Mmm before human genitals (sexual reproductive organs) are still immature, do human (or half human, or what you wanna call it) still reproduce asexually because if it didn't, then bye bye human.... Or, by Ken Millers standards, such irreducible complexity's components had different functions before they got incorporated into one complex system. What's the sperm for?
humans were never anywhere remotely close to being the first mammals with sexual reproductive functions. In fact they all inherited these cumlitive traits from many successful generations of ancestors and i repeat MANY generations
irreducible complexity is like someone being shown the answer to 3 to the 871 power and because they can't see how it could be solved in a single stroke they then conclude it has no perfect root
@JEL625 Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. Human reproductive system is so complex, with different reproductive system in man and woman. By comparing to lower life form without offering any pathway of evolution is logical fallacy. Besides, those lower life forms has none of human's complex components such as penis, vagina, sperm, uterus, cervix, etc, Often scientists avoid this subject, but avoiding does not make the problem go away.
@archilles1195 You have preformed either a breath taking act of ignorance or a common act of a creationist lie
If you know anything about mammalian reproduction you know most have a "penis, vagina, sperm, uterus, cervix". Now go educate yourself and maybe you will be able to understand the answer in the video. i suggest studying phylogeny
This video is so stupid, it doesn't deal with what environments would select for random mutations heading towards sex of any kind. It misses the point entirely. What did you have before sex ever occurred, and what mutations headed toward sex, and what kinds of environments would favor such mutations without sex? I love how evillusionists never follow their own theories when they can't demonstrate how their theories apply in a particular scenario. This video doesn't answer the question.
One is Cell Fusion which is when two cells combine and separate, each leaving with a copy of the others DNA. Cell Fusion likely evolved as a defence mechanism. The other is Meiosis which is a particular type of cell division. These did not have to evolve simultaneously.
'what kinds of environments would favor such mutations'
@chillinpotato5 Meiosis is not sexual reproduction. You misunderstood the question (amazing, all bio evo's do) What environments selected mutations toward sex before sex was had? An increase in genetic code occurs after sex. There is not one mutation and then sex. There are likely thousands of mutations that had to have occurred before sex was possible. Describe a mutation toward sex in any Precambrian & the environment that would favor it over it's siblings.
@chillinpotato5 Name the asexual species that could not combine themselves with another, but had a mutation that 'somehow' enabled them to combine their genes. Tell me precisely what mutation(s) occurred within one cell to enable & want it to 'combine' itself with another who also, out of mathematical luck, had the same mutation(s)? Then describe the aspects of the environment that 'selected' these alleged mutations over the status quo asexual population, BEFORE THEY COMBINED.
@chillinpotato5 I post again my question: before human genitals (sexual reproductive organs) are still immature, do human (or half human, or what you wanna call it) still reproduce asexually because if it didn't, then bye bye human.... Or, by Ken Millers standards, such irreducible complexity's components had different functions before they got incorporated into one complex system. What's the sperm for?
...cont diversity and offers a significant added resistance from viruses and disease. Another aspect is sexual attraction, which aids the spread of beneficial traits while removing harmful ones.
'...This video doesn't answer the question.
The answer to this question has been around for decades, all you had to do was look. Might I suggest taking a biology course at your local community college or purchasing a book on evolution. It's really very interesting.
@chillinpotato5 Just as you failed to answer the question, so did the video. I've ready many books on evolution. Not one has described a Precambrian asexual species that mutated toward sex, before sex, & described the environments that preferred such mutations over their healthy asexual siblings. There cannot be 'one' mutation & then have sex.Diversity after sex is not an issue. It's all about mutations before sex, that led to sex.There is no answer.You need faith to believe it.
@chillinpotato5 You're definitely a brain dead parrot merely quoting what you've read or heard someone say. You don't even realize that you don't understand the question poised to you. This is the LAST TIME I'm going to ask you, If you fail to answer, I will not respond to you ever again:
Here is the REQUEST::
Describe factors of the ENVIRONMENT that you allege 'selected' or 'favored' a mutation of an asexual species that headed toward 'sex', BEFORE SEX WAS HAD!
It said in the very beginning that sexual reproduction in human may be irreducable complex. Now I'm confused. If you cannot unfold the mystery of sexual reproduction in humans, then ToE fails by default.
Goo to you by way of the zoo... Or in your case algae to humans in 10 easy steps. Interesting supposition but woefully lacking substantive science.
Lets start at step 1) where you will take me and other observers into a lab of your choice and from raw basic elements produce just one LIVING cell. Then I will give your supposition more consideration.
Do you not consider that just maybe there might be a God behind life?
A living and loving God who wants a relationship with all of us.
we can see how the building blocks to life will form under pre-biotic conditions..we have even found amino acids on asteroids..amino acids are the building blocks to proteins..it's a big puzzle..there are pieces missing, but we get the gist of the whole picture..we don't actually have to witness a cell forming to see how it can occur naturally..it's the same thing when it comes to how planets form..we don't have to see it happen in front of our eyes..given gravity, it's obvious how.
Waaaaait a minute ... I recognize the tune starting at 7:25, and that's NOT from Vivaldi's Four Seasons. That's the Can-Can, from _Orpheus in the Underworld_, by Offenbach!
is funny seeing creationist thinking that the video only describes multiple kinds of sex and not the evolution. You can see the evolution of sex when you put all those kinds of sex together in a time line and then you have it.
you can only "see" it if you force yourself to string a bunch on unlkilky events into a miracle. sex in humans is very bad but when we get to plants it gets even worse, i mean, micropyle and pollen tube!! talk about invoking miracles
What I learned: in America, science and religion are fighting each other. You all need a healthier balance of faith and doubt, not these bullshit Christian/Atheist dogma wars.
One thing is still not clear to me. I asked you, if "Genetic Entropy" conflicts with micro evolution. Maybe I did not get your point, but sry for asking again, because I think this is very important. You answered with "in the contrary" and stated how organisms could survive despite degeneration. But why can we observe micro evolution? So again my question: Does "Genetic Entropy" contradict micro evolution?
@nordic84 "So again my question: Does "Genetic Entropy" contradict micro evolution?" I maintain my answer to be no. The major problem is time here. The amount of mutations, depending on the selective cost and pressures, contribute to the equation as well, but it is in some populations, a cumulative exponential factor. Time, in a grandeur scale, is the greater force of the argument when dealing with micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution.
That would be quite the breakthrough, because if you search the literature (again google scholar: evolution epigenetic) you find that mostly the opposite is the case. Science thrives of opposing ideas and testing existing theories. Thats part of the scientific method.
But you should always remember not to rant. Quality goes over quantity. Make less arguments, but make these bulletproof. :)
@nordic84 "you should always remember not to rant." that was not ranting my friend, ranting and taking the time to elaborate ONE scenario is two different things. "Quality" does go over quantity at times. I just wanted to be clear.
Aside from your ranty attitude you seem to have quite some knowledge in this field. So I wonder why you couldn't picture the transition between internal and external fertilization. Especially because it is one of the lesser complicated phenomenons.
Regarding your Hypothesis... I cant argue much about Epigenetic. So if your Hypothesis is solid, then you should try to get some papers/articles out there. Maybe your are right about Epigenetics posing hindering factors to evolution.
@nordic84 "Aside from your ranty attitude you seem to have quite some knowledge in this field." As odd as that sounds, thank you, i guess.
"I wonder why you couldn't picture the transition between internal and external fertilization." It's not my place to. I don't believe in macroevolution, the primary axiom, common ancestry or descent with modification so why would/should I propose hypothetical transitions if I don't believe that they can/did occur?
@nordic84 "if your Hypothesis is solid, then you should try to get some papers/articles out there. Maybe your are right about Epigenetics posing hindering factors to evolution." You might be right about that my friend. I was actually working on one since last year but I there was a key point that I never came across so I abandoned it. I guess since I'm close to graduating now I'll have more time to address these issues. Thanks for the encouragement. :)
Sadly from now on I'll be quite busy for about a week and till then not be able to respond. I will be back though. But one thing has to be said. I'm not a biologist, i can't give you any proof and I can't give you an answer to everything. (if you want that you will have to read current research papers and articles) However what I wanted to show you is, that just using sound basic knowledge, reason and logic it is possible to explain much.
@nordic84 "Sadly from now on I'll be quite busy for about a week and till then not be able to respond. I will be back though." That's highly unfortunate. I look forward to our debates on the daily. Nonetheless, if you would like to do this without constraints, feel free to pm me. I'd be more than glad to hear from you. Thank you for your time btw.
@nordic84 "Well I don't say that it did happen exactly this way. But it shows that internal fertilization is not irreducible complex" I understand, but since you said you aren't a biologist, or that you can't provide me with any proof that it did happen this way, why should I hold your proposition to be tenable again? Not to belittle your hypothetical proposition, but I only ask out of curiosity.
@progenyofprodigies "I understand, but since you said you aren't a biologist, or that you can't provide me with any proof that it did happen this way, why should I hold your proposition to be tenable again?" I have no proof and I have no evidence. However it shows that the process is not irreducible complex, which was my point. If you think this is macro evolution and therefore not possible, it should be a non issue to you anyway, making it irrelevant.
@nordic84 "However it shows that the process is not irreducible complex, which was my point." Understood, but we don't make rebuttals off of untestable possibilities now do we? At least as it pertains to the flagellum, I believe Miller is the closest person that provides something substantial, yet still virtually unsatisfiable because it is untestable. If he could reproduce it in a lab, THAT my friend, would be science.
@progenyofprodigies "Understood, but we don't make rebuttals off of untestable possibilities now do we?" What is your problem with the transition? Is it illogical to you? Which part is contradicting? Or do you just have problem with the framework?
If something is untestable it's not worth studying it, because you can't make any conclusions? This means every insight out of this is void... hm, sounds quite nihilistic to me.
@nordic84 "What is your problem with the transition?" Are we finally back to external to internal evolution? Is this the transition you're referring to? Or from micro-macro?
@nordic84 "Yes we are." Ahh, glad we've returned to the issue at hand. Now are we talking about the proposition you provided or is there actual literature on this transition? I'd hate to "tear apart" your proposition needlessly; after all, it looks good on paper. ;)
@progenyofprodigies Well my problem with your argumentation is the following: You say XY can't have evolved. The feature A is missing. I explain how it could have worked. Then you said... well the framework does not work either. Its somehow circular. You got to start somewhere. But on the other hand, it is pointless discussing this because the problem you see is already located in the process of evolution.
