used 1-3 ton blocks.
@TheScienceFoundation We know they did not have enough of any kind of tree to get the job done, it is a desert. Stonehenge, as magnificent as it is, is a far cry from the mathematical and archetectural brilliance of Egypt. They used 5 ton blocks, all the way up to 1,000 ton blocks. Egypt was stacking, stonehenge could have easily been done, as you said. But there is no comparison between the two.
@TheScienceFoundation According to historians, the Egyptians were not advanced peoples. They had only copper tools. Yet they somehow carved large objects out of diorite, which requires diamond to cut. They made megalithic structures that were mathematically, astronomically, and architechturally nearly perfect. A simple people do not do this, this is why it is downplayed. We cannot move 1000 ton blocks like the Egyptians did LOL, nor carve the things they did.
@emekonen It's an igneous rock, meaning it would be hard but brittle. Where are you getting that anyone is claiming the Egyptians were not advanced? No one tries to downplay the pyramids and they're geometric wonders.
You're still not elucidating on a problem here. It's incredible for sure but what are you implying about how it was supposedly done? Are you saying aliens came down and did it? I just really don't get your point here.
@TheScienceFoundation That is exactly why diorite and granite sculptures and vases are just as amazing as the pyramids, they were able to do things with simple vases that we cannot, or even statues. The rock is so difficult to work with. LOL aliens. No my point is this, they were highly advanced, not just smart people. They would not have done this just to make a cool looking structure. And they were not burial chambers....
@TheScienceFoundation Well, if you think we can do these things then there is no problem for you. However, I work in this field and it is a big problem. Carving a vase out of granite is not a "simple task". Neither is quarrying 8,000 tons of granite from Aswan, when there are far more simple ways of doing it. This is why there are so many theories on how and why it was built, there are serious problems with each theory
@TheScienceFoundation The problem is simple, take all of these structures around the world, Teotehuican, Egypt, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, and you DO have a serious problem. Our ancients were not supposed to be this advanced, according to the status quo at least. At the time of the construction of many of these, especially Gobeckli Tepe, we were supposed to be simple cavemen. Not erecting these complex structures.
@emekonen You're still not being clear on what the actual problem is supposed to be. You just keep asserting that they shouldn't have been able to do it.
@TheScienceFoundation That is exactly the point. Human history and evolution are about a progression, and advancement. The established theory, spoken of as fact, is that at the time of Gobeckli Tepe, man was simple hunter/gatherer and was not erecting massive and complex temples. It is a fact we cannot complete many things our ancients did, just ask a stone mason or an engineer. Why can't we do it today? Why was man making these things 12,000 years ago?
@TheScienceFoundation ..otherwise one king would not have made several of them. My point is, throughout history the ancients were clearly highly skilled and highly advanced, going all the way back 12,000 years ago to Gobeckli Tepe, and not "simple" cavemen. Even now we are starting to understand that Neanderthals were not stupid half ape half men. The point is simple, our ancestors were far more advanced than they were supposed to be.
@emekonen No one that I'm aware of claims that people 12,000 years ago were cavemen or that Neanderthals were stupid. They had brains larger than ours and actually interbred with non-African humans.
How advanced were they supposed to be? And again, what problem does this pose?
@TheScienceFoundation As i said, we are finding out more and more about Neanderthals that changes the original theory about them. 12,000 years ago, yes humans were supposed to be simple hunter/gatherers. I am not sure we will ever know how advanced they really were. But clearly far more advanced than we are being told. Ask Zahi Hawass what the pyramids were built for and he will say, a kings tomb. It is absurdity.
@TheScienceFoundation In my field, this poses a huge problem because there is an established time table for the evolution and history of mankind. You certainly can make arguments that Egyptian people created all these things with simple methods and copper tools, its kind of silly but you can make it. Gobeckli Tepe, as far as age, poses a very difficult problem for the established timeline, and what we thought we knew about mankind.
@TheScienceFoundation I am not going to write you a book. These conflict with what has been firmly established about mankind and our history. Especially Gobeckli Tepe, which should not be there, because according to history mankind was not building much of anything 12,000 years ago. The fact that the Egyptians knew Pi and the circumference of the earth and worked it into their structures is apparently not a big deal.
@TheScienceFoundation I am speaking of how human history and human evolution does not support one another. There are many things they did that they should not have been able to do and many things they knew, that they should not have known. The fact that everything breaks down, including genetics, should be evidence enough that we gain no information, but lose it. By losing information (mutations) we are supposed to gain new information? I mean it makes no sense, but I am a dumb Christian.
@emekonen Yes, that's the claim you've made, it's not a claim you've supported.
Nothing has broken down, instead of asserting so with no knowledge of what you're talking about why not just ask with an inquisitive mind? Genetic information can be and is added via natural processes ; /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
That, for instance, details the addition of a novel function on a novel gene to the tune of over 2300 bits of new information.
@TheScienceFoundation The historical claim I have not supported? I am not a geneticist, I admit that, I am studying it now, slowly but surely. But seriously, what else do you need for me to support that Gobeckli Tepe was built at a time when people should not be building. Or that the ancient Egyptians knew Pi, or even complex geometry. Either you have no concept of human history and evolution or you are just being silly.
@emekonen No, I'm just expecting you to actually explain how them having more knowledge than we might have thought poses a problem for evolution or evidences anything else.
@TheScienceFoundation Well, like I said, I am not going to write a book for you here. History and evolution suggest that man evolved over time, got smarter and that essentially we are the crowning achievements. The fact that the Egyptians, Mayans, etc. grasped complex mathematics, Pi, infinity, they even understood pythagoras theorem long before he discovered it. The fact that the sumerians and egyptians essentially appeared overnight also suggests....
@emekonen It's not that we 'got smarter' at any significant rate over the past ~10,000 years, advancement is an iterative process. It seems like a sharper increase in the rate of advancement recently (to be fair it is) because of a coinciding increase of networked infrastructure.
@TheScienceFoundation ..that they seemingly started with virtually no antecendants and had this knowledge seemingly overnight. Hence the "sudden civilization" name. The Egyptians, and every other civilization, clearly had advanced knowledge that eroded over time, it did not advance as is suggested by evolutionary theorists. Every one of these civilizations seems to have forgotten much of this knowledge overtime, as opposed to building upon it and advancing further.
