TO ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults and general evasion of Qs posed, i.e. a refusal to truly debate. If anyone wants to ask any of the same Qs they ask I will be happy to respond. However I will only debate where true scientific debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
@ABriefHistoryOfTime Please see my post below, TO ANYONE. You are now free to leave me strings & strings of posts, like your friend before you, which never answer the Qs I made, and not feel the slightest bit challenged by another point of view. Unless someone actually gets on this string and wants to try to use science & logic & not just flail out with personal insults & vague dataless statements about "science."
@LoricaLady I've already answered your questions. You are now projecting your inability to debate onto me, given that you weren't even dimly aware of something as basic as tectonic uplift. But you're right, making cheap thinly veiled insinuations and running is probably your best option now
Cont. "if this little planet...was the only place in the universe where that ever happened." Yet there is 0 evidence it ever happened here & all the evidence is in the opposite direction! Somehow it seems we are being asked to juggle all these concepts in our heads: Life came from inorganic matter here tho all the evidence shows it never could or did happen. Life could came from outerspace & be sent here. Tho we could get life here on earth, still we need alien seeding to get started.
9:20 Here Miller says something which defies everything ever observed, either in nature or in labs (the so called "synthetic cell" was merely an already living cell that was altered in various ways) and which defies the Law of Biogenesis which says that life always comes from life. "The laws of physics...give what we call inanimate matter...the capacity to become alive." 9:28 "I would be astonished, given the vastness of the universe and the constancy of the laws of physics..." Cont.
@LoricaLady Actually biogenesis only regards modern life and the debunking of it spontaneously arising from non-living medium, Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
Cont. When the co discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, saw its incredible complexity (the words "irreducibly complex" were not yet used) he believed it could not come about by random processes of nature, so decided it must have come via outer space seeding, i.e. aliens did it We are told this is "An intriguing notion." Indirectly this shows the weakness of the faith of many evolutionists in evo, since they are willing to consider strange, evidenceless & often conflicting theories. Cont
@LoricaLady That's all well and good given that biochemistry and selection are not random processes.
If you actually watch the video you'll notice he points out that directed panspermia is not an answer, that it just puts the origin of life question elsewhere.
Cont. Ironically the student is being handed evidence that goes against evolution. Trilobytes supposedly came from the earliest period of evolution, namely the "Cambrian". There is no reason to assume this is true since the so called Geologic Column, which divides things into Cambrian, Triassic, etc. etc. has never been shown to actually exist anywhere on the planet. Trilobytes are found virtually everywhere including on many mountain tops. 8:58 Panspermia is brought up. Cont.
8:20 Here is another indirect slam at people who believe that not all is caused by natural forces. "Natural selection...also produced our ability to do science." In this way a contrast is being created between believe in the supernatural and so called (since evolution is itself based on the unsee, i.,e. faith), science. As usual there is a careful politicizing of what is said at the same time so that people who have religious fatih are thrown a bone here & there. Notice the trilobyte. Cont.
@LoricaLady That's because science is specifically methodological naturalism whereas the supernatural is useless assertion producing nothing but intangible non-answers.
8:16 "Natural selection, if it produced our ability to fiorm religion..." Much time is spent in evo thought talking about "if...might...must have..." Much time is also spent presenting ideas that not only have no support but have evidence to the contrary of what is being taught. For ex. we are told that thru N.S. we went from apes to man. The actual evidence shows N.S. does not lead to anything higher than speciation. 200 species of bees, for ex., but they are all still bees. Cont..
7:48 "If you believe in a Creator...Who used natural processes to bring the physical part of our species into existence, why wouldn't that Creator have used the same natural processes to bring the mental part, namely the God module." This isn't the way to do science, speculating about what the Creator might or might not have done. The way to do science is to examine the data. There is no data for a "God module." There is no data for anything the evolutionists are saying. Cont.
Cont. "...because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably.) Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." In the preceding quotes we see evolutionary defense being heavily influenced by a prior assumptions and ideology. This helps explain the problems people in Expelled had when they dared to even slightly consider the possibility that there was anything supernatural involved in life on earth. Cont.