"The feature A is missing." = Specifically speaking? I don't remember claiming anything was missing besides a good explanation of the how.
"I explain how it could have worked. Then you said... well the framework does not work either. Its somehow circular." = As I'll always admit, "could'ves, should'ves & would'ves" make me feverish.
"You got to start somewhere." = Agreed, if verifiable.
@progenyofprodigies "As I'll always admit, "could'ves, should'ves & would'ves" make me feverish." Well I do think that science will never be able to present PROVE for every transition. Out of this, would you already conclude that evolution is invalid?
"I don't remember claiming anything was missing besides a good explanation of the how." Sry, i didn't mean the feature but the transition. (that was a "slip of the pen")
@nordic84 Excuse me for the delay in response, I haven't had internet for a while.
"Out of this, would you already conclude that evolution is invalid?" Not at all, finding transitional fossils is and never has been my argument. I'll readily admit that idk enough about fossils to argue for or against them. My argument, as it seems you understand it to be, is indeed the process of achieving change from micro to macro.
@nordic84 "it is pointless discussing this because the problem you see is already located in the process of evolution." - and how it's mechanisms are incapable of maintaining genomic integrity for thousands and thousands of years? Correct. I tell you, the arguments and facts against evolution in light of genetics doesn't look to healthy for its future in Genetic Entropy.
@nordic84 "If something is untestable it's not worth studying it, because you can't make any conclusions? This means every insight out of this is void... hm, sounds quite nihilistic to me." Haha on the contrary, now may I ask, since I'm willing to study a viewpoint that I don't uphold personally, do you find it worth studying anything as it relates to ID? Because the majority of the scientific community doesn't. And how are you using nihilism to refer to me btw?
@nordic84 "Nope, because there the supernatural comes into the scheme." Only by admission of course. Seems to me like you believe creationism and ID are one and the same. Granted, God can be inserted into the data of ID because the entity of the creator is virtually unknown and is irreducible, but does it mean that it is? Not exactly, some can just as easily corroborate it with ET as the intelligent designer. Either way, I agree, it would be jumping to conclusions. :)
@progenyofprodigies Nihilism as well as Theism states an initial assumption, which is unknowable. Whether you say "there is no truth" or "god did it" does not matter. It has the same effect: It ceases the process of looking for answers (research). For me the existence of god does not depend on the validity of evolution. That would be very childish.
@nordic84 "It has the same effect: It ceases the process of looking for answers (research)." haha considering that I LOVE science and research, I would be your antithesis. I'll give you the possibility that it MAY foster that attitude, but that is for the lethargic in thought. I like to seek the hows just as much as the next evolutionist.
"the existence of god does not depend on the validity of evolution." agreed, no one said it did so???
Evolving from external to internal fertilization. Think about sea-life.
1 They just spray their gametes into the water when near each other
2 The intensity of the female gamete release is gradually decreased, this requires the male to be more accurate, but is also more efficient than spraying everything all over the place.
3 This continues till the female gametes stay near where they are released. (eg. amphibians)
Now that we got that out of the way. "Does fertilization need to occur internally?" hehe let's go about this one with pure logic and say, semen can't exactly have a long "lifespan" outside of the body when exposed to the elements, and the eggs? Oh yes, we're going to extract them somehow from every female and mix them in a petri dish and watch that baby grow big and strong even though it would be absent of its nutrition supply.
@progenyofprodigies Don't you see, you are thinking the wrong way around. If you got a set of features on an organism (e.g. A,B,C ...) In some cases they depend on another feature to be there first. I.e. you can arrange some features in a sequence C -> A -> Y. Now if you only see all the features as they are today (A,B,C...) and take away one (for example C) It's very likely that the organism doesn't function properly anymore.
@nordic84 "Now if you only see all the features as they are today...It's very likely that the organism doesn't function properly anymore." Good observation my friend. The whole argument of IC in a nutshell is pretty much what you've provided. The thing is, these "features" you speak of, as it relates to x-reproduction, are more or less, interdependent. This video would be GREAT if it could actually show how "C -> A -> Y" came about...but it doesn't, well not step by step at least.
@progenyofprodigies "This video would be GREAT if it could actually show how "C -> A -> Y" came about...but it doesn't, well not step by step at least." Well i find the last section of the video displaying the 10 steps of the evolution quite good. The only step which is not very detailed is the last one with internal gestation showing the female anatomy. I'm not a Biologist but I think this would have developed far earlier with monotreme mammals as intermediate step.
@nordic84 "Well i find the last section of the video displaying the 10 steps of the evolution quite good." hehe well, i would've eventually gotten around to it if you didn't answer these last few posts. You should probably go back to the sequel of my previous posts where I address the first three questions. To start off though, the 1st step is based on an invalid premise. "Start with a single-celled, single-sex organism capable of cell fusion and meiosis."
@progenyofprodigies Needless to say, the "start" has two factors that are granted, no evolutionary steps to get to those two factors were explained, not even in brief. What he called "fluff" is essential to mention because even these require explanation. Secondly, these changes that are supposedly "selected for" may or may not be. The proof that they are/were selected for is what exactly? That these factors exist today therefore they must've been?
@progenyofprodigies Thirdly, just exactly how familiar are you with genetics and epigenetics? Because, if we want to deal with hypothetical situations, how would you prove that epigenetics wasn't a hindering factor to any individual "beneficial" mutation? Answer without assumptions if you can.
@nordic84 "Even if its a hindering factor... that means the evolutionary process is slowed down." Allow me to play out the whole hypothetical scenario. Let's say that the genes to produce the flagellum of the spermatozoon evolved, but the environment wasn't conducive to it spinning at a rate less than 10,000 rpm (which is actually the case to avoid the disorienting effects of Brownian motion, it's a min. req.); epigenetics simply makes genes selectable or not, let's say for this generation...
@progenyofprodigies Cont.: it made the factors that are responsible for the flagellum's rotary speed, un-selectable. Thus, for at least this generation, even with a fully functional flagellum, simply rotating at the wrong speed becomes a factor that makes it unselected for (not the whole flagellum, just its speed). Being that the environment for sperm is relatively unchangeable, the control genes for speed of rotation, are unselected for making them just as beneficial as spermatium.
@progenyofprodigies Hm, when you look at the gradual evolution steps of the flagellum, I don't think that the rotation speed could be possibly decoupled from that, because it appears quite early. Saying the evolution of the flagellum and the speed it rotates are not orthogonal.
Also the "Environment" is changing... well at least if you look at it on a bigger timescale. Just think of water... external/internal.
@nordic84 "I don't think that the rotation speed could be possibly decoupled from that, because it appears quite early." Glad you realize this, my proposed scenario was merely hypothetical, but if you want to deal with the facts, you have merely placed the rotation problem at the forefront of the evolution rather than later as in my scenario. Congratulations.
"the "Environment" is changing" the environment i'm referring to is where semen is stored and its route to ejaculation.
@progenyofprodigies Cont.: Now due to the fact that sperm need a means of motility to reach its destination, with this situation as a seemingly perpetual hindrance, it is not a case of slowing down. In this case, it is a strong halt to reproduction. You need the sperm and egg to come in contact, period. So in this scenario, you have the environment working against you. Just so you know, speed is a major factor for the flagellum, anything less than what I've stated is inefficient.
@progenyofprodigies I think in your thinking you to much restricted by the structure of the female genitalia as they are today. Apply you statement to some predecessors of apes and ask your questions again.
If the female genitalia would render reproduction useless... well, then those exemplars would definitely reproduced quite badly and the features would not have been selected. ;)
@nordic84 "Apply you statement to some predecessors of apes and ask your questions again." I'm sorry, whether the distance the sperm has to travel to reach the egg is a 10th of a centimeter or 10 miles is irrelevant when we're dealing with a spermatium. Movement is required, period. The female genitalia is not the issue, distance is the factor.
@progenyofprodigies If the rotation of the flagellum would not be sufficient, then this change would not have been established in that environment. I just don't get were your heading, thats no statement about all environments. And when you look at the evolution of the flagellum (use google schoolar: "evolution flagellum") you can see that even the slightest spin can be an advantage.
@nordic84 "If the rotation of the flagellum would not be sufficient, then this change would not have been established in that environment." That is precisely the point. The change would not only have been established, it wouldn't have been selected for in the first place. The slightest spin for the purpose of motility would NEED to be selected for, but the min. req. is 10,000 rpm. Evolution works by gradual change, one does not evolve the ability to go from 1 - 10,000 rpm in one mutation.
@progenyofprodigies I'm not quite sure if I got your message right (I'm no native English speaker).But I'll try anyway.
"The proof that they are/were selected for is what exactly? That these factors exist today therefore they must've been?"
Well yes, some of these changes date back for ages and ages. Eg if you look at other species which dont feature some of these changes, for them they didn't provide any benefit (or not enough) and therefore the changes could not prevail. It's just that simple.
@nordic84 "I'm no native English speaker" I must say you do well then.
"Well yes, some of these changes date back for ages and ages." It's unfortunate that you answered so, now you have to battle your out of saying how this is not a classic example of circular reasoning. Do you have evidence independent of what you see in existence now to prove that they were selected for? Because as it stands, your position is just as good as saying God created too because I see it today.
@progenyofprodigies "Do you have evidence independent of what you see in existence now to prove that they were selected for?"
Yes, the mechanism of mutation, benefit and survival of the fittest. The features surely don't date back to the origin of life and they surely did not just pop into existance from one generation to the other. And if they were not selected for, from where did they come?
@nordic84 "Yes, the mechanism of mutation, benefit and survival of the fittest."
Ahh, one cannot simply appeal to mechanisms without actually showing the details of how the mechanism fulfilled the end product.
"if they were not selected for, from where did they come?" I don't propose to know how they got there, on the other hand, evolution claims it does; hence my questioning.
@progenyofprodigies I hope i got your message right. But I can't see the circularity. Features we see today are no evidence for evolution. But if we look back at the fossil records or experiments with bacteria, or the phylogenetic tree and sorts... these are evidence for the process of evolution.
@nordic84 "I hope i got your message right. But I can't see the circularity. Features we see today are no evidence for evolution." I think you might've accidentally said yes before to my question without really understanding me, because this stands as a contradiction to what you said yes to. I concur with your last quoted sentence, but that's the question I asked that you said yes to before.
"if we look back at the fossil records or experiments with bacteria" which experiments exactly?
