there's no "observable proof" of evolution? where is the "observable proof" that there is a god, or there was a jesus or any of that? "exaggerations and hallucinations"... that would be you guys, making up fairytales to explain life.
@Xsuprio no...what Darwinist dumbbells hold up as "observable" proof for their myths is what's a "joke". (The straw-men like errrgg "E. Coli" or "Moths" etc). That you don't understand the point is a "joke". Listen to the whole video again if you have to. There's ZERO testable observable "proof" for "ape-men ancestors" or "fish ancestry of humans". This has even been ADMITTED by Darwinists. Their cop-out is: "well you can't do a 10 million year experiment...so of course you don't see it now."
@Xsuprio that jerky infantile brain-dead response is NO surprise, kid. I mean, you're the same moron that thinks we have "observable proof" for ape-men myths and "fish ancestors". Dr Patterson, paleontologist (and Darwinist):
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
@sweetmikser Hi. Xsuprio wanted to let you know you accidentally blocked him from commenting. He just wanted me to tell you that he wasn't arguing with you. Obviously you do not think this video is a joke. Fair enough. =] K, bud?
@beatonm198 what's "pitiful" is your sad silly and drone-ish repeated junk of "errggh, evolution is proven observable fact" when you have NO "proof" for saying that, except the old straw-men and pathetic desperate examples like "drug-resistant bacteria" or variations WITHIN species or types, (did you even see the whole video here, idiot?) There's NO "observable" anything for "ape-men" myths. Speculation is NOT "science". Neither is force-fitting scattered meager fossils, for agendas.
@beatonm198 There's NO "observable" anything for "ape-men" myths. Speculation is NOT "science". Neither is force-fitting scattered meager fossils, for agendas. What's "pitiful" is your sad silly and drone-ish repeated junk of "errggh, evolution is proven observable fact" when you have NO "proof" for saying that, except the old straw-men and pathetic desperate examples like "drug-resistant bacteria" or variations WITHIN species or types. lol... Did you even see the whole video here?
beautiful... claiming there is only"..simple adaptations and variations within species.." at 0:30, then showing pictures with _different_ species, and claiming "cats remained cats, birds remained birds"
it seems creatard classification system is fine-tuned for simpletons with "species" like grass-bush-tree and "beetle-doggy-cat-horse-bird"
@bubuka79 beautiful...Darwinist drone-tard commits the very delusional nonsense that the video itself discusses and describes. Yes...ADAPTATIONS AND VARIATIONS within major groups are fact, and are NOT what's argued against, and is just a silly and pathetic Darwinist STRAW-MAN...and idiocy. Again, loser, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (not Darwinist assumptions or hallucinations, but real observable proof) is that major groups REMAIN CONSTANT...despite allowable variations. Anything else is SPECULATION.
@bubuka79 (2nd) also, moron...you didn't listen well. That part of the video. I said "within species AND FAMILY TYPES". I didn't just say "within species". (sighs...) I ALSO said "within...family types." Meaning MAJOR GROUPS TOO... So "variations and adaptations WITHIN species and family types". Which is all that happens. I didn't just say "species". I also mentioned major groups too. Keep up, why don't you.
@bubuka79 (2nd) also, moron...you didn't listen well. That part of the video. I said "within species AND FAMILY TYPES". I didn't just say "within species". (sighs...) I ALSO said "within...family types." Meaning MAJOR GROUPS TOO... So "variations and adaptations WITHIN species and family types". Which is all that happens. I didn't just say "species". I also mentioned major groups too. Keep up, why don't you.
@zuko2509 well not sure if you mean that sincerly, or sarcastically, or a combo of both, but I'm very busy right now (for real), and dealing with things. 1) The Biblical Creator can't be put in a box, tube, or lab, to be "studied" or "measured" in that sense, so He's usually dismissed as even a possibility by arrogant types. 2) It's not really a "new science", the great majority (I have a pwning list) of scientists pre-Darwin were creationists, and 3) contributed greatly. Further another time.
@abarrathemaster my "explanation", you mean? Well my explanation is that DNA does NOT show "98% human". That's the exaggeration and lie that you've been brainwashed to believe....Data has come out over the years to show that it's actually less than that... Plus, did you know that daffodils have about 25% human DNA? Does that make those flowers "25% human"? Such a bizarre notion is neither accurate, nor enlightening. We share common DNA because of COMMON EARTH...and a Common Creator.
@sweetmikser So if you believe the overwhelming evidence for evolution you are brainwashed but if you believe in a sky daddy you aren't? You need to rethink your logic. The evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence in favor of a creator. You also need to consider what you say about the nature of the "creator" is pure speculation of the highest degree.
@cygnusfloyd there's no "overwhelming evidence" for "evolution", but speculation, force-fitting, manipulation, exaggeration, bait-and-switches, and STRAW-MEN. In fact there's NO actual observable "proof" at all. The problem is that you like to CALL things like "drug-resistant bacteria" and "new mosquito species" with the word "evolution." And IF that's all that Darwinian "evolution" is, then WE SHOULD ALL be "evolutionists". Cuz those things are observed and never argued against. (continued)
@cygnusfloyd (2nd) The problem is it's an old dishonest and flaky BAIT-AND-SWITCH and straw-man. Because Darwinian "evolution" claims MUCH MORE than just E.Coli or frog species. But also mythical "ape-men" and "fish ancestry". That are just wild conjectures, and silly branching scenarios, because of WANTING to believe it took place. And IGNORING the evidence or implications for direction creation. The fossils favor separate creation, and so does DNA complexity, etc. See my other videos too...
The issue is the success of science in technology is the success of experimental science, not of everything called science. So by merely being labeled a science, or scientific, does not mean it should be looked at with the level of respect that we have for physics and chemistry, or biochemistry. Darwinists are an example of historians making a claim to the title of “scientist”, in an attempt to be associated with the modern understanding of the word, namely experimental science. It doesn't work
first off i hope you realize that Richard Dawkins is not Charles Darwin,and secondly i hope you realize that evolution takes place withing millions of years, many small changes within that time period would lead to a completely different species. Your pre-bias is that the bible said that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, therefore evolution cannot be true, even though the evidence such as fossils and over 50 different methods of dating (which they are all used of each fossil) prove that its not
@Netruic Well you and I agree...the earth is NOT "6000-10000 years old." I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist. NOT a Young Earth fundie. You have to expand, sir. I don't reject Darwinian "super macro" speculations and "ape-men" myths or superstitious unproven non-empirical "fish-ancestry", etc...because of belief in a "young earth". That's a straw-man for me (and for JWs). I believe in modifications, and variations, over time, but there's still a WALL that keeps basic families separate, and constant.
@sweetmikser when you take hundreds of small steps, so you not walk a mile? when you have thousands of "micro changes" eventually you will have a completely different species. evolutions is extremely hard to explain especially in 500 words, so i hope thunderf00t can explain this better through this video of a common misconception about it
@Netruic as I said here, and on the video, and on other videos of mine (that you might wanna see), what you just put forth is NOT observable empirical demonstrable actual "science"...but mere SPECULATION...and wild conjecture...that is put forth as dogmatic "fact", neurotically. There's no actual "proof" for ape-men myths or genuine actual family "cross-overs", or of major groups arising from other major groups. Hence "leaps". Speculation is not science, neither is manipulating meager fossils.
@sweetmikser it is not observable the same way that Pluto's orbit time is not observable. we know that it takes 200+ years for Pluto to orbit the sun, how? that's longer that we've even known Pluto was there; scientists do the math and these "speculations" are extremely accurate predictions using the evidence (in this case math) and results. Evolution is not different, your claiming that just because we haven't seen something change drastically its impossible, that's not logical to assume that
@Netruic that's PART of why I say it's impossible. It's also cuz there's evidence to suggest and even indicate OTHERWISE. Things that people like you CHOOSE TO DISHONESTLY AND NEUROTICALLY IGNORE...for agendas. The gaping holes and blanks in the fossil record don't go away, just cuz you like to ignore or even deny them. Or rationalize them away (excuses are for losers) with crap like "uhh, the fossils were destroyed or were never formed". Funny how fossils are together WITHIN families though.
@sweetmikser It is unreasonable for you to ask for the observation in a human life time of the dramatic changes you ask for. Any murder detective will tell you, that you don't need to actually see an event happening to know it is true. You look for the evidence, and so far all of it points to Darwin's idea (although some details have been revised). Evolution like any theory can be falsified, and so far all evidence corresponds to it. I can think of many ways you could easily prove it wrong.
@markgg1 (2nd) also real quick, I don't say that thing YOU CALL "evolution" is "wrong", if you mean adaptations, variations, speciations, modifications, within groups or species or family kinds or basic types. I believe in natural selection too (to the extent that it's actually there). That's why I said before THOSE THINGS ARE STRAW-MEN. No Biblical Creationist (or Creation Scientist) ever denied those things. Those are EVASIONS. But it's just SPECULATION to say that that proves "fish ancestry".
@sweetmikser But it logically follows that the small changes, will mount up into larger changes over a long time. The evidence in the Earth also suggests this. The only way this would not work is if there was a 'DNA barrier' you suggested, which would be evidence against evolution I freely admit. There is no genetic reason why DNA cannot mutate beyond a certain point. Mutation is just the word meaning 'change' in DNA. If the change still allows reproduction and survival of the egg, its passed on
@sweetmikser 1.conspiracy theories? seriously?what agendas do people have to push evolution?in fact they give out nobel prizes for finding out facts about the world, so if someone found something that disproves evolution then those people would win Nobel prizes, they would have no reason to hide it. scientists do not gain power for pushing evolution neither do they gain money they just want to find the truth about the universe by collecting facts then forming conclusions from those facts...CONT.
@sweetmikser 2. If a new fact is discovered that contradicts the current conclusion we have, the scientific community discards that conclusion and forms a new one, thats open mindedness. Now, the people who push intelligent design have many things to lose, the churches would begin to lose followers, less followers means less contributions. Less followers and money means less of a chance they could stay in power, such as the church hierarchy or politicians who ran on religious ideals
@sweetmikser advocates of intelligent design, are also funded by the church, so there's definitely a conflict of interest here. I fail so see why you think it is the scientists that are trying to lie to you, when it is the scientists that have given you all that you have today, computers, internet, cellphones, tvs, flight, more efficient food production (less starvation), even medicine, our life expectancy has more than doubled in the last few centuries thanks to science,
@sweetmikser 4. intelligent design advocates are also misrepresenting the "gaps" that are in the fossil record, and making them seem larger than what they really are(again, because THEY have an obvious agenda to keep religious ideas alive) maybe AronRa can explain certain concepts about evolution that you are talking about in this video about speciation, he talks about the many of they types of humans that have been found
@sweetmikser The DNA code in cells has no way of knowing if a mutation has permanently taken place. There are repair mechanisms, but they are not perfect so mutations buildup over time, including in egg cells. When we reproduce, those mutations will pass on into our children. Mutations are usually neutral, and can be detrimental, and very rarely they will be positive. i.e. will create offspring that is better then its parent at surviving that environment say for example a more efficient protein
Evolution is more a historical theory than one of science and reason. In a similar way that people dig up relics and artifacts to piece together the history of previous nations, Darwinists piece together fossils and bones to piece together the history of man. The evidence can never be more than circumstantial; and as decades of Darwinism has shown, the "theory" has been supported more for what it opposes than what it supports.
@Synergistik It's a scientific theory because it can be used to make predictions. You cannot make accurate predictions with a theory that is incorrect.
@TolpuddleMartyr Human evolution is not a scientific theory, because it is not testable. You can't set it up in a lab and observe and measure it.
You certainly can make accurate predictions with an incorrect model. The bohr model of the atom models the energy levels quite well. The equations for motion predict the travel of a ball in the air quite well, even though they don't account for air resistance.
