Quick shots at Nephilimfree: Cecal Valves (Part 1)

[micah1116]

vestigial structures ARE NOT evidence for evolution, it's losing something not gaining. Evolutionary change should show us or another organism GAINING something. And the lizards already had the infomation to make the cecal valves. There aren't any vestigial structures in humans, not the tailbone,appendix, neither does the snake and whale have a vestigial pelvis.

[BiodegradeableMan]

You also apply the logic that if an animal already has a limb, probosis, tusk etc it always did!!!!! No vestigal structures? Goodness me then what are the structures you cite and numerous others? Just God playing with spare parts?

[micah1116]

@BiodegradeableMan There are no vestigial structures and no structures that organisms shouldn't have.

[BiodegradeableMan]

@micah1116 Really? No phenotypic plasticity either, right? Ok so if evolution is not possible then selective breeding to speed up the process is impossible, right? Go tell that to the millionaire stud farm owners, lol!

[micah1116]

@BiodegradeableMan Farmers raise varieties of the same kind of animal, that's not evolution and farmers depend on evolution not to be true. When they grow corn or raise cows, that's what they expect to get. Your getting micro and macro confused. We see varieties and it's your faith that those varieties will result to macro changes, that's not science, it's religion. Your ignorance is mind boggling.

[BiodegradeableMan]

@micah1116 'Your ignorance is mind boggling.' for a holy man you seem rather too free and easy with the insults. Do you have a degree in biology or chemistry? Ask yourself this: If evolution and phenotypical change is not possible then where did sausage dogs come from? They must have competed with prehistoric bear dogs, right? You're funny man.....

[UltimaXG2]

Way to copy directly from a WOTM video. Now that that's established, show me a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating into big ones (I borrowed this from a TO video).

[ThisClownis2in1]

@micah1116 Many small changes over a long period of time will lead to something that is drastically different than what you started with.

[micah1116]

No only in your imagination. Has this been observed? It hasn't so it's not science. It's your faith that small changes will lead to big changes. These changes you speak of are not changes towards something else, most of them are a loss of information and others such as changes in allele frequency only result in a duplication of already existing genes, no new genes are ever produced.

[ThisClownis2in1]

You can see changes in nature that lead to speciation. There is a point when members of a species experience enough of these changes that they can no longer mate with one another. This has been observed in a few places. I suggest you look into Ensatina eschscholtzi. This is a species of salamander that is currently experiencing speciation. It has seven subspecies. Two of which are klauberi and eschscholtzi. These two are incapable of interbreeding. They are, by definition, different species.

[micah1116]

Speciation doesn't produce any new structures, it's not evolution.

[ThisClownis2in1]

This is going nowhere. I just would like you to listen to what others have to say and consider the arguments without prejudice.

Macroevolution is just microevolution plus large amounts of time. Periods which we, with our fleeting lives, are unable to personally witness. The fossil record is how we observe this. Speciation is kind of between the two. (Since microevolution is the only "real" one, you shouldn't even believe in speciation. Which you just admitted you do.)

[ThisClownis2in1]

Despite whatever Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron, etc might say, there are plenty of transitional fossils.

Elephants, Cetaceans, horses and several others have great examples. (Yes, horse fossils are still valid.) Just look at the fossils people have uncovered. When you see one right after another, it's not hard to see that all macroevolution is just microevolution and speciation over a longer time frame. You are just having trouble grasping the amount of time required.

[ThisClownis2in1]

Like I said before, I am woefully under-qualified to debate this topic to any significant degree. There are others out there that know more. Abandon your bias and look at the evidence provided. Seek it out, because it is there.

[ThisClownis2in1]

Speciation is evolution, since it is microevolution+.

Perhaps no "new" structures are produced, but existing structures can change drastically over a period of time. Hands become wings, legs become fins, etc. Many small changes to existing structures can equate to something that is radically different than what you started with. These structures are, in a sense, new.

[ThisClownis2in1]

I also suggest watching a couple of people here on youtube. (AronRa and Thunderf00t) There are more, but for the sake of space, I won't name all of them. They are more capable of explaining evolution than I am. (Don't just take their word for it. Get motivated and research their claims in depth. Try not to be too biased.)