@progenyofprodigies The premise for the first step is established in some other videos of CDK like the origin of life/the genetic code/sexual reproduction. The links to most of these videos are contained in this video.
@nordic84 "The premise for the first step is established in some other videos of CDK like the origin of life/the genetic code/sexual reproduction." If that's the case, I won't bother you about them here. I'll find them, and if you so choose to engage in a conversation with me on those videos, the option is yours.
@progenyofprodigies "if you so choose to engage in a conversation with me on those videos, the option is yours."
Well the discussion with you is fun. However you see where this is heading. The amount of text and the number of comments increases with every reply. And the cha racter limit really sucks. Maybe I prefer to end this discussion first before opening up 1000 topics over which to argue.
@nordic84 "Well the discussion with you is fun." And it has been a pleasure to mentally duel with you. We can always privately message each other where there is no character limit if you'd like as well. :)
@progenyofprodigies part 2 of my answer: Now take for example internal fertilization (A) and Sperms which are not protected against the elements (B). B is indeed a feature because sperms without protection are much "cheaper", thus the organism can produce more sperm with less effort. So the sequence here would be A->B. Because vulnerable sperms make no sense without internal fertilization. The video clearly shows an example where a species didn't feature neither A or B.
@nordic84 "for example internal fertilization (A)...Sperms which are not protected against the elements (B)" This would be all well and dandy, but your B is a factor among many that is dependent on your (A). Take for instance a spermatium vs a spermatozoon in reference to (A). Whether or not the evolution of the flagellum can be mapped out is irrelevant when it is the only means of mobility for sperm. Time is not on it's side to achieve your (A).
@progenyofprodigies "B is a factor among many that is dependent on your (A)" Thats exactly what i wrote, plz try to read more carefully: "So the sequence here would be A->B. Because vulnerable sperms make no sense without internal fertilization."
@progenyofprodigies part 3: But species which featured internal fertilization had much more advantages on land. If external fertilization is even possible on land... i don't know. E.g. amphibians still go into the water for external fertilization.
So I hope this answers your question. :)
You just can't take away a precondition and wonder why it doesn't make sense anymore. ;)
@nordic84 "species which featured internal fertilization had much more advantages on land" ahhh yes, and i would love to see the transitional steps from internal to external fertilization. What a beauty that would be, wouldn't you agree?
"You just can't take away a precondition and wonder why it doesn't make sense anymore. ;)" On the contrary, that's how some fundamental questions are formed. It only gets more complex when taken down to the level of individual cells.
@progenyofprodigies "i would love to see the transitional steps from internal to external fertilization" That makes absolutely no sense. External fertilization was prior because its simpler. Just think of the sea-life.
"It only gets more complex when taken down to the level of individual cells." How is that related to my post about the dependence of features? (A -> B)
@nordic84 "External fertilization was prior because its simpler." Does that rationalization comes along due to the ideology that everything simple MUST come before complexity? Whether it's external to internal or vice versa, the video still didn't mention the transitional steps of either condition.
"How is that related to my post about the dependence of features?" Would you like to discuss hormones and receptors w/ receptor sites now or later? That could be a B to your A as well.
@progenyofprodigies Well, thanks for accusing me of rationalization. What do you mean with "come"? Aren't we speaking of EVOLVING? The thing is, that it's just very unlikely in this case. Because to actually evolve something complex it requires a benefit from the smallest gradual steps. Unless the Environment or something else has changed its unlikely to devolve such a change.
@nordic84 "What do you mean with "come"?" Rephrase: MUST be present. Better?
"The thing is, that it's just very unlikely in this case." Is that the best you got for me boss? Very unlikely? Evolution is held to be the master of overcoming improbabilities with the most minute possibilities with gradual steps.
"Because to actually evolve something complex it requires a benefit from the smallest gradual steps." I highly concur, so do you possess the knowledge of the evolution of ext. to int. fert?
@nordic84 "Improbabilities? Which ones exactly?" The same one you call "very unlikely." If you haven't read Genetic Entropy yet, I highly recommend it. The problem of the signal-to-noise ratio/heritability is one that is overlooked. In a nutshell, it deals with what makes a single trait (or group of traits, the signal) selectable or not, where noise is what would interfere with the selection pressure for the individual trait in question. When applied to the genome, noise shadows nucleotides.
@progenyofprodigies I did not read the book you posted, but it seems quite interesting according to the Internet discussion it triggered. It seems a bit controversial. You can observe speciation and micro evolution today. Breeding is just evolution, but the natural selection (through death) is exchanged by manual selection (through man, which also makes it much faster). How long has man existed, if we didn't evolve from "extinct species" of the genus Homo? Why didn't we degenerate already?
@nordic84 "You can observe speciation and micro evolution today." Agreed, I do believe that BOTH speciation and micro-evolution do occur, I simply don't extrapolate that evidence to believe that macro-evolution occurs.
"How long has man existed, if we didn't evolve from "extinct species" of the genus Homo? Why didn't we degenerate already?"
You'll needlessly enter into a beliefs argument if I answer the first question. Why we haven't degenerated on the other hand is a more interesting question
@nordic84 Cont. I'd like to pose you the same question in light of the various kinds of mutations that occur at the genomic level. Factoring in mitochondrial mutations and nucleotide substitution rates alone should halt any form of progression if we have lived for the proposed amount of time that evolution claims; granted this is WITH the assumption that these rates have been constant. OTH, we're not even factoring the other kind of deleterious mutations that can and do occur.
@nordic84 Cont.: So what is the proposed mechanism by which evolution would preserve the genome's integrity by eliminating the amount of deleterious mutations while leaving enough viable offspring to continue its process of "descent with modification?" Answer at will. This is why I highly recommend that book. ;)
@nordic84 On the contrary, time is the major factor here. The argument is thus: the current rate that these mutations occur can not be reconciled with the proposed amount of time man has been said to live while factoring in the death(by any cause)/reproduction ratio. We should, in theory, be dead 100 times over. If we lived for thousands of thousands of years, we very well should be. Thus it is easier to believe that we weren't here for thousands of years in light of this fact.
@nordic84 As it pertains to micro-evolution, we have to consider the cost factor of the population and the amount of deleterious mutations that population can afford to still reproduce exponentially. In general, most plants can sustain a 99% elimination of their population due to the fact that the reproduction rate compensates for it. Humans on the other hand are not so lucky.
@progenyofprodigies Isn't the the gradual evolution from external to internal fertilization quite obvious? At least if you know how the evolutional process and natural selection work. However, right now I'm quite tired and will go to bed... I'll respond to the rest soon. I'll also post a possible gradual transition from external to internal.
@progenyofprodigies "That could be a B to your A as well." Isn't that just fine? Everything I wanted to point out in the first place was to show you, that you cant just remove a premise and wonder why it does not make sense anymore.
@nordic84 "Everything I wanted to point out in the first place was to show you, that you cant just remove a premise and wonder why it does not make sense anymore." All I wanted to show you is that that's what spark questions, that's what sparks the whys which eventually lead to hows with scientific evidence to back it up.
"Isn't that just fine?"
Of course, if you have an evolutionary pathway to achieve it.
@nordic84 I'd like to think there is an evolutionary pathway for every single hand and glove relationship that currently exists today in and outside of the human body, but no, I don't think there is. Not when it comes to hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites, symbiotic relationships among all kinds of organisms. To believe that a min. of two mutations (which is a grave understatement) would have evolved to achieve compatibility among so many relationships is unwarranted.
@progenyofprodigies I think "hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites" are fundamental requirements for complex lifeforms. So I would expect that basic forms of them did already "appear" in the Cambrian Period. I'm intentionally saying appear, because I can't explain how they could evolve. But if we would assume that they somehow "happened", do you think that current lifeforms could have evolved from the lifeforms of the Cambrian explosion? In my youth I did collect fossils.
@nordic84 "I think "hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites" are fundamental requirements for complex lifeforms." Granted, being that they are "required" , how do you propose that some of these organisms survive without their counterpart in the eyes of evolution? What is a hormone w/o a receptor cite?
"I'm intentionally saying appear, because I can't explain how they could evolve." I appreciate the honesty.
"do you think that current lifeforms" - I don't believe in macroevo.
@progenyofprodigies "Granted, being that they are "required" , how do you propose that some of these organisms survive without their counterpart in the eyes of evolution?" Did I claim that? I said, I don't know how it evolved. I don't think, that one component evolved without the other. I said assume that e.g. the hormone system is already there (regardless of its origin). If you use Google Scholar there are several Approaches which try to explain the origin of hormones/receptors.
@nordic84 "Did I claim that?" It's inferred in your ideology if you believe in evolution is it not? Whether you know how they evolved is not the question. One can not argue that all of these relationships initially evolved together, thus they have to conclude that they evolved separately, possibly at dif. time intervals, and just happened to become codependent. That is what one would have to believe with descent w/ modification or some version of it.
@nordic84 "I said assume that e.g. the hormone system is already there (regardless of its origin)." I'm afraid I can't, evolution is supposed to explain how it originated without assumptions, and i'm supposed to be able to take it into a lab, test the theory, and have the experiment be reproducible. If I start with assumptions, how different is that than a faith based assumption? You'd be putting evolution on the same pedestal and being biased to other propositions if I have to "assume no?
@progenyofprodigies Hm, your missing my point. Evolution is not supposed to explain everything. It explains the diversity of life. It sets up the framework. If there are questions about a specific feature and how it could have evolved it's the task of scientists to figure it out. Just because I don't know how it happened doesn't disprove evolution. If evolution really is impossible it will be discovered eventually.
@nordic84 "If there are questions about a specific feature and how it could have evolved it's the task of scientists to figure it out." I absolutely concur, and this is exactly where that if they can't figure it out, they should be honest enough to admit that evolution is falsifiable/has been falsified. While you say it isn't supposed to explain everything, it shouldn't leave things in the dark either.
@progenyofprodigies "While you say it isn't supposed to explain everything, it shouldn't leave things in the dark either." Please don't confuse evolution with science in general. And I don't think science is anti-theistic. Science does not try to disprove god. Science has no agenda, it tries to explain the world. I don't think that any scientist would deny the truth just to keep up evolution. But they should not jump to conclusions either, just because it can't explain everything yet.
@nordic84 "they should not jump to conclusions either, just because it can't explain everything yet." Agreed. I would thumbs up this comment if I could.
