Tiktaalik, Your Inner Fish - Part 2

[Darienbeagle]

Shubin is indeed a great speaker. I got to hear him speak at the American Museum of Natural History. His talk was very good, and answered questions from even very young children respectfully without talking down to them.

[Chickenisgoood]

this is pretty much the whole summary of chapter 1 of Your Inner Fish

[MrZardoz777]

Fascinating, thanks for posting.

[bshieldsbb01]

18:00 and on

Evolution works...get over it.

Thanks for posting this lecture, it was really interesting, and Shubin's a good story-teller.

[musicequalstruth]

This is interesting, but I got one for you. Even though evolution is real, it hasn't proven anything about random mutation, which was Darwin's mechanism for evolution. My research, as well as personal experience, have proven to me that randomness is NOT involved in the evolution of life.DNA doesn't randomly mutate, and DNA is the code, the information, that tells tiny proteins what to create.Where this information is coming from should be the debate.This information is Intelligently Designed

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

your obviously a proponent of intelligent Design, and biology is not one your forte. Therefore your research and personal experience is simply inadequate. I would assume you simply didn't know that those point question was already raised, and answered a long time ago, in fact, there are a lot of videos here in youtube.

[musicequalstruth]

OK, I'll agree with you that biology is not my forte. Quantum Mechanics is what I've studied, and sorry to inform you, but we derive all of the rules of chemistry from QM, and biology is governed by chemistry, so in actuality, QM commands all life sciences. QM has a spiritual element that becomes obvious when looked at closely. DNA scientists have stated that random mutations of DNA sequences could not account for the complexity they find. Explain the spirit w/i evolution and you win.Otherwise?

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

Explain the spirit with evolution?

First prove that a spirit, soul, actually exist.

So you have studied QM, is there any peer reviewed research paper from any experts in QM disproving evolution? If there is, please share.

[musicequalstruth]

Evolution certainly is occurring within species. What we are discovering is a connection between the observer and the observed reality that goes beyond our mechanical view of the universe. They've measured the 'soul', it ways 22 grams. Look at Dr Emoto's work with frozen water molecules, there is a connection between thought, intention, and reality that evolution fails to address. In physical terms, the spirit is hard to prove, for it isn't physical in 3D, it is a higher dimension.

[JFZcafe]

According to Darwin, the mechinism for evolution is natural selection, not random mutation, although there is a component of randomness to it. There is the random component of variation, some good and some bad depending on the current environment. Then there is the nonrandom component of competition for limited resources. Some variations will prove more advantageous than others. DNA does mutate, either by radiation from the sun, or otherwise faulty copying. Im not sure where you get your info

[musicequalstruth]

OK, so where is natural selection occurring today?At the human level, I'd say it's the people most technologically advanced.Those that can keep food supplies up in bad weather.Those that can provide power to the people in crisis.Basically, people who can INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN a way to avoid being killed by the elements.Don't be dense,our evolution at this point is determined by INTELLIGENT DESIGN.Why would it ever have been different? My info comes from other scientists, so the debate isn't over.

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

22 grams of soul?, it was refuted by other studies seems to point out that the 22 grams sometimes even more as natural losses such as either urine, or bowel material and some air that was suddenly expelled from the body as it expires. somebody emailed me about it a long time ago but I erased it, I will try to get it.

My info comes from other scientists, so the debate isn't over.

other scientist? like who? and what specialty do they belong?

[musicequalstruth]

If that we're the case, wouldn't the 22 grams be a different amount for every person? Why would the same number show up regardless of the persons size, weight, etc. I mean, I haven't seen all the data, but logic suggests that if it were escaping gas and lost urine, the numbers would be more random. Anyway, I like to see the report to which you are referring.

[emancoy]

Websearch it and do your research, the 22 gram soul was discredited, because its only 6 dying subjects, and compared to 2 poor dogs that were poisoned and waited to die in the sensitive weighing scales. Dogs don't have souls as concluded, sorry dog lovers.

[musicequalstruth]

I sent you two reply's so look for them if you didn't receive both in your message board. I looked up the soul experiment of 1911 and agree that it isn't definitive evidence, but it certainly doesn't show that he was totally wrong either. It just wasn't a very sound experiment. My intuition tells me that someone else has duplicated or furthered that doctors work b/c there are credible scientific geniuses agreeing with the data. I'll look into it further but it may take some time.