A couple of quotes that demonstrate that bias. From Prof. R. Lewontin, a geneticist & prominent evolutionary biologist: "It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to a phenomenal [naturalistic only] world, but on the contrary...materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Todd Scott biologist, 9/99 Nature Magazine: "It should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evoluiton has not disproved God's existence..." Cont.
7:07 "{...Has argued that our brain ihas a God module..." "Argued" means - no actual data, yet an opportunity to push the notion that only the natural is real & that people who think differently are just duped by their genes: "Religion is nothing more than an artifact of this gene." This is the political agenda behind much evoevangelism. They aren't "just" trying to teach evo, they are trying to squash the very concept that anything but the "natural" is scientific or even sensible. Cont.
6:22 "Natural selection has given us...an inate capacity to accept religious explanations." Once again we are given a lot of armchair speculations presented by an "expert" that have 0 data whatsoever to back them up. It's really just another way of trying to speak dismissively of people who believe in anything supernaturall. In other words the Harvard prof. is saying, "Well, you just have all those peculiar ideas because in my humble & dataless opinion, it helped people survive." Cont.
Cont. You can't date rocks for that length of age either by any known testing methods. The so called Geologic Column, found w/0 disclaimers in text booksm, was a 19th cent. construct based on pure speculation with no real data. Subsequent worldwide digs have not revealed 1 example of it. So, where is the data, the science, for saying that our brains were ever any different in size from what they are now? Nowhere. Speculation presented with no supporting data is not science. Cont.
Cont. It's not just presuming to know what kinds of babies they had, it's presuming to know - w/o 1 shred of data - that they had babies whose babies' babies etc. etc. etc. led to us The lack of evidence for this chain is called "missing links."This is not science. You can't claim as fact what there is 0 evidence for. Further there is 0 way to show any fossil was 3 million years old. Even by admission of some evolutionists you can't date fossils based on DNA past say 100,000 years. Cont.
4:31 "The most striking thing about our own evolution is that 1 of our organs increased in size by a factor of 3 in a space of 3 millions years." This is making a statement of fact which is not based on anything testable, observable or repeatable. How do we know the brains of homo sapiens haven't always been the same size that they are now? We do not. Looking at a few extinct, often incomplete, ape remains & declaring they were our ancestors presumes to know what kinds of babies they had. Cnt.
Cont. We see changes in species, as with 200 species of bees. But they are all bees. Leo & Kitty are still cats. In fact there haven't even been any new phyla created since the so called "Cambrian 1st explosion of life". How can things be climbing up Darwin's "Tree of Life" thru natural selection & getting to the top w/o changing their plylum? Another thing - it is impossible to say how NS changed "past common ancestors" when there are only IMAGINED starting points - so 0 baselines. Cont.
2:58 "We and the great apes share a common ancestor in the past". Yet there is 0 evidence for this and 0 way to ever know any such thing since we cannot observe or repeat such "events". Dataless speculation presented as hard core fact is not science. 4:10 "Intense natural selection in our DNA." Tho genes are observed to change as the result of natural selection, there is 0 evidence to show NS can cause completely new strands of DNA,, such as would be needed to turn a fin into a foot, Cont.
Cont. Words like "similary homology" are used and sound scientific but basically boil down to "Well, Fossil A looks like Fossil B in some ways, therefore we are going to tell you as a scientific fact, not as theory or speculation mind you, that Fossil A had babies that led to Fossil B, then C & D By use of this logical fallacy little children are told that a land beast, ambulocetus, who had rear hooves, is a "Prewhale". Why? Itt had some minor similarities in its ears to that of whales. Cont.
Cont. (This is true for all "transitional" fossils.") There is 0 way to know that they aren't just one of a plethora of dead end extinct fossils. We are told that the zillionsof inbettwen links between them and us are "missing." This is also pseudo science since there is 0 way to know the difference between "missing" & never existed. The case for ape ancestry (& all transitional forms) always depends on the Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation logical fallacy. Cont.
Cont. More theories, with at least an honest admission that there is no evidence, about DNA's supposed formation and the statement that "We don't know for sure."
2:40 "Apes to humans..." There is 0 evidence humans came from apes. There are a paltry few, often fragmentary ape fossils which show some similarities to us. To ever say that they are our ancestors is pseudo science because there is 0 way to know if they ever produced any progeny significantly different from themselves. Cont.
Cont. A red herring changes the true subject in a debate. This student is not being told about the origins of DNA when the M-U experiment is discussed - & is never even told that its "primitive earth conditions" were fictional or that it got materials that can never lead to life - or when miscellaneous armchair theories are presented about RNA. 1:15 "Once you get a molecule that can self replicate...the conditions for natural selection are satisfied." That says 0 about DNA formation. Cnt
0:33 "There is substantial sentiment within the scientific community." "Sentiment" is in the category of the common buzz words found in evolutionary thought, along with "most scientists believe....if...indicates...possibly" where speculation is presented as science and no one ever admits the truth: They don't know how to really answer questions like this studetnt's, though they give the appearance of somehow doing so. There is also the frequent use of the red herring logical fallacy. Cont.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to Odinata & possibly some other evo vid watchdogs who commonly follow me (& others) around YT with personal insults & name caling (even if not in this particular case) I have an ignore list and they know they are on it. I am very happy to debate with those who are civil & objective. However ad hominems & general verbal abuse make true debate impossible and is antithetical to the true purposes of science.
Cont. True science is based on the observable, testable & repeatable. M-U actually snowed that even to make the wrong kind of "building block" for life you need intelligent design. It also opposed the Law of Biogenesis. Something is a Law in science when it is true 100% of times. Biogenesis says life comes from life. This is what has been observed thru history 100% of times. Life coming from inorganic matter, even w/i.d. in a lab (the "synthetic" cell used a living cell) is never seen. Cont.
Cont. Children were told that evidence for abiogenesis, organic matter coming from inorganic matter, had been shown in the lab though the exact opposite occured since the lab produced toxic conditioins for life.. Dataless speculation about what else "could have...might have...must have..." happened in the untestable, unobservable "millions of years ago" was presented as evidence for abiogenesis, as if it was science. Dataless speculation presented as evidence is pseudo science. Cont.
/Cont. The experimenters believed "early earth" had no oxygen & so left it out in the lab. Subsequent studies have shown oxygen is found at all lalyers of the earth's strata. In addition, simply forming a few deadly-to-life amino acids is light years away from creating a living cell - which is as complex as a block of factories. There was no reason for them to say that they were creating life or were anywhere close to it. School textbooks, however, hailed this experiment. Cont.
I am continuing a critical analysis of this presentation begun at 1/9 & last see on 6/9 (2/9 & 7/9 are missing). To start, a student has asked about the origins of DNA. This Q. will never be answered. I am sadly surprised to see the 1950's Miller-Urey experiment (different Miller) brought forth as a possible explanation for how DNA came about. The M-U experiment produced right & left handed amino acids. They would kill life which can only exist with left handed kinds. Cont.
I love the way that Dr. Miller answers the questions of teenagers as if they were adults, and treats them on an equal footing. I would love to have a teacher like him.
This guy has probably voiced the most effective and concise argument for evolution and against Intelligent Design that i've heard... and it would even be persuasive to religious people... and it only has 792 views. What a shame.
@AshNekoBoy You said, in regard to Ken Miller's vd on evo that most religious close their ears and say Jesus la la la. I have been going systematically through his presentation, starting at 1/9 and now am currently on 8/9. I don't mention Yeshua/Jesus, except in reference to something Miller said about Him - and that's very minimal. I generally avoid Scriptures as that turns into a strawman since evo stands or falls on science alone. I'm not saying la la la Jesus. Can you debunk my debunks?
TO ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults and general evasion of Qs posed, i.e. a refusal to truly debate. If anyone wants to ask any of the same Qs they ask I will be happy to respond. However I will only debate where true scientific debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Actually all they did here was point out your ignorance of geologic specifically and the scientific method in general.
The scientific method does not incorporate intangible magic as it's useless.
ABriefHistoryOfTime 3 months ago
@ABriefHistoryOfTime Please see my post below, TO ANYONE. You are now free to leave me strings & strings of posts, like your friend before you, which never answer the Qs I made, and not feel the slightest bit challenged by another point of view. Unless someone actually gets on this string and wants to try to use science & logic & not just flail out with personal insults & vague dataless statements about "science."
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady I've already answered your questions. You are now projecting your inability to debate onto me, given that you weren't even dimly aware of something as basic as tectonic uplift. But you're right, making cheap thinly veiled insinuations and running is probably your best option now
ABriefHistoryOfTime 3 months ago
To be continued on 9/9.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. "if this little planet...was the only place in the universe where that ever happened." Yet there is 0 evidence it ever happened here & all the evidence is in the opposite direction! Somehow it seems we are being asked to juggle all these concepts in our heads: Life came from inorganic matter here tho all the evidence shows it never could or did happen. Life could came from outerspace & be sent here. Tho we could get life here on earth, still we need alien seeding to get started.
Cont
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady 'evidence is in the opposite direction'
Such s?
TheJaredJommer 3 months ago
9:20 Here Miller says something which defies everything ever observed, either in nature or in labs (the so called "synthetic cell" was merely an already living cell that was altered in various ways) and which defies the Law of Biogenesis which says that life always comes from life. "The laws of physics...give what we call inanimate matter...the capacity to become alive." 9:28 "I would be astonished, given the vastness of the universe and the constancy of the laws of physics..." Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady Actually biogenesis only regards modern life and the debunking of it spontaneously arising from non-living medium, Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
TheJaredJommer 3 months ago
Cont. When the co discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, saw its incredible complexity (the words "irreducibly complex" were not yet used) he believed it could not come about by random processes of nature, so decided it must have come via outer space seeding, i.e. aliens did it We are told this is "An intriguing notion." Indirectly this shows the weakness of the faith of many evolutionists in evo, since they are willing to consider strange, evidenceless & often conflicting theories. Cont
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady That's all well and good given that biochemistry and selection are not random processes.
If you actually watch the video you'll notice he points out that directed panspermia is not an answer, that it just puts the origin of life question elsewhere.
TheJaredJommer 3 months ago
Cont. Ironically the student is being handed evidence that goes against evolution. Trilobytes supposedly came from the earliest period of evolution, namely the "Cambrian". There is no reason to assume this is true since the so called Geologic Column, which divides things into Cambrian, Triassic, etc. etc. has never been shown to actually exist anywhere on the planet. Trilobytes are found virtually everywhere including on many mountain tops. 8:58 Panspermia is brought up. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady 'including on many mountain tops'
You might want to learn anything at all about geology. It's known as 'uplift'
TheJaredJommer 3 months ago
8:20 Here is another indirect slam at people who believe that not all is caused by natural forces. "Natural selection...also produced our ability to do science." In this way a contrast is being created between believe in the supernatural and so called (since evolution is itself based on the unsee, i.,e. faith), science. As usual there is a careful politicizing of what is said at the same time so that people who have religious fatih are thrown a bone here & there. Notice the trilobyte. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady That's because science is specifically methodological naturalism whereas the supernatural is useless assertion producing nothing but intangible non-answers.
TheJaredJommer 3 months ago
8:16 "Natural selection, if it produced our ability to fiorm religion..." Much time is spent in evo thought talking about "if...might...must have..." Much time is also spent presenting ideas that not only have no support but have evidence to the contrary of what is being taught. For ex. we are told that thru N.S. we went from apes to man. The actual evidence shows N.S. does not lead to anything higher than speciation. 200 species of bees, for ex., but they are all still bees. Cont..
LoricaLady 5 months ago
7:48 "If you believe in a Creator...Who used natural processes to bring the physical part of our species into existence, why wouldn't that Creator have used the same natural processes to bring the mental part, namely the God module." This isn't the way to do science, speculating about what the Creator might or might not have done. The way to do science is to examine the data. There is no data for a "God module." There is no data for anything the evolutionists are saying. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. "...because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably.) Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." In the preceding quotes we see evolutionary defense being heavily influenced by a prior assumptions and ideology. This helps explain the problems people in Expelled had when they dared to even slightly consider the possibility that there was anything supernatural involved in life on earth. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
A couple of quotes that demonstrate that bias. From Prof. R. Lewontin, a geneticist & prominent evolutionary biologist: "It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to a phenomenal [naturalistic only] world, but on the contrary...materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Todd Scott biologist, 9/99 Nature Magazine: "It should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evoluiton has not disproved God's existence..." Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
7:07 "{...Has argued that our brain ihas a God module..." "Argued" means - no actual data, yet an opportunity to push the notion that only the natural is real & that people who think differently are just duped by their genes: "Religion is nothing more than an artifact of this gene." This is the political agenda behind much evoevangelism. They aren't "just" trying to teach evo, they are trying to squash the very concept that anything but the "natural" is scientific or even sensible. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
6:22 "Natural selection has given us...an inate capacity to accept religious explanations." Once again we are given a lot of armchair speculations presented by an "expert" that have 0 data whatsoever to back them up. It's really just another way of trying to speak dismissively of people who believe in anything supernaturall. In other words the Harvard prof. is saying, "Well, you just have all those peculiar ideas because in my humble & dataless opinion, it helped people survive." Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. You can't date rocks for that length of age either by any known testing methods. The so called Geologic Column, found w/0 disclaimers in text booksm, was a 19th cent. construct based on pure speculation with no real data. Subsequent worldwide digs have not revealed 1 example of it. So, where is the data, the science, for saying that our brains were ever any different in size from what they are now? Nowhere. Speculation presented with no supporting data is not science. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. It's not just presuming to know what kinds of babies they had, it's presuming to know - w/o 1 shred of data - that they had babies whose babies' babies etc. etc. etc. led to us The lack of evidence for this chain is called "missing links."This is not science. You can't claim as fact what there is 0 evidence for. Further there is 0 way to show any fossil was 3 million years old. Even by admission of some evolutionists you can't date fossils based on DNA past say 100,000 years. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
4:31 "The most striking thing about our own evolution is that 1 of our organs increased in size by a factor of 3 in a space of 3 millions years." This is making a statement of fact which is not based on anything testable, observable or repeatable. How do we know the brains of homo sapiens haven't always been the same size that they are now? We do not. Looking at a few extinct, often incomplete, ape remains & declaring they were our ancestors presumes to know what kinds of babies they had. Cnt.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. We see changes in species, as with 200 species of bees. But they are all bees. Leo & Kitty are still cats. In fact there haven't even been any new phyla created since the so called "Cambrian 1st explosion of life". How can things be climbing up Darwin's "Tree of Life" thru natural selection & getting to the top w/o changing their plylum? Another thing - it is impossible to say how NS changed "past common ancestors" when there are only IMAGINED starting points - so 0 baselines. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
2:58 "We and the great apes share a common ancestor in the past". Yet there is 0 evidence for this and 0 way to ever know any such thing since we cannot observe or repeat such "events". Dataless speculation presented as hard core fact is not science. 4:10 "Intense natural selection in our DNA." Tho genes are observed to change as the result of natural selection, there is 0 evidence to show NS can cause completely new strands of DNA,, such as would be needed to turn a fin into a foot, Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. Words like "similary homology" are used and sound scientific but basically boil down to "Well, Fossil A looks like Fossil B in some ways, therefore we are going to tell you as a scientific fact, not as theory or speculation mind you, that Fossil A had babies that led to Fossil B, then C & D By use of this logical fallacy little children are told that a land beast, ambulocetus, who had rear hooves, is a "Prewhale". Why? Itt had some minor similarities in its ears to that of whales. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. (This is true for all "transitional" fossils.") There is 0 way to know that they aren't just one of a plethora of dead end extinct fossils. We are told that the zillionsof inbettwen links between them and us are "missing." This is also pseudo science since there is 0 way to know the difference between "missing" & never existed. The case for ape ancestry (& all transitional forms) always depends on the Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation logical fallacy. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. More theories, with at least an honest admission that there is no evidence, about DNA's supposed formation and the statement that "We don't know for sure."
2:40 "Apes to humans..." There is 0 evidence humans came from apes. There are a paltry few, often fragmentary ape fossils which show some similarities to us. To ever say that they are our ancestors is pseudo science because there is 0 way to know if they ever produced any progeny significantly different from themselves. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. A red herring changes the true subject in a debate. This student is not being told about the origins of DNA when the M-U experiment is discussed - & is never even told that its "primitive earth conditions" were fictional or that it got materials that can never lead to life - or when miscellaneous armchair theories are presented about RNA. 1:15 "Once you get a molecule that can self replicate...the conditions for natural selection are satisfied." That says 0 about DNA formation. Cnt
LoricaLady 5 months ago
0:33 "There is substantial sentiment within the scientific community." "Sentiment" is in the category of the common buzz words found in evolutionary thought, along with "most scientists believe....if...indicates...possibly" where speculation is presented as science and no one ever admits the truth: They don't know how to really answer questions like this studetnt's, though they give the appearance of somehow doing so. There is also the frequent use of the red herring logical fallacy. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to Odinata & possibly some other evo vid watchdogs who commonly follow me (& others) around YT with personal insults & name caling (even if not in this particular case) I have an ignore list and they know they are on it. I am very happy to debate with those who are civil & objective. However ad hominems & general verbal abuse make true debate impossible and is antithetical to the true purposes of science.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Cont. True science is based on the observable, testable & repeatable. M-U actually snowed that even to make the wrong kind of "building block" for life you need intelligent design. It also opposed the Law of Biogenesis. Something is a Law in science when it is true 100% of times. Biogenesis says life comes from life. This is what has been observed thru history 100% of times. Life coming from inorganic matter, even w/i.d. in a lab (the "synthetic" cell used a living cell) is never seen. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady
Evolution is "true science"
Your No True Scotsman Fallacy doesn't fly.
odinata 5 months ago
Cont. Children were told that evidence for abiogenesis, organic matter coming from inorganic matter, had been shown in the lab though the exact opposite occured since the lab produced toxic conditioins for life.. Dataless speculation about what else "could have...might have...must have..." happened in the untestable, unobservable "millions of years ago" was presented as evidence for abiogenesis, as if it was science. Dataless speculation presented as evidence is pseudo science. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/Cont. The experimenters believed "early earth" had no oxygen & so left it out in the lab. Subsequent studies have shown oxygen is found at all lalyers of the earth's strata. In addition, simply forming a few deadly-to-life amino acids is light years away from creating a living cell - which is as complex as a block of factories. There was no reason for them to say that they were creating life or were anywhere close to it. School textbooks, however, hailed this experiment. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
I am continuing a critical analysis of this presentation begun at 1/9 & last see on 6/9 (2/9 & 7/9 are missing). To start, a student has asked about the origins of DNA. This Q. will never be answered. I am sadly surprised to see the 1950's Miller-Urey experiment (different Miller) brought forth as a possible explanation for how DNA came about. The M-U experiment produced right & left handed amino acids. They would kill life which can only exist with left handed kinds. Cont.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
I love the way that Dr. Miller answers the questions of teenagers as if they were adults, and treats them on an equal footing. I would love to have a teacher like him.
vp1981ad 2 years ago
How does the RNA do the coding of the DNA I wonder? How does RNA make a decision to make a change?
animateclay 3 years ago
This guy has probably voiced the most effective and concise argument for evolution and against Intelligent Design that i've heard... and it would even be persuasive to religious people... and it only has 792 views. What a shame.
kelsarhu 3 years ago 14
i dunno most religious do this *fingers in ears* la la la la JESUS la la la
AshNekoBoy 3 years ago 4
@AshNekoBoy You said, in regard to Ken Miller's vd on evo that most religious close their ears and say Jesus la la la. I have been going systematically through his presentation, starting at 1/9 and now am currently on 8/9. I don't mention Yeshua/Jesus, except in reference to something Miller said about Him - and that's very minimal. I generally avoid Scriptures as that turns into a strawman since evo stands or falls on science alone. I'm not saying la la la Jesus. Can you debunk my debunks?
LoricaLady 5 months ago