"Please don't confuse evolution with science in general." Some would have others believe that there is no science outside of evolution. Regardless, I still believe that there are areas that evolution can't afford to leave us in the dark in. If there is something that evolution can't produce, then it is verily falsified.
@progenyofprodigies "If I start with assumptions, how different is that than a faith based assumption?" This assumption was of rhetorical nature. If X would be true, would you think that Y is possible. But you turned it down anyways, because you think evolution over a bigger period of time is impossible. Thats what I wanted to hear.
@progenyofprodigies Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a vast period of time. Sure there are some interesting questions how some features could have evolved. But just because we can't explain all of them right now I would not jump to the conclusion that macro evolution is impossible.
@nordic84 "Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a vast period of time." I'm quite aware of the fact that that's what one would want me to believe if they were an evolutionist, but I'm afraid I can't take/experiment/reproduce that experiment of macro-evo in a lab. We will see speciation and micro-evo time and time again, granted, but when will it be macro's turn if the data is not extrapolated?
@progenyofprodigies Is your argument against macro-evolution really that "I can't take/experiment/reproduce that experiment of macro-evo in a lab" If you wait for 1000 times you lifetime you will experience more variety. For me there is no micro and macro... evolution is not discrete its continuous. What is your real doubt in macro evolution? Is it the "Genetic Entropy" argument?
@nordic84 "What is your real doubt in macro evolution? Is it the "Genetic Entropy" argument?" Genetics plays a fundamental role in evolution, thus usually it sometimes is my strongest rebuttal against it. I can also, as I have in the first comments to this video, appeal logically to anatomy. I can appeal to the insufficiency of N.S. or the proposed mechanisms to get organism A to organism B. My real doubt in macro-evolution is that I can't see it happen. Science tests the now, not the future.
@progenyofprodigies I was very fascinated by the differences to the lifeforms we see today. But if evolution can't work, this does mean, that all those arthropods (and the like) were just a dead end path of life. They somehow were created and then degenerated till extinction. What about the fossils we believe to be successors of these "animals", and if its only a small change in their appearance. They could not have evolved, so were all those "related" species also created?
@nordic84 "What about the fossils we believe to be successors of these "animals", and if its only a small change in their appearance. They could not have evolved, so were all those "related" species also created?" If you're referring to what you hold to be the "successors," I'd be inclined to say yes, but as I've mentioned before, I believe in micro-evolution and speciation.
@progenyofprodigies There is a broad variation eg. in the fossils of trilobites. You can create a quite detailed tree of life according to anatomic resemblance. Do you believe in creation? Do you think god created these patterns we can observe in the fossils? Why? Why even create these life forms which are long extinct? How old do you think our planet is? If you think earth is 6000 years old, then evolution can't explain what we see today. Evolution on this scale takes millions of years.
@nordic84 "You can create a quite detailed tree of life according to anatomic resemblance." I concur, is this evidence of common ancestry though? In other words, would one who had no notion of evolution have any inclination to make a tree of life by anatomic resemblance w/o the ideology of descent w/ modification? Despite this, do you believe that the more similarities shared is evidence of common descent?
@progenyofprodigies "Despite this, do you believe that the more similarities shared is evidence of common descent?" Sure. If the anatomic tree of life matches the microbiological, physiological and genetic one, this is surely evidence. Do you think birds evolved from reptiles? Birds have inactive genes for teeth. Do you think Whales evolved from mammals? They still have genes for legs. If they have no common ancestor, why these genetic similarities.
@nordic84 "If they have no common ancestor, why these genetic similarities." Despite the period, I know it is a question and answer it thus: How consistent is the pathway to verify that these genetic similarities are indeed due to common ancestry? We find organisms with anatomical, behavioral, social, even life-style similarities where the developmental pathway is profoundly different.
@nordic84 "Do you believe in creation?" Now you're going off off on a tangent. We're not even talking about sexual reproduction anymore. If you still want to talk about this subject, we can openly do it here. If you want to discuss all the questions you just asked me, I'd happily discuss them in private. Why would you question me on these points on a video about "the evolution of sexual reproduction?" I have my rebuttals to this video, question those at will.
@progenyofprodigies We shifted of the topic of the origin of sex long ago. I tried to explain the development, but you brought up eg. epigenetics and hormones two weeks ago, moving the discussion to a more general viewpoint of evolution.
If evolution really doesn't work, if life did not evolve. How did it come to existence? Do you know any scientific alternatives? I don't. Maybe this is because evolution does fit. Even if it's not perfect and we can't explain everything yet...
@nordic84 "How did it come to existence?" Ahh, some evolutionists will tell me time and time again, that evolution has nothing to do with how life originated, evolution only takes place AFTER the fact. Are you proposing that they have a hand and glove relationship? Just so you know, I don't believe in abiogenesis either.
@nordic84 Cont.: I do not claim to know how God did it nor can I give you a possible explanation that you can verify in a lab, the difference is, I won't go preach my belief system or impose it on others. I like to openly converse on what I believe and to share the knowledge that I know if it leads them to seeing other opportunities.
@nordic84 "If evolution really is impossible, what other options are there but to say: "God did it"?" And this is why science is science. It is not necessary to appeal to unknowns, but what of what we do know? I've been studying cases from design from various sources now, and as far as I know, as it pertains to information, it can only be produced by intelligence. Programs do not self-originate and neither do lines of code.
@progenyofprodigies But then we would not be discussing science anymore, but believe and thats nothing I can argue against. So the discussion would end there.
In my opinion symbiotic relations can be explained by evolution quite easily. If the behavior is intrinsic/instinctive and offers a benefit it could be selected eventually. Of course this does not happen spontaneously within one generation (Like everything in evolution. It takes ages to propagate.)
@nordic84 "If the behavior is intrinsic/instinctive and offers a benefit it could be selected eventually." Let's go about this rationally here. Natural selection, as so often trumpeted, has no foresight. It does and can not, look at or judge behaviors to be selected for. Behaviors are usually related to whys. So why is that Melipona bees are essential for the pollination of the tlilxochitl vine that produces the vanilla orchid?
@progenyofprodigies "Natural selection, as so often trumpeted, has no foresight. It does and can not, look at or judge behaviors to be selected for." I was speaking of hard wired instincts. These are inherited and therefore can be selected. If something offers a benefit, these organisms are likely to live longer, reproducing more often.
@nordic84 "I was speaking of hard wired instincts...If something offers a benefit, these organisms are likely to live longer, reproducing more often." Splendid, now let's put your theory to the test now and pick a symbiotic relationship that would attest to it. Your proposition, so your choice, I'll do my own research and follow along.
@progenyofprodigies Ok, what about pilot fish, intestinal flora or false clownfish. I don't see any problems with that. Even if the behavior might not be instinctive. But what is the point of even discussing this, if you reject evolution on bigger timescales anyway. These sorts of behavior is only possible though coevolution. Which can't be tested in the lab. (can you see the nihilism?)
@nordic84 My friend, we're fleeing from our original topic and we'll continue to do so if I continue to entertain all of your comments. With that being said, it's a pleasure to have you back. :)
Yay!!! I should make this my anniversary page. A whole week and no response? Let's see how long it lasts while we continue to poke holes in this video. :) Before I continue to do so though, I wanted to point out a major mistake in your intro. "Let's remove 1 component at a time and see if an example exists w/o it." Major problem with this is there is no show of evolutionary steps in any plausible sequence. It's NOT enough to find an example, you have to build the evolutionary line as well.
First, allow me to add assault to injury and use your own words here in reference to the uterus. "Internal gestation is CONFINED to mammals..." Wait, what? Humans = mammals, therefore internal gestation must be CONFINED to humans too? Well what a concept. Thank goodness we're not mammals that lay eggs or we would probably be a good candidate to disprove nested hierarchies via common ancestry huh?
So I gave this video 48 hrs. to which no one has yet to reply to my comments. I can take that to mean that I have valid arguments and at least, your first 3 points are refuted or at the minimum, I got a few people to rethink on your video here and the weak arguments you (cdk007) have presented thus far. I don't plan to rest here so let's do more damage shall we? :) Feel free to correct me or put me in my place at anytime.
Whew, after that little argument this comment section got quiet, and I still haven't found anyone to answer my questions even reasonably to my q's. 007, I'm afraid you're gonna have to come out and throw some bowls. I was expecting a little more fun and challenge. *shrugs* oh well, let's carry on! Already challenged the need for compatible genitals and splash pregos so let's go with: does the female need a uterus.
@progenyofprodigies Well let's look at the functions shall we? According to wiki, "the uterus provides structural integrity and support to the bladder, bowel, pelvic bones and organs." So without it structural integrity and support would be compromised? That's what wiki said.
@progenyofprodigies What else does it do? Let's ask wiki: "The uterus is ESSENTIAL in sexual response by directing blood flow to the pelvis and to the external genitalia, including the ovaries, vagina, labia, and clitoris." What? You mean it plays a part in arousal? "The uterus is NEEDED for uterine orgasm to occur." Bummer, that is what wiki said. Well, there goes the enjoyment part for women w/o a uterus. Sorry ladies, maybe next mutation. :)
@progenyofprodigies Do you have anything else to say wiki? "The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube. It then becomes implanted into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose." What? and you're saying the uterus is the ONLY thing in my body that has an endometrium so that a fertilized ovum could implant itself to? Bummer...
Mmm before human genitals (sexual reproductive organs) are still immature, do human (or half human, or what you wanna call it) still reproduce asexually because if it didn't, then bye bye human.... Or, by Ken Millers standards, such irreducible complexity's components had different functions before they got incorporated into one complex system. What's the sperm for?
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
@2:02 He said "Human sexual reproduction may be irreducible complexity"..... LOL and then moved on with the evolution of sex so stories.
archilles1195 3 weeks ago
@archilles1195 irreducibly complex =/= unable to evolve.
This is why that arguement falls flat on its face.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 2 days ago
@IKillBabyKittensLOL actually the system isn't even irreducibly complex.
humans were never anywhere remotely close to being the first mammals with sexual reproductive functions. In fact they all inherited these cumlitive traits from many successful generations of ancestors and i repeat MANY generations
irreducible complexity is like someone being shown the answer to 3 to the 871 power and because they can't see how it could be solved in a single stroke they then conclude it has no perfect root
JEL625 2 days ago
Comment removed
archilles1195 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JEL625 Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. Human reproductive system is so complex, with different reproductive system in man and woman. By comparing to lower life form without offering any pathway of evolution is logical fallacy. Besides, those lower life forms has none of human's complex components such as penis, vagina, sperm, uterus, cervix, etc, Often scientists avoid this subject, but avoiding does not make the problem go away.
archilles1195 2 days ago
@archilles1195 You have preformed either a breath taking act of ignorance or a common act of a creationist lie
If you know anything about mammalian reproduction you know most have a "penis, vagina, sperm, uterus, cervix". Now go educate yourself and maybe you will be able to understand the answer in the video. i suggest studying phylogeny
JEL625 2 days ago
This video is so stupid, it doesn't deal with what environments would select for random mutations heading towards sex of any kind. It misses the point entirely. What did you have before sex ever occurred, and what mutations headed toward sex, and what kinds of environments would favor such mutations without sex? I love how evillusionists never follow their own theories when they can't demonstrate how their theories apply in a particular scenario. This video doesn't answer the question.
TroddinSod 1 month ago
@TroddinSod
'What did you have before sex ever occurred'
Asexual Reproduction
'what mutations headed toward sex'
One is Cell Fusion which is when two cells combine and separate, each leaving with a copy of the others DNA. Cell Fusion likely evolved as a defence mechanism. The other is Meiosis which is a particular type of cell division. These did not have to evolve simultaneously.
'what kinds of environments would favor such mutations'
Sexual reproduction increases genetic cont...
chillinpotato5 1 month ago
@chillinpotato5 Meiosis is not sexual reproduction. You misunderstood the question (amazing, all bio evo's do) What environments selected mutations toward sex before sex was had? An increase in genetic code occurs after sex. There is not one mutation and then sex. There are likely thousands of mutations that had to have occurred before sex was possible. Describe a mutation toward sex in any Precambrian & the environment that would favor it over it's siblings.
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@chillinpotato5 Name the asexual species that could not combine themselves with another, but had a mutation that 'somehow' enabled them to combine their genes. Tell me precisely what mutation(s) occurred within one cell to enable & want it to 'combine' itself with another who also, out of mathematical luck, had the same mutation(s)? Then describe the aspects of the environment that 'selected' these alleged mutations over the status quo asexual population, BEFORE THEY COMBINED.
TroddinSod 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chillinpotato5 I post again my question: before human genitals (sexual reproductive organs) are still immature, do human (or half human, or what you wanna call it) still reproduce asexually because if it didn't, then bye bye human.... Or, by Ken Millers standards, such irreducible complexity's components had different functions before they got incorporated into one complex system. What's the sperm for?
archilles1195 2 days ago
@TroddinSod
...cont diversity and offers a significant added resistance from viruses and disease. Another aspect is sexual attraction, which aids the spread of beneficial traits while removing harmful ones.
'...This video doesn't answer the question.
The answer to this question has been around for decades, all you had to do was look. Might I suggest taking a biology course at your local community college or purchasing a book on evolution. It's really very interesting.
chillinpotato5 1 month ago
@chillinpotato5 Just as you failed to answer the question, so did the video. I've ready many books on evolution. Not one has described a Precambrian asexual species that mutated toward sex, before sex, & described the environments that preferred such mutations over their healthy asexual siblings. There cannot be 'one' mutation & then have sex.Diversity after sex is not an issue. It's all about mutations before sex, that led to sex.There is no answer.You need faith to believe it.
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@chillinpotato5 You're definitely a brain dead parrot merely quoting what you've read or heard someone say. You don't even realize that you don't understand the question poised to you. This is the LAST TIME I'm going to ask you, If you fail to answer, I will not respond to you ever again:
Here is the REQUEST::
Describe factors of the ENVIRONMENT that you allege 'selected' or 'favored' a mutation of an asexual species that headed toward 'sex', BEFORE SEX WAS HAD!
TroddinSod 3 weeks ago
"Human sexual reproduction may be irreducible complexity" at 2:03
LOL. Failed statement to begin with. So, no use of proving anything beyond 2:03.
hisham031170 1 month ago
fantastic x
GGTopGuitarist 1 month ago
Sex and the Can-Can. I love it!!!! XD
advance600 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It said in the very beginning that sexual reproduction in human may be irreducable complex. Now I'm confused. If you cannot unfold the mystery of sexual reproduction in humans, then ToE fails by default.
archilles1195 4 months ago
Goo to you by way of the zoo... Or in your case algae to humans in 10 easy steps. Interesting supposition but woefully lacking substantive science.
Lets start at step 1) where you will take me and other observers into a lab of your choice and from raw basic elements produce just one LIVING cell. Then I will give your supposition more consideration.
Do you not consider that just maybe there might be a God behind life?
A living and loving God who wants a relationship with all of us.
wa4aos 5 months ago
@wa4aos
Do you not consider that maybe God is unnecessary in the equation of life?
imarchello 4 months ago
@wa4aos
we can see how the building blocks to life will form under pre-biotic conditions..we have even found amino acids on asteroids..amino acids are the building blocks to proteins..it's a big puzzle..there are pieces missing, but we get the gist of the whole picture..we don't actually have to witness a cell forming to see how it can occur naturally..it's the same thing when it comes to how planets form..we don't have to see it happen in front of our eyes..given gravity, it's obvious how.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
Waaaaait a minute ... I recognize the tune starting at 7:25, and that's NOT from Vivaldi's Four Seasons. That's the Can-Can, from _Orpheus in the Underworld_, by Offenbach!
rogermwilcox 6 months ago
is funny seeing creationist thinking that the video only describes multiple kinds of sex and not the evolution. You can see the evolution of sex when you put all those kinds of sex together in a time line and then you have it.
shadowmax889 6 months ago
you can only "see" it if you force yourself to string a bunch on unlkilky events into a miracle. sex in humans is very bad but when we get to plants it gets even worse, i mean, micropyle and pollen tube!! talk about invoking miracles
zenithar6666 5 months ago
Sex is life's greatest invention.
Rioarri 7 months ago
this is painful, this is describing differtn kinds of sex, not the origin of anything
zenithar6666 8 months ago
What I learned: in America, science and religion are fighting each other. You all need a healthier balance of faith and doubt, not these bullshit Christian/Atheist dogma wars.
hidenorivideo 8 months ago
So... did I just watch porn?
Allallt 8 months ago in playlist mitosis/meosis
@luisolf LOL, your ridiculous comments made my day!
Mr12345EGGNOG 10 months ago
We're lucky to have video like this. Right on cdk007
ripticdu 10 months ago
The more you show different types of sexual systems the worst gets for evolution. It is obvious for any people who are not engaged in a brain wash.
luisolf 1 year ago
@luisolf please tell me you're joking.
brianpv1 1 year ago
@luisolf wow this the most retarded yet most hilarious shit i've heard all day!!! ^^
hibyewut 1 year ago
@luisolf Hahaha what a good note to end my day on. I think you missed the point of this video =P
2LightaManonFire 10 months ago
This cant be science, I refuse to believe evolution and the more I read more I become convinced Im in the right way.
luisolf 1 year ago
@luisolf If you refuse to believe why not spare yourself the bother of reading and watching videos and just refuse to believe unaided?
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
One thing is still not clear to me. I asked you, if "Genetic Entropy" conflicts with micro evolution. Maybe I did not get your point, but sry for asking again, because I think this is very important. You answered with "in the contrary" and stated how organisms could survive despite degeneration. But why can we observe micro evolution? So again my question: Does "Genetic Entropy" contradict micro evolution?
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "So again my question: Does "Genetic Entropy" contradict micro evolution?" I maintain my answer to be no. The major problem is time here. The amount of mutations, depending on the selective cost and pressures, contribute to the equation as well, but it is in some populations, a cumulative exponential factor. Time, in a grandeur scale, is the greater force of the argument when dealing with micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
That would be quite the breakthrough, because if you search the literature (again google scholar: evolution epigenetic) you find that mostly the opposite is the case. Science thrives of opposing ideas and testing existing theories. Thats part of the scientific method.
But you should always remember not to rant. Quality goes over quantity. Make less arguments, but make these bulletproof. :)
So long...
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "you should always remember not to rant." that was not ranting my friend, ranting and taking the time to elaborate ONE scenario is two different things. "Quality" does go over quantity at times. I just wanted to be clear.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Aside from your ranty attitude you seem to have quite some knowledge in this field. So I wonder why you couldn't picture the transition between internal and external fertilization. Especially because it is one of the lesser complicated phenomenons.
Regarding your Hypothesis... I cant argue much about Epigenetic. So if your Hypothesis is solid, then you should try to get some papers/articles out there. Maybe your are right about Epigenetics posing hindering factors to evolution.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Aside from your ranty attitude you seem to have quite some knowledge in this field." As odd as that sounds, thank you, i guess.
"I wonder why you couldn't picture the transition between internal and external fertilization." It's not my place to. I don't believe in macroevolution, the primary axiom, common ancestry or descent with modification so why would/should I propose hypothetical transitions if I don't believe that they can/did occur?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "if your Hypothesis is solid, then you should try to get some papers/articles out there. Maybe your are right about Epigenetics posing hindering factors to evolution." You might be right about that my friend. I was actually working on one since last year but I there was a key point that I never came across so I abandoned it. I guess since I'm close to graduating now I'll have more time to address these issues. Thanks for the encouragement. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Sadly from now on I'll be quite busy for about a week and till then not be able to respond. I will be back though. But one thing has to be said. I'm not a biologist, i can't give you any proof and I can't give you an answer to everything. (if you want that you will have to read current research papers and articles) However what I wanted to show you is, that just using sound basic knowledge, reason and logic it is possible to explain much.
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "Sadly from now on I'll be quite busy for about a week and till then not be able to respond. I will be back though." That's highly unfortunate. I look forward to our debates on the daily. Nonetheless, if you would like to do this without constraints, feel free to pm me. I'd be more than glad to hear from you. Thank you for your time btw.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
5 The place for the gametes is gradually moved inside for protection, also causing adoptions on the male genitalia.
Well I don't say that it did happen exactly this way. But it shows that internal fertilization is not irreducible complex.