@TheScienceFoundation What do you think a civilization declining means? It is fairly common knowledge that these civilizations declined in culture, knowledge, and politically. At least the Egyptian civilization, being the most popular, should be well known. Do you want me to give you some text books or professors?
@emekonen I was referring to knowledge eroding, it doesn't. It's passed on in the iterative process I was referring to earlier. Egypt specifically declined because of a series of foreign conqueror's
@odinata evolution happens? once again, interpretation of data. As much as you try and force it, it still does not make it fact. It is how you interpret the data.
@emekonen Yes it happens, no interpretation or forcing required. Allele frequencies in populations would change whether or not anyone ever knew about it or understood it.
@TheScienceFoundation Most of the evidence for evolution does need interpretation, it is silly to suggest otherwise. For instance if we dug up bones, we would just have bones. One needs to interpret them within a certain framework in order to understand their meaning to human evolution or evolution as a whole. Without interpretation you would just have evidence LOL
@emekonen No, they would be objectively comparable to other fossils via comparative anatomy. It's also not just a matter of a single piece of evidence, it's the collective evidences which all objectively and solely support evolution.
@TheScienceFoundation They support evolution because it is being presupposed that evolution is true and being interpreted by those who believe in evolution. They support evolution, in your view, because evolution is presupposed to be fact. If fossils support darwinian evolution, explain to my why some fossils seem to abruptly appear in the fossil record?
@emekonen No, they support evolution objectively because mechanisms such as descent with modification explain the characteristics whether or not you accept or even understand that they do.
'why some fossils seem to abruptly appear in the fossil record?'
@TheScienceFoundation Sorry pal, it does not objectively support evolution, as much as you may want it to. You STILL have to presuppose evolution to be true, but you cannot seem to quite grasp that.
@emekonen Yes, it objectively supports evolution regardless of how much you don't want it to. You don't have to presuppose anything to understand that evolution occurs and occurred.
@TheScienceFoundation "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates."—*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist
@emekonen The Cambrian gave the appearance of a sudden emergence of phyla because it marked the appearance of hard body parts which fossilize more readily. There are indeed precursors, including pre-Cambrian transitions to chordates such as Pikaia and about ten precursors to trilobites.
@TheScienceFoundation But you have it all figured out tho, no need to prove similarity proves common ancestry, it is a fact because evolution is presupposed to be correct.
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, it is the only model and on top of that the only model scientists are willing to actually look at. Therefore, you must presuppose evolution to be true. Only looking at evidence that supports this theory seems to be what scientists wish to do. If anyone ONLY looks at things supporting their belief, they will only reinforce their belief, not challenge it.
@emekonen No, it's the only model that has produced workable hypotheses and testable mechanisms. If another model actually worked and empirically explained the data it would be considered, but there isn't.
@TheScienceFoundation If you only look at supporting evidence for anything, then anything can become truth. But, please explain these workable hypotheses and testable mechanisms that apparently prove evolution.
@emekonen That's what I've been doing this entire time, descent with modification followed by differential reproductive success explains the distribution of genetics, morphology, literally every field in biology.
@TheScienceFoundation descent with modification is based on the presupposition that evolution is true. Besides, micro evolution does not prove macro evolution. Adaptation is different than changing into another species over time, which is not observable. Any others?
@TheScienceFoundation You are making a leap from micro to macro. Of course we see descent with modification but it does not prove macro evolution. I am not saying this evidence is dismissed, I am merely saying it does not prove, as you suggest it does, it infers. Inference is not proving. Macro evolution has never been observed, so yes there is micro and macro.
@emekonen No leap required, the evidence from genetics alone puts common descent beyond reasonable doubt. I am merely saying that what you think you understand about what the evidence proves is irrelevant to biology.
@TheScienceFoundation Well, I certainly agree that you could say this evidence infers macro evolution, but that is far different from proving evolution. I do not think it is stupid to come to such a conclusion, I however understand evidence that infers and evidence that proves. This is not evidence that proves.
@emekonen This evidence solely supports evolution, entirely objectively. Yes, this is evidence that proves, no matter how much willful incomprehension you employ.
At this point you can't consider yourself scientifically literate if you don't understand that evolution is the backbone of biology.
@TheScienceFoundation MICRO evolution is the backbone of biology, yes, that is observable. Macro, the changing from one species into another over time, is however NOT the backbone of biology.
@TheScienceFoundation There certainly is micro and macro. Either way, one is observable and proven, the other is not. One is used to prove the other, and there simply is no hard evidence but only inference. To say that adaptation proves species change overtime is a fact, or is even observable is lunacy. Just because it is used in biology does not mean it is correct.
@emekonen No, there's not. The same processes drive both of what you consider 'micro and 'macro evolution, the only difference being timescale. No, small changes are not used to infer large changes over longer periods of time. The records, genetic, embryological, fossil, morphological etc. are, and they're explained exclusively via universal common descent.
Just because you apparently have a bias against actually understanding it does not affect its validity as a fact.
@TheScienceFoundation We all have bias, obviously. But to say that this proves evolution is downright silly. You have to interpret these as such and presuppose that small changes overtime result in a change of species to be true. You have to ignore the fact that the fossil record is completely lacking in transitional fossils, or that the abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle, but somehow does not conflict with evolution LOL.
@emekonen It's your projection to say we all have bias. To assume that your biological illiteracy means that the various phylogenetic records doesn't prove evolution is personal incredulity. I've already given you a list of observed speciation, willful ignorance doesn't make it go away.
What transition do you want fossils for?
I already refuted your claim regarding higher taxa appearing abruptly.
@TheScienceFoundation LOL you are funny. We all have bias in one way or the other, yours is very clear, as is mine. I don't think you have a mind to grasp that we all have bias, that you clearly need to presuppose evolution to be true, and that you need to interpret the data in a certain framework for evolution to be "true". Laughable. I think this conversation has gone about as far as it can go, you are mentally inflexible to even acknowledge your own personal bias LOL
@emekonen No, once again your projection of bias is irrelevant. Also once again, no, presupposition is not a prerequisite only an actual literacy in biology. I'm still waiting for that 'other evidence' which is being dismissed.
@TheScienceFoundation Other evidence? This is why scientists are so difficult to take serious, they cannot even admit the gaps in their own theory. That is what is so laughable, they actually believe in this nonsensical circular reasoning they spout off. You HAVE to presuppose evolution to be true if you believe in macro-evolution, that is a fact LMAO.
@TheScienceFoundation Or maybe you are the only person who has actually witnessed a change in species over a period of time. None of these are evidences that prove, you cannot seem to see the difference between inference and fact. Fossils do not prove evolution, interpreted through an evolutionary framework, they still only infer.
@TheScienceFoundation I did not say there were any other models, but at the very least scientists should be able to look at evidence that does not support evolution, to challenge themselves and their belief. The moment anyone dissents they are discredited, I get labeled a creationist ALL the time, its a dirty word used so other people won't listen. And that just shows a lack of integrity. ( I am not inferring that you are doing this, you have been quite respectful)
@TheScienceFoundation I would have to write them up and send them to you. Essentially anamolies within the fossil record, which I am not sure why ANYONE even uses that as proof.
@emekonen Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@5tonyvvvv This coming from the guy that still talks about racemic mixtures when we know of half a dozen processes that affect the chirality of amino acids.
@TheScienceFoundation There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!!! Stop Lying Dumb FUCK!!!!
@TheScienceFoundation Take all the amino acids you want! Put them in any sort of chemical broth you want! YOU WILL NEVER GET LIFE!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!! YOU ARE A MORON!!!!!
@TheScienceFoundation Never denied it MORON!!! and there all still RACEMIC MIXTURES!!!! Even if you had all LEFT handed amino acids, they is no way they would organize themselves!!!! In any plausible pre-biotic environment!!!
@5tonyvvvv No, they're not. That's been my point. Circular polarity preferentially destroys amino acids, you haven't so much denied it as you've just confused your sheer retardation of its existence for an argument against it.
@TheScienceFoundation Repeat this processes MORON!!!! Your sheer retardation and assumptions with your FAITH!!! is what you dont understand!! INFORMATION is the problem!!! Circular polarity is not organizing anything!!!
@5tonyvvvv Actually it's my knowledge of molecular biology as to why I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. Again you're shifting the goalposts, your contention was that the mixes are racemic, which I addressed, correcting your ignorance by pointing out that there are processes which affect the chirality of an amino acid mixture. One subject at a time here.
@TheScienceFoundation Hay, Mr. science foundation this is about compeating worldviews here, and it seems to me that the evodence speaks loud and clear, you can continue to belive in a dead religion sence that is what evolution is, you must be that hardcore die-hards that cant see the truth if it slapped hin in the face, I think I was debating you once before and even then you culdnt see the truth, the evodence supports creation, thats a FACT, study ENTROPY closer will you.
@squallion777 Not at all, this is about one side actually paying attention to the data and the other side being creationists. You mean I wouldn't buy the pseudo-science of genetic entropy. Apparently we're the only ones who have studied it at all because we're the only ones that realize it ignores processes that add functional information and ignores the fact that selection is non-random.
@squallion777 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@TheScienceFoundation Dude, you cannot understand that you use micro evolution to try and prove macro. You do not seem to grasp that you are looking at evidence while presupposing evolution is already a fact. This is why scientists have become so absurd, they act like the religious nutballs they profess to be so different from.
@emekonen You cannot understand that I don't have to use 'micro' to prove 'macro' because the extant records already support 'macro' exclusively with actual mechanisms. I don't have to presuppose anything to understand that ERV's are evidence of common ancestry, just a working knowledge of genetics.
@odinata I didnt say that it doesnt make sense. I think evolution is a logical interpretation of observable data. Foxes and wolves have nothing to do with human history. Some simple research into megalithic sites like Gobekli Tepe clearly show there are anomalies in human history that do not match up with evolutionary thought.
@TheScienceFoundation If what you say is true, then there are many stupid people out there rejecting irrefutable fact. It is interpretation of evidence, I am not sure why that is such a difficult thing for you, or even such a bad thing even. Evolution is not an objective conclusion in any way.
@emekonen 'there are many stupid people out there rejecting irrefutable fact'
Exactly
Yes, evolution is an objective conclusion. The mechanisms that drive it and explain biodiversity exist and can be studied by anyone who cares to do so and are completely independent of anyone's will or belief.
@emekonen We find these civilizations, like the Egyptian, formed seemingly overnight. Complete with a complex religious system of beliefs and language. The ability to carve ornate vases and statues out of diorite, which you need diamond to cut. There are also structures in the americas and around the world that leave contemporary archaeologists scratching their heads.
"HJ Muller received the Nobel Prize for “for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays”. He studied the effects of mutation on populations, and indirectly spawned ideas which were elaborated in the book Genetic Entropy by Cornell geneticist John Sanford."
"The theory of genetic entropy has the potential to overturn Darwinism on empirical grounds alone. Darwinism argues for inevitable progress, genetic entropy argues the opposite."
@ Messiah Yeshuah - it is my understanding that we were given dominion over plants, seeds, animals etc.
Just as I can selectively breed "long hair" genes into a dog, and breed out "short hair" genes out of a dog, so I can perform the same gene selection with plants. We even do this to humans, and God also shows His preference of "good" unblemished genetic makeup.
In any case, the world around us is not perfect/ideal but rather real. As an engineer I see evidence for this all the time.
@ryanmerckel Given dominion is one thing. We can breed mini* size dogs of the SAME breed by taking the smallest one, and then breeding with the smallest one, and so on and so on. But I do NOT believe that God said you have dominion as in changing the way I made them. Dog-kind. t's the same with plants....I see a couple of my plants are hardy of the same plant "bunch", so I make sure when they go to seed, I cultivate THOSE seeds. We are not talking about the "cellular" level.
@MessiahYeshuah "changing the way [God] made them" - did you know that Moses' wife was a black Ethiopian woman, and that he was a Jew? Did God not correct Miriam and Aron when they judged Moses for it? Is this not God supporting "the way [He] made them?'. I also did not see anything about God saying "have dominion, BUT...". All I read is "have dominion... You also know that we find many animals that are able to breed even across domains and classes with fertile offspring?
Also, rather than say he left because it was TOO controversial, which I believe was God convicting Dr. Sanford, why doesn't he repent before all involved in this genetic manipulation of God's perfect seed? Do you see the irony? This has spiritual implication, too!
The sad thing with Dr. John Sanford is this: He was directly involved in GMO. Why is man trying to mess with God's PERFECT seeds? Does man think He can do better for providing for His children? HMMMM?
@MessiahYeshuah seeds are far from perfect today. Genetics over the generations change incredibly over time, with a lot of loss in genetic information. Genetic mutations, genetic entropy, genetic mistakes etc. all take it's toll on plants. We see a loss of genetic information all the time in every organism. Would the Mona Lisa be perfect if she did not have her nose?
"man is trying to mess with God's PERFECT seeds" is far from being a valid statement.
@MessiahYeshuah You speak the truth my friend. Yeshuah is Lord. I'm so glad I found this video because everyone else I know (even other Christians) are such devout believers in evolution. When I bring up genetic entropy they have little to nothing to say to contradict or explain it. I think the nature of genetics alone disproves evolution in it's complexity and arrangement. God bless.
@uppercutter21 'hey have little to nothing to say to contradict or explain it'
Sanford ignores several facts when touting genetic entropy, 1: nearly all mutations are neutral 2: selection is non-random meaning beneficial mutations are going to be passed on at a higher frequency 3: There was no objectively 'correct' genomic palate to start with, so saying it's degrading is meaningless because the genome itself is the result of processes such as mutation and duplication.
@TheScienceFoundation Sanford states in his book that most mutations are neutral. What is a "beneficial mutation"? The evolutionary stance is yes, there was no objectively correct genomic palate to start with. This is an interpretation, do we have the original genomic palate we supposedly started with?
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, therefore we can speculate on two possibilities, the genome was simple and evolved OR the genome was far superior to ours and degenerated over time, so genetic entropy is not a stupid idea, especially since we see it everyday. What are some beneficial mutations? Not ones like, if you have sickle cell you cannot get malaria, thats not beneficial at all as you die from both.
@emekonen The difference being only one of those possibilities is actually backed by empirical data, the former.
'Not ones like, if you have sickle cell you cannot get malaria, thats not beneficial at all as you die from both.'
This shows you have no understanding of evolution. Everyone dies, beneficial mutations are about what organism has what traits that confer an advantage in survival. Malaria confers survival advantage in places where malaria is prevalent.
@TheScienceFoundation Empirical evidence? You just admitted that we do not have any original genome, therefore we have to speculate. Otherwise what empirical evidence is there? No understanding of evolution? Sickle cell may keep someone from getting malaria, but it is hardly "beneficial". It reminds me of some of those medications, take this pill it helps you, but it can give you bloody discharge, headaches, etc. Give me an example of a beneficial mutation.
YES, FINALLY UNDERSTAND...
yapperdapperdoo 2 days ago
Of course you call him a moron you base everything you think on a God rejecting outlook which is unscientific and bias. Lucky for humanity not all scientist are atheist or we would be learning bias science.
Necrobios1 1 month ago
@Necrobios1 BiasED. The word you are looking for is biased.
mhespenh 1 month ago
@odinata I don't see why they'd be worthless, even the opinions from a religious intolerant have some value in the sense that they expose an dangerous mentality.
Also, claims about mutations being increased in newborns can never be worthless, quite the contrary, it's very important to remember that due to the errors in meiosis, every action that speeds up it's rate is dangerous for future generations, this includes any kind of fornication.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
Your religious opinios can't seem to change the facts, now, can they.
Facts are the one thing you DON'T have.
Mutations in newborns?
Garbage.
odinata 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata what about the fact that "Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome."?
That's from naturenews, go google the quote
So, yes, every human embryo has 100+ denovo mutations and most come from the paternal germline, so every action that speeds up it's rate is dangerous for future generations, this includes any kind of fornication.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
@odinata aperantly you dont read or study anything
squallion777 2 months ago
@squallion777
Apparently I do.
The science is on my side.
Sorry bud.
odinata 2 months ago
For example, ppl who commits any kind of fornication are actually adding mutations to their gametes, they are giving mutations to their children bcuz of their selfish practices. Will they ever listen to the word of God?
IloveYOUviruses 3 months ago
It's interesting that Sanford's book gives a scientific foundation for the inmorality of non marital sex, since it would increase the mutations in the male germline by increasing the rate of meiosis. And just as we dislike the genetic load mankind is suffering right now, we should hold fast the word of God if we care for the future generations.
IloveYOUviruses 3 months ago
Evolution does not match up with what archaeology has revealed to us about human history. Even when I was an atheist, evolution made zero sense because it is contradicted by human history.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen How so?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It is common sense to say that we started primitive and worked to a higher level of civilization. However, archaeology has revealed that there was a highly advanced civilization in our ancient past. Gobekli Tepe, in Turkey, is about 12,000 years old. It shows a high level of intelligence. The temple of jupiter in lebanon has 1200 ton stones, we cannot physically move them today.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The largest stones I could find reference to are 300 tons and they could be moved with multiple Roman cranes.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation to which megalithic structure are you referring to?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The monoliths used in the retaining walls.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation there are retaining walls all over the place, which site are you speaking of? The temple of jupiter?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes, that's the temple you specifically referred to.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I believe the base of the temple, which was built on top of much later, has stones weighing approximately 1000 tons. Estimates range between 800 and 1200 tons. The stone of the pregnant woman, which was cut and quarried, but never set into place is estimated to be 1000 tons.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen I didn't see anything indicating that those were actually moved after being carved
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen I didn't see anything indicating that those were actually moved after being carved
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation do not forget the Trilithon at Baalbeck, which is estimated to be around 800 tons, that was cut and set into place.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Hopkins showed that one man with a series of rollers can move a 3 ton block by himself with one hand and that it can be incrementally raised and shimmed.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation 3 tons and 300 tons are very different. 300 tons crushes rollers. Not only that, Tell Baalebek pre dates the roman settlement and is dated to be from 550-330 BCE.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen One man is also very different than a pool of slave labor. It's a matter of weight distribution, not just weight overall.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I am not sure if we know enough about the Tell Baalbek civilization to really gauge exactly how it was done. It is difficult terrain and high above sea level, two very difficult problems even for modern machinery. The fact is, simple people dont go to these lengths to create something that could have been done much easier with smaller stones. So, like Abu Rawash in Egypt, there is a serious problem.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen What problem do you think this actually poses? It was entirely mechanically possible even with the knowledge of the day.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Abu Rawash was built on a mountain. They had to carve these supposedly with copper tools. The idea that they rolled them is kind of silly given that there were only palm trees to use, and not many of them. In Egypt, no it was not possible with the knowledge of the day, unless maybe they only used 1-3 ton blocks.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen They also had Sycamore and Mulberry. Yes the knowledge was available, Stonehenge was built 4-5,000 years ago using 50 ton uprights.
You still haven't explained what problem you think it poses.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation We know they did not have enough of any kind of tree to get the job done, it is a desert. Stonehenge, as magnificent as it is, is a far cry from the mathematical and archetectural brilliance of Egypt. They used 5 ton blocks, all the way up to 1,000 ton blocks. Egypt was stacking, stonehenge could have easily been done, as you said. But there is no comparison between the two.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Your only expressed and clear objection thus far is that they would've run short of trees.
What problem do you think this poses? Please be specific
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation According to historians, the Egyptians were not advanced peoples. They had only copper tools. Yet they somehow carved large objects out of diorite, which requires diamond to cut. They made megalithic structures that were mathematically, astronomically, and architechturally nearly perfect. A simple people do not do this, this is why it is downplayed. We cannot move 1000 ton blocks like the Egyptians did LOL, nor carve the things they did.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen It's an igneous rock, meaning it would be hard but brittle. Where are you getting that anyone is claiming the Egyptians were not advanced? No one tries to downplay the pyramids and they're geometric wonders.
You're still not elucidating on a problem here. It's incredible for sure but what are you implying about how it was supposedly done? Are you saying aliens came down and did it? I just really don't get your point here.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That is exactly why diorite and granite sculptures and vases are just as amazing as the pyramids, they were able to do things with simple vases that we cannot, or even statues. The rock is so difficult to work with. LOL aliens. No my point is this, they were highly advanced, not just smart people. They would not have done this just to make a cool looking structure. And they were not burial chambers....
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Where are you getting that we can't do any of these things?
You said this posed a problem of some sort, I'm waiting on this problem.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well, if you think we can do these things then there is no problem for you. However, I work in this field and it is a big problem. Carving a vase out of granite is not a "simple task". Neither is quarrying 8,000 tons of granite from Aswan, when there are far more simple ways of doing it. This is why there are so many theories on how and why it was built, there are serious problems with each theory
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The only clear objection I've heard from you thus far is that they would've run out of trees.
So it's complex and we're not exactly sure how they did it every step of the way. Are you saying they didn't do it?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The problem is simple, take all of these structures around the world, Teotehuican, Egypt, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, and you DO have a serious problem. Our ancients were not supposed to be this advanced, according to the status quo at least. At the time of the construction of many of these, especially Gobeckli Tepe, we were supposed to be simple cavemen. Not erecting these complex structures.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen You're still not being clear on what the actual problem is supposed to be. You just keep asserting that they shouldn't have been able to do it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That is exactly the point. Human history and evolution are about a progression, and advancement. The established theory, spoken of as fact, is that at the time of Gobeckli Tepe, man was simple hunter/gatherer and was not erecting massive and complex temples. It is a fact we cannot complete many things our ancients did, just ask a stone mason or an engineer. Why can't we do it today? Why was man making these things 12,000 years ago?
emekonen 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation ..otherwise one king would not have made several of them. My point is, throughout history the ancients were clearly highly skilled and highly advanced, going all the way back 12,000 years ago to Gobeckli Tepe, and not "simple" cavemen. Even now we are starting to understand that Neanderthals were not stupid half ape half men. The point is simple, our ancestors were far more advanced than they were supposed to be.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No one that I'm aware of claims that people 12,000 years ago were cavemen or that Neanderthals were stupid. They had brains larger than ours and actually interbred with non-African humans.
How advanced were they supposed to be? And again, what problem does this pose?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation As i said, we are finding out more and more about Neanderthals that changes the original theory about them. 12,000 years ago, yes humans were supposed to be simple hunter/gatherers. I am not sure we will ever know how advanced they really were. But clearly far more advanced than we are being told. Ask Zahi Hawass what the pyramids were built for and he will say, a kings tomb. It is absurdity.
emekonen 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation In my field, this poses a huge problem because there is an established time table for the evolution and history of mankind. You certainly can make arguments that Egyptian people created all these things with simple methods and copper tools, its kind of silly but you can make it. Gobeckli Tepe, as far as age, poses a very difficult problem for the established timeline, and what we thought we knew about mankind.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen You're still not actually explaining what problem this poses.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I am not going to write you a book. These conflict with what has been firmly established about mankind and our history. Especially Gobeckli Tepe, which should not be there, because according to history mankind was not building much of anything 12,000 years ago. The fact that the Egyptians knew Pi and the circumference of the earth and worked it into their structures is apparently not a big deal.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen So they may have known more than we thought they did. I still don't see how this is a problem for common ancestry.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I am speaking of how human history and human evolution does not support one another. There are many things they did that they should not have been able to do and many things they knew, that they should not have known. The fact that everything breaks down, including genetics, should be evidence enough that we gain no information, but lose it. By losing information (mutations) we are supposed to gain new information? I mean it makes no sense, but I am a dumb Christian.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes, that's the claim you've made, it's not a claim you've supported.
Nothing has broken down, instead of asserting so with no knowledge of what you're talking about why not just ask with an inquisitive mind? Genetic information can be and is added via natural processes ; /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
That, for instance, details the addition of a novel function on a novel gene to the tune of over 2300 bits of new information.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The historical claim I have not supported? I am not a geneticist, I admit that, I am studying it now, slowly but surely. But seriously, what else do you need for me to support that Gobeckli Tepe was built at a time when people should not be building. Or that the ancient Egyptians knew Pi, or even complex geometry. Either you have no concept of human history and evolution or you are just being silly.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, I'm just expecting you to actually explain how them having more knowledge than we might have thought poses a problem for evolution or evidences anything else.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well, like I said, I am not going to write a book for you here. History and evolution suggest that man evolved over time, got smarter and that essentially we are the crowning achievements. The fact that the Egyptians, Mayans, etc. grasped complex mathematics, Pi, infinity, they even understood pythagoras theorem long before he discovered it. The fact that the sumerians and egyptians essentially appeared overnight also suggests....
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen It's not that we 'got smarter' at any significant rate over the past ~10,000 years, advancement is an iterative process. It seems like a sharper increase in the rate of advancement recently (to be fair it is) because of a coinciding increase of networked infrastructure.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation ..that they seemingly started with virtually no antecendants and had this knowledge seemingly overnight. Hence the "sudden civilization" name. The Egyptians, and every other civilization, clearly had advanced knowledge that eroded over time, it did not advance as is suggested by evolutionary theorists. Every one of these civilizations seems to have forgotten much of this knowledge overtime, as opposed to building upon it and advancing further.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Eroded? Where are you getting that?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation LOL seriously?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes, I seriously expect you to support your claims, which you've not done at all.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Isn't this common knowledge that these civilizations all collapsed?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Civilizations collapsing isn't the same as the knowledge eroding.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What do you think a civilization declining means? It is fairly common knowledge that these civilizations declined in culture, knowledge, and politically. At least the Egyptian civilization, being the most popular, should be well known. Do you want me to give you some text books or professors?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen I was referring to knowledge eroding, it doesn't. It's passed on in the iterative process I was referring to earlier. Egypt specifically declined because of a series of foreign conqueror's
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen
Its more than a valid interpretation.
It happens.
Sorry pal.
Religious opinions don't stop the truth.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata evolution happens? once again, interpretation of data. As much as you try and force it, it still does not make it fact. It is how you interpret the data.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes it happens, no interpretation or forcing required. Allele frequencies in populations would change whether or not anyone ever knew about it or understood it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Most of the evidence for evolution does need interpretation, it is silly to suggest otherwise. For instance if we dug up bones, we would just have bones. One needs to interpret them within a certain framework in order to understand their meaning to human evolution or evolution as a whole. Without interpretation you would just have evidence LOL
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, they would be objectively comparable to other fossils via comparative anatomy. It's also not just a matter of a single piece of evidence, it's the collective evidences which all objectively and solely support evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation They support evolution because it is being presupposed that evolution is true and being interpreted by those who believe in evolution. They support evolution, in your view, because evolution is presupposed to be fact. If fossils support darwinian evolution, explain to my why some fossils seem to abruptly appear in the fossil record?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, they support evolution objectively because mechanisms such as descent with modification explain the characteristics whether or not you accept or even understand that they do.
'why some fossils seem to abruptly appear in the fossil record?'
Such as?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Sorry pal, it does not objectively support evolution, as much as you may want it to. You STILL have to presuppose evolution to be true, but you cannot seem to quite grasp that.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes, it objectively supports evolution regardless of how much you don't want it to. You don't have to presuppose anything to understand that evolution occurs and occurred.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates."—*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The Cambrian gave the appearance of a sudden emergence of phyla because it marked the appearance of hard body parts which fossilize more readily. There are indeed precursors, including pre-Cambrian transitions to chordates such as Pikaia and about ten precursors to trilobites.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation yay! I can post again.
emekonen 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation But you have it all figured out tho, no need to prove similarity proves common ancestry, it is a fact because evolution is presupposed to be correct.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen It evidences common ancestry because evolution is the only model with actual mechanisms that explains it.
It's a fact because it is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, it is the only model and on top of that the only model scientists are willing to actually look at. Therefore, you must presuppose evolution to be true. Only looking at evidence that supports this theory seems to be what scientists wish to do. If anyone ONLY looks at things supporting their belief, they will only reinforce their belief, not challenge it.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, it's the only model that has produced workable hypotheses and testable mechanisms. If another model actually worked and empirically explained the data it would be considered, but there isn't.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation If you only look at supporting evidence for anything, then anything can become truth. But, please explain these workable hypotheses and testable mechanisms that apparently prove evolution.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen That's what I've been doing this entire time, descent with modification followed by differential reproductive success explains the distribution of genetics, morphology, literally every field in biology.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation descent with modification is based on the presupposition that evolution is true. Besides, micro evolution does not prove macro evolution. Adaptation is different than changing into another species over time, which is not observable. Any others?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, descent with modification is a fact of population genetics.
There is no 'micro' and 'macro' evolution the only difference is timescale.
'changing into another species over time, which is not observable'
talkorigins(.)org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I'd like to hear the evidence that is supposedly being dismissed
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You are making a leap from micro to macro. Of course we see descent with modification but it does not prove macro evolution. I am not saying this evidence is dismissed, I am merely saying it does not prove, as you suggest it does, it infers. Inference is not proving. Macro evolution has never been observed, so yes there is micro and macro.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No leap required, the evidence from genetics alone puts common descent beyond reasonable doubt. I am merely saying that what you think you understand about what the evidence proves is irrelevant to biology.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@emekonen What other actual evidence is there? You keep claiming evidence is being dismissed, I'd like to hear it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well, I certainly agree that you could say this evidence infers macro evolution, but that is far different from proving evolution. I do not think it is stupid to come to such a conclusion, I however understand evidence that infers and evidence that proves. This is not evidence that proves.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen This evidence solely supports evolution, entirely objectively. Yes, this is evidence that proves, no matter how much willful incomprehension you employ.
At this point you can't consider yourself scientifically literate if you don't understand that evolution is the backbone of biology.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation MICRO evolution is the backbone of biology, yes, that is observable. Macro, the changing from one species into another over time, is however NOT the backbone of biology.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Once again there is no distinction of 'micro' and 'macro' the only difference is timescale
Universal common descent is the backbone of modern biology. Yes, the same evolution that drives speciation is the backbone of biology.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation There certainly is micro and macro. Either way, one is observable and proven, the other is not. One is used to prove the other, and there simply is no hard evidence but only inference. To say that adaptation proves species change overtime is a fact, or is even observable is lunacy. Just because it is used in biology does not mean it is correct.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, there's not. The same processes drive both of what you consider 'micro and 'macro evolution, the only difference being timescale. No, small changes are not used to infer large changes over longer periods of time. The records, genetic, embryological, fossil, morphological etc. are, and they're explained exclusively via universal common descent.
Just because you apparently have a bias against actually understanding it does not affect its validity as a fact.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation We all have bias, obviously. But to say that this proves evolution is downright silly. You have to interpret these as such and presuppose that small changes overtime result in a change of species to be true. You have to ignore the fact that the fossil record is completely lacking in transitional fossils, or that the abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle, but somehow does not conflict with evolution LOL.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen It's your projection to say we all have bias. To assume that your biological illiteracy means that the various phylogenetic records doesn't prove evolution is personal incredulity. I've already given you a list of observed speciation, willful ignorance doesn't make it go away.
What transition do you want fossils for?
I already refuted your claim regarding higher taxa appearing abruptly.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation LOL you are funny. We all have bias in one way or the other, yours is very clear, as is mine. I don't think you have a mind to grasp that we all have bias, that you clearly need to presuppose evolution to be true, and that you need to interpret the data in a certain framework for evolution to be "true". Laughable. I think this conversation has gone about as far as it can go, you are mentally inflexible to even acknowledge your own personal bias LOL
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, once again your projection of bias is irrelevant. Also once again, no, presupposition is not a prerequisite only an actual literacy in biology. I'm still waiting for that 'other evidence' which is being dismissed.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Other evidence? This is why scientists are so difficult to take serious, they cannot even admit the gaps in their own theory. That is what is so laughable, they actually believe in this nonsensical circular reasoning they spout off. You HAVE to presuppose evolution to be true if you believe in macro-evolution, that is a fact LMAO.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Do you have this supposed evidence? Yes or no.
No, you only have to actually understand biology. Common ancestry is true whether you personally understand it or not.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What evidence ?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The supposed evidence that is being dismissed
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation You said I am dismissing it, I did not say that.
emekonen 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Or maybe you are the only person who has actually witnessed a change in species over a period of time. None of these are evidences that prove, you cannot seem to see the difference between inference and fact. Fossils do not prove evolution, interpreted through an evolutionary framework, they still only infer.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen No, as I pointed out I've given you a list of observed speciation. Whether you ignore it is also irrelevant.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation observed speciation?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Yes, observed speciation. I gave you a list.
Now, how about the evidence for models other than evolution that is supposedly being dismissed?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I did not say there were any other models, but at the very least scientists should be able to look at evidence that does not support evolution, to challenge themselves and their belief. The moment anyone dissents they are discredited, I get labeled a creationist ALL the time, its a dirty word used so other people won't listen. And that just shows a lack of integrity. ( I am not inferring that you are doing this, you have been quite respectful)
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen What evidence that does not support evolution?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I would have to write them up and send them to you. Essentially anamolies within the fossil record, which I am not sure why ANYONE even uses that as proof.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen You could give an example or two here.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, hold on a second.
emekonen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@emekonen @TheScienceFoundation is a MORON!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv I dont think he is a moron.
emekonen 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv This coming from the guy that still talks about racemic mixtures when we know of half a dozen processes that affect the chirality of amino acids.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!!! Stop Lying Dumb FUCK!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
@5tonyvvvv You're still confusing you remaining willfully retarded of the processes that affect chirality for them not existing.
The exist independently of your inability to wrap your underpowered brain around them.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation Take all the amino acids you want! Put them in any sort of chemical broth you want! YOU WILL NEVER GET LIFE!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!! YOU ARE A MORON!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
@5tonyvvvv Shifting the goalposts.
So now you recognize that there are mechanisms which can affect the mix of chirality of amino acids?
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation Never denied it MORON!!! and there all still RACEMIC MIXTURES!!!! Even if you had all LEFT handed amino acids, they is no way they would organize themselves!!!! In any plausible pre-biotic environment!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
@5tonyvvvv No, they're not. That's been my point. Circular polarity preferentially destroys amino acids, you haven't so much denied it as you've just confused your sheer retardation of its existence for an argument against it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation Repeat this processes MORON!!!! Your sheer retardation and assumptions with your FAITH!!! is what you dont understand!! INFORMATION is the problem!!! Circular polarity is not organizing anything!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 week ago
@5tonyvvvv Actually it's my knowledge of molecular biology as to why I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. Again you're shifting the goalposts, your contention was that the mixes are racemic, which I addressed, correcting your ignorance by pointing out that there are processes which affect the chirality of an amino acid mixture. One subject at a time here.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@5tonyvvvv So do you yet understand that there are processes that affect chirality?
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation I didnt get a list by the way. If it was that link, that link did not work.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen talkorigins(.)org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You have to remove the ( and )
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation yea, its not working man, but I know exactly what you are talking about....I think.
emekonen 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Hay, Mr. science foundation this is about compeating worldviews here, and it seems to me that the evodence speaks loud and clear, you can continue to belive in a dead religion sence that is what evolution is, you must be that hardcore die-hards that cant see the truth if it slapped hin in the face, I think I was debating you once before and even then you culdnt see the truth, the evodence supports creation, thats a FACT, study ENTROPY closer will you.
squallion777 2 months ago
@squallion777 Not at all, this is about one side actually paying attention to the data and the other side being creationists. You mean I wouldn't buy the pseudo-science of genetic entropy. Apparently we're the only ones who have studied it at all because we're the only ones that realize it ignores processes that add functional information and ignores the fact that selection is non-random.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squallion777 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Dude, you cannot understand that you use micro evolution to try and prove macro. You do not seem to grasp that you are looking at evidence while presupposing evolution is already a fact. This is why scientists have become so absurd, they act like the religious nutballs they profess to be so different from.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen You cannot understand that I don't have to use 'micro' to prove 'macro' because the extant records already support 'macro' exclusively with actual mechanisms. I don't have to presuppose anything to understand that ERV's are evidence of common ancestry, just a working knowledge of genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation btw that link doesn't work.
emekonen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen You have to take the () out
or just google 'observed instances of speciation'
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@emekonen
Yes, evolution happens.
Your religious opinion doesn't change the fact.
odinata 3 months ago
@emekonen
Foxes are indeed related to wolves.
odinata 3 months ago
@emekonen The 1200 ton stone you references was not actually moved, apparently it was carved in situ
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation referenced*
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen
"evolution made zero sense because it is contradicted by human history. "
Fox3es and wolves are related--whether or not that makes sense to you.
Sorry bud.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata I didnt say that it doesnt make sense. I think evolution is a logical interpretation of observable data. Foxes and wolves have nothing to do with human history. Some simple research into megalithic sites like Gobekli Tepe clearly show there are anomalies in human history that do not match up with evolutionary thought.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen Once again, it's not an interpretation, it's an objective conclusion that anyone can understand regardless of preconceived notion.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation If what you say is true, then there are many stupid people out there rejecting irrefutable fact. It is interpretation of evidence, I am not sure why that is such a difficult thing for you, or even such a bad thing even. Evolution is not an objective conclusion in any way.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen 'there are many stupid people out there rejecting irrefutable fact'
Exactly
Yes, evolution is an objective conclusion. The mechanisms that drive it and explain biodiversity exist and can be studied by anyone who cares to do so and are completely independent of anyone's will or belief.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@emekonen We find these civilizations, like the Egyptian, formed seemingly overnight. Complete with a complex religious system of beliefs and language. The ability to carve ornate vases and statues out of diorite, which you need diamond to cut. There are also structures in the americas and around the world that leave contemporary archaeologists scratching their heads.
emekonen 3 months ago
Sanfords bogus Young Earth Creationist garbage has been thoroughly debunked.
Its done.
odinata 3 months ago
"HJ Muller received the Nobel Prize for “for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays”. He studied the effects of mutation on populations, and indirectly spawned ideas which were elaborated in the book Genetic Entropy by Cornell geneticist John Sanford."
"The theory of genetic entropy has the potential to overturn Darwinism on empirical grounds alone. Darwinism argues for inevitable progress, genetic entropy argues the opposite."
Entropy56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sanford is a Flat Earth Creationist who has been thoroughly and utterly debunked.
odinata 4 months ago
@ Messiah Yeshuah - it is my understanding that we were given dominion over plants, seeds, animals etc.
Just as I can selectively breed "long hair" genes into a dog, and breed out "short hair" genes out of a dog, so I can perform the same gene selection with plants. We even do this to humans, and God also shows His preference of "good" unblemished genetic makeup.
In any case, the world around us is not perfect/ideal but rather real. As an engineer I see evidence for this all the time.
ryanmerckel 4 months ago
@ryanmerckel Given dominion is one thing. We can breed mini* size dogs of the SAME breed by taking the smallest one, and then breeding with the smallest one, and so on and so on. But I do NOT believe that God said you have dominion as in changing the way I made them. Dog-kind. t's the same with plants....I see a couple of my plants are hardy of the same plant "bunch", so I make sure when they go to seed, I cultivate THOSE seeds. We are not talking about the "cellular" level.
MessiahYeshuah 4 months ago
@MessiahYeshuah "changing the way [God] made them" - did you know that Moses' wife was a black Ethiopian woman, and that he was a Jew? Did God not correct Miriam and Aron when they judged Moses for it? Is this not God supporting "the way [He] made them?'. I also did not see anything about God saying "have dominion, BUT...". All I read is "have dominion... You also know that we find many animals that are able to breed even across domains and classes with fertile offspring?
ryanmerckel 4 months ago
Comment removed
ryanmerckel 4 months ago
Also, rather than say he left because it was TOO controversial, which I believe was God convicting Dr. Sanford, why doesn't he repent before all involved in this genetic manipulation of God's perfect seed? Do you see the irony? This has spiritual implication, too!
MessiahYeshuah 4 months ago
Comment removed
ryanmerckel 4 months ago
The sad thing with Dr. John Sanford is this: He was directly involved in GMO. Why is man trying to mess with God's PERFECT seeds? Does man think He can do better for providing for His children? HMMMM?
MessiahYeshuah 4 months ago
@MessiahYeshuah seeds are far from perfect today. Genetics over the generations change incredibly over time, with a lot of loss in genetic information. Genetic mutations, genetic entropy, genetic mistakes etc. all take it's toll on plants. We see a loss of genetic information all the time in every organism. Would the Mona Lisa be perfect if she did not have her nose?
"man is trying to mess with God's PERFECT seeds" is far from being a valid statement.
ryanmerckel 4 months ago
@ryanmerckel That's right...LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION is exactly what Mr. Sanford said. We are a dying world in need of The Savior. :)
MessiahYeshuah 4 months ago
@MessiahYeshuah You speak the truth my friend. Yeshuah is Lord. I'm so glad I found this video because everyone else I know (even other Christians) are such devout believers in evolution. When I bring up genetic entropy they have little to nothing to say to contradict or explain it. I think the nature of genetics alone disproves evolution in it's complexity and arrangement. God bless.
uppercutter21 3 months ago
@uppercutter21
Genetic entropy is garbage.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata so we don't genetically break down?
emekonen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emekonen
NO.
odinata 3 months ago
@uppercutter21 'hey have little to nothing to say to contradict or explain it'
Sanford ignores several facts when touting genetic entropy, 1: nearly all mutations are neutral 2: selection is non-random meaning beneficial mutations are going to be passed on at a higher frequency 3: There was no objectively 'correct' genomic palate to start with, so saying it's degrading is meaningless because the genome itself is the result of processes such as mutation and duplication.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Sanford states in his book that most mutations are neutral. What is a "beneficial mutation"? The evolutionary stance is yes, there was no objectively correct genomic palate to start with. This is an interpretation, do we have the original genomic palate we supposedly started with?
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen A beneficial mutation is a change which confers an advantage to survival in a given environment.
No, that was my point, there is no original genome so you can't say it's destroying anything.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Exactly, therefore we can speculate on two possibilities, the genome was simple and evolved OR the genome was far superior to ours and degenerated over time, so genetic entropy is not a stupid idea, especially since we see it everyday. What are some beneficial mutations? Not ones like, if you have sickle cell you cannot get malaria, thats not beneficial at all as you die from both.
emekonen 3 months ago
@emekonen The difference being only one of those possibilities is actually backed by empirical data, the former.
'Not ones like, if you have sickle cell you cannot get malaria, thats not beneficial at all as you die from both.'
This shows you have no understanding of evolution. Everyone dies, beneficial mutations are about what organism has what traits that confer an advantage in survival. Malaria confers survival advantage in places where malaria is prevalent.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Empirical evidence? You just admitted that we do not have any original genome, therefore we have to speculate. Otherwise what empirical evidence is there? No understanding of evolution? Sickle cell may keep someone from getting malaria, but it is hardly "beneficial". It reminds me of some of those medications, take this pill it helps you, but it can give you bloody discharge, headaches, etc. Give me an example of a beneficial mutation.
emekonen 3 months ago