@Synergistik As I said, the theory of evolution can be used to make accurate predictions. The Bohr model makes poor predictions and is therefore incorrect. It's relatively simple to undertsand.
@TolpuddleMartyr The theory of evolution can only form explanations, which are circumstantial at best. Inaccurate and incorrect are not the same thing. If every theory had to be accurate, most of science would be incorrect, according to your logic. This is also simple to understand.
@Synergistik When science says a theory is 'testable' they dont always mean you can get in a lab and do an experiment. The theory of natural selection is testable in that it makes predictions about living things that we can observe. If the observations fit into the theory, which so far they all do, then it supports the thoery. A test you can do is compare DNA codes, or look at the rock stratas. The predictions of evolution correspond to these real life examples, i.e. they are the 'experiment'
@markgg1 Then it's a theory, and not a scientific theory. Similar to historical theories, say, about some ancient civilization, where they dig up artifacts which either do or do not support it. But then it's more about explanations, rather than predictions, which in the end are nothing more than circumstantial, and shouldn't hold such certainty as it does in the minds of men.
@Synergistik No. Scientific theory is the highest honour a hypothesis can hold. A theory is a collection of observations that all correspond to a hypothesis, drawn up by someone, in this case Darwin. He meticulously collected specimens, cataloging them like a real geek. This was why he was such a brilliant scientist. Then in the 50s the structure of DNA was found, and this was another layer of evidence as it produced the molecular engine that was driving the process, being genetic mutation.
@markgg1 Anyone can collect specimens "meticulously". This is just data collection. Creationists collect specimens too. A scientific theory must be testable. You must be able to run an experiment, the data from which can be analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis This is the "experimental method" which is the foundation of scientific work. It's one thing to discover, another thing to prove and demonstrate. Observations are part of science, not its entirety.
@Synergistik Read up the the page I suggested about why the argument that there is no 'observation' is a weak one.
You are confusing observation as being 'seeing with ones own eyes'. Our eyes are just one tool in observing things. You dont need to see something happen to know it happens. An example is the orbit of Pluto. It takes 280 year, and we have only known this for 150 years. No one has seen it orbit once, but we still know this is a fact based on how quick its moving.
@Synergistik Observations of speciation has occurred anyway, so even if your argument were valid (which its not for reasons I just explained) then it still can be exposed as invalid. Google 'examples of speciation'. Evolution can be disproved easily. If you find fossils that are in the wrong time period, e.g. a human fossil from the cambrian period then you disproved evolution. This has NEVER happened, and as time goes on it becomes less likely it will.
@markgg1 No the issues I have with evolution are at a higher level, and you perfectly demonstrated it with this comment. I can only disprove evolution by showing/finding another artifact which is not aligned with its story. But, I could not disprove it by running an experiment of my own, with the same or different conditions, to find different results. Hence, it's a matter of stories, which in the end are circumstantial. I can't build an apparatus to test circumstantial matters in my lab!
@Synergistik Of course you could disprove it. You could go digging with a shovel. Go down the the rock strata that correspeonds with the pre cambrian period. You then dig out every fossil, and if you find a mammal, you found evidence against evolution.
You could then compare the DNA codes of various animals, and get the percentage similarities. Evolution predicts that we would have around 99% with other apes, 75% with rodents, 60% bird etc etc.... if you find this is not the case, more evidence
@Synergistik You could then go in the lab, and set up lets say ten broths of E.Coli. Let them reproduce for many weeks. In a coupe of them you could add antibiotics, another couple replace their food source with something new, such as hydrogen peroxide. Another one shine radiation at it.
Evolution predicts theres a good chance that some of the bacteria will tolerate the change in environment due to mutation.If they all die more contrary evidence that adaptation doesn't work counter to evolution
@markgg1 you're about to get blocked....cuz I'm tired of your foolish drone-ish insanity and also your typical and insufferable PROJECTION.... Everything you've accused him or me of YOU'RE guilty of. YOU reject true science to fit in with your mold of "fish ancestry" and "ape-man ancestry"...cuz of NOT WANTING there to be an Intelligent Director. Your crew has even admitted "I don't want the universe to be that way" and "we can't let a divine foot in the door." So they REJECT evidence (cont)
@markgg1 (2nd) So they REJECT evidence, and ignore problematic data...all to cling pathetically to Darwinian myth and speculation. And this crap about "humans are apes" which of course I've heard before by Atheist and Darwinist psychos and drone-tards...is NOT "empirical" anything, but neurotic ASSUMPTION, cuz of wanting the nonsense to be true. Speculation is not "science" and neither is force-fitting ambiguous, meager, and scattered fossils, for sick agendas.
@sweetmikser I accept that want I may want to be true, does not mean it is.
I just look at my reality and use evidence to discern belief. If there was evidence of the Intelligent director you suggest, id believe it, but it appears thats not the case. I am not a athesit out of choice, I am atheist because the reality I live in does not suggest a supernatural god. There are many mysteries I cant explain, but I accept mystery just means we use science to find out. Its impossible to know everything
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
@sweetmikser Im glad we got to the real reason you reject evolution: religion.
I think its sad you allow religion to manipulate your thinking to an extent you deny an obvious fact about nature
But its not your fault, religion is probably an adaptation as it is universal across cultures. It must have some benefit to people that I cant figure out. Perhaps gives comfort, or stops your fear of dying. Gives moral guidance?
Well whatever it is I think evidence is the pathway to truth, not faith.
@markgg1 (2nd) don't know where you got that from. I've been saying that I reject Darwinian myth MAINLY FOR SCIENTIFIC REASONS. I embrace science...not conjecture or neuroticism wrongly passed OFF as "science." You have AGNOSTICS who doubt Darwinian theory. I know this Bible-bashing Agnostic Buddhist who finds Darwinism a CROCK....on SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS, kiddo. And there are biologists and people in the field who are Agnostic, not even into "religion", who find problems with the theory.
@sweetmikser I suggested three ways to find counter evidence. Get some cash together with ur creationist friends, and do the research. Get a shovel, and dig, or get in the lab and show that adaptation doesn't occur. Find the human fossil in the same rock strata as a T-Rex, and you will win the nobel prize for proving one of the most established principles of science to be incorrect.
Detect this intelligent designer somehow. Prove how he made animals. Bring the proof is all i ask
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
It further says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
@sweetmikser It fascinates me you use the word 'empirical', showing you find it important, except on the matter of Intelligent Designer.I am an empiricist n think its n important philosophical approach to truth.Courts science and our day2day lives are governed by its logical laws. Empiricism has never detected god i.e. there is no empirical evidence apart from 'inner feelings'. I accept as a fallible person, I can be wrong so why cant you? My strength is I can prove what I say where you u cant
@markgg1 because you (and arrogant small-minded people such as Lewontin) can't put God in a box, tube, or lab, and also for selfish neurotic agendas, you can't fathom the idea (nor you do really want to) of an OUTSIDE INTELLIGENCE...and will idiotically IGNORE all the strong implications for intelligent direction...Like the appalling gaps and blanks in the fossil record, the complexity and diversity of life, eco-systems, solar systems, proportions, gases, ratios....impossible odds, etc
@sweetmikser My friend who is a Christian suggests my brain is too scientific, and perhaps shes right. The supernatural by definition cannot be tested by science.
I canot think of anyway to discern truth other then facts and evidence, the principles of science. Supernatural is outside of this realm, so for that reason I could never believe it to be true.
God is suggested to be a supernatural being, so I don't think it/he/she exists.
At least understand our thinking, its not arrogance.
@Synergistik so you can run a lab experiment, I just suggested one. You can also go into the field and do research.
People have tried to do this and just found more evidence supporting evolution.Ive tried to be respectful in this but you really got to get some of your facts straight
Your rejection of a theory is not scientific lets be honest here.You want the religious accounts to be true so reject the science to fit into that mould. I contrary to you, have an open mind and accept the evidence
@Synergistik Creationists have a serious problem because evolution accounts for complexity very simply. Creationists infer a supernatural cause to a natural phenomenon, yet cannot define it nor explain it. This by definition is unscientific because it is untestable. Science deals with 'nature' i.e. what we know is real, whereas creationism deals with the 'supernatural' a realm that no one has observed, and many question exists as there is zero evidence it exists.
@Synergistik When you get a chance look up the wiki page on many common arguments against evolution, and it explains why many of them are strawmans, or untenable. Even if you dont believe in the theory for whatever reason (usually on religious grounds) them you will at least know which arguments you cant use in a debate. This will improve your skills at rejecting the theory. You will probably find though that every counter argument has no basis I'm afraid.
@markgg1 I see you having it out with "Synergistik"...and you keep asserting the same things. Anyway, just curious...did you get a chance to check out the video that I mentioned earlier for you to go to? "FANATICAL DARWINISM"...? It's posted on the video response section of this page. Did you see it yet?
@sweetmikser I commented on it but think the post didn't show up. Im not really interested in what ethical lessons you perceive from a theory. Im just interested in the facts of biology, and trying to clear up some errors you are making in rejecting the theory.
I believe in human rights, and evolution, so its not true to claim a scientific theory dictates politics. Social Darwinism is something I reject. The irony is the right wing creationists tend to be Social Darwinists yet reject Darwinism.
@markgg1 no, it goes into more than just "ethical" things. Did you go to "FANATICAL DARWINISM". It addresses your old "little changes over time lead to bigger changes" etc. In fact there's a whole thing in the middle of the video (or maybe check out the abbreviated version called "Darwinist Lies EXPOSED"...) that go into 6 Mendelian things about genes and variations...spelled out. You may even like it. I can tell you did NOT see this video. Click "Darwinist Lies EXPOSED". For real
@sweetmikser Im repeating myself because creationists make the same classic errors when making points on why they think evolution is untrue. I know im probably wasting my time as you will not change your mind, but it at least makes me understand how you guys think, and what arguments you often use. It is very interesting seeing how people's minds can bend things to fit in with a assumption they hold. in your case you invented a unknown process called 'DNA barrier'. It is interesting, but untrue
@markgg1 William Robin Thompson, Biologist, Entomologist:
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
@sweetmikser Look we will just bang on all day, but heres some important points I think are missing here.
Observation does not mean we need to 'see' the event happening. No one can see the stars moving, yet we know they all are. We know that Plutos orbit is 280 years, yet we have only known this half that time so never observed it do a full circle. Science is of course based on 'inferring'. This is not a problem. Inferring is part of thinking. I infer my name is Mark, because there is evidence
@sweetmikser Its unreasonable for you to ask people to show you large scale change happen over a lifetime, knowing full well the theory suggests large change happens over a ling time. It like you asking me to point to the stars in the sky that are moving. I of course cannot do that, but I can provide a lot of evidence to suggest what is happening.
This debate is more about a philosophical approach to truth. The science is not in dispute, it seems the method of science is by the rejection
@markgg1 I KNOW that argument...of "uhh, you know full well that we can't do a 10 million year experiment." Silly me... Gee, how nifty and how convenient.
Darwinian Evolution theory is basically this:
1/10th science
3/10ths speculation
3/10ths exaggeration
3/10ths cover-up
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
It further says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
@sweetmikser The opinions of a few men do not disprove a theory, they need to bring data to the table. Im not really into this whole conspiracy theory ideas of suppression etc. It just muddys the water. You should try to ignore all this, and focus only on the science. Forget the politics, and stay with the evidence. Evidence is where you find the truth/untruth of evolution, not the debate.
When Ben Stein started blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, for example, he lost all of his credibility.
@markgg1 Call something a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean it is scientific. Human evolution is circumstantial at best, and thus can never be proven to a level of certainty as perhaps the hard sciences such as in physics or chemistry. But the greater issue you see, is not simply with evolution, but rather with science itself, and the level of certainty it can afford an item of understanding. It's about issues of cause, effect and the method of induction which science is based.