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "Well I don't say that it did happen exactly this way. But it shows that internal fertilization is not irreducible complex" I understand, but since you said you aren't a biologist, or that you can't provide me with any proof that it did happen this way, why should I hold your proposition to be tenable again? Not to belittle your hypothetical proposition, but I only ask out of curiosity.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "I understand, but since you said you aren't a biologist, or that you can't provide me with any proof that it did happen this way, why should I hold your proposition to be tenable again?" I have no proof and I have no evidence. However it shows that the process is not irreducible complex, which was my point. If you think this is macro evolution and therefore not possible, it should be a non issue to you anyway, making it irrelevant.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "However it shows that the process is not irreducible complex, which was my point." Understood, but we don't make rebuttals off of untestable possibilities now do we? At least as it pertains to the flagellum, I believe Miller is the closest person that provides something substantial, yet still virtually unsatisfiable because it is untestable. If he could reproduce it in a lab, THAT my friend, would be science.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Understood, but we don't make rebuttals off of untestable possibilities now do we?" What is your problem with the transition? Is it illogical to you? Which part is contradicting? Or do you just have problem with the framework?
If something is untestable it's not worth studying it, because you can't make any conclusions? This means every insight out of this is void... hm, sounds quite nihilistic to me.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "What is your problem with the transition?" Are we finally back to external to internal evolution? Is this the transition you're referring to? Or from micro-macro?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Yes we are. Tear it apart already. ;)
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Yes we are." Ahh, glad we've returned to the issue at hand. Now are we talking about the proposition you provided or is there actual literature on this transition? I'd hate to "tear apart" your proposition needlessly; after all, it looks good on paper. ;)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Well my problem with your argumentation is the following: You say XY can't have evolved. The feature A is missing. I explain how it could have worked. Then you said... well the framework does not work either. Its somehow circular. You got to start somewhere. But on the other hand, it is pointless discussing this because the problem you see is already located in the process of evolution.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "You say XY can't have evolved." = True
"The feature A is missing." = Specifically speaking? I don't remember claiming anything was missing besides a good explanation of the how.
"I explain how it could have worked. Then you said... well the framework does not work either. Its somehow circular." = As I'll always admit, "could'ves, should'ves & would'ves" make me feverish.
"You got to start somewhere." = Agreed, if verifiable.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "As I'll always admit, "could'ves, should'ves & would'ves" make me feverish." Well I do think that science will never be able to present PROVE for every transition. Out of this, would you already conclude that evolution is invalid?
"I don't remember claiming anything was missing besides a good explanation of the how." Sry, i didn't mean the feature but the transition. (that was a "slip of the pen")
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 Excuse me for the delay in response, I haven't had internet for a while.
"Out of this, would you already conclude that evolution is invalid?" Not at all, finding transitional fossils is and never has been my argument. I'll readily admit that idk enough about fossils to argue for or against them. My argument, as it seems you understand it to be, is indeed the process of achieving change from micro to macro.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "it is pointless discussing this because the problem you see is already located in the process of evolution." - and how it's mechanisms are incapable of maintaining genomic integrity for thousands and thousands of years? Correct. I tell you, the arguments and facts against evolution in light of genetics doesn't look to healthy for its future in Genetic Entropy.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 "If something is untestable it's not worth studying it, because you can't make any conclusions? This means every insight out of this is void... hm, sounds quite nihilistic to me." Haha on the contrary, now may I ask, since I'm willing to study a viewpoint that I don't uphold personally, do you find it worth studying anything as it relates to ID? Because the majority of the scientific community doesn't. And how are you using nihilism to refer to me btw?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Nope, because there the supernatural comes into the scheme. That is jumping to conclusions. We cant explain it => God did it.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Nope, because there the supernatural comes into the scheme." Only by admission of course. Seems to me like you believe creationism and ID are one and the same. Granted, God can be inserted into the data of ID because the entity of the creator is virtually unknown and is irreducible, but does it mean that it is? Not exactly, some can just as easily corroborate it with ET as the intelligent designer. Either way, I agree, it would be jumping to conclusions. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 I think it to be healthy that we're agreeing on so much already. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Nihilism as well as Theism states an initial assumption, which is unknowable. Whether you say "there is no truth" or "god did it" does not matter. It has the same effect: It ceases the process of looking for answers (research). For me the existence of god does not depend on the validity of evolution. That would be very childish.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "It has the same effect: It ceases the process of looking for answers (research)." haha considering that I LOVE science and research, I would be your antithesis. I'll give you the possibility that it MAY foster that attitude, but that is for the lethargic in thought. I like to seek the hows just as much as the next evolutionist.
"the existence of god does not depend on the validity of evolution." agreed, no one said it did so???
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Evolving from external to internal fertilization. Think about sea-life.
1 They just spray their gametes into the water when near each other
2 The intensity of the female gamete release is gradually decreased, this requires the male to be more accurate, but is also more efficient than spraying everything all over the place.
3 This continues till the female gametes stay near where they are released. (eg. amphibians)
4 The female carries gametes on its body.
nordic84 1 year ago
Now that we got that out of the way. "Does fertilization need to occur internally?" hehe let's go about this one with pure logic and say, semen can't exactly have a long "lifespan" outside of the body when exposed to the elements, and the eggs? Oh yes, we're going to extract them somehow from every female and mix them in a petri dish and watch that baby grow big and strong even though it would be absent of its nutrition supply.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Don't you see, you are thinking the wrong way around. If you got a set of features on an organism (e.g. A,B,C ...) In some cases they depend on another feature to be there first. I.e. you can arrange some features in a sequence C -> A -> Y. Now if you only see all the features as they are today (A,B,C...) and take away one (for example C) It's very likely that the organism doesn't function properly anymore.
nordic84 1 year ago
Comment removed
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Now if you only see all the features as they are today...It's very likely that the organism doesn't function properly anymore." Good observation my friend. The whole argument of IC in a nutshell is pretty much what you've provided. The thing is, these "features" you speak of, as it relates to x-reproduction, are more or less, interdependent. This video would be GREAT if it could actually show how "C -> A -> Y" came about...but it doesn't, well not step by step at least.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "This video would be GREAT if it could actually show how "C -> A -> Y" came about...but it doesn't, well not step by step at least." Well i find the last section of the video displaying the 10 steps of the evolution quite good. The only step which is not very detailed is the last one with internal gestation showing the female anatomy. I'm not a Biologist but I think this would have developed far earlier with monotreme mammals as intermediate step.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Well i find the last section of the video displaying the 10 steps of the evolution quite good." hehe well, i would've eventually gotten around to it if you didn't answer these last few posts. You should probably go back to the sequel of my previous posts where I address the first three questions. To start off though, the 1st step is based on an invalid premise. "Start with a single-celled, single-sex organism capable of cell fusion and meiosis."
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Needless to say, the "start" has two factors that are granted, no evolutionary steps to get to those two factors were explained, not even in brief. What he called "fluff" is essential to mention because even these require explanation. Secondly, these changes that are supposedly "selected for" may or may not be. The proof that they are/were selected for is what exactly? That these factors exist today therefore they must've been?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Thirdly, just exactly how familiar are you with genetics and epigenetics? Because, if we want to deal with hypothetical situations, how would you prove that epigenetics wasn't a hindering factor to any individual "beneficial" mutation? Answer without assumptions if you can.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies If so, whats your conclusion? Even if its a hindering factor... that means the evolutionary process is slowed down. So what?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Even if its a hindering factor... that means the evolutionary process is slowed down." Allow me to play out the whole hypothetical scenario. Let's say that the genes to produce the flagellum of the spermatozoon evolved, but the environment wasn't conducive to it spinning at a rate less than 10,000 rpm (which is actually the case to avoid the disorienting effects of Brownian motion, it's a min. req.); epigenetics simply makes genes selectable or not, let's say for this generation...
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Cont.: it made the factors that are responsible for the flagellum's rotary speed, un-selectable. Thus, for at least this generation, even with a fully functional flagellum, simply rotating at the wrong speed becomes a factor that makes it unselected for (not the whole flagellum, just its speed). Being that the environment for sperm is relatively unchangeable, the control genes for speed of rotation, are unselected for making them just as beneficial as spermatium.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Hm, when you look at the gradual evolution steps of the flagellum, I don't think that the rotation speed could be possibly decoupled from that, because it appears quite early. Saying the evolution of the flagellum and the speed it rotates are not orthogonal.
Also the "Environment" is changing... well at least if you look at it on a bigger timescale. Just think of water... external/internal.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I don't think that the rotation speed could be possibly decoupled from that, because it appears quite early." Glad you realize this, my proposed scenario was merely hypothetical, but if you want to deal with the facts, you have merely placed the rotation problem at the forefront of the evolution rather than later as in my scenario. Congratulations.
"the "Environment" is changing" the environment i'm referring to is where semen is stored and its route to ejaculation.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Cont.: Now due to the fact that sperm need a means of motility to reach its destination, with this situation as a seemingly perpetual hindrance, it is not a case of slowing down. In this case, it is a strong halt to reproduction. You need the sperm and egg to come in contact, period. So in this scenario, you have the environment working against you. Just so you know, speed is a major factor for the flagellum, anything less than what I've stated is inefficient.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I think in your thinking you to much restricted by the structure of the female genitalia as they are today. Apply you statement to some predecessors of apes and ask your questions again.
If the female genitalia would render reproduction useless... well, then those exemplars would definitely reproduced quite badly and the features would not have been selected. ;)
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "Apply you statement to some predecessors of apes and ask your questions again." I'm sorry, whether the distance the sperm has to travel to reach the egg is a 10th of a centimeter or 10 miles is irrelevant when we're dealing with a spermatium. Movement is required, period. The female genitalia is not the issue, distance is the factor.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies If the rotation of the flagellum would not be sufficient, then this change would not have been established in that environment. I just don't get were your heading, thats no statement about all environments. And when you look at the evolution of the flagellum (use google schoolar: "evolution flagellum") you can see that even the slightest spin can be an advantage.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "If the rotation of the flagellum would not be sufficient, then this change would not have been established in that environment." That is precisely the point. The change would not only have been established, it wouldn't have been selected for in the first place. The slightest spin for the purpose of motility would NEED to be selected for, but the min. req. is 10,000 rpm. Evolution works by gradual change, one does not evolve the ability to go from 1 - 10,000 rpm in one mutation.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I'm not quite sure if I got your message right (I'm no native English speaker).But I'll try anyway.
"The proof that they are/were selected for is what exactly? That these factors exist today therefore they must've been?"
Well yes, some of these changes date back for ages and ages. Eg if you look at other species which dont feature some of these changes, for them they didn't provide any benefit (or not enough) and therefore the changes could not prevail. It's just that simple.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I'm no native English speaker" I must say you do well then.