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

As a QM you ought to be proficient in Physics, so do you actually believe that our planet is 6,000 to 10,000 years old? or is it 4.5 billion?

you cannot impose ID and come short with evidence.

And as for natural selection, it is occurring continuously. We shaped our produce, but biologist, botanist, zoologist on field have observed speciation to occur without direct interference from humans. No intelligent guidance there, it just happens.

websearch "observed speciation"

[musicequalstruth]

Of course I believe the science and that our planet is 4.6 bil yrs old. The galaxy is around 10 -13 bil and the universe is actually older than what we recently thought, but I haven't heard the new figures. Look, humans, animals, plants, bacteria, are all bio-chemical machines. Agreed? We call that machine Life, and it's processes Nature, but it's still a machine. Every machine has a designer. I'm not saying it's GOD. That's not a good word to use. I think our planet was terraformed by aliens.

[emancoy]

Aliens?

I would still reserve my opinion about aliens or higher being until the evidence are in.

But still, am I right that you think that we were somehow selectively breed by the aliens/beings or what ever? Or we are made by this beings?

[musicequalstruth]

Thanks for the post, I'm studying DNA these days and have found out a lot I didn't know before, but I'm still confused as to how anyone thinks that the DNA is mutating without purpose and/or intention. It does mutate, seemingly randomly, but there is a brilliance in the code that doesn't allow it to make very bad mistakes, and if it does, it fixes it quick. Where I differ in thinking is that I don't see nature as unintelligent, randomness. I see it as guided with real intention.

[musicequalstruth]

You asked for my resources. Dr Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of DNA, proved it's too complex for random assembly. He even found that 99.9% of all galactic dust has the spectrographic signature of bacteria. Dr James Strick uncovered conspiracy where Louis Pasteur and others covered up their research to support Darwinism. Pasteur even found life to originate from non-living things. Prof. Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco discovered spontaneous DNA from sterilized sand. Also look up Dr. Peter Gariaev.

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

22 gram soul, I don't think anyone would really try to duplicate that test, it was dubious enough to do it in 1911, more so today where you would face harsh ethical and legal consequences.

From what I found out, only 2 out of 6 really had loss a 22 grams post mortem, does that mean the other 4 don't have souls?

Still your a QM, you know that scientist must first exhaust all possibility before finally declaring it as a soul. The 1911 data, he simply jumped to his conclusion

[musicequalstruth]

So,my issue with the modern evolutionary theory is that most biological scientists are neglecting to include supernatural events and higher dimensional physical laws into their theories.New research shows that using only a laser,you can completely reprogram DNA,and a completely new species will generate from an existing species in 1 generation(Salamander to frog)That alone proves that a species can turn into another species without the need for a middleman. Tiktaalik was a species,nothing more.

[MeganJ0y4Fans]

Tiktaalik proves evolution is a fact, not a theory as you claim. " scientists are neglecting to include supernatural events"....such as? sounds like you live in a fantasy reality where facts or evidence are coming straight from your imagination. You have nothing to back up your claims.

[musicequalstruth]

i'm not arguing against evolution, it is occurring, I'm arguing that it is occurring due to intention and purpose, with some level of intelligence behind the design of life. I'm not saying God created everything, I'm saying that random mutation didn't create life. There is lots of evidence showing that thought and intention have a powerful effect over reality. This should be included into evolutionary theory. So far it is not. Until you understand modern physics, you'll never understand reality

[emancoy]

@musicequalstruth

if the claim that spontaneous DNA formation from sand is true, then the formation of non-life to life is much more common occurrence. Hence the creationist adamantly claim that Abiogenesis is an impossibility. But if that research is true then the creationists are wrong. I don't think that creationist would acknowledge that research.

[musicequalstruth]

Bingo, I'm definitely not a creationist, but I can see the design in the machine of life you could say,and I have had some pretty weird events occur in my life that can only be described as spiritual,so I feel compelled to believe in the higher energy realms,which modern physics just so happens to be finding in their math and hopefully soon in physical proof. New science suggests that life might be intrinsic to the universe. That means that intelligent life must be everywhere.Aliens are humanoid

[emancoy]

so your an Alien intervention ID, not the creationist ID type.