Don't just read books that support your worldview. Step outside of your comfort zone. It was hard for me at first.

[ThisClownis2in1]

I was a creationist myself for about 3 or 4 years until I stopped taking everyone's word for it and looked into both sides.

Oh yeah, I never attacked your faith just your apparent blind devotion to Kent Hovind and his ilk. Believing evolution does not make you instantly evil or even a bad Christian. Now that you've attacked me and I returned fire, let's try to keep things civil.

Don't make me get immature up in here! ;)

[UltimaXG2]

What about a snake pelvis?

[micah1116]

@UltimaXG2 I'm speaking of the tiny claws that evos claim are vestigial hind legs, they are not, they are claws used in mating, nothing else.

[UltimaXG2]

Still, bringing up the snake pelvis, something completely out of place, is a nice example of a vestigial trait. Isn't it terrible when you almost have the Fung Shui of your religion down and then the glaring SNAKE PELVIS brings you back to reality.

[UltimaXG2]

Oh, wait, you are the religious 'tard. Yeah, I was giving that advice to BiodegradeableMan. Sorry about that. Anyway, yeah, explain the snake pelvis, my good asshat.

[ThisClownis2in1]

- Pachyrhachis problematicus

- Haasiophis terrasanctus

- Eupodophis descouensi

- Najash rionegrina

Extinct snakes with two tiny rear legs.

[ThisClownis2in1]

VESTIGIAL

adjective

of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a vestige: a vestigial tail.

VESTIGE

noun

1. a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence: A few columns were the last vestiges of a Greek temple.

2. a surviving evidence or remainder of some condition, practice, etc.: These superstitions are vestiges of an ancient religion.

3. a very slight trace or amount of something: Not a vestige remains of the former elegance of the house.

Cont.

[ThisClownis2in1]

4. Biology. a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has LITTLE OR NO UTILITY, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

5. Archaic. a footprint; track.

(Don't worry about number 5 as it doesn't pertain to the issue at hand.)

[paulg53]

Claim? The first five sentences are basic genetics. You are the person claiming that the changes were caused by a mutation: I have not seen this claim elsewhere. I have an open mind on evolution but, in this case, I agree with Nephiliumfree, that it is far more likely that the instructions to create the caecal valves were in the DNA to start with than a mutation has occurred that has affected 100% of the sample (8). I accept that a change has occured in the lizards. The contention is its cause.

[micah1116]

@paulg53 Finally someone with some sense! Keep up the good work!

[paulg53]

Sorry, but I think that you ought to find out a little bit more about genetics yourself. Yes, the heart is coded. Yes, the liver is coded. How else could those organs possibly appear? Also, a mutation does occur in DNA and a gene is a section of DNA. Such a change could not possibly occur over 37 years. Or did the mutation occur in a very randy lizard and this mutation was so success that all the other lizards could not compete? Characteristics can be acquired and these are not inherited.

[ThetaOmega]

"...such a change could not possibly occur over 37 years..."

And yet it has. I hope you don't offense if I trust observable reality over your own ramblings of what you think is the case.

[paulg53]

No DNA mutation has been observed. Read my whole post rather than taking a phrase out of context.

[ThetaOmega]

I did, and I'd like to see some actual evidence to back up your claim.

[paulg53]

I have messaged you with further information.

[himethisisme]

Did he actually debunk them, or did he just address each of them in-depth? 'cause there's a difference between rebutting something and debunking it.

[thisis3d]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Hitler was not an atheist. Israel is in the news because they occupy the land claimed by 3 religions, they are in a region of rich oil and threatening nuclear power. they are in the middle of a very violent region. that's why Israel is in the news it has nothing to do with them being loved by a magic sky daddy.

[thisis3d]

satan is a lie, god is a lie, magic that can create everything out of nothing like in genesis 1:1 is a lie. christianity is a lie just like every religion that preceded it and every religion that will come after it. its mythology. its ridiculous that any sane person could believe in such utter crap. no one has witnessed creation, we have documented speciation. you don't need the invisible friend anymore, humanity doesn't need the invisible friend anymore.

[xx13moons]

I agree with what the other comments are saying. Idiot creationists keep saying "DNA is like computer programming language, it's information, it's a code - therefore an intelligent being must have put it there!" And yet they give false definition of "information." It's not an ACTUAL code in the sense that language is; that's just how we interpret it as conscious beings. Information, quite simply, means there is a PATTERN, non-randomness; and many patterns are found in the randomness of nature.

[thethomascollins]

Wrong! It has been proven that natural selection apparent by mutation. This is seen by chickens having the genes for teeth. By the way: because something is documented, does it mean it is true? That is the impression I received.

[Landofjello]

It's true, no matter how many times I ask a creationist to define 'information', they dodge like there's no tomorrow.

[bettySwollox]

They cannot answer that question, they've just heard Kent Hovind say the words "information" in his silly babble and they've repeated it parrot fashion.

[thisis3d]

they also never define "kind"

[Leehofooks]

Science and religion aside, Nephilimfree is one creepy fuck.

[whitefox998]

"Changes of that sort have never been observed..."

That is untrue. Both the giant and red panda (keep in mind they evolved convergently) have seperatly evolved from ancestors which were carnivors or omnivors, but are now bamboo (the giant panda mostly) specific in their diet. They both have more specialized teeth then there ancestors and living kin, different digestive track, behaviors, color morphology, and mostly importantly an enlarged radial sesamiod which acts as a false thumb...

[whitefox998]

(cont.)...we can trace this from the top down by looking at their genetics and anatomy compared to living raccoons and bears. As well as from the bottom up, by looking at their ancestors in the fossil record. So yes these changes have been observed.

[kut77less]

Alternatively, if the bigger guts and bigger cecal muscles were not present in the range of genetic variation within the parent population, then these size changes could have arisen due to adaptive degenerative mutations. In that case they would constitute an example of beneficial mutation If these chambers and valves are not merely size variations of existing structures, then it could be that they were structures that had become genetically turned off in the past, and became

[kut77less]

Further, there may not even have been any change.

If the genetic information for bigger guts and bigger cecal muscles was already present within the parent population, then the only thing that has changed is the ratio of big guts to small guts within the population. In the new environment, those with the big guts survived better and reproduced more. Personally, I think this is the most likely scenario.

[kut77less]

Intestines have peristaltic muscles all along their length. All intestinal muscles are already involved in regulating the flow of material. For some pre-existing muscles to get slightly larger (so they claim) or to regulate flow at different intervals, does not warrant the claim of a brand new structure It seems the evolutionists have merely labeled pre-existing organs with new names (fermenting chambers, cecal valves). I do not think they are brand new structures.

[kut77less]

I am skeptical of the idea that the changes reported in those lizards (for arguments sake I will assume the changes are real, and not merely perceived) constitute a brand new structure. The parent population of lizards already had guts, so expanded guts are not a new structure, merely a slightly larger on average version of a pre-existing structure

[falchion49]

Nephilimfree's constant shifting of the goalposts is a survival strategy. If the evidence contradicts him he ignores it, deems it not to be evidence or claims it's evidence for something it doesn't indicate. His inability to interperet evidence clearly and without bias is evidenced by his need of a supernatural origin to massage any evidence into his incredibly convoluted fantasies. "Horribly skewed" just about describes his videos.

[califoniania]

He admitted so himself (although indirectly). In his dark matter video he said that if scientists don't find dark matter, that proves that God exists and if they do find it, that just proves that God is ingenious. So basically, he's saying that no matter what evidence comes to light he's not abandoning his belief in God.

[falchion49]

Agreed, he can't. I don't think that he'll abandon his belief because that would mean that he was wrong. He's an inveterate straw clutcher, just watch his video 'Nephilim' to observe that, he's managed to include a photo that was involved in a photoshop competition and a statue commemorating the defence of Stalingrad as 'evidence' that giants existed. When questioned and corrected he ignored it. Then he accuses people who can spot the truth when it occurs of willful ignorance. What a hypocrite.

[califoniania]

Wow, I just watched that video and I think my brain just imploded. I wonder if he actually believes the crap he says or if he's just being dishonest. Whatever the reason is, the combination of blatant falsehoods/errors and his condescending tone make most of his videos unwatchable.

[falchion49]

Absolutely. His responses and lack of responses speak volumes though. Her expects people to do his research for him and he tries to give the impression that his responses are being accepted by those who question him. it's a classic strategy. He's attempting to lend veracity to his statements by censoring responses and only allowing himself the last word. He must be a very small, in the widest context, individual to rely on such ego props.

[califoniania]

He just seems more interested in 'winning' verbal exchanges by whatever means necessary (including censorship) than actually learning anything. He cares more about CONVINCING others (and possibly himself) that he's right than about actually being right.  Oh yeah, he's a VERY small individual with a very fragile ego; kind of reminds me of VenomfangX.

[falchion49]

What Nephilimfree and Venomfangx do do is demonstrate the depths which one has to plumb in order to adhere to and evangelise Young Earth Creationism. Both my wife and I are professional archaeologists and in our careers we've nboth encountered these types. It's amazing, they can actually have a piece of evidence presented to them, in the flesh sometimes, and it's possible to see them try to physically not see it. It happened once with a wooly rhino skull from a gravel deposit. Can be fun.

[califoniania]

When you actually have had the evidence in your hand it becomes especially comical when they deny that there is any evidence and it becomes especially infuriating when they claim that scientists lie about the evidence. Nephilimfree does just that: he accuses scientists of lying and being biased against God (like Ken Miller, right?). I swear, these people would call gravity a lie and a conspiracy if their holy book said it didn't exist. Oh, and that wooly rhino was put in the ground by Satan ;)

[falchion49]

That's what the creationist concerned eventually said lol. What gets me about NF and his cronies is they can never answer why we'd lie, how come there are no whistle blowers and how come if we're lying our lies actually work?

[califoniania]

It figures. I haven't heard a new argument out of Creationists since the Dover trial, just a rehashing of the same crap.

Exactly. What is the incentive for the entire scientific community to lie? Sure, some people make money publishing books, but what's the incentive for a normal 9-5 scientist that works in a lab? In fact, they could make much more money lobbying for Creationism. I believe Kent Hovind made millions just on speaking appearances alone. So who's got the incentive to lie again?

[falchion49]

Got it in one. Plus, if a bona fide fact that was undisputable came to light demonstrating a 4004 BCE 'creation' date for the entire universe it'd make the career of the person who discovered it. So far no one's made that discovery. Creationists see science as a conspiracy because it repeatedly refutes their claims with evidence and fact hence they can't dispute the evidence. Only by claiming conspiracy either natural or supernatural can they hope to defend themselves against the evidence.

[califoniania]

What's strange is that science had no problem admitting it was wrong before (the nature of gravity, Miasma Theory, Lamarckism, etc.) so why would they suddenly want to cover up the Theory of Evolution being wrong? It makes no sense especially, as you mentioned, since such a discovery would make a scientist famous.

Creationists have put themselves in a difficult position: they have to believe that the Bible is 100% true, so they have to deny all evidence to the contrary by whatever means.

[falchion49]

Which is good from our perspective because the the biblical version of events, not that there is one interpretation, is slowly retreating from reality and dragging them with it. Education, even the most perfunctory education, is getting so that they're being isolated on their own little reef of delusion arguing with each other over interpretations of a fantasy unable to get even their own story consistent.

[califoniania]

Ironically, their dogmatic stubbornness is actually contributing to the decline of Christianity. When they preach to people (including other Christians) that the world is 6000 years old, that there are talking snakes and dragons, that a global flood occurred in which a man took dinosaurs, and that there was water above the atmosphere educated Christians start asking "is this really what we believe in?". And the fact that they can't even get their story straight just compounds their problems.

[ThetaOmega]

Stonedcommander9, I do not condone the distribution of anyone's personal