@Synergistik Yeh human evolution is largely patchy and unknown, but this is well known already. There are some full fossils, but not many so a lot of guess work has been done.
I just read a whole 6 page article on it, Lots of conjecture had to be used. This is not a problem, lots of science is simply guess work. No scientist ever claimed absolute certainty.
However: the theory of evolution is unique as the evidence is huge, to the point where it is reasonable to claim almost certainty.
If no scientist ever claimed absolute certainty, then anyone who says human evolution is a fact is not a scientist, but just a radical with as much dogma as those they oppose.
Conjecture, guess work, ideas are the seeds for new theories and explanations. But let's leave it like that until they take full bloom, rather the be overconfident, unless we have ulterior motives.
Quantity of evidence is inconsequential if the level of certainty in provides remains the same.
@Synergistik we are getting into tricky philosophical trouble here.
If we assume the theory of gravity is sound and the best we have at the moment, then that means if we see a big hole in the earth, we can safely assume a asteroid hit it due to gravity.
Same with human evolution. We know species evolve, so we dont need to dispute the fact humans therefore evolved also. Even if no fossil existed, it makes no difference. It is permissible to use a overarching theory to explain something unknown.
@markgg1 Now you're relegating hard sciences like physics to the realm of evolution, to some how legitimize evolution. It's a lot of assuming and hand waving. I understand your assumptions and your analogy.
But you're thinking in your second paragraph is circular. You're assuming the thing that you're trying to prove, and since the evidence doesn't disprove it, you think you're in the ok.
@Synergistik I agree that human evolution is assumed based on other animals, IF there was no other evidence
But I offered 5 independent examples, all of which correspond to evolution. Its like if I see, smell, hear, feel something. Each piece of evidence is not certain (i might be hallucinating) but 5 independent verification increases the likelihood of what im experiencing to be true.
There is no counter evidence I'm aware of. You can argue the storey is incomplete, but this is not disputed
@Synergistik No disrespect, but if I know anything it is science. I just finished my degree, and about to start a PhD
I dont normally pull out the 'credentials', but I understand the scientific method, and the philosophical aspects of it such as the empirical, positivist way it works. The creationists confuse aspects of the method by some of their attacks on the theory. All of their attacks are invalid.
They seem to think they can just 'talk', and not provide a single piece of counter evidence
@Synergistik low and behold, all these predictions are true.
99% DNA similarity to other apes, obvious similarities in behaviour, chemistry, anatomy etc, fossils from last 100'000 years only in shallow ground, and a pattern of migration from a particular point in Africa.
All the predictions evolution makes come true. If none of them did, it would be huge argument against human evolution.
@markgg1 There are many for and against evolution. The issue is which one holds more weight. I think it's disingenuous to say there is no argument against it, and some how that affirms it. This is not the rhetoric of science, but extremism.
It think you're confusing explanation with prediction.
@Synergistik would like to add that evolution and belief in god can live together. many religious people think god set it up as a system to make animals. Or that he set up the conditions for life.
Bit of topic but Evolution is not 'atheistic', thats just nonsense. The pope and the leader of the church of england and some very top bishops believe the theory because of evidence. Many of them focus on a god of love. To them the word of Jesus is more important then a literal reading of the bible
"We fooled ourselves into thinking the genome was going to be a transparent blueprint, but it’s not."
Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist :
"When it comes to the genome, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know."
Mattick:
“Regarding the genome, I think this will come to be a classic story of (Darwinian) orthodoxy DERAILING objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.”
@markgg1 yeah, then why do you go by the biased "opinion" of biased drones already in the tank? But I'm not giving you "opinion"....those quotes were simply point of facts. Here's some more...(debunking your drone-ish and stupid "errghh, 99% human")
Devin Locke, geneticist:
"regarding genetic similarity between humans and chimps, the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high."
Roy Britten, bio-geneticist:
“Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is at least 5%.”
@sweetmikser and on the number given. There are different ways to measure it, your right. Some different ways give different numbers. If for example a mutation added a single DNA molecule, it woudl throw the entire sequence out of sync giving a 0% similarity number, but obviosuly thats just silly so there are methods used.
To be honest, I dont see why you think its important.
its a fact that apes have similar proteins and DNA seqeucnes. Rodents less so, flies less, plants less so etc...
@sweetmikser p.s. Cancer researchers test ideas on yeast in the lab for a reason. Cancer is a failure of the cell cycle. It sounds almost silly, but the yeast cell cycles is almost identical to a human, so you can use them and develop drugs without needing human subjects for the initial stages.
@markgg1 You have to understand the context of darwinism, and how it emerged during the enlightenment, and it's violent history against religion, and vie to supplant it. It is a belief it itself, requiring faith, in the religion of scientism. Scientism is the reduction of all truth to statements about quantities and empirical facts. It is belief in measurement, in prima materialia (the physical being prime), and the capability of the human mind, and deeply rooted in the occult.
@Synergistik Im not interested in the context, the politics, ethical elements in these discussions. I want to focus on science please.
If you really want to get into that, then my response is this: 'Empiricism' as a philosophy says simply that to make epistemological claims, you need evidence. It respects evidence above inner feeling, authority, or revelation. On god/supernatural. For me to believe this, I require evidence, for which there is none. Why do you believe it without it?
@markgg1 Darwinist drone whose about to get blocked. And TYPICAL. With this "99% similarity DNA" old (debunked) talking point. Did you know that data has shown that that's an exaggerated figure? And anyway even if it's 90, or 98 or whatever...IT'S A SELECTIVE AND SUPERFICIAL READING OF THE SITUATION. While ignoring (conveniently and idiotically) the COLOSSAL differences in DNA in the deeper MOLECULAR level, where it really counts. Daffodils share 25% DNA with humans, does that make em 25% human?
I compared the sequences personally of numerous immunity proteins that sit on cells. In most apes the similarities were 99-100% identical. Rodents were 75% normally. You can go online download the amino acid sequences, and compare them. Science is not just 'lying' with this 99% figure.
Evolution accounts for this easily. Over time mutations build up, and the more distant related we are, the more mutations buildup and the similarities go down.
@markgg1 (2nd) "I've done my own research" the drone says. No...what you did was see what you WANTED to see...and conveniently ignore what didn't fit the pre-bias. See my comment just before this one with those nice quotes (from people who are NOT "Creationists"), of people in the field...like uh (lol) geneticists and bio-chemists, etc...who say the supposed human and chimp "DNA" similarity has been exaggerated... Data shows that. Wake up, drone... for real. Deeper differences are there, kid.
@sweetmikser I put the sequences into a computer program that uses a formula and it gave me the numbers. It wasnt my own.
You can randomly decide a protein, and most of the time it will give the same numbers. There are some exceptions. CDKs are essential for cell cycling and wont tolerate any mutations at all. They are conserved throughout the animal kingdom. You can put the human CDK into yeast, and it still allows it to function. its evidence all life is related as we use the same machinery
@sweetmikser I've decided to close my account for a couple of weeks anyway as Im spending too much time responding to videos when my finals are in two weeks, but thanks for the conversation.
Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
I love you creationalists. You guys twist real science into pseudoscience and think your so clever. Evolution is happening as we live, and has happened since life began on this planet. The proof is all around you, but your deity goggles prevent you from seeing the facts.
On the other hand, you say we were "poofed" into existance. Where is the wand? Where is the poofer? Remember, evolution only shows how all life is related, changed and transformed. Not Abiogenesis.
@Desdenova262 listen and see this video again. Really... Your statement of "evolution is happening as we live" is kind of addressed in it. Desperate nonsense like "bacteria", where bacteria remain bacteria, do not prove "ape-men" myths or superstitious unproven non-empirical non-observable "fish ancestry" and neurotic speculations. Also, check out my other videos that deal deeply with these subjects, and old tired Atheist/Darwinist talking points and barf. I'm kinda busy now......for real.
@sweetmikser Hello. You suggested there is a 'DNA barrier' which makes evolution incorrect. Please can you elaborate on what you mean, because I am unaware of any such barrier. DNA can be mutated in anyway possible, and is only constrained by the environment it finds itself in. The DNA does not have a 'inner knowing' that its a particular species if thats what you mean. DNA will survive any mutation, as long as the mutation allows the animal to reproduce.
@markgg1 well I have to go now, but I'll just say this (for now) on that. It's simple. You KNOW there's a barrier or Gene Wall between cats (all types) and say rhinoceroses. They cannot inter-breed, but NOT JUST THAT, they are NOT of the same basic family type or "genus" (using the term in the logic sense more than the "biologic" sense, though that's true too..) Did you hear this video here? No matter how many modifications, mutations, adaptations, FAMILIES REMAIN CONSTANT. Why? The DNA Wall.
@sweetmikser I know of no such 'DNA wall' as you call it. DNA will mutate as long as it codes for genes that will allow survival. Mostly it doesnt, but occasionally mutations benefit an organism.
Of course a cat cannot mate with a dog, because their DNA are too different meaning the chromosomes cannot work together, but a tiny amount of diversity is allowed, hence why we all have a unique code. This small difference is what allows evolution as the differences build up slowly lover time
@markgg1 yes, and what you basically said is a straw-man and evasion. I KNOW (as you can see) that a "tiny amount" this and that... Of COURSE there's "reshuffling" that goes on. But if you have a million dollars, and you move some of it around to different parts of your house, some under your bed, some in a safe, some in your wallet, it's still a million dollars. Only the recombination of EXISTING GENES can occur. Variations are latent in ALL species and genes. But the "wall" is still there.
@sweetmikser There are some genes that are consistent throughout nature suggesting that all living things y need them to survive. These genes are in single celled organisms. The CDKs for example are seen in yeast and humans. So yes. You can take a human CDK gene, and replace the yeast one, and the yeast still replicates!
But beyond the single cell, an organism can develop into absolutely anything imaginable as we see in nature, such as elephants and zebras. There is no DNA barrier to stop that
@sweetmikser But when you get some time, maybe elaborate a little more on this DNA wall idea. Maybe provide some data, or anything I can look at. From a genetic point of view I don't think there is any truth in this. I must say that if this were true, you would be sitting on the evidence that could topple Evolution. But to be honest, I really doubt there is anything to it, no offence... its just that I study genetics in some detail, and have never came across this idea. It also defies logic.
Where is the Evidence evolutionists?? so laughable there theories. Where are these fossils of species in mid-change?????? Where is the PROOF?!?!? silence....
Funny, I was a Christian, and came to accept evolution while still believing in Yahweh. So there goes this whole video. I guess you've never heard of fossils or ERVs either? Silly Theist, gods are for the ignorant.
@Dudeamis never heard of ERVs? you say? Arrogant drone-tard, who loves to assume I see. Not only have I heard of that old pathetic Darwinist talking point and barf, I put two videos together a while back, just on that topic ALONE...you silly boy. In fact, if you bothered to check out the video response section ON THIS VERY PAGE...you'd see that BOTH my "ERV" videos are posted right on the section. (eye-roll) Try to keep up... ERVs are proven to have specific sites even in SEPARATE INFECTIONS.
yeah I uh... watched them uh, and uh, you didn't read the actual papers you just quote mined.
Some ERVs NOT all ERVs target certain insertion sites, which means that sorry, your videos fall flat on their face. Way to misrepresent the data, keep on spreading the misinformation.
@Dudeamis I never said "all" ERVs. You're hallucinating again (a Darwinist pastime). The fact that ANY are specific, in separate species, in separate infections, MAKES IT PLAUSIBLE. Duhhh.... And you show that you really didn't watch them. Or did not see and hear them all the way through.... Because the videos made clear that it was not necessarily "all." And also, you didn't comment on them, but came back to this. Anyway, you're blocked. Cuz of your arrogance, dishonesty, and rudeness, kid.