I haven't seen any UFO's and aliens. Most evidences are allegory at best. The only way that I would be convinced is either I see the aliens myself. But that has never happened.

[dunndudebemelol]

i love tiktaalik

[cursingyorick]

hello great grandpa,

good to finaly meet you.

-one of your litle monkeys.

[fc007]

My inner clam

[MrJ0988]

I've found my inner fish - it was an amazing book - i thought it would be difficult piece to read similar to Darwin's Origin Of Species.

I ended up learning about the Sonic Hedgehog gene later in my genetics lecture material. Loved the chapter on teeth for some reason was fascinating. I think id love to meet Neil - though the other paleontologist Bill sounds like he'd be amazing to listen to.

Great Video :) thanx.

[hairyreasoner]

Excellent.  Calm, rational and reasonable.

[JFZcafe]

The wonderful thing about science is that any one of us could trek up to the arctic circle and poke around in the dirt to see if what Shubin found is really up there or not. But there's no way to find out who really wrote the book of Daniel, or Colossians, or Job, and ask them what the hell they were talking about. So I think you will have a very difficult time arguing that bible prophecies should be believed ahead of the Darwinian ones.

[JFZcafe]

You mentioned your trust in bible prophecies. And the whole point of this discussion is an evolutionary "prophecy", if you will, that gives us evolutionists confidence in evolution. So we both believe in prophecy. That's one thing we have in common. Our goal now should be to find whose prophecies are better, or more meaningful, or more significant. So far I've limited myself to one particular evolutionary prophecy, but there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of them, that we could discuss.

[JFZcafe]

Do we have to have these theological discussions here? You quote the bible as if you think I am unaware of the many problems with it, and some light bulb will go off as the scales fall from my eyes. No, your bible verses dont mean squat to me, understand? For the last time, your bible verses do not prove anything. I believe in the fossil record. If you want to make points here you will have to learn to discuss the fossil record.

[JFZcafe]

These things DO occur in several ancient writings which is why you shouldnt take them too seriously. And do I have to tell you about how the concept of Lucifer (Satan) was adopted by the Jews from their neighbors, and the powers attributed to him grew and grew with each generation in the popular literature, according to whatever political turmoils that particular culture found themselves in? (See Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan" and Neil Forsythe's "The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth")

[JFZcafe]

Now do I have to go through each verse you quote and show you point by point what is wrong with each of those prophecies? Do I have to tell you about how "young woman" was mistranslated from Hebrew into "virgin" in the Greek, etc, etc? And how some of Paul's letters were forged, etc..? And do I have to tell you how Daniel was written by two authors about 500 years apart..one recording events and the later Daniel inserting prophecies after the fact (we know by changes in writing styles)?

[JFZcafe]

The truth is that you dont know if genetic mutations are too rare, etc.., yet you raise the objection anyway because if you are wrong then you will have to wiggle free and find some other gap to exploit. But know this, the science will always catch up with you! And as for the bible verses you quote: haven't i told you already that quoting the bible is not proof of anything? Did you hear that a whole town witnessed Mohammad split the moon in half? It must be true because its in an old book

[JFZcafe]

Not only have we found a fish with limbs, but we found it exactly where Darwin's theory predicted we SHOULD find it. The truth is that creationists did not raise their original objection because it made the most sense, rather they raised it because they NEEDED it to be true in order for their creationist views to continue to make sense to them. And now you are telling me that genetic mutations are too rare. But I suspect that you raise that objection because you NEED it to be true, don't you?

[christianpharmacist]

As to clear evidence for the truth of Christianity, consider the resurrection of Jesus from the dead: Jesus' followers were almost entirely Jewish, and Jewish prophecies clearly taught that the Messiah would establish an earthly kingdom. Jesus said He was the Messiah (John 4:25-26), yet He DID NOT establish an earthly kingdom when He came. Something MAJOR must have happened after His death for these Jewish followers to STILL believe He was the Messiah. This major event was the resurrection.

[JFZcafe]

You say (again) that genetic mutation is far too rare, etc.., it could not have happened. But you do not know that. For years creationists were saying that evolution could not be true because we do not find transitional fossils, and the specific example offered up over & over was that we do not find any fish with legs or limbs. I heard it myself at least a hundred times. And now we found a transitional fossil, a fish with limbs, and the creationists do not make that objection any more.

[christianpharmacist]

Ooglebydoogleby, if you would go back and read ALL my comments here you'd see that I have addressed some of the issues here...1. The scientific theory suggest an already disproved idea (spontaneous generation) started life on this planet, and 2. Genetic mutation is far too rare and disordered to have produced Tiktaalik out of a fish, much less produce the many varied species we have in our world today. I actually may get a copy of Shubin's book and take a look at it.

[ooglebydoogleby]

wow jfzcafe christianfarmerpist just rants stuff and doesnt actually adress any of the issues at all.

[JFZcafe]

Hey Oogleby.. yeah i know. He's talking about bible prophecies as proof, yet sweeps aside with ease evolutionary "prophecies" which have come true for the last 150 years. But to be fair I don't address each and every objection he (or she) raises either.. where would I ever find the time to do that! oh well.

[ooglebydoogleby]

i think the point is that if you watch the videos on tikalik you are left in no doubt that A they used evolutionary and geollogy theory to predict a form, to identify a strata and area where the strata was exposed and they followed the predictions to the proof of its validity. its very clear strong evidence for validating evolution. if religeon provided examples as clear as this we would all be theists but were not. this was a highly detailed prediction born out not nebulous conjectural crap.

[JFZcafe]

If you would like to continue talking about the evidence then read Shubin's book first, so that I don't have to type out everything he says that is pertinent to this discussion.

[JFZcafe]

You have an emotional attachment to a theological position about the origins of life. Don't you think it is odd that God needs you to do his work for him? After all, he accomplished so much so far without you. Where were you when God was creating a billion suns? Perhaps the reason is because you are having a relationship not with the creator of the universe, but with the voice inside your own head. Uh oh... sounds like the devil talking, or is it?

[ooglebydoogleby]

i have to say i love this coment it cuts through all the empirical observation and makes the point in terms the beleiver can relate to. god does seem to employ the army of the inept at least in terms of theistic argument. you made me laugh.

[JFZcafe]

Why should I take you seriously? The entire christian religion teaches the denial of reality. Death is not death, death is life. Slavery is not slavery, slavery is freedom. Wisdom is foolishness. Foolishness is wisdom. You are involved with a religion that teaches you to deny the truth right in front of your face on all the big questions. Why wouldn't you also deny the truth when it comes to the smaller questions?

[christianpharmacist]

3. He would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matt. 21:1-11) 4. He would be crucified (Psalm 22 & Isaiah 53; Matt. 27). Finally, Jesus Himself declared that He would rise from the dead (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 28), and all of the New Testament confirms this fact (Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20; Acts 2:25-32; Romans 1:3-4; I Cor 15:3-7; Philippians 3:10; Revelation 1:18). These are just a few of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled; there are many more. By the way, check out Col. 1:12-19.

[JFZcafe]

First you lecture me on the probability of a cow jumping over the moon, and then you quote as authoritative from a book that includes a talking snake, a talking donkey, someone turning into a pile of salt, people flying up into heaven, angels raping young girls, people never dying. Anybody can put anything into a book. Quoting from a book written by cave-dwellers and desert-wanderers who wipe their own ass with their hand, and who bake their bread over cow manure does not prove anything.

[christianpharmacist]

Let's begin with Chromosome 2. You say "we know" this fusion took place. No, you don't. Just like so many other aspects of evolutionary theory, it is ASSUMED that this fusion of chromosomes occurred. I don't think it happened at all. Secondly, you stated that it is said that 99% of all species that ever lived are already extinct. Again, we have another assumption. I don't believe that either. To a man who loves science, this "pseudoscience" based on assumption is nothing less than nauseating.

[JFZcafe]

You say the bible doesnt say where to look for Tiktaalik. But it does make claims about the order of creation. Does that help us even to make theoretical guesses about where to begin? Not really. The bible lists genealogies linking Jesus to David,Noah & Adam, which places humankind beginning about 6000 years ago. But observation tells us otherwise. If claims about earth and man in the bible are found to be false, we have no reason to believe its claims about god either.

[JFZcafe]

You say to consider all the distinct animals, and that we dont find half-mutated creatures. But you fail to recognize that each time a "missing link" is found there is necessarily created 2 more gaps in the tree of life. Secondly, suppose you had two nearly identical creatures competing for the same food source: one with fully developed limbs and another with somewhat less developed limbs (a bit shorter, weaker, or a bit smaller), which do you think is likely to survive and pass on its genes?

[JFZcafe]

Given the fact that so few fossils will ever be found--it is said that 99% of all species that ever lived are already extinct, very few of those will be fossilized, and even fewer found--it should not surprise us that gaps remain in the fossil record.

[JFZcafe]

By the way, your preaching about salvation here is a bit tedious. Please try to stay on the subject. Your apppeal to emotion indicates to me the real source of your objections. Now if you want to talk about reasons to believe the bible thats another thing, but begging me to believe in god is over the line. Lets consider all the wonderful created beings again, and their apparent design. Like I said before, maybe there IS a designer...but if the author of the bible is the same author of creation

[JFZcafe]

then we should see similar signs of design, logic, and consistency between them.  However, we do not find even a remote similarity. The concept of design that gives ID proponents such comfort is really ID's Achilles' heel. One could easily produce 100 factual errors or inconsistencies within the book of Genesis alone, not to mention the synoptic gospels, questions of inspiration and canonization, deliberate insertions and deletions, etc. Of course, most Christians are loathe to admit even one.

[JFZcafe]

Consider the vast complexity in all of life: photosynthesis, gravity, reproduction, weather cycles, and all the other biological and chemical systems that operate continuously and "infallibly" according to constant rules. Do we find THIS SAME LEVEL of reliability in the bible? Not even close! Do we have any reason to believe that the bible and the universe have the same author? There is no reason in my mind to believe so. There is nothing in the bible which commands my intellectual respect!

[JFZcafe]

You sound like you know a lot about what is genetically possible. Are you aware of the recent discovery of Chromosome #2 in humans and its fusing together from two chromosomes of a common primate ancestor? I expect you to say that such a fusion could not have occurred, even though we know that it did. A more appropriate question would be to ask how such a thing happened.

[ooglebydoogleby]

he's right about the bible concentrating on important things like not colecting sticks on the sabath. or dont eat fruit! dont watch god comiting genocide! you can decieve a king into fucking your wife and making you rich but dont worry because god will punish the king. dont shag pensioners because they will get pregnant. if you want to get on make sure you apear to fullfill some well knowen prophesies, ridding a donkey through a gateway will do. take a sword to chuech. and many many more. LOL

[christianpharmacist]

Now, I will begin by saying I think there is one addition to Scripture, and that is Mark 16:9-20. It is not included in the earliest 2 manuscripts, and it seems to contradict other Scripture (disciples going out everywhere vs. staying at Jerusalem). But as to the consistency and design of Scripture, let's examine some prophecies of Jesus (written hundreds of years before Jesus was born) and their fulfillment. 1. Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25) in Bethehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:2)

[christianpharmacist]

So, what we have then is creation, followed by an unspecified period of time during which ancient creatures could have lived, Lucifer's rebellion, and the earth falling into a state of ruin. Then we have God going about restoring the ruined, fallen creation in verse 2b and following. Concerning the statement you made about expecting similar signs of design, logic, and consistency between creation and Scripture, you are correct. That is what we should see. And I do see this in the Bible.

[christianpharmacist]

The difference? This allows for an unspecified period of time to take place between earth's original creation (v. 1) and its falling into ruin (v. 2). I can see potential for dinosaurs and many other creatures existing during this unspecified time, becoming extinct as the earth fell into ruin. What caused this ruin? I believe it was Lucifer's rebellion and fall. He was placed as ruler over the earth to begin with, but rebelled against God (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Luke 4:5-8).

[christianpharmacist]

Now, about the Bible: As you stated, humanity appears from the biblical record to be around 6000 years old. I would agree to that. However, you might be interested to know that I see a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse 1 tells us God created the heavens and the earth. Then verse 2 says, "And the earth was without form, and void." Now, this word "was" can actually be translated "became" from the Hebrew, giving us "And the earth BECAME without form, and void."

[christianpharmacist]

(cont.) This being the case, I consider it virtually impossible for a single fish species to develop legs over billions of years, much less for a single cell to become the many varied species we have in the world today. It just isn't good science. I think the biblical account is a much better explanation of how we all got here, even from a scientific viewpoint.

[JFZcafe]

First, i've disabled comment voting because it's a completely useless feature. You say Evo requires consistent, repetitive mutation. Not so. Only one generation of white bunnies must survive in a cold, snowy climate, for instance, before the black bunnies are toast and the white ones have a significant reproductive advantage. Even if the 2nd generation only produced 1 in 20 white ones, that one is more likely to survive a predator attack. Im no expert but it doesnt sound unreasonable.

[JFZcafe]

We see natural selection at work in this way all the time, not just in clues from the fossil record. You say that new mutations are likely a disadvantageous deformity. Some are some are not, it depends on the environment. Whether the fact that your blood lacks vitaminD or your skin is hairy, is regarded as a disadventageous mutation depends on where you live and how much UV light you are exposed to. Mutations do occur and when they occur some have advantages.

[JFZcafe]

You say a mutation rarely occurs in succeeding generations and reproduction "almost always" hides the mutation. That may be why Evo requires so much time. You can't fault Evo for requiring millions of years, can you? But saying the odds are too great for a certain mutation to occur is like calculating the lottery odds and concluding that nobody should ever win. If your odds are 1 in 12M, and 12M people are playing then theres a good chance that someone will win the lottery and fairly frequently

[JFZcafe]

Then you conclude by saying you find it virtually impossible for a fish to develop legs over billions of years. Lets go back to the fossil record. If evolution is true we should find lesser developed creatures in the lower rocks and sediment layers, and more complex ones near the top. That is, in fact, what we find. By applying evolutionary and geological theories Neil was able to find fossils of a creature that ID proponents said couldn't exist.

[JFZcafe]

But if you still feel that the biblical record is more reliable, then explain how Neil could have USED THE BIBLE to show him where to dig for fossils? Where in the bible could Neil have turned to show him where to dig for a flat-headed fish (for seeing above the water) with a primitive shoulder and wrist that it would have needed to walk on land? The only reason why he was able to succeed at finding Tiktaalik is because those theories told him to look in rocks between 365M and 380M years old.

[JFZcafe]

If you deny the significance of evolutionary and geological theories in finding the site for Tiktaalik, then you have to say he was just lucky i guess. And if he was just lucky, try calculating the odds of that stroke of luck! I recommend that you read his book: it is short (201 pages), easy to read, and filled with a lot of the details that explain some of the "hows & whys" you raise in your objections.

[christianpharmacist]

By the way, the Bible doesn't say anything about where to look for Tiktaalik because in the overall scheme of things, it's not important. The Bible focuses on what is important for man to know: that he is a sinner in need of a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he can be saved through faith in Him and His death on the cross for our sins. The Bible tells us that we have a heavenly Father who loved us enough to send His Son to die that we might live with Him forever. Please don't reject Him.

[christianpharmacist]

Consider the animals we see in the world; how beautiful they are, how amazingly distinct, how different an eagle is from an elephant, how different a bird is from a whale. The truth is, we see very distinct species in nature, and not just a few. There are many, many different species, and they aren't ugly, half-mutated creatures. They are magnificent and very unique. When we honestly evaluate evolution, the only conclusion we can make is this: it is the desperate attempt of man to eliminate God.

[christianpharmacist]

What are the chances that that little nub will reappear in his offspring? Very miniscule! Even if it did, it would be gone in just a few short generations. But we're not talking about just a nub-we're talking about two very developed complex legs. I'm sorry, but there is no way genetically speaking that this is going to happen. By the way, don't you think that if evolution were true we would be surrounded by half-mutated creatures crawling all around us? But we aren't!

[christianpharmacist]

Let's look at Tiktaalik, for example. His wrists are far too developed and complex to have been the result of a mutation. Go back and study genetics: you will find that gene mutation is far too rare and disorganized to have naturally produced complex legs on a fish. You mentioned the odds of a fish developing legs being comparable to a 1 in 12 million chance. A better analogy would be the odds of a cow jumping over the moon. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a fish somehow develops a nub.

[christianpharmacist]

Let's clarify something here. I have no problem accepting the idea of micro-evolution; that is, variations taking place WITHIN a species, such as the prevalence of white bunnies over black ones in a snowy environment. What I have a problem with is the idea of macro-evolution; that is, the transition of one species to another, totally new species which cannot reproduce with the former one. A basic understanding of genetics clearly shows us that such changes simply can't happen.

[hairyreasoner]

"I think the biblical account is a much better explanation of how we all got here, even from a scientific viewpoint."

And from what viewpoint other than the scientific?

[christianpharmacist]

(cont.) means it does occur again, the mate most likely being normal again lessens the chances even further of the mutation being carried on. What we see in actuality is that it is not the mutant who normally survives; that is a near impossibility-it is the normal member who does. The way reproduction was designed almost always hides the mutation in the next generation through mating with a normal member.

[christianpharmacist]

(continued from below) Spontaneous generation was the idea that life could come from nonliving material. We now know and accept this idea to be false. However, the scientific model proposes that this is precisely what happened. The idea goes that somehow a living cell was made from the combination of electricity and water, and then somehow reproduced and over time & became more and more complex. I just don't buy it. Common sense tells me that "In the beginning God created..." makes more sense.

[JFZcafe]

At least you seem to have watched this talk before commenting, which I give you credit for. You mention spontaneous generation but that has nothing to do with this talk. That moment when "life" began is still being studied and there's much speculation about it. Revising or discarding a bad theory is part of science. You seem to be saying: A) Science was wrong in the past. B) Evoloution is a scientific theory. C) Therefore science is probably wrong now. Does that syllogism really comfort you?

[JFZcafe]

You may be right, the universe may be a product of special creation. But what makes you think there is only One Creator? There is nothing in all the apparent complexity that precludes multiple creators. We might say that a complex universe requires a creator. A really complex universe requires two creators. A really really complex universe requires three creators. We can continue in this way forever, so that the more complexity we see, the more creators we are justified in claiming.

[JFZcafe]

Cant I claim that common sense requires more than one god? I think we are wrong to consult the bible to answer that question. There are simply too many conflicts with reality in the bible to be taken seriously. If there is a creator, I don't think that anybody knows anything about him, or it. You begin by saying Neil's conclusions are based on the assumption that evolution is true. I don't think so. Read the comments I made under video #1 about the predictive power of evolutionary theory.

[JFZcafe]

There is no way Neil's team could have FORCED this discovery to appear wherever they happened to look. It depended entirely upon applying evolutionary and geological theories in tandem to select a search site. The fact that Neil found Tiktaalik at the very site which those theories told him to look speaks volumes about their reliability, and our confidence in them should increase. Sorry Im so long-winded; you are welcome to reply at length if you want, as long as we can stay on subject

[christianpharmacist]

At first glance, this appears to be an amazing discovery supporting evolution. But let's take a closer look at what evolution actually requires: consistent, repetitive gene mutation, and the survival of the mutated species. What makes this so difficult is this: gene mutation is relatively rare; when it does occur it is almost invariably a disadvantageous deformity (rather than advantageous); the mate is almost always normal, so the mutation rarely occurs in succeeding generations; if by some

[christianpharmacist]

That was an interesting talk. However, Neil's conclusions are based upon the assumption that evolution actually occurred. Similar features between various species do not prove evolution; they only show that they were all made by One Creator who chose to use similar features in different species. If we take the scientific model back far enough, we find that science actually disproves the entire concept. It was once thought that spontaneous generation actually occurred, but it was proven false.

[imafishgod]

Thank you for sharing!!!

[dawkinsfan41]

His book is going to the top of my must read list.

[JFZcafe]

I finally purchased the book myself, and just finished reading it. A great read! And highly recommended.

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

I agree. It teaches much about the human body. I love the explanation of why we get "the spins" when we drink too much. It makes so much sense to those of us who have experienced this.

[dawkinsfan41]

His book is going to the top of my must read list.

[Brainmold]

Reality powns superstition.

[Katalyzt]

Yes, it does! :O)

Katalyzt

[ooglebydoogleby]

apsolutly beutiful , i can just hear the sound of another piece of the theist argument splintering into a million peices although ime sure they will say where is the transition between that and a fish. the good news is that with every day that passes new pieces of the puzle of life are being discovered and time is on evolutions side.