"Well yes, some of these changes date back for ages and ages." It's unfortunate that you answered so, now you have to battle your out of saying how this is not a classic example of circular reasoning. Do you have evidence independent of what you see in existence now to prove that they were selected for? Because as it stands, your position is just as good as saying God created too because I see it today.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Do you have evidence independent of what you see in existence now to prove that they were selected for?"
Yes, the mechanism of mutation, benefit and survival of the fittest. The features surely don't date back to the origin of life and they surely did not just pop into existance from one generation to the other. And if they were not selected for, from where did they come?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Yes, the mechanism of mutation, benefit and survival of the fittest."
Ahh, one cannot simply appeal to mechanisms without actually showing the details of how the mechanism fulfilled the end product.
"if they were not selected for, from where did they come?" I don't propose to know how they got there, on the other hand, evolution claims it does; hence my questioning.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I hope i got your message right. But I can't see the circularity. Features we see today are no evidence for evolution. But if we look back at the fossil records or experiments with bacteria, or the phylogenetic tree and sorts... these are evidence for the process of evolution.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I hope i got your message right. But I can't see the circularity. Features we see today are no evidence for evolution." I think you might've accidentally said yes before to my question without really understanding me, because this stands as a contradiction to what you said yes to. I concur with your last quoted sentence, but that's the question I asked that you said yes to before.
"if we look back at the fossil records or experiments with bacteria" which experiments exactly?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies The premise for the first step is established in some other videos of CDK like the origin of life/the genetic code/sexual reproduction. The links to most of these videos are contained in this video.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "The premise for the first step is established in some other videos of CDK like the origin of life/the genetic code/sexual reproduction." If that's the case, I won't bother you about them here. I'll find them, and if you so choose to engage in a conversation with me on those videos, the option is yours.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "if you so choose to engage in a conversation with me on those videos, the option is yours."
Well the discussion with you is fun. However you see where this is heading. The amount of text and the number of comments increases with every reply. And the cha racter limit really sucks. Maybe I prefer to end this discussion first before opening up 1000 topics over which to argue.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Well the discussion with you is fun." And it has been a pleasure to mentally duel with you. We can always privately message each other where there is no character limit if you'd like as well. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies part 2 of my answer: Now take for example internal fertilization (A) and Sperms which are not protected against the elements (B). B is indeed a feature because sperms without protection are much "cheaper", thus the organism can produce more sperm with less effort. So the sequence here would be A->B. Because vulnerable sperms make no sense without internal fertilization. The video clearly shows an example where a species didn't feature neither A or B.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "for example internal fertilization (A)...Sperms which are not protected against the elements (B)" This would be all well and dandy, but your B is a factor among many that is dependent on your (A). Take for instance a spermatium vs a spermatozoon in reference to (A). Whether or not the evolution of the flagellum can be mapped out is irrelevant when it is the only means of mobility for sperm. Time is not on it's side to achieve your (A).
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@progenyofprodigies "B is a factor among many that is dependent on your (A)" Thats exactly what i wrote, plz try to read more carefully: "So the sequence here would be A->B. Because vulnerable sperms make no sense without internal fertilization."
nordic84 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies part 3: But species which featured internal fertilization had much more advantages on land. If external fertilization is even possible on land... i don't know. E.g. amphibians still go into the water for external fertilization.
So I hope this answers your question. :)
You just can't take away a precondition and wonder why it doesn't make sense anymore. ;)
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "species which featured internal fertilization had much more advantages on land" ahhh yes, and i would love to see the transitional steps from internal to external fertilization. What a beauty that would be, wouldn't you agree?
"You just can't take away a precondition and wonder why it doesn't make sense anymore. ;)" On the contrary, that's how some fundamental questions are formed. It only gets more complex when taken down to the level of individual cells.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "i would love to see the transitional steps from internal to external fertilization" That makes absolutely no sense. External fertilization was prior because its simpler. Just think of the sea-life.
"It only gets more complex when taken down to the level of individual cells." How is that related to my post about the dependence of features? (A -> B)
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "External fertilization was prior because its simpler." Does that rationalization comes along due to the ideology that everything simple MUST come before complexity? Whether it's external to internal or vice versa, the video still didn't mention the transitional steps of either condition.
"How is that related to my post about the dependence of features?" Would you like to discuss hormones and receptors w/ receptor sites now or later? That could be a B to your A as well.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Comment removed
nordic84 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Well, thanks for accusing me of rationalization. What do you mean with "come"? Aren't we speaking of EVOLVING? The thing is, that it's just very unlikely in this case. Because to actually evolve something complex it requires a benefit from the smallest gradual steps. Unless the Environment or something else has changed its unlikely to devolve such a change.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "What do you mean with "come"?" Rephrase: MUST be present. Better?
"The thing is, that it's just very unlikely in this case." Is that the best you got for me boss? Very unlikely? Evolution is held to be the master of overcoming improbabilities with the most minute possibilities with gradual steps.
"Because to actually evolve something complex it requires a benefit from the smallest gradual steps." I highly concur, so do you possess the knowledge of the evolution of ext. to int. fert?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Evolution is held to be the master of overcoming improbabilities"
Improbabilities? Which ones exactly? And what has the fact that devolution is unlikely to do with the validity of evolution?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Improbabilities? Which ones exactly?" The same one you call "very unlikely." If you haven't read Genetic Entropy yet, I highly recommend it. The problem of the signal-to-noise ratio/heritability is one that is overlooked. In a nutshell, it deals with what makes a single trait (or group of traits, the signal) selectable or not, where noise is what would interfere with the selection pressure for the individual trait in question. When applied to the genome, noise shadows nucleotides.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I did not read the book you posted, but it seems quite interesting according to the Internet discussion it triggered. It seems a bit controversial. You can observe speciation and micro evolution today. Breeding is just evolution, but the natural selection (through death) is exchanged by manual selection (through man, which also makes it much faster). How long has man existed, if we didn't evolve from "extinct species" of the genus Homo? Why didn't we degenerate already?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "You can observe speciation and micro evolution today." Agreed, I do believe that BOTH speciation and micro-evolution do occur, I simply don't extrapolate that evidence to believe that macro-evolution occurs.
"How long has man existed, if we didn't evolve from "extinct species" of the genus Homo? Why didn't we degenerate already?"
You'll needlessly enter into a beliefs argument if I answer the first question. Why we haven't degenerated on the other hand is a more interesting question
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 Cont. I'd like to pose you the same question in light of the various kinds of mutations that occur at the genomic level. Factoring in mitochondrial mutations and nucleotide substitution rates alone should halt any form of progression if we have lived for the proposed amount of time that evolution claims; granted this is WITH the assumption that these rates have been constant. OTH, we're not even factoring the other kind of deleterious mutations that can and do occur.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 Cont.: So what is the proposed mechanism by which evolution would preserve the genome's integrity by eliminating the amount of deleterious mutations while leaving enough viable offspring to continue its process of "descent with modification?" Answer at will. This is why I highly recommend that book. ;)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Doesn't that (and many other conclusions, which one can derive from the book) already contradict with micro evolution?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 On the contrary, time is the major factor here. The argument is thus: the current rate that these mutations occur can not be reconciled with the proposed amount of time man has been said to live while factoring in the death(by any cause)/reproduction ratio. We should, in theory, be dead 100 times over. If we lived for thousands of thousands of years, we very well should be. Thus it is easier to believe that we weren't here for thousands of years in light of this fact.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 As it pertains to micro-evolution, we have to consider the cost factor of the population and the amount of deleterious mutations that population can afford to still reproduce exponentially. In general, most plants can sustain a 99% elimination of their population due to the fact that the reproduction rate compensates for it. Humans on the other hand are not so lucky.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Isn't the the gradual evolution from external to internal fertilization quite obvious? At least if you know how the evolutional process and natural selection work. However, right now I'm quite tired and will go to bed... I'll respond to the rest soon. I'll also post a possible gradual transition from external to internal.
nordic84 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "That could be a B to your A as well." Isn't that just fine? Everything I wanted to point out in the first place was to show you, that you cant just remove a premise and wonder why it does not make sense anymore.
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "Everything I wanted to point out in the first place was to show you, that you cant just remove a premise and wonder why it does not make sense anymore." All I wanted to show you is that that's what spark questions, that's what sparks the whys which eventually lead to hows with scientific evidence to back it up.
"Isn't that just fine?"
Of course, if you have an evolutionary pathway to achieve it.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Oops missed this one, because it was marked as spam.
"Of course, if you have an evolutionary pathway to achieve it. "
Well don't you think there is an evolutionary pathway?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 I'd like to think there is an evolutionary pathway for every single hand and glove relationship that currently exists today in and outside of the human body, but no, I don't think there is. Not when it comes to hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites, symbiotic relationships among all kinds of organisms. To believe that a min. of two mutations (which is a grave understatement) would have evolved to achieve compatibility among so many relationships is unwarranted.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I think "hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites" are fundamental requirements for complex lifeforms. So I would expect that basic forms of them did already "appear" in the Cambrian Period. I'm intentionally saying appear, because I can't explain how they could evolve. But if we would assume that they somehow "happened", do you think that current lifeforms could have evolved from the lifeforms of the Cambrian explosion? In my youth I did collect fossils.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I think "hormones and receptor cites, enzymes and active sites" are fundamental requirements for complex lifeforms." Granted, being that they are "required" , how do you propose that some of these organisms survive without their counterpart in the eyes of evolution? What is a hormone w/o a receptor cite?
"I'm intentionally saying appear, because I can't explain how they could evolve." I appreciate the honesty.
"do you think that current lifeforms" - I don't believe in macroevo.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Granted, being that they are "required" , how do you propose that some of these organisms survive without their counterpart in the eyes of evolution?" Did I claim that? I said, I don't know how it evolved. I don't think, that one component evolved without the other. I said assume that e.g. the hormone system is already there (regardless of its origin). If you use Google Scholar there are several Approaches which try to explain the origin of hormones/receptors.
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "Did I claim that?" It's inferred in your ideology if you believe in evolution is it not? Whether you know how they evolved is not the question. One can not argue that all of these relationships initially evolved together, thus they have to conclude that they evolved separately, possibly at dif. time intervals, and just happened to become codependent. That is what one would have to believe with descent w/ modification or some version of it.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I said assume that e.g. the hormone system is already there (regardless of its origin)." I'm afraid I can't, evolution is supposed to explain how it originated without assumptions, and i'm supposed to be able to take it into a lab, test the theory, and have the experiment be reproducible. If I start with assumptions, how different is that than a faith based assumption? You'd be putting evolution on the same pedestal and being biased to other propositions if I have to "assume no?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Hm, your missing my point. Evolution is not supposed to explain everything. It explains the diversity of life. It sets up the framework. If there are questions about a specific feature and how it could have evolved it's the task of scientists to figure it out. Just because I don't know how it happened doesn't disprove evolution. If evolution really is impossible it will be discovered eventually.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "If there are questions about a specific feature and how it could have evolved it's the task of scientists to figure it out." I absolutely concur, and this is exactly where that if they can't figure it out, they should be honest enough to admit that evolution is falsifiable/has been falsified. While you say it isn't supposed to explain everything, it shouldn't leave things in the dark either.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "While you say it isn't supposed to explain everything, it shouldn't leave things in the dark either." Please don't confuse evolution with science in general. And I don't think science is anti-theistic. Science does not try to disprove god. Science has no agenda, it tries to explain the world. I don't think that any scientist would deny the truth just to keep up evolution. But they should not jump to conclusions either, just because it can't explain everything yet.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "they should not jump to conclusions either, just because it can't explain everything yet." Agreed. I would thumbs up this comment if I could.
"Please don't confuse evolution with science in general." Some would have others believe that there is no science outside of evolution. Regardless, I still believe that there are areas that evolution can't afford to leave us in the dark in. If there is something that evolution can't produce, then it is verily falsified.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "If I start with assumptions, how different is that than a faith based assumption?" This assumption was of rhetorical nature. If X would be true, would you think that Y is possible. But you turned it down anyways, because you think evolution over a bigger period of time is impossible. Thats what I wanted to hear.
nordic84 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a vast period of time. Sure there are some interesting questions how some features could have evolved. But just because we can't explain all of them right now I would not jump to the conclusion that macro evolution is impossible.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a vast period of time." I'm quite aware of the fact that that's what one would want me to believe if they were an evolutionist, but I'm afraid I can't take/experiment/reproduce that experiment of macro-evo in a lab. We will see speciation and micro-evo time and time again, granted, but when will it be macro's turn if the data is not extrapolated?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Is your argument against macro-evolution really that "I can't take/experiment/reproduce that experiment of macro-evo in a lab" If you wait for 1000 times you lifetime you will experience more variety. For me there is no micro and macro... evolution is not discrete its continuous. What is your real doubt in macro evolution? Is it the "Genetic Entropy" argument?
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "What is your real doubt in macro evolution? Is it the "Genetic Entropy" argument?" Genetics plays a fundamental role in evolution, thus usually it sometimes is my strongest rebuttal against it. I can also, as I have in the first comments to this video, appeal logically to anatomy. I can appeal to the insufficiency of N.S. or the proposed mechanisms to get organism A to organism B. My real doubt in macro-evolution is that I can't see it happen. Science tests the now, not the future.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies I was very fascinated by the differences to the lifeforms we see today. But if evolution can't work, this does mean, that all those arthropods (and the like) were just a dead end path of life. They somehow were created and then degenerated till extinction. What about the fossils we believe to be successors of these "animals", and if its only a small change in their appearance. They could not have evolved, so were all those "related" species also created?
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "What about the fossils we believe to be successors of these "animals", and if its only a small change in their appearance. They could not have evolved, so were all those "related" species also created?" If you're referring to what you hold to be the "successors," I'd be inclined to say yes, but as I've mentioned before, I believe in micro-evolution and speciation.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies There is a broad variation eg. in the fossils of trilobites. You can create a quite detailed tree of life according to anatomic resemblance. Do you believe in creation? Do you think god created these patterns we can observe in the fossils? Why? Why even create these life forms which are long extinct? How old do you think our planet is? If you think earth is 6000 years old, then evolution can't explain what we see today. Evolution on this scale takes millions of years.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "You can create a quite detailed tree of life according to anatomic resemblance." I concur, is this evidence of common ancestry though? In other words, would one who had no notion of evolution have any inclination to make a tree of life by anatomic resemblance w/o the ideology of descent w/ modification? Despite this, do you believe that the more similarities shared is evidence of common descent?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Despite this, do you believe that the more similarities shared is evidence of common descent?" Sure. If the anatomic tree of life matches the microbiological, physiological and genetic one, this is surely evidence. Do you think birds evolved from reptiles? Birds have inactive genes for teeth. Do you think Whales evolved from mammals? They still have genes for legs. If they have no common ancestor, why these genetic similarities.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "If they have no common ancestor, why these genetic similarities." Despite the period, I know it is a question and answer it thus: How consistent is the pathway to verify that these genetic similarities are indeed due to common ancestry? We find organisms with anatomical, behavioral, social, even life-style similarities where the developmental pathway is profoundly different.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 "Do you believe in creation?" Now you're going off off on a tangent. We're not even talking about sexual reproduction anymore. If you still want to talk about this subject, we can openly do it here. If you want to discuss all the questions you just asked me, I'd happily discuss them in private. Why would you question me on these points on a video about "the evolution of sexual reproduction?" I have my rebuttals to this video, question those at will.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies We shifted of the topic of the origin of sex long ago. I tried to explain the development, but you brought up eg. epigenetics and hormones two weeks ago, moving the discussion to a more general viewpoint of evolution.
If evolution really doesn't work, if life did not evolve. How did it come to existence? Do you know any scientific alternatives? I don't. Maybe this is because evolution does fit. Even if it's not perfect and we can't explain everything yet...
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "How did it come to existence?" Ahh, some evolutionists will tell me time and time again, that evolution has nothing to do with how life originated, evolution only takes place AFTER the fact. Are you proposing that they have a hand and glove relationship? Just so you know, I don't believe in abiogenesis either.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@nordic84 Cont.: I do not claim to know how God did it nor can I give you a possible explanation that you can verify in a lab, the difference is, I won't go preach my belief system or impose it on others. I like to openly converse on what I believe and to share the knowledge that I know if it leads them to seeing other opportunities.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies It's the best explanation we have. If evolution really is impossible, what other options are there but to say: "God did it"?
nordic84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nordic84 "If evolution really is impossible, what other options are there but to say: "God did it"?" And this is why science is science. It is not necessary to appeal to unknowns, but what of what we do know? I've been studying cases from design from various sources now, and as far as I know, as it pertains to information, it can only be produced by intelligence. Programs do not self-originate and neither do lines of code.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies But then we would not be discussing science anymore, but believe and thats nothing I can argue against. So the discussion would end there.
In my opinion symbiotic relations can be explained by evolution quite easily. If the behavior is intrinsic/instinctive and offers a benefit it could be selected eventually. Of course this does not happen spontaneously within one generation (Like everything in evolution. It takes ages to propagate.)
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "If the behavior is intrinsic/instinctive and offers a benefit it could be selected eventually." Let's go about this rationally here. Natural selection, as so often trumpeted, has no foresight. It does and can not, look at or judge behaviors to be selected for. Behaviors are usually related to whys. So why is that Melipona bees are essential for the pollination of the tlilxochitl vine that produces the vanilla orchid?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies "Natural selection, as so often trumpeted, has no foresight. It does and can not, look at or judge behaviors to be selected for." I was speaking of hard wired instincts. These are inherited and therefore can be selected. If something offers a benefit, these organisms are likely to live longer, reproducing more often.
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 "I was speaking of hard wired instincts...If something offers a benefit, these organisms are likely to live longer, reproducing more often." Splendid, now let's put your theory to the test now and pick a symbiotic relationship that would attest to it. Your proposition, so your choice, I'll do my own research and follow along.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Ok, what about pilot fish, intestinal flora or false clownfish. I don't see any problems with that. Even if the behavior might not be instinctive. But what is the point of even discussing this, if you reject evolution on bigger timescales anyway. These sorts of behavior is only possible though coevolution. Which can't be tested in the lab. (can you see the nihilism?)
nordic84 1 year ago
@nordic84 My friend, we're fleeing from our original topic and we'll continue to do so if I continue to entertain all of your comments. With that being said, it's a pleasure to have you back. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Yay!!! I should make this my anniversary page. A whole week and no response? Let's see how long it lasts while we continue to poke holes in this video. :) Before I continue to do so though, I wanted to point out a major mistake in your intro. "Let's remove 1 component at a time and see if an example exists w/o it." Major problem with this is there is no show of evolutionary steps in any plausible sequence. It's NOT enough to find an example, you have to build the evolutionary line as well.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
First, allow me to add assault to injury and use your own words here in reference to the uterus. "Internal gestation is CONFINED to mammals..." Wait, what? Humans = mammals, therefore internal gestation must be CONFINED to humans too? Well what a concept. Thank goodness we're not mammals that lay eggs or we would probably be a good candidate to disprove nested hierarchies via common ancestry huh?
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
So I gave this video 48 hrs. to which no one has yet to reply to my comments. I can take that to mean that I have valid arguments and at least, your first 3 points are refuted or at the minimum, I got a few people to rethink on your video here and the weak arguments you (cdk007) have presented thus far. I don't plan to rest here so let's do more damage shall we? :) Feel free to correct me or put me in my place at anytime.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
Whew, after that little argument this comment section got quiet, and I still haven't found anyone to answer my questions even reasonably to my q's. 007, I'm afraid you're gonna have to come out and throw some bowls. I was expecting a little more fun and challenge. *shrugs* oh well, let's carry on! Already challenged the need for compatible genitals and splash pregos so let's go with: does the female need a uterus.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Well let's look at the functions shall we? According to wiki, "the uterus provides structural integrity and support to the bladder, bowel, pelvic bones and organs." So without it structural integrity and support would be compromised? That's what wiki said.
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies What else does it do? Let's ask wiki: "The uterus is ESSENTIAL in sexual response by directing blood flow to the pelvis and to the external genitalia, including the ovaries, vagina, labia, and clitoris." What? You mean it plays a part in arousal? "The uterus is NEEDED for uterine orgasm to occur." Bummer, that is what wiki said. Well, there goes the enjoyment part for women w/o a uterus. Sorry ladies, maybe next mutation. :)
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago
@progenyofprodigies Do you have anything else to say wiki? "The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube. It then becomes implanted into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose." What? and you're saying the uterus is the ONLY thing in my body that has an endometrium so that a fertilized ovum could implant itself to? Bummer...
progenyofprodigies 1 year ago