Here's my contribution of one of at least millions of pieces of evidence for speciating ("macro") evolution. We share several unique endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences with chimps in the exact same spot in our DNA.
An ERV enters a species' genome when a normal virus tries to infect the sperm or egg cells of a host and those cells get passed to subsequent generations.
This is, at least proof that evidence, not a priori bias, motivates belief in "macro"-evolution. And at most, proof for it.
@Evid3nc3 bro...I'm gonna try to be civil...but this "ERV" nonsense is just another Darwinist/Atheist talking point. And it's already been challenged and even debunked. I have TWO videos that deal specifically just with ERVs, ALONE. That basically dismantle the old argument. Basically it's this in a nutshell: it's been PROVEN (not just conjectured) that many ERVs have highly targeted insertion points in the genome, EVEN IN SEPARATE INFECTIONS, EVEN IN SEPARATE SPECIES. So...FAIL.
That is ridiculous. First, virus RNA changes at such a rapid rate that we have to design new flu vaccines every year. Second, the same strand of DNA is found in ALL chimps and ALL humans. So you are trying to argue that, by some huge improbability, the EXACT same strand infected the eggs or sperm of ALL humans and ALL chimps mothers or fathers at the same time before mutating.
That event is so improbable that asserting it as a real alternative is absurd.
@Evid3nc3 one of my ERV vids is posted in the video response section on this page... Please click it, and check it out....and see, hear, and read the whole video...all the way through. And if you want, make your remarks, challenges, or questions, or points on there. Thanks....
Actually, I watched the beginning of the video you posted as a response to this one before commenting again.
I could see pretty quickly that you were making your argument in ignorance of the rapidly mutating RNA for viruses, which completely devastates the premise you are using for all your ERV counter-arguments (that somehow a strain stayed stable long enough and over such a huge geographical area that it somehow infected the eggs/sperm ALL chimps and ALL humans).
@Evid3nc3 you only watched the beginning (sighs) Stop being a schmuck, or you're blocked. Cuz I don't need to put up with the rudeness and jerkiness. SEE THE WHOLE ERV VIDEO. There is some talking that goes on, from some experts in the field. Instead of spouting out the "you're ignorant of rapid mutating of RNA for viruses" gas. The point is that Darwinists begin with assumptions, and reason circularly from their pre-bias. Proving ape-men from their premise of ape-men. It's shallow and childish.
@Evid3nc3 you saw that I tried to be civil with you. Given that you were cool in allowing my stuff on your video page, etc. But you came on here with a bit of a rude and cold attitude. Not just challenges. You're hung up on this "ERV" junk, tenaciously, not even caring about the problems or issues or counter-arguments (from people who know biology, not just lay-people.) Too much is unknown about the genome to make dogmatic and cocksure statements, that Darwinists (in their pre-biases) always do.
Well, to be fair, on the topic of "jerkiness", you aren't very diplomatic with the language you use in your videos or even their titles. I mean "hallucinations"? That's a pretty degrading way to describe your opponents' position. So that is why I wasn't exactly predisposed to being super-diplomatic with you: you didn't seem to be in the mindset of friendly open-minded discussion.
If you can address the rapid RNA mutation rebuttal in a comment, I will watch the rest of the video.
@Evid3nc3 I'll make you a deal...bring your ERV challenges and points and comments TO MY ACTUAL ERV videos...(both of them are posted on this page, to click)...and SEE THEM BOTH ALL THE WAY THROUGH....(especially the more technical one that goes into "Murine"...etc)...or at least see one of them all the way through, and I'll try to address your "rapid RNA mutation" argument. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to do. Bring your comments to the actual ERV videos I have. thanks....
@Evid3nc3 I'll just say this (for now)...you stupidly bringing up "new flu vaccines every year" shows how drone-ish you are. And why it's hard for me to take you Darwinist zombies (in your cocoon of pathetic and silly group think, seeing uh "evolution" under every crack and couch, neurotically and desperately...) all that seriously. THESE ARE STRAW-MEN...AND EVASIONS. Drug-resistant bacteria (facepalm) are STILL BACTERIA. Adaptations do not prove mythical "ape-men", and neither do "mutations".
@Evid3nc3 also, I already know the argument that "the event was so improbable" and summarily dismiss it. Even though A) it's NOT as "improbable" as you make it, since it's been proven to be the case in other ways...and B) it's hilarious how you pick and choose when to dismiss something as "too improbable to have ever happened" whenever you think it suits you, but won't do it for mythical un-scientific "abiogenesis" or "solar systems" forming with no outside Direction, or astronomical goo-to-you.
No thanks. I'm not interested. You seriously just posted 3 comments filled with nothing but insults, evasion tactics, and attempted refutations of arguments I didn't even make.
You didn't even come close to forming a rebuttal to my rapid RNA mutation argument (aside from saying I was "stupid" and "dronish" for making it, which is an irrelevant insult, not a rebuttal).
So, no, I am not interested in sorting through a combination of high school debate tactics and playground insults
@Evid3nc3 yeah, that's only because YOU came on here all condescending, rude, arrogant, and snarky first...and I'm only human. You were not exactly sweet and congenial when you first came on here, now were you. So lose the hypocrisy (and the whining) on that one. Also, yeah, of course, you continue being schmucky and childish about simply seeing the WHOLE videos through, that deal with the very subject that YOU brought up on here (yes it was drone-ish and old stuff.) Check murine etc.
@Evid3nc3 (2nd) Anyway, here's a nice little "quote-mine" for you to chew on:
Sean D. Pitman M.D.:
"it seems like just about any finding or data set can be explained within the evolutionary paradigm using this or that "ad hoc" explanation to make the data fit the theory. This produces a problem of bias when it comes to interpreting data sets. Such biases in the interpretation of ERV phylogenies have been recognized for some time now."
Still not seeing anything close to a topical reply to my RNA mutation rebuttal. Suspecting sweetmikser has no reply. Gaining more evidence for that every time he types.
"what are your facts, and your degreed references and sources? "
Me:
(Providing references and sources, of degreed biologists, chemists, etc, in the field)
You (and your drones)
"aarrghhh, quote mine! quote mine! appeal to authority! arf arf"
Which is hysterical coming from Darwinist drones, since they are NOTORIOUS appeallers to authority. With their "99% of scientists accept evolution", committing two fallacies at once. Authority and Majority. lol
@Evid3nc3 what difference would that make, man? You still WANNA believe in "ape-men" and "fish ancestry"...and "no intelligent design." Because of the corrupt crappy nature of pushing the Intelligent Creator and Judge away....(See my "Darwinism - the convenient drug of atheists" video) I mean, don't get me wrong...I do understand it in a way, since I'm human and I get that way too. Maybe it all did "just happen" blah blah, with no real purpose, design, or outside intelligence. But uh, no.
@Evid3nc3 (2nd)...but ok, whatever...more quote mines for you to consider (and dismiss automatically in willful ignorance)
Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist :
"When it comes to the genome, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know."
Joshua Plotkin, mathematical biologist:
"Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive."
"Who would have thought that the majority of the genome would be copied or transcribed into RNA? - and that it would in fact be functional? Only a few years ago the scientific community believed that less than 5% of the genome was actually functional and the rest was non-functional evolutionary remnants. Intelligent design theorists have been claiming for many years that the concept of "Junk DNA" (as well as vestigial structures) was not entirely correct."
The problem with the quotes you are using is that they aren't relevant to my question: how could a generation of viruses maintain an *identical* RNA strand long enough to infect the egg/sperm cells of ALL chimps and ALL humans, placing and *identical* ERV in all of them? I am talking about the process of Antigenic Drift.
None of your quotes have anything to do with this. It would be convenient for you if I had ulterior motives but I actually just care about the truth.
@Evid3nc3 true to an extent. But what you're missing is that it IS relevant in a general sense of the topic that TOO MUCH IS UNKNOWN to make such moronic dogmatic assumptions, and stating neurotic speculation as uh "fact". Don't you understand the overall drift of that? Anyway,
Pitman:
"I myself wrongly asserted this. Yet, only now are mainstream scientists finally starting to realize the significant errors in their long-cherished beliefs when it comes to the ill-conceived notion of junk DNA."
“The failure to recognize the full implications of this, particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
@sweetmikser Hey, I was actually finding parts of the debate to be quite interesting (Had never heard of ERVs before today). Would you mind addressing the question that Evid3nc3 had on the ERVs? I understnad your point about specific insertion points, but what is the common explanation for how they proliferated among the population before experiencing any mutations?
@alcedes78 click the video, posted on this page, called "ERVs - highly specific in SEPARATE INFECTIONS". And listen carefully to the whole thing. ERVs are NOT "random".... Check the video.
@sweetmikser Hmmmm...watched the video. It mentioned some viruses that can also infect chimps (ex: Aids) but it also doesn't answer the question of how how organisms known for rapid mutation maintained durability long enough to proliferate through out both humans and chimps :-/
@sweetmikser I commented here because it was relevant to the discussion. You had provided the specificity of the insertion points for ERVs as a possible explanation for how identical segments of DNA found their way into humans and chimps. But given the high mutability of viri lack of any examples od viri with durable high fidelity replication it is diffcult to accept the possibility either by itself or as an argument against evolution. :-(
@alcedes78 ok...well if you can and if you want, leave your thoughts, points, or challenges, in the ERV video itself. Thanks.... (remember, also, there are two videos on ERVs, I have....)
I can't believe I'm doing this, but here is an example. Let's say we have a virus DNA code that gets inserted as an ERV in a chimp:
xxxCCGTAAAAAxx
Millions of generations later, one of it's descendants gets inserted as an ERV in a human. But due to Antigenic Drift, its RNA is different from its ancestor:
there's no "observable proof" of evolution? where is the "observable proof" that there is a god, or there was a jesus or any of that? "exaggerations and hallucinations"... that would be you guys, making up fairytales to explain life.
LamStock 1 week ago
I'm curious if you can outline a biochemical mechanism that would ensure, to paraphrase you, that cats will remain cats, dog will remain dogs, etc.
Inferno41 1 month ago
Lame.
personEks 1 month ago
I swear... sometimes I can't tell if these people are being cynical. No observable science, but neurotic speculation...? That's a joke, right?
Xsuprio 4 months ago
@Xsuprio no...what Darwinist dumbbells hold up as "observable" proof for their myths is what's a "joke". (The straw-men like errrgg "E. Coli" or "Moths" etc). That you don't understand the point is a "joke". Listen to the whole video again if you have to. There's ZERO testable observable "proof" for "ape-men ancestors" or "fish ancestry of humans". This has even been ADMITTED by Darwinists. Their cop-out is: "well you can't do a 10 million year experiment...so of course you don't see it now."
sweetmikser 4 months ago
@sweetmikser =] K, bud.
Xsuprio 4 months ago
@Xsuprio that jerky infantile brain-dead response is NO surprise, kid. I mean, you're the same moron that thinks we have "observable proof" for ape-men myths and "fish ancestors". Dr Patterson, paleontologist (and Darwinist):
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
sweetmikser 4 months ago
@sweetmikser Hi. Xsuprio wanted to let you know you accidentally blocked him from commenting. He just wanted me to tell you that he wasn't arguing with you. Obviously you do not think this video is a joke. Fair enough. =] K, bud?
dnvanderbilt2 4 months ago
@sweetmikser This is pitiful. Evolution is a proven, observable fact. Get over it, man.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 what's "pitiful" is your sad silly and drone-ish repeated junk of "errggh, evolution is proven observable fact" when you have NO "proof" for saying that, except the old straw-men and pathetic desperate examples like "drug-resistant bacteria" or variations WITHIN species or types, (did you even see the whole video here, idiot?) There's NO "observable" anything for "ape-men" myths. Speculation is NOT "science". Neither is force-fitting scattered meager fossils, for agendas.
sweetmikser 1 month ago
@beatonm198 There's NO "observable" anything for "ape-men" myths. Speculation is NOT "science". Neither is force-fitting scattered meager fossils, for agendas. What's "pitiful" is your sad silly and drone-ish repeated junk of "errggh, evolution is proven observable fact" when you have NO "proof" for saying that, except the old straw-men and pathetic desperate examples like "drug-resistant bacteria" or variations WITHIN species or types. lol... Did you even see the whole video here?
sweetmikser 1 month ago
beautiful... claiming there is only"..simple adaptations and variations within species.." at 0:30, then showing pictures with _different_ species, and claiming "cats remained cats, birds remained birds"
it seems creatard classification system is fine-tuned for simpletons with "species" like grass-bush-tree and "beetle-doggy-cat-horse-bird"
bubuka79 5 months ago
@bubuka79 beautiful...Darwinist drone-tard commits the very delusional nonsense that the video itself discusses and describes. Yes...ADAPTATIONS AND VARIATIONS within major groups are fact, and are NOT what's argued against, and is just a silly and pathetic Darwinist STRAW-MAN...and idiocy. Again, loser, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (not Darwinist assumptions or hallucinations, but real observable proof) is that major groups REMAIN CONSTANT...despite allowable variations. Anything else is SPECULATION.
sweetmikser 5 months ago
@bubuka79 (2nd) also, moron...you didn't listen well. That part of the video. I said "within species AND FAMILY TYPES". I didn't just say "within species". (sighs...) I ALSO said "within...family types." Meaning MAJOR GROUPS TOO... So "variations and adaptations WITHIN species and family types". Which is all that happens. I didn't just say "species". I also mentioned major groups too. Keep up, why don't you.
sweetmikser 5 months ago
@bubuka79 (2nd) also, moron...you didn't listen well. That part of the video. I said "within species AND FAMILY TYPES". I didn't just say "within species". (sighs...) I ALSO said "within...family types." Meaning MAJOR GROUPS TOO... So "variations and adaptations WITHIN species and family types". Which is all that happens. I didn't just say "species". I also mentioned major groups too. Keep up, why don't you.
sweetmikser 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You read a stream of big words that show little understanding of the issue and we are supposed to be impressed?
Makingnewnamesisdumb 8 months ago
@zuko2509 well not sure if you mean that sincerly, or sarcastically, or a combo of both, but I'm very busy right now (for real), and dealing with things. 1) The Biblical Creator can't be put in a box, tube, or lab, to be "studied" or "measured" in that sense, so He's usually dismissed as even a possibility by arrogant types. 2) It's not really a "new science", the great majority (I have a pwning list) of scientists pre-Darwin were creationists, and 3) contributed greatly. Further another time.
sweetmikser 9 months ago
what is your exploation for DNA showing that apes are 98% human?
abarrathemaster 9 months ago
@abarrathemaster my "explanation", you mean? Well my explanation is that DNA does NOT show "98% human". That's the exaggeration and lie that you've been brainwashed to believe....Data has come out over the years to show that it's actually less than that... Plus, did you know that daffodils have about 25% human DNA? Does that make those flowers "25% human"? Such a bizarre notion is neither accurate, nor enlightening. We share common DNA because of COMMON EARTH...and a Common Creator.
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@sweetmikser lol ur funny
BrantFortunate 9 months ago
@sweetmikser So if you believe the overwhelming evidence for evolution you are brainwashed but if you believe in a sky daddy you aren't? You need to rethink your logic. The evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence in favor of a creator. You also need to consider what you say about the nature of the "creator" is pure speculation of the highest degree.
cygnusfloyd 8 months ago
@cygnusfloyd there's no "overwhelming evidence" for "evolution", but speculation, force-fitting, manipulation, exaggeration, bait-and-switches, and STRAW-MEN. In fact there's NO actual observable "proof" at all. The problem is that you like to CALL things like "drug-resistant bacteria" and "new mosquito species" with the word "evolution." And IF that's all that Darwinian "evolution" is, then WE SHOULD ALL be "evolutionists". Cuz those things are observed and never argued against. (continued)
sweetmikser 8 months ago
@sweetmikser retard.
Aldelirium 4 months ago
@cygnusfloyd (2nd) The problem is it's an old dishonest and flaky BAIT-AND-SWITCH and straw-man. Because Darwinian "evolution" claims MUCH MORE than just E.Coli or frog species. But also mythical "ape-men" and "fish ancestry". That are just wild conjectures, and silly branching scenarios, because of WANTING to believe it took place. And IGNORING the evidence or implications for direction creation. The fossils favor separate creation, and so does DNA complexity, etc. See my other videos too...
sweetmikser 8 months ago
The issue is the success of science in technology is the success of experimental science, not of everything called science. So by merely being labeled a science, or scientific, does not mean it should be looked at with the level of respect that we have for physics and chemistry, or biochemistry. Darwinists are an example of historians making a claim to the title of “scientist”, in an attempt to be associated with the modern understanding of the word, namely experimental science. It doesn't work
Synergistik 10 months ago
first off i hope you realize that Richard Dawkins is not Charles Darwin,and secondly i hope you realize that evolution takes place withing millions of years, many small changes within that time period would lead to a completely different species. Your pre-bias is that the bible said that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, therefore evolution cannot be true, even though the evidence such as fossils and over 50 different methods of dating (which they are all used of each fossil) prove that its not
Netruic 10 months ago
@Netruic Well you and I agree...the earth is NOT "6000-10000 years old." I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist. NOT a Young Earth fundie. You have to expand, sir. I don't reject Darwinian "super macro" speculations and "ape-men" myths or superstitious unproven non-empirical "fish-ancestry", etc...because of belief in a "young earth". That's a straw-man for me (and for JWs). I believe in modifications, and variations, over time, but there's still a WALL that keeps basic families separate, and constant.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser when you take hundreds of small steps, so you not walk a mile? when you have thousands of "micro changes" eventually you will have a completely different species. evolutions is extremely hard to explain especially in 500 words, so i hope thunderf00t can explain this better through this video of a common misconception about it
watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc&feature=relmfu
Netruic 10 months ago
@Netruic as I said here, and on the video, and on other videos of mine (that you might wanna see), what you just put forth is NOT observable empirical demonstrable actual "science"...but mere SPECULATION...and wild conjecture...that is put forth as dogmatic "fact", neurotically. There's no actual "proof" for ape-men myths or genuine actual family "cross-overs", or of major groups arising from other major groups. Hence "leaps". Speculation is not science, neither is manipulating meager fossils.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser it is not observable the same way that Pluto's orbit time is not observable. we know that it takes 200+ years for Pluto to orbit the sun, how? that's longer that we've even known Pluto was there; scientists do the math and these "speculations" are extremely accurate predictions using the evidence (in this case math) and results. Evolution is not different, your claiming that just because we haven't seen something change drastically its impossible, that's not logical to assume that
Netruic 10 months ago
@Netruic that's PART of why I say it's impossible. It's also cuz there's evidence to suggest and even indicate OTHERWISE. Things that people like you CHOOSE TO DISHONESTLY AND NEUROTICALLY IGNORE...for agendas. The gaping holes and blanks in the fossil record don't go away, just cuz you like to ignore or even deny them. Or rationalize them away (excuses are for losers) with crap like "uhh, the fossils were destroyed or were never formed". Funny how fossils are together WITHIN families though.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser It is unreasonable for you to ask for the observation in a human life time of the dramatic changes you ask for. Any murder detective will tell you, that you don't need to actually see an event happening to know it is true. You look for the evidence, and so far all of it points to Darwin's idea (although some details have been revised). Evolution like any theory can be falsified, and so far all evidence corresponds to it. I can think of many ways you could easily prove it wrong.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) also real quick, I don't say that thing YOU CALL "evolution" is "wrong", if you mean adaptations, variations, speciations, modifications, within groups or species or family kinds or basic types. I believe in natural selection too (to the extent that it's actually there). That's why I said before THOSE THINGS ARE STRAW-MEN. No Biblical Creationist (or Creation Scientist) ever denied those things. Those are EVASIONS. But it's just SPECULATION to say that that proves "fish ancestry".
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser But it logically follows that the small changes, will mount up into larger changes over a long time. The evidence in the Earth also suggests this. The only way this would not work is if there was a 'DNA barrier' you suggested, which would be evidence against evolution I freely admit. There is no genetic reason why DNA cannot mutate beyond a certain point. Mutation is just the word meaning 'change' in DNA. If the change still allows reproduction and survival of the egg, its passed on
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 check out the video "FANATICAL DARWINISM"....located on the video response section here. Some interesting and blunt points there...
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser 1.conspiracy theories? seriously?what agendas do people have to push evolution?in fact they give out nobel prizes for finding out facts about the world, so if someone found something that disproves evolution then those people would win Nobel prizes, they would have no reason to hide it. scientists do not gain power for pushing evolution neither do they gain money they just want to find the truth about the universe by collecting facts then forming conclusions from those facts...CONT.
Netruic 10 months ago
@sweetmikser 2. If a new fact is discovered that contradicts the current conclusion we have, the scientific community discards that conclusion and forms a new one, thats open mindedness. Now, the people who push intelligent design have many things to lose, the churches would begin to lose followers, less followers means less contributions. Less followers and money means less of a chance they could stay in power, such as the church hierarchy or politicians who ran on religious ideals
Netruic 10 months ago
@sweetmikser advocates of intelligent design, are also funded by the church, so there's definitely a conflict of interest here. I fail so see why you think it is the scientists that are trying to lie to you, when it is the scientists that have given you all that you have today, computers, internet, cellphones, tvs, flight, more efficient food production (less starvation), even medicine, our life expectancy has more than doubled in the last few centuries thanks to science,
Netruic 10 months ago
@sweetmikser 4. intelligent design advocates are also misrepresenting the "gaps" that are in the fossil record, and making them seem larger than what they really are(again, because THEY have an obvious agenda to keep religious ideas alive) maybe AronRa can explain certain concepts about evolution that you are talking about in this video about speciation, he talks about the many of they types of humans that have been found
watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU
Netruic 10 months ago
@sweetmikser The DNA code in cells has no way of knowing if a mutation has permanently taken place. There are repair mechanisms, but they are not perfect so mutations buildup over time, including in egg cells. When we reproduce, those mutations will pass on into our children. Mutations are usually neutral, and can be detrimental, and very rarely they will be positive. i.e. will create offspring that is better then its parent at surviving that environment say for example a more efficient protein
markgg1 10 months ago
Evolution is more a historical theory than one of science and reason. In a similar way that people dig up relics and artifacts to piece together the history of previous nations, Darwinists piece together fossils and bones to piece together the history of man. The evidence can never be more than circumstantial; and as decades of Darwinism has shown, the "theory" has been supported more for what it opposes than what it supports.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik It's a scientific theory because it can be used to make predictions. You cannot make accurate predictions with a theory that is incorrect.
TolpuddleMartyr 10 months ago
@TolpuddleMartyr Human evolution is not a scientific theory, because it is not testable. You can't set it up in a lab and observe and measure it.
You certainly can make accurate predictions with an incorrect model. The bohr model of the atom models the energy levels quite well. The equations for motion predict the travel of a ball in the air quite well, even though they don't account for air resistance.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik As I said, the theory of evolution can be used to make accurate predictions. The Bohr model makes poor predictions and is therefore incorrect. It's relatively simple to undertsand.
TolpuddleMartyr 10 months ago
@TolpuddleMartyr The theory of evolution can only form explanations, which are circumstantial at best. Inaccurate and incorrect are not the same thing. If every theory had to be accurate, most of science would be incorrect, according to your logic. This is also simple to understand.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik When science says a theory is 'testable' they dont always mean you can get in a lab and do an experiment. The theory of natural selection is testable in that it makes predictions about living things that we can observe. If the observations fit into the theory, which so far they all do, then it supports the thoery. A test you can do is compare DNA codes, or look at the rock stratas. The predictions of evolution correspond to these real life examples, i.e. they are the 'experiment'
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 Then it's a theory, and not a scientific theory. Similar to historical theories, say, about some ancient civilization, where they dig up artifacts which either do or do not support it. But then it's more about explanations, rather than predictions, which in the end are nothing more than circumstantial, and shouldn't hold such certainty as it does in the minds of men.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik No. Scientific theory is the highest honour a hypothesis can hold. A theory is a collection of observations that all correspond to a hypothesis, drawn up by someone, in this case Darwin. He meticulously collected specimens, cataloging them like a real geek. This was why he was such a brilliant scientist. Then in the 50s the structure of DNA was found, and this was another layer of evidence as it produced the molecular engine that was driving the process, being genetic mutation.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 Anyone can collect specimens "meticulously". This is just data collection. Creationists collect specimens too. A scientific theory must be testable. You must be able to run an experiment, the data from which can be analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis This is the "experimental method" which is the foundation of scientific work. It's one thing to discover, another thing to prove and demonstrate. Observations are part of science, not its entirety.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik Read up the the page I suggested about why the argument that there is no 'observation' is a weak one.
You are confusing observation as being 'seeing with ones own eyes'. Our eyes are just one tool in observing things. You dont need to see something happen to know it happens. An example is the orbit of Pluto. It takes 280 year, and we have only known this for 150 years. No one has seen it orbit once, but we still know this is a fact based on how quick its moving.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 No this idea I understand.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik Observations of speciation has occurred anyway, so even if your argument were valid (which its not for reasons I just explained) then it still can be exposed as invalid. Google 'examples of speciation'. Evolution can be disproved easily. If you find fossils that are in the wrong time period, e.g. a human fossil from the cambrian period then you disproved evolution. This has NEVER happened, and as time goes on it becomes less likely it will.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 No the issues I have with evolution are at a higher level, and you perfectly demonstrated it with this comment. I can only disprove evolution by showing/finding another artifact which is not aligned with its story. But, I could not disprove it by running an experiment of my own, with the same or different conditions, to find different results. Hence, it's a matter of stories, which in the end are circumstantial. I can't build an apparatus to test circumstantial matters in my lab!
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik Of course you could disprove it. You could go digging with a shovel. Go down the the rock strata that correspeonds with the pre cambrian period. You then dig out every fossil, and if you find a mammal, you found evidence against evolution.
You could then compare the DNA codes of various animals, and get the percentage similarities. Evolution predicts that we would have around 99% with other apes, 75% with rodents, 60% bird etc etc.... if you find this is not the case, more evidence
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 ok
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik You could then go in the lab, and set up lets say ten broths of E.Coli. Let them reproduce for many weeks. In a coupe of them you could add antibiotics, another couple replace their food source with something new, such as hydrogen peroxide. Another one shine radiation at it.
Evolution predicts theres a good chance that some of the bacteria will tolerate the change in environment due to mutation.If they all die more contrary evidence that adaptation doesn't work counter to evolution
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 you're about to get blocked....cuz I'm tired of your foolish drone-ish insanity and also your typical and insufferable PROJECTION.... Everything you've accused him or me of YOU'RE guilty of. YOU reject true science to fit in with your mold of "fish ancestry" and "ape-man ancestry"...cuz of NOT WANTING there to be an Intelligent Director. Your crew has even admitted "I don't want the universe to be that way" and "we can't let a divine foot in the door." So they REJECT evidence (cont)
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) So they REJECT evidence, and ignore problematic data...all to cling pathetically to Darwinian myth and speculation. And this crap about "humans are apes" which of course I've heard before by Atheist and Darwinist psychos and drone-tards...is NOT "empirical" anything, but neurotic ASSUMPTION, cuz of wanting the nonsense to be true. Speculation is not "science" and neither is force-fitting ambiguous, meager, and scattered fossils, for sick agendas.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I accept that want I may want to be true, does not mean it is.
I just look at my reality and use evidence to discern belief. If there was evidence of the Intelligent director you suggest, id believe it, but it appears thats not the case. I am not a athesit out of choice, I am atheist because the reality I live in does not suggest a supernatural god. There are many mysteries I cant explain, but I accept mystery just means we use science to find out. Its impossible to know everything
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (3rd)
W.R. Thompson, Biologist, Entomologist:
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Im glad we got to the real reason you reject evolution: religion.
I think its sad you allow religion to manipulate your thinking to an extent you deny an obvious fact about nature
But its not your fault, religion is probably an adaptation as it is universal across cultures. It must have some benefit to people that I cant figure out. Perhaps gives comfort, or stops your fear of dying. Gives moral guidance?
Well whatever it is I think evidence is the pathway to truth, not faith.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) don't know where you got that from. I've been saying that I reject Darwinian myth MAINLY FOR SCIENTIFIC REASONS. I embrace science...not conjecture or neuroticism wrongly passed OFF as "science." You have AGNOSTICS who doubt Darwinian theory. I know this Bible-bashing Agnostic Buddhist who finds Darwinism a CROCK....on SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS, kiddo. And there are biologists and people in the field who are Agnostic, not even into "religion", who find problems with the theory.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I suggested three ways to find counter evidence. Get some cash together with ur creationist friends, and do the research. Get a shovel, and dig, or get in the lab and show that adaptation doesn't occur. Find the human fossil in the same rock strata as a T-Rex, and you will win the nobel prize for proving one of the most established principles of science to be incorrect.
Detect this intelligent designer somehow. Prove how he made animals. Bring the proof is all i ask
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (3rd)
The Atomic Scientists Bulletin :
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
It further says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser It fascinates me you use the word 'empirical', showing you find it important, except on the matter of Intelligent Designer.I am an empiricist n think its n important philosophical approach to truth.Courts science and our day2day lives are governed by its logical laws. Empiricism has never detected god i.e. there is no empirical evidence apart from 'inner feelings'. I accept as a fallible person, I can be wrong so why cant you? My strength is I can prove what I say where you u cant
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 because you (and arrogant small-minded people such as Lewontin) can't put God in a box, tube, or lab, and also for selfish neurotic agendas, you can't fathom the idea (nor you do really want to) of an OUTSIDE INTELLIGENCE...and will idiotically IGNORE all the strong implications for intelligent direction...Like the appalling gaps and blanks in the fossil record, the complexity and diversity of life, eco-systems, solar systems, proportions, gases, ratios....impossible odds, etc
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser yeh nature is very amazing, at least we can agree on that.
markgg1 10 months ago
@sweetmikser My friend who is a Christian suggests my brain is too scientific, and perhaps shes right. The supernatural by definition cannot be tested by science.
I canot think of anyway to discern truth other then facts and evidence, the principles of science. Supernatural is outside of this realm, so for that reason I could never believe it to be true.
God is suggested to be a supernatural being, so I don't think it/he/she exists.
At least understand our thinking, its not arrogance.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 I was speaking about human evolution.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik so you can run a lab experiment, I just suggested one. You can also go into the field and do research.
People have tried to do this and just found more evidence supporting evolution.Ive tried to be respectful in this but you really got to get some of your facts straight
Your rejection of a theory is not scientific lets be honest here.You want the religious accounts to be true so reject the science to fit into that mould. I contrary to you, have an open mind and accept the evidence
markgg1 10 months ago
@Synergistik Creationists have a serious problem because evolution accounts for complexity very simply. Creationists infer a supernatural cause to a natural phenomenon, yet cannot define it nor explain it. This by definition is unscientific because it is untestable. Science deals with 'nature' i.e. what we know is real, whereas creationism deals with the 'supernatural' a realm that no one has observed, and many question exists as there is zero evidence it exists.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 I think creationists and darwinists have a lot in common. =)
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik When you get a chance look up the wiki page on many common arguments against evolution, and it explains why many of them are strawmans, or untenable. Even if you dont believe in the theory for whatever reason (usually on religious grounds) them you will at least know which arguments you cant use in a debate. This will improve your skills at rejecting the theory. You will probably find though that every counter argument has no basis I'm afraid.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 I see you having it out with "Synergistik"...and you keep asserting the same things. Anyway, just curious...did you get a chance to check out the video that I mentioned earlier for you to go to? "FANATICAL DARWINISM"...? It's posted on the video response section of this page. Did you see it yet?
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I commented on it but think the post didn't show up. Im not really interested in what ethical lessons you perceive from a theory. Im just interested in the facts of biology, and trying to clear up some errors you are making in rejecting the theory.
I believe in human rights, and evolution, so its not true to claim a scientific theory dictates politics. Social Darwinism is something I reject. The irony is the right wing creationists tend to be Social Darwinists yet reject Darwinism.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 no, it goes into more than just "ethical" things. Did you go to "FANATICAL DARWINISM". It addresses your old "little changes over time lead to bigger changes" etc. In fact there's a whole thing in the middle of the video (or maybe check out the abbreviated version called "Darwinist Lies EXPOSED"...) that go into 6 Mendelian things about genes and variations...spelled out. You may even like it. I can tell you did NOT see this video. Click "Darwinist Lies EXPOSED". For real
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Im repeating myself because creationists make the same classic errors when making points on why they think evolution is untrue. I know im probably wasting my time as you will not change your mind, but it at least makes me understand how you guys think, and what arguments you often use. It is very interesting seeing how people's minds can bend things to fit in with a assumption they hold. in your case you invented a unknown process called 'DNA barrier'. It is interesting, but untrue
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 William Robin Thompson, Biologist, Entomologist:
"A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of Darwin's book Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. THE SUCCESS OF DARWINISM WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY."
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Look we will just bang on all day, but heres some important points I think are missing here.
Observation does not mean we need to 'see' the event happening. No one can see the stars moving, yet we know they all are. We know that Plutos orbit is 280 years, yet we have only known this half that time so never observed it do a full circle. Science is of course based on 'inferring'. This is not a problem. Inferring is part of thinking. I infer my name is Mark, because there is evidence
markgg1 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Its unreasonable for you to ask people to show you large scale change happen over a lifetime, knowing full well the theory suggests large change happens over a ling time. It like you asking me to point to the stars in the sky that are moving. I of course cannot do that, but I can provide a lot of evidence to suggest what is happening.
This debate is more about a philosophical approach to truth. The science is not in dispute, it seems the method of science is by the rejection
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 I KNOW that argument...of "uhh, you know full well that we can't do a 10 million year experiment." Silly me... Gee, how nifty and how convenient.
Darwinian Evolution theory is basically this:
1/10th science
3/10ths speculation
3/10ths exaggeration
3/10ths cover-up
Bertalanffy:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied to 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) The Atomic Scientists Bulletin :
"So between man's supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was ONLY THE IMAGINATION OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENTISTS."
It further says:
"People WANTED to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."
Physicist Lipson:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser The opinions of a few men do not disprove a theory, they need to bring data to the table. Im not really into this whole conspiracy theory ideas of suppression etc. It just muddys the water. You should try to ignore all this, and focus only on the science. Forget the politics, and stay with the evidence. Evidence is where you find the truth/untruth of evolution, not the debate.
When Ben Stein started blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, for example, he lost all of his credibility.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 Call something a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean it is scientific. Human evolution is circumstantial at best, and thus can never be proven to a level of certainty as perhaps the hard sciences such as in physics or chemistry. But the greater issue you see, is not simply with evolution, but rather with science itself, and the level of certainty it can afford an item of understanding. It's about issues of cause, effect and the method of induction which science is based.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik Yeh human evolution is largely patchy and unknown, but this is well known already. There are some full fossils, but not many so a lot of guess work has been done.
I just read a whole 6 page article on it, Lots of conjecture had to be used. This is not a problem, lots of science is simply guess work. No scientist ever claimed absolute certainty.
However: the theory of evolution is unique as the evidence is huge, to the point where it is reasonable to claim almost certainty.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1
If no scientist ever claimed absolute certainty, then anyone who says human evolution is a fact is not a scientist, but just a radical with as much dogma as those they oppose.
Conjecture, guess work, ideas are the seeds for new theories and explanations. But let's leave it like that until they take full bloom, rather the be overconfident, unless we have ulterior motives.
Quantity of evidence is inconsequential if the level of certainty in provides remains the same.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik we are getting into tricky philosophical trouble here.
If we assume the theory of gravity is sound and the best we have at the moment, then that means if we see a big hole in the earth, we can safely assume a asteroid hit it due to gravity.
Same with human evolution. We know species evolve, so we dont need to dispute the fact humans therefore evolved also. Even if no fossil existed, it makes no difference. It is permissible to use a overarching theory to explain something unknown.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 Now you're relegating hard sciences like physics to the realm of evolution, to some how legitimize evolution. It's a lot of assuming and hand waving. I understand your assumptions and your analogy.
But you're thinking in your second paragraph is circular. You're assuming the thing that you're trying to prove, and since the evidence doesn't disprove it, you think you're in the ok.
It's just not rigorous.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik I agree that human evolution is assumed based on other animals, IF there was no other evidence
But I offered 5 independent examples, all of which correspond to evolution. Its like if I see, smell, hear, feel something. Each piece of evidence is not certain (i might be hallucinating) but 5 independent verification increases the likelihood of what im experiencing to be true.
There is no counter evidence I'm aware of. You can argue the storey is incomplete, but this is not disputed
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 I smell a darwinist, confused about science. =)
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik No disrespect, but if I know anything it is science. I just finished my degree, and about to start a PhD
I dont normally pull out the 'credentials', but I understand the scientific method, and the philosophical aspects of it such as the empirical, positivist way it works. The creationists confuse aspects of the method by some of their attacks on the theory. All of their attacks are invalid.
They seem to think they can just 'talk', and not provide a single piece of counter evidence
markgg1 10 months ago
@Synergistik because evolution will make some predictions about humans we can verify:
1) other animals will exist with similar characteristics
2) our DNA will closely match animals that resemble us
3) the fossils we find will only go back so far, i.e. not as far as the jurrasic period
3) we will find the fossils relatively shallow
5) our bodies will show some traits that are probably useless, and remnants of animals similar to us.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 It's still all circumstantial.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik low and behold, all these predictions are true.
99% DNA similarity to other apes, obvious similarities in behaviour, chemistry, anatomy etc, fossils from last 100'000 years only in shallow ground, and a pattern of migration from a particular point in Africa.
All the predictions evolution makes come true. If none of them did, it would be huge argument against human evolution.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 There are many for and against evolution. The issue is which one holds more weight. I think it's disingenuous to say there is no argument against it, and some how that affirms it. This is not the rhetoric of science, but extremism.
It think you're confusing explanation with prediction.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik would like to add that evolution and belief in god can live together. many religious people think god set it up as a system to make animals. Or that he set up the conditions for life.
Bit of topic but Evolution is not 'atheistic', thats just nonsense. The pope and the leader of the church of england and some very top bishops believe the theory because of evidence. Many of them focus on a god of love. To them the word of Jesus is more important then a literal reading of the bible
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) On "ERVs" and the genome:
Mel Greaves, cell biologist:
"We fooled ourselves into thinking the genome was going to be a transparent blueprint, but it’s not."
Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist :
"When it comes to the genome, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know."
Mattick:
“Regarding the genome, I think this will come to be a classic story of (Darwinian) orthodoxy DERAILING objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.”
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Truth is not based on opinion, so no point quoting scientists to me. It means nothing. I deal with evidence.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 yeah, then why do you go by the biased "opinion" of biased drones already in the tank? But I'm not giving you "opinion"....those quotes were simply point of facts. Here's some more...(debunking your drone-ish and stupid "errghh, 99% human")
Devin Locke, geneticist:
"regarding genetic similarity between humans and chimps, the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high."
Roy Britten, bio-geneticist:
“Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is at least 5%.”
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser and on the number given. There are different ways to measure it, your right. Some different ways give different numbers. If for example a mutation added a single DNA molecule, it woudl throw the entire sequence out of sync giving a 0% similarity number, but obviosuly thats just silly so there are methods used.
To be honest, I dont see why you think its important.
its a fact that apes have similar proteins and DNA seqeucnes. Rodents less so, flies less, plants less so etc...
markgg1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetmikser p.s. Cancer researchers test ideas on yeast in the lab for a reason. Cancer is a failure of the cell cycle. It sounds almost silly, but the yeast cell cycles is almost identical to a human, so you can use them and develop drugs without needing human subjects for the initial stages.
All based on evolutionary theory.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 You have to understand the context of darwinism, and how it emerged during the enlightenment, and it's violent history against religion, and vie to supplant it. It is a belief it itself, requiring faith, in the religion of scientism. Scientism is the reduction of all truth to statements about quantities and empirical facts. It is belief in measurement, in prima materialia (the physical being prime), and the capability of the human mind, and deeply rooted in the occult.
Synergistik 10 months ago
@Synergistik Im not interested in the context, the politics, ethical elements in these discussions. I want to focus on science please.
If you really want to get into that, then my response is this: 'Empiricism' as a philosophy says simply that to make epistemological claims, you need evidence. It respects evidence above inner feeling, authority, or revelation. On god/supernatural. For me to believe this, I require evidence, for which there is none. Why do you believe it without it?
markgg1 10 months ago
@Synergistik an explanation (theory) makes predictions (the evidence).
If the evidence corresponds to the theory, it helps support it.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 C-
Synergistik 10 months ago
@markgg1 Darwinist drone whose about to get blocked. And TYPICAL. With this "99% similarity DNA" old (debunked) talking point. Did you know that data has shown that that's an exaggerated figure? And anyway even if it's 90, or 98 or whatever...IT'S A SELECTIVE AND SUPERFICIAL READING OF THE SITUATION. While ignoring (conveniently and idiotically) the COLOSSAL differences in DNA in the deeper MOLECULAR level, where it really counts. Daffodils share 25% DNA with humans, does that make em 25% human?
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I've done my own research.
I compared the sequences personally of numerous immunity proteins that sit on cells. In most apes the similarities were 99-100% identical. Rodents were 75% normally. You can go online download the amino acid sequences, and compare them. Science is not just 'lying' with this 99% figure.
Evolution accounts for this easily. Over time mutations build up, and the more distant related we are, the more mutations buildup and the similarities go down.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 (2nd) "I've done my own research" the drone says. No...what you did was see what you WANTED to see...and conveniently ignore what didn't fit the pre-bias. See my comment just before this one with those nice quotes (from people who are NOT "Creationists"), of people in the field...like uh (lol) geneticists and bio-chemists, etc...who say the supposed human and chimp "DNA" similarity has been exaggerated... Data shows that. Wake up, drone... for real. Deeper differences are there, kid.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I put the sequences into a computer program that uses a formula and it gave me the numbers. It wasnt my own.
You can randomly decide a protein, and most of the time it will give the same numbers. There are some exceptions. CDKs are essential for cell cycling and wont tolerate any mutations at all. They are conserved throughout the animal kingdom. You can put the human CDK into yeast, and it still allows it to function. its evidence all life is related as we use the same machinery
markgg1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetmikser I've decided to close my account for a couple of weeks anyway as Im spending too much time responding to videos when my finals are in two weeks, but thanks for the conversation.
Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
markgg1 10 months ago
LIKE TIMES 1000
takeitaway17 10 months ago
I love you creationalists. You guys twist real science into pseudoscience and think your so clever. Evolution is happening as we live, and has happened since life began on this planet. The proof is all around you, but your deity goggles prevent you from seeing the facts.
On the other hand, you say we were "poofed" into existance. Where is the wand? Where is the poofer? Remember, evolution only shows how all life is related, changed and transformed. Not Abiogenesis.
Desdenova262 10 months ago
@Desdenova262 listen and see this video again. Really... Your statement of "evolution is happening as we live" is kind of addressed in it. Desperate nonsense like "bacteria", where bacteria remain bacteria, do not prove "ape-men" myths or superstitious unproven non-empirical non-observable "fish ancestry" and neurotic speculations. Also, check out my other videos that deal deeply with these subjects, and old tired Atheist/Darwinist talking points and barf. I'm kinda busy now......for real.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Oh, you are totally right! I watched the vid again, and evolution is a lie! So with this in mind, can you answer these questions for me:
1. When should we expect a formal statement from the NSCS stating that evolution is wrong?
2. What is the timeline for when public schools and top colleges around the world to pull evolution from their biology classes?
3. Have you submitted this to the Nobel prize committee, and do you expect to win it? :)
Desdenova262 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Hello. You suggested there is a 'DNA barrier' which makes evolution incorrect. Please can you elaborate on what you mean, because I am unaware of any such barrier. DNA can be mutated in anyway possible, and is only constrained by the environment it finds itself in. The DNA does not have a 'inner knowing' that its a particular species if thats what you mean. DNA will survive any mutation, as long as the mutation allows the animal to reproduce.
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 well I have to go now, but I'll just say this (for now) on that. It's simple. You KNOW there's a barrier or Gene Wall between cats (all types) and say rhinoceroses. They cannot inter-breed, but NOT JUST THAT, they are NOT of the same basic family type or "genus" (using the term in the logic sense more than the "biologic" sense, though that's true too..) Did you hear this video here? No matter how many modifications, mutations, adaptations, FAMILIES REMAIN CONSTANT. Why? The DNA Wall.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I know of no such 'DNA wall' as you call it. DNA will mutate as long as it codes for genes that will allow survival. Mostly it doesnt, but occasionally mutations benefit an organism.
Of course a cat cannot mate with a dog, because their DNA are too different meaning the chromosomes cannot work together, but a tiny amount of diversity is allowed, hence why we all have a unique code. This small difference is what allows evolution as the differences build up slowly lover time
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 yes, and what you basically said is a straw-man and evasion. I KNOW (as you can see) that a "tiny amount" this and that... Of COURSE there's "reshuffling" that goes on. But if you have a million dollars, and you move some of it around to different parts of your house, some under your bed, some in a safe, some in your wallet, it's still a million dollars. Only the recombination of EXISTING GENES can occur. Variations are latent in ALL species and genes. But the "wall" is still there.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser There are some genes that are consistent throughout nature suggesting that all living things y need them to survive. These genes are in single celled organisms. The CDKs for example are seen in yeast and humans. So yes. You can take a human CDK gene, and replace the yeast one, and the yeast still replicates!
But beyond the single cell, an organism can develop into absolutely anything imaginable as we see in nature, such as elephants and zebras. There is no DNA barrier to stop that
markgg1 10 months ago
@sweetmikser But when you get some time, maybe elaborate a little more on this DNA wall idea. Maybe provide some data, or anything I can look at. From a genetic point of view I don't think there is any truth in this. I must say that if this were true, you would be sitting on the evidence that could topple Evolution. But to be honest, I really doubt there is anything to it, no offence... its just that I study genetics in some detail, and have never came across this idea. It also defies logic.
markgg1 10 months ago
Where is the Evidence evolutionists?? so laughable there theories. Where are these fossils of species in mid-change?????? Where is the PROOF?!?!? silence....
meheale 10 months ago 2
Funny, I was a Christian, and came to accept evolution while still believing in Yahweh. So there goes this whole video. I guess you've never heard of fossils or ERVs either? Silly Theist, gods are for the ignorant.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis never heard of ERVs? you say? Arrogant drone-tard, who loves to assume I see. Not only have I heard of that old pathetic Darwinist talking point and barf, I put two videos together a while back, just on that topic ALONE...you silly boy. In fact, if you bothered to check out the video response section ON THIS VERY PAGE...you'd see that BOTH my "ERV" videos are posted right on the section. (eye-roll) Try to keep up... ERVs are proven to have specific sites even in SEPARATE INFECTIONS.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
yeah I uh... watched them uh, and uh, you didn't read the actual papers you just quote mined.
Some ERVs NOT all ERVs target certain insertion sites, which means that sorry, your videos fall flat on their face. Way to misrepresent the data, keep on spreading the misinformation.
Dudeamis 10 months ago
@Dudeamis I never said "all" ERVs. You're hallucinating again (a Darwinist pastime). The fact that ANY are specific, in separate species, in separate infections, MAKES IT PLAUSIBLE. Duhhh.... And you show that you really didn't watch them. Or did not see and hear them all the way through.... Because the videos made clear that it was not necessarily "all." And also, you didn't comment on them, but came back to this. Anyway, you're blocked. Cuz of your arrogance, dishonesty, and rudeness, kid.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
Here's my contribution of one of at least millions of pieces of evidence for speciating ("macro") evolution. We share several unique endogenous retrovirus (ERV) sequences with chimps in the exact same spot in our DNA.
An ERV enters a species' genome when a normal virus tries to infect the sperm or egg cells of a host and those cells get passed to subsequent generations.
This is, at least proof that evidence, not a priori bias, motivates belief in "macro"-evolution. And at most, proof for it.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 bro...I'm gonna try to be civil...but this "ERV" nonsense is just another Darwinist/Atheist talking point. And it's already been challenged and even debunked. I have TWO videos that deal specifically just with ERVs, ALONE. That basically dismantle the old argument. Basically it's this in a nutshell: it's been PROVEN (not just conjectured) that many ERVs have highly targeted insertion points in the genome, EVEN IN SEPARATE INFECTIONS, EVEN IN SEPARATE SPECIES. So...FAIL.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
That is ridiculous. First, virus RNA changes at such a rapid rate that we have to design new flu vaccines every year. Second, the same strand of DNA is found in ALL chimps and ALL humans. So you are trying to argue that, by some huge improbability, the EXACT same strand infected the eggs or sperm of ALL humans and ALL chimps mothers or fathers at the same time before mutating.
That event is so improbable that asserting it as a real alternative is absurd.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 one of my ERV vids is posted in the video response section on this page... Please click it, and check it out....and see, hear, and read the whole video...all the way through. And if you want, make your remarks, challenges, or questions, or points on there. Thanks....
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
Actually, I watched the beginning of the video you posted as a response to this one before commenting again.
I could see pretty quickly that you were making your argument in ignorance of the rapidly mutating RNA for viruses, which completely devastates the premise you are using for all your ERV counter-arguments (that somehow a strain stayed stable long enough and over such a huge geographical area that it somehow infected the eggs/sperm ALL chimps and ALL humans).
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 you only watched the beginning (sighs) Stop being a schmuck, or you're blocked. Cuz I don't need to put up with the rudeness and jerkiness. SEE THE WHOLE ERV VIDEO. There is some talking that goes on, from some experts in the field. Instead of spouting out the "you're ignorant of rapid mutating of RNA for viruses" gas. The point is that Darwinists begin with assumptions, and reason circularly from their pre-bias. Proving ape-men from their premise of ape-men. It's shallow and childish.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 you saw that I tried to be civil with you. Given that you were cool in allowing my stuff on your video page, etc. But you came on here with a bit of a rude and cold attitude. Not just challenges. You're hung up on this "ERV" junk, tenaciously, not even caring about the problems or issues or counter-arguments (from people who know biology, not just lay-people.) Too much is unknown about the genome to make dogmatic and cocksure statements, that Darwinists (in their pre-biases) always do.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
Well, to be fair, on the topic of "jerkiness", you aren't very diplomatic with the language you use in your videos or even their titles. I mean "hallucinations"? That's a pretty degrading way to describe your opponents' position. So that is why I wasn't exactly predisposed to being super-diplomatic with you: you didn't seem to be in the mindset of friendly open-minded discussion.
If you can address the rapid RNA mutation rebuttal in a comment, I will watch the rest of the video.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 I'll make you a deal...bring your ERV challenges and points and comments TO MY ACTUAL ERV videos...(both of them are posted on this page, to click)...and SEE THEM BOTH ALL THE WAY THROUGH....(especially the more technical one that goes into "Murine"...etc)...or at least see one of them all the way through, and I'll try to address your "rapid RNA mutation" argument. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to do. Bring your comments to the actual ERV videos I have. thanks....
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 I'll just say this (for now)...you stupidly bringing up "new flu vaccines every year" shows how drone-ish you are. And why it's hard for me to take you Darwinist zombies (in your cocoon of pathetic and silly group think, seeing uh "evolution" under every crack and couch, neurotically and desperately...) all that seriously. THESE ARE STRAW-MEN...AND EVASIONS. Drug-resistant bacteria (facepalm) are STILL BACTERIA. Adaptations do not prove mythical "ape-men", and neither do "mutations".
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 also, I already know the argument that "the event was so improbable" and summarily dismiss it. Even though A) it's NOT as "improbable" as you make it, since it's been proven to be the case in other ways...and B) it's hilarious how you pick and choose when to dismiss something as "too improbable to have ever happened" whenever you think it suits you, but won't do it for mythical un-scientific "abiogenesis" or "solar systems" forming with no outside Direction, or astronomical goo-to-you.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
No thanks. I'm not interested. You seriously just posted 3 comments filled with nothing but insults, evasion tactics, and attempted refutations of arguments I didn't even make.
You didn't even come close to forming a rebuttal to my rapid RNA mutation argument (aside from saying I was "stupid" and "dronish" for making it, which is an irrelevant insult, not a rebuttal).
So, no, I am not interested in sorting through a combination of high school debate tactics and playground insults
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 yeah, that's only because YOU came on here all condescending, rude, arrogant, and snarky first...and I'm only human. You were not exactly sweet and congenial when you first came on here, now were you. So lose the hypocrisy (and the whining) on that one. Also, yeah, of course, you continue being schmucky and childish about simply seeing the WHOLE videos through, that deal with the very subject that YOU brought up on here (yes it was drone-ish and old stuff.) Check murine etc.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 (2nd) Anyway, here's a nice little "quote-mine" for you to chew on:
Sean D. Pitman M.D.:
"it seems like just about any finding or data set can be explained within the evolutionary paradigm using this or that "ad hoc" explanation to make the data fit the theory. This produces a problem of bias when it comes to interpreting data sets. Such biases in the interpretation of ERV phylogenies have been recognized for some time now."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
You:
"insult, insult, insult,
insult, insult,
insult, insult, insult, insult,
watch the WHOLE video,
Appeal to Authority Fallacy"
Me:
Still not seeing anything close to a topical reply to my RNA mutation rebuttal. Suspecting sweetmikser has no reply. Gaining more evidence for that every time he types.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3
You (or fellow Darwinist drones):
"what are your facts, and your degreed references and sources? "
Me:
(Providing references and sources, of degreed biologists, chemists, etc, in the field)
You (and your drones)
"aarrghhh, quote mine! quote mine! appeal to authority! arf arf"
Which is hysterical coming from Darwinist drones, since they are NOTORIOUS appeallers to authority. With their "99% of scientists accept evolution", committing two fallacies at once. Authority and Majority. lol
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
And still not a word on the RNA mutation.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 what difference would that make, man? You still WANNA believe in "ape-men" and "fish ancestry"...and "no intelligent design." Because of the corrupt crappy nature of pushing the Intelligent Creator and Judge away....(See my "Darwinism - the convenient drug of atheists" video) I mean, don't get me wrong...I do understand it in a way, since I'm human and I get that way too. Maybe it all did "just happen" blah blah, with no real purpose, design, or outside intelligence. But uh, no.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 (2nd)...but ok, whatever...more quote mines for you to consider (and dismiss automatically in willful ignorance)
Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist :
"When it comes to the genome, the more we know, the more we realize we don't know."
Joshua Plotkin, mathematical biologist:
"Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive."
(There's more to come on "RNA")
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 (3rd)
Sean D. Pitman M.D.:
"Who would have thought that the majority of the genome would be copied or transcribed into RNA? - and that it would in fact be functional? Only a few years ago the scientific community believed that less than 5% of the genome was actually functional and the rest was non-functional evolutionary remnants. Intelligent design theorists have been claiming for many years that the concept of "Junk DNA" (as well as vestigial structures) was not entirely correct."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
The problem with the quotes you are using is that they aren't relevant to my question: how could a generation of viruses maintain an *identical* RNA strand long enough to infect the egg/sperm cells of ALL chimps and ALL humans, placing and *identical* ERV in all of them? I am talking about the process of Antigenic Drift.
None of your quotes have anything to do with this. It would be convenient for you if I had ulterior motives but I actually just care about the truth.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 true to an extent. But what you're missing is that it IS relevant in a general sense of the topic that TOO MUCH IS UNKNOWN to make such moronic dogmatic assumptions, and stating neurotic speculation as uh "fact". Don't you understand the overall drift of that? Anyway,
Pitman:
"I myself wrongly asserted this. Yet, only now are mainstream scientists finally starting to realize the significant errors in their long-cherished beliefs when it comes to the ill-conceived notion of junk DNA."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
I'm not talking about junk DNA. So your quote is irrelevant.
I'm not being dogmatic either. If I was, I wouldn't be asking you for counter-evidence.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3
Mattick, molecular biologist:
“The failure to recognize the full implications of this, particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Hey, I was actually finding parts of the debate to be quite interesting (Had never heard of ERVs before today). Would you mind addressing the question that Evid3nc3 had on the ERVs? I understnad your point about specific insertion points, but what is the common explanation for how they proliferated among the population before experiencing any mutations?
alcedes78 10 months ago
@alcedes78 click the video, posted on this page, called "ERVs - highly specific in SEPARATE INFECTIONS". And listen carefully to the whole thing. ERVs are NOT "random".... Check the video.
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Hmmmm...watched the video. It mentioned some viruses that can also infect chimps (ex: Aids) but it also doesn't answer the question of how how organisms known for rapid mutation maintained durability long enough to proliferate through out both humans and chimps :-/
alcedes78 10 months ago
@alcedes78 why didn't you comment on THAT video page then, bro?
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser I commented here because it was relevant to the discussion. You had provided the specificity of the insertion points for ERVs as a possible explanation for how identical segments of DNA found their way into humans and chimps. But given the high mutability of viri lack of any examples od viri with durable high fidelity replication it is diffcult to accept the possibility either by itself or as an argument against evolution. :-(
alcedes78 10 months ago
@alcedes78 ok...well if you can and if you want, leave your thoughts, points, or challenges, in the ERV video itself. Thanks.... (remember, also, there are two videos on ERVs, I have....)
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser
"ERVs are NOT "random""
The insertion POSITIONS are not (always) random.
But the CODE that gets inserted there IS.
I can't believe I'm doing this, but here is an example. Let's say we have a virus DNA code that gets inserted as an ERV in a chimp:
xxxCCGTAAAAAxx
Millions of generations later, one of it's descendants gets inserted as an ERV in a human. But due to Antigenic Drift, its RNA is different from its ancestor:
xxxCGGTATTTAxx
Same *position*, different *RNA*.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago