You really should do a research methodologys class be for you go on with more of this waffle-it all ways seems like you charicters are repressing somthing! Your so bent and this fear in side you makes you blind. Try being honest and get an education!
@bigvolcano You realize that half of what you just said made absolutely no sense. he was just bringing up the idea. he's not a scientist. You don't have to be a scientist to have an epiphany.
I don't think Randall is challenging the concept of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Those are pretty well established concepts.
But natural selection can only preserve advantages which already exist, facilitating the survival - not the arrival - of the fittest. Randall is challenging the view that undirected material mechanisms can produce certain kinds of symbiotic relationships which would later be selected for.
Are you saying a bird that doesn't already eat bugs off of cattle couldn't begin to?
Of course natural mechanisms can produce interrelationships, like I said before, if the relationship is beneficial for both parties, they're more likely to survive longer and pass on more copies of their genes.
That is not the kind of symbiotic relationships we are referring to. Consider, for example, the relationship which exists between the ocellaris clownfish that dwells among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from carnivorous fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators. A special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles. It is this kind of relationship which must be explained
The mucous coating of the fish is based on sugars rather than proteins. This means that anemones fail to recognize the fish as a potential food source and do not fire their nematocysts
The fish lacking the protein are protected from their predators by the anemone, so there is a degree in differential reproductive success in their favor.
That's a major part of the creationist problem, that would've taken a 30 second google search to find for even a novice. Creationists don't want to find answers to their questions or evidence that contradicts their position, and when they do they pretty much always ignore it.
And, somewhat ironically, over 90% of the Darwinists with whom I have spoken have self-confessedly not read any literature which is critical of the view to which they subscribe.
I've read Doug Axe's paper, it's nonsense based on erroneous odds and 4 invalid tests, I've also read Meyer's paper that Sternberg tried to shoehorn into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he actually claimed that we should have a genetic record from the Cambrian
I do not recall a suggestion on Meyer's part that we should possess a genetic record from the Cambrian. Maybe you could provide me with the quote? What were your specific objections with regard to Axe? Send me a message if too long to enter in 500 characters.
The genetics claim is ingrained in his entire paper, but specifically the line ' Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information.' in regards to the increase of CSI in the Cambrian
Axe's paper was basically trying to equate new function in proteins to chance, it's not, we get new protein foldings all the time from hydrophobia and frameshifting
Your initial claim was that Meyer asserted that we should possess a genetic record from the Cambrian. But then you reference his true assertion that a substantial increase in the number of cell types requires a large informational input. Those are not synonymous.
Considering that you can't determine quantity of genetic information from anatomy or morphology, yes. While technically a eukaryote, most amoeba are microscopic and contain 200x more DNA than humans
You mention the C-value paradox, as if that had any relevance. Yes, the C-values differ among species and bears no relationship to organismal complexity as far as eukaryotes are concerned. But not all of DNA encodes for proteins, and so we would not expect genome size to reflect the number of genes in eukaryotes. When speaking of the Cambrian, we are talking about novel protein structures and folds, requiring many new genes.
I would also point out the fact that the information controlling the differentiation process (resulting in different cell types) does not appear to reside within the DNA molecule, which would entail that one can mutate DNA indefinitely and one will never be able to produce a fundamentally novel body plan.
It's funny you would say that though, while defending Meyers paper, which is centered around the argument of a rapid change and influx of new information
If DNA were in control of development, then you should be able to produce a replica of yourself by putting your DNA in a human egg which has had its own DNA removed.
Adult cells contain the same DNA as a fertilised egg.Each cell type uses only a portion of its genetic repertoire, which factors outside of the DNA turning on the appropriate genes. If development requires that DNA be controlled by factors outside of itself, DNA doesn't control development.
No, a clone is not an identical copy. The phenotype of the clone would depend in large measure on information in the enucleated egg that received the DNA.
Why is it, then, that when you clone a specimen the clone is not an identical copy? The location of the information controlling the embryonic developmental pathway is not well understood. But it has to be enclosed somewhere within the egg. Eggs do contain several structures (such as microtubules and membrane patterns) that are known to influence the development of the embryo independently of the DNA. Placing foreign DNA into an egg does not change the species of the egg or embryo.
Yes, thats the claim, that clones are not identical copies, genome dawt gov disagrees with you and you haven't given any source for your claim at all.
Are you asserting that if one were to place the DNA from a different species, say from a sheep, into a human egg, that a sheep would be able to develop from a human egg?
By the way, on clones, clones do have the same genotype but their phenotype is not identical, resulting in part from factors such as the interaction of the individual's genes and the developmental environment of the uterus.
The sequence of DNA nucleotides is identical in every cell of an organism's body.
The information which controls the cell differentiation process during embryonic development does not reside at the DNA level. This is simply a fact of Biology.
As far as Axe is concerned, it appears that you have misunderstood his work. The argument is not that an existing protein fold might be altered by mutations, but rather he contests that mutation and selection are adequate to search the enormous combinational space of possibilities necessary to finding fundamentally new protein folds and structures.
fundamentally new protein folds ARE produced by mutations of pre-existing proteins, nucleotides code for amino acids code for proteins. It's pretty detailed in this video
I have just watched the video to which you refer me. The commentator evidently overlooks the fact that the probability of gene duplication leading to degeneration is much higher than that leading to the production of a new gene having a useful function.
Further, he also overlooks the change in amino acid sequence, to give the protein its new function, must be accompanied by changes in the regulatory sequences that ensure that the new protein is produced in the right place and/or right time.
Now we're back to a chance argument, if 99% of mutations are harmful and 1% is beneficial (not saying those are the percentages, just for the sake of argument) then the 1% with beneficial mutations are still going to have a favored reproductive success
regulatory regions are mostly responsible for regulating gene expression, this is not to say that traits can't be expressed without them. A lot if not most are the result of a mutation of a duplicate of a pre-existing gene, with RR's
Good thinking Mr. Niles. I do quite a bit of debating with evoists here on YouTube & I also occasionally stumble upon some aspect of evo theory that gets me thinking about the nut & bolts of its supposed workings. Its incredible how many items exist which refute evo theory, but the spoiled, little princesses still get to have their fairy tale indoctrinating kids & young adults in public schools. The ancient Sumerians also believed in evo. I question the science from 5000 yrs. ago. Obviously it
was a "religious" belief they had. Since we know that the earliest record of evo theory was a Sumerian religious belief and today's Simian religion completely lacks empirical evidence. There should be an appeal made that the materialists make a more devout practice of their beloved "separation of church & state". Frankly, I'm infuriated that while they unjustly discriminate against this country's foundational influence of Christianity. Those who know evo's falsehood are taxed to pay for schools
I had not even finished one cup of coffee before I viewed this. I'm making a mental note to be more awake the next time I watch your videos. I do not say that as an insult, rather as a compliment.
You have shown again how the likely hood, or I think Frank calls it the probability, of all of these "chance" "random" events just happening, is, well, impossible. It's so easy to so, and yet so many are blind.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me. God Bless You!
The odds for "dual evolution"? A predator/prey relationship is one example of co-evolution. The best predators and the best evaders survive, which is why cheetahs are so good at killing antelope and antelope are so good at evading cheetahs. What's the chance of that happening? About 100%, based on basic evolutionary theory.
Symbiotic relationships form in nature all the time. WE have symbiotic relationships with our pets, our livestock, and various plants, some of which are relatively recent.
I appreciate your reply but nothing is 100% if you refer to evolution theory. That answer seems a little generic as well. Look for the truth and you will find it. God Bless
"nothing is 100% if you refer to evolution theory."
Nothing is 100% if you refer to ANY theory, which is why I used the qualifier "about", indicating that this is observed, and is also a prediction made by evolutionary theory.
Organisms adapt to their environment. That environment consists primarily of other organisms. If this is true, symbiotic relationships should be found everywhere in nature.
As far as interdependence, what about the male and female of any sophisticated species; did they all develop interdependently as male and female? If not, then what organism did they derive from? There should be a fossil record, of course, of both male and female and unisex of that 'species' or genus. Have we not done enough digging?
Would not, a unisex animal, find the simplest way to reproduce? What impetus would cause sufficient specialization to define male and female? Much has to evolve tog
The forms would have to evolve to make coitus possible and viable. One without the other would make either useless: Viability, or, primarily, and principally, form. Thus evolution denies itself: for no form would be caused to develop from external factors, but an 'accident'; once the form developed, it would serve no function, and thus be deselected and deleted from the gene pool, 'vestigial'; and we basically know 'vestigials' are deleted as such with modern analysis.
Functionality of male and female forms must conjunct, let alone separately, but also with form to make it possible:
An egg without a womb becomes pointless. Any male organ without the gift of viability for life, becomes 'vestigial' and is thus deselected.
Those who would claim Christianity or creationism, however determined, as science or other, or anything as 'fairytale,' in this case had better look at their own 'fairytales'. With evidence comes science. Without evidence comes imagination.
I agree with that last statement. too often scientists are saying that "we believe the universe 'may' have started this way, or this 'may' have happened."
This is not science its fantasy time. Galileo was imprisoned because he jumped the gun on delcaring his hypothesis as a theory in his book. I am starting to have great sympathy with the church who were put in judgement over his hubris, and am starting to realise that modern scholasticism is rife with it too! Lol.
'Modern scholasticism' is certainly rife with something. I'd say 'modern scholasticism' is rife with sarcasm... And is dead.
'Modern scholasticism' is certainly nothing of modern scholasticism, as you will know. Knowledge and know-it-all mentalities pervade, the hubris you described, certainly not as self-described, but rather as hubris for fear of it being anything else.
Grow up and mature and you too will realize the reality, of which you now have but the glacial tip. Good day to you, sir.:)
Sorry, I have not grasped on what point I am immature and require growing up? When casting aspersions please be more specific on what. that would be helpful, and polite :)
I did not call you immature. I merely noted that you are 'havock89' and assumed you were born in 1989, seems reasonable, apart from the fact that most users are young and you can often tell that by looking at their site.
I merely meant that at that age growing up and maturing are part of the process, and with a whole long life ahead, you have that opportunity. I am maturing now.
I DO look up to those and respect the opinions of those who know more than me as aged.
Using qualifiers like "may" is necessary if we are honest. Anything else would be declaring certitude, and we can not 100% certain about any theory. There is always a chance that somebody is going to make a breakthrough and challenged long-standing theories, especially theories about what happened in the distant past.
However, when there is massive amounts of forensic data about that past, we can form valid assumptions, such as evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life.
We are not talking about theories. Theories have data that have been independantly tested over a period of time by a peer review process.
The problem is, that historical evidence can be manipulated to fit existing models. If I found a business card with "James Bond, 007." that would be evidence he is a real person. But that is not true.
I have no problem with evolution, but it needs more work, and should not be treated like the holy grail it currently is; or that its a complete answer.
Evolution isn't a theory? You don't consider the past 100+ years of intense scrutiny, experiments, and eventual acceptance from multiple scientific disciplines as being "independantly tested over a period of time by a peer review process"?
NOTHING should be treated as a "holy grail", if by that you mean "sacred" or "off limits to scrutiny". If we have a "complete answer", why continue research? We're done!
It seams like you're real problem is with material determinism, not evolution.
No no no. Sorry my mistake, i was not concise separating the two statements! My comments were about the quality of scholasiticm in general. I am not talking about evolution per se.. However evolution does need reworking, and it is backed up with some poor geology and the Holy grail - the fossil index, radio metric dating and not least of which archeology. All these devices and models are leaning on each other like a pack of cards.
Please, check into Disney. He was a 33rd degree freemason. There are subliminal messages hidden in the movies we let our children watch. Just pray and check into it please.
yeah, it's so much more complex than we realize...
like certain cacti in the west require a nurture tree to grow because of the arid conditions...once the cacti reaches maturity, the nuture tree dies...and the initial pollination requires a complex, interdependent process involving insects, birds, and bats...
"all good things come from above."
remove God from the picture and you have Bill Weise's description of hell.
Great thoughts, Randall. As always, they'll give an explanation for everything, however, large amounts of time don't solve the improbability of what we see given what they say happened.
And still, I've never been sold on the simple to complex nature of evolution. And I have no problem basing that on pure subjectivity after merely observing life visually.
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Russian girls ** leefoxnow.info **
PokliCbvgt 1 year ago
You really should do a research methodologys class be for you go on with more of this waffle-it all ways seems like you charicters are repressing somthing! Your so bent and this fear in side you makes you blind. Try being honest and get an education!
bigvolcano 1 year ago
@bigvolcano You realize that half of what you just said made absolutely no sense. he was just bringing up the idea. he's not a scientist. You don't have to be a scientist to have an epiphany.
ploky123 1 year ago
God sure made a pretty sweet planet...
jordog22 2 years ago
You are *asking* for thumbs down XD
justforflag2 2 years ago
this is pretty interesting Niles.
VNPrince 2 years ago
If a relationship is beneficial then any organisms that partake in it will be more likely to live longer and breed more.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I don't think Randall is challenging the concept of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Those are pretty well established concepts.
But natural selection can only preserve advantages which already exist, facilitating the survival - not the arrival - of the fittest. Randall is challenging the view that undirected material mechanisms can produce certain kinds of symbiotic relationships which would later be selected for.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Are you saying a bird that doesn't already eat bugs off of cattle couldn't begin to?
Of course natural mechanisms can produce interrelationships, like I said before, if the relationship is beneficial for both parties, they're more likely to survive longer and pass on more copies of their genes.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
That is not the kind of symbiotic relationships we are referring to. Consider, for example, the relationship which exists between the ocellaris clownfish that dwells among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from carnivorous fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators. A special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles. It is this kind of relationship which must be explained
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
The mucous coating of the fish is based on sugars rather than proteins. This means that anemones fail to recognize the fish as a potential food source and do not fire their nematocysts
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Your scenario fails to account for how such a relationship developed.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
The fish lacking the protein are protected from their predators by the anemone, so there is a degree in differential reproductive success in their favor.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
That's a major part of the creationist problem, that would've taken a 30 second google search to find for even a novice. Creationists don't want to find answers to their questions or evidence that contradicts their position, and when they do they pretty much always ignore it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
And, somewhat ironically, over 90% of the Darwinists with whom I have spoken have self-confessedly not read any literature which is critical of the view to which they subscribe.
Would you claim to have done that?
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
I've read Doug Axe's paper, it's nonsense based on erroneous odds and 4 invalid tests, I've also read Meyer's paper that Sternberg tried to shoehorn into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he actually claimed that we should have a genetic record from the Cambrian
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I do not recall a suggestion on Meyer's part that we should possess a genetic record from the Cambrian. Maybe you could provide me with the quote? What were your specific objections with regard to Axe? Send me a message if too long to enter in 500 characters.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
The genetics claim is ingrained in his entire paper, but specifically the line ' Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information.' in regards to the increase of CSI in the Cambrian
Axe's paper was basically trying to equate new function in proteins to chance, it's not, we get new protein foldings all the time from hydrophobia and frameshifting
pandasthumb(.)org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa(.)html
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Your initial claim was that Meyer asserted that we should possess a genetic record from the Cambrian. But then you reference his true assertion that a substantial increase in the number of cell types requires a large informational input. Those are not synonymous.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
He claimed to have evidence of an increase in genetic information, would that or would that not require a genetic record?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Do you need a genetic record to determine whether a fully-fledged multicellular trilobite requires more genetic information than a prokaryote?
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Considering that you can't determine quantity of genetic information from anatomy or morphology, yes. While technically a eukaryote, most amoeba are microscopic and contain 200x more DNA than humans
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You mention the C-value paradox, as if that had any relevance. Yes, the C-values differ among species and bears no relationship to organismal complexity as far as eukaryotes are concerned. But not all of DNA encodes for proteins, and so we would not expect genome size to reflect the number of genes in eukaryotes. When speaking of the Cambrian, we are talking about novel protein structures and folds, requiring many new genes.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
I would also point out the fact that the information controlling the differentiation process (resulting in different cell types) does not appear to reside within the DNA molecule, which would entail that one can mutate DNA indefinitely and one will never be able to produce a fundamentally novel body plan.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
I'd like a source on that.
It's funny you would say that though, while defending Meyers paper, which is centered around the argument of a rapid change and influx of new information
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
If DNA were in control of development, then you should be able to produce a replica of yourself by putting your DNA in a human egg which has had its own DNA removed.
Adult cells contain the same DNA as a fertilised egg.Each cell type uses only a portion of its genetic repertoire, which factors outside of the DNA turning on the appropriate genes. If development requires that DNA be controlled by factors outside of itself, DNA doesn't control development.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
You can
genome(.)gov/pages/education/illustration_of_cloning(.)htm
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No, a clone is not an identical copy. The phenotype of the clone would depend in large measure on information in the enucleated egg that received the DNA.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Where are you getting that a clone is not an identical copy?
There is no genetic information in the egg, the nucleus is removed pre-fusion
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Why is it, then, that when you clone a specimen the clone is not an identical copy? The location of the information controlling the embryonic developmental pathway is not well understood. But it has to be enclosed somewhere within the egg. Eggs do contain several structures (such as microtubules and membrane patterns) that are known to influence the development of the embryo independently of the DNA. Placing foreign DNA into an egg does not change the species of the egg or embryo.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Yes, thats the claim, that clones are not identical copies, genome dawt gov disagrees with you and you haven't given any source for your claim at all.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Are you asserting that if one were to place the DNA from a different species, say from a sheep, into a human egg, that a sheep would be able to develop from a human egg?
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
It's possible, in placental function, mammalian eggs aren't all that different from one another
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
By the way, on clones, clones do have the same genotype but their phenotype is not identical, resulting in part from factors such as the interaction of the individual's genes and the developmental environment of the uterus.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
That's funny because an actual peer reviewed paper says its mostly due to environmental factors
hmg(.)oxfordjournals dawt org/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_1/R11
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Which would require a genetic record to determine to any certainty.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The sequence of DNA nucleotides is identical in every cell of an organism's body.
The information which controls the cell differentiation process during embryonic development does not reside at the DNA level. This is simply a fact of Biology.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
'The sequence of DNA nucleotides is identical in every cell of an organism's body. '
I DEFINITELY want a source for that
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
As far as Axe is concerned, it appears that you have misunderstood his work. The argument is not that an existing protein fold might be altered by mutations, but rather he contests that mutation and selection are adequate to search the enormous combinational space of possibilities necessary to finding fundamentally new protein folds and structures.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
fundamentally new protein folds ARE produced by mutations of pre-existing proteins, nucleotides code for amino acids code for proteins. It's pretty detailed in this video
/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I have just watched the video to which you refer me. The commentator evidently overlooks the fact that the probability of gene duplication leading to degeneration is much higher than that leading to the production of a new gene having a useful function.
Further, he also overlooks the change in amino acid sequence, to give the protein its new function, must be accompanied by changes in the regulatory sequences that ensure that the new protein is produced in the right place and/or right time.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
I would also make the point that the nylon-digesting enzyme example cited can easily be attributed to a decrease in enzyme specificity.
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Now we're back to a chance argument, if 99% of mutations are harmful and 1% is beneficial (not saying those are the percentages, just for the sake of argument) then the 1% with beneficial mutations are still going to have a favored reproductive success
regulatory regions are mostly responsible for regulating gene expression, this is not to say that traits can't be expressed without them. A lot if not most are the result of a mutation of a duplicate of a pre-existing gene, with RR's
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Which parts of what papers criticizing evolution do you think are accurate?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Good thinking Mr. Niles. I do quite a bit of debating with evoists here on YouTube & I also occasionally stumble upon some aspect of evo theory that gets me thinking about the nut & bolts of its supposed workings. Its incredible how many items exist which refute evo theory, but the spoiled, little princesses still get to have their fairy tale indoctrinating kids & young adults in public schools. The ancient Sumerians also believed in evo. I question the science from 5000 yrs. ago. Obviously it
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
was a "religious" belief they had. Since we know that the earliest record of evo theory was a Sumerian religious belief and today's Simian religion completely lacks empirical evidence. There should be an appeal made that the materialists make a more devout practice of their beloved "separation of church & state". Frankly, I'm infuriated that while they unjustly discriminate against this country's foundational influence of Christianity. Those who know evo's falsehood are taxed to pay for schools
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Happy New Year Randall!
I had not even finished one cup of coffee before I viewed this. I'm making a mental note to be more awake the next time I watch your videos. I do not say that as an insult, rather as a compliment.
You have shown again how the likely hood, or I think Frank calls it the probability, of all of these "chance" "random" events just happening, is, well, impossible. It's so easy to so, and yet so many are blind.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me. God Bless You!
pheleant 3 years ago
Interesting vid. We can learn a lot from nature about our own lives.
cre8ivchurch 3 years ago
Dual evolution. Love to know the odds for that one. This one goes up on the favorites Randall. God Bless
stevendrake01 3 years ago
The odds for "dual evolution"? A predator/prey relationship is one example of co-evolution. The best predators and the best evaders survive, which is why cheetahs are so good at killing antelope and antelope are so good at evading cheetahs. What's the chance of that happening? About 100%, based on basic evolutionary theory.
Symbiotic relationships form in nature all the time. WE have symbiotic relationships with our pets, our livestock, and various plants, some of which are relatively recent.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I appreciate your reply but nothing is 100% if you refer to evolution theory. That answer seems a little generic as well. Look for the truth and you will find it. God Bless
stevendrake01 3 years ago
"nothing is 100% if you refer to evolution theory."
Nothing is 100% if you refer to ANY theory, which is why I used the qualifier "about", indicating that this is observed, and is also a prediction made by evolutionary theory.
Organisms adapt to their environment. That environment consists primarily of other organisms. If this is true, symbiotic relationships should be found everywhere in nature.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
As far as interdependence, what about the male and female of any sophisticated species; did they all develop interdependently as male and female? If not, then what organism did they derive from? There should be a fossil record, of course, of both male and female and unisex of that 'species' or genus. Have we not done enough digging?
Would not, a unisex animal, find the simplest way to reproduce? What impetus would cause sufficient specialization to define male and female? Much has to evolve tog
MarkBH70 3 years ago
to evolve together?
The forms would have to evolve to make coitus possible and viable. One without the other would make either useless: Viability, or, primarily, and principally, form. Thus evolution denies itself: for no form would be caused to develop from external factors, but an 'accident'; once the form developed, it would serve no function, and thus be deselected and deleted from the gene pool, 'vestigial'; and we basically know 'vestigials' are deleted as such with modern analysis.
MarkBH70 3 years ago
Functionality of male and female forms must conjunct, let alone separately, but also with form to make it possible:
An egg without a womb becomes pointless. Any male organ without the gift of viability for life, becomes 'vestigial' and is thus deselected.
Those who would claim Christianity or creationism, however determined, as science or other, or anything as 'fairytale,' in this case had better look at their own 'fairytales'. With evidence comes science. Without evidence comes imagination.
MarkBH70 3 years ago
I agree with that last statement. too often scientists are saying that "we believe the universe 'may' have started this way, or this 'may' have happened."
This is not science its fantasy time. Galileo was imprisoned because he jumped the gun on delcaring his hypothesis as a theory in his book. I am starting to have great sympathy with the church who were put in judgement over his hubris, and am starting to realise that modern scholasticism is rife with it too! Lol.
havock89 3 years ago
'Modern scholasticism' is certainly rife with something. I'd say 'modern scholasticism' is rife with sarcasm... And is dead.
'Modern scholasticism' is certainly nothing of modern scholasticism, as you will know. Knowledge and know-it-all mentalities pervade, the hubris you described, certainly not as self-described, but rather as hubris for fear of it being anything else.
Grow up and mature and you too will realize the reality, of which you now have but the glacial tip. Good day to you, sir.:)
MarkBH70 3 years ago
Sorry, I have not grasped on what point I am immature and require growing up? When casting aspersions please be more specific on what. that would be helpful, and polite :)
Have a happy new year!
havock89 3 years ago
Happy New Year!
I did not call you immature. I merely noted that you are 'havock89' and assumed you were born in 1989, seems reasonable, apart from the fact that most users are young and you can often tell that by looking at their site.
I merely meant that at that age growing up and maturing are part of the process, and with a whole long life ahead, you have that opportunity. I am maturing now.
I DO look up to those and respect the opinions of those who know more than me as aged.
Best wishes
MarkBH70 3 years ago
Ahh ok. I got my nickname havoc in 89, but "havoc had already been taken so I added a "k"...
So just wondering, how many 19 year olds do you know that use the term 'hubris'? and are willing to poo-poo poor scholasticism? lol.
havock89 3 years ago
Sorry.
MarkBH70 3 years ago
Using qualifiers like "may" is necessary if we are honest. Anything else would be declaring certitude, and we can not 100% certain about any theory. There is always a chance that somebody is going to make a breakthrough and challenged long-standing theories, especially theories about what happened in the distant past.
However, when there is massive amounts of forensic data about that past, we can form valid assumptions, such as evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
We are not talking about theories. Theories have data that have been independantly tested over a period of time by a peer review process.
The problem is, that historical evidence can be manipulated to fit existing models. If I found a business card with "James Bond, 007." that would be evidence he is a real person. But that is not true.
I have no problem with evolution, but it needs more work, and should not be treated like the holy grail it currently is; or that its a complete answer.
havock89 3 years ago
Evolution isn't a theory? You don't consider the past 100+ years of intense scrutiny, experiments, and eventual acceptance from multiple scientific disciplines as being "independantly tested over a period of time by a peer review process"?
NOTHING should be treated as a "holy grail", if by that you mean "sacred" or "off limits to scrutiny". If we have a "complete answer", why continue research? We're done!
It seams like you're real problem is with material determinism, not evolution.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
No no no. Sorry my mistake, i was not concise separating the two statements! My comments were about the quality of scholasiticm in general. I am not talking about evolution per se.. However evolution does need reworking, and it is backed up with some poor geology and the Holy grail - the fossil index, radio metric dating and not least of which archeology. All these devices and models are leaning on each other like a pack of cards.
havock89 3 years ago
Please, check into Disney. He was a 33rd degree freemason. There are subliminal messages hidden in the movies we let our children watch. Just pray and check into it please.
Faithbound213 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok I'll make it simple.
-------------------------------------------
Organisms adapt to their environment.
The envoronment inludes other organisms.
Organisms depend on their environment.
This may include other organisms.
Danmill23 3 years ago
yeah, it's so much more complex than we realize...
like certain cacti in the west require a nurture tree to grow because of the arid conditions...once the cacti reaches maturity, the nuture tree dies...and the initial pollination requires a complex, interdependent process involving insects, birds, and bats...
"all good things come from above."
remove God from the picture and you have Bill Weise's description of hell.
Leiflton 3 years ago
it also appears that not only does the animal kingdom recognize the existence of God, but actually cries out to God for food.
"Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat." - Job 38:41
God also brings down the rain to water the earth, and pretty much everything else.
Leiflton 3 years ago
Maybe you should read more than 3 sentences on the evolution of symbiotic relationships? If you don't understand it, why stop at 3 sentences?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Great thoughts, Randall. As always, they'll give an explanation for everything, however, large amounts of time don't solve the improbability of what we see given what they say happened.
And still, I've never been sold on the simple to complex nature of evolution. And I have no problem basing that on pure subjectivity after merely observing life visually.
Anyways, great video brother.
shiningcross 3 years ago
the things you have to ignore to remain an atheist. Happy New year Randall !!!
biggbaddjohn 3 years ago
Yeah like talking donkies, talking snakes and talking, burning vegitation.
Danmill23 3 years ago
I personally have observed 100's of talking jack asses
biggbaddjohn 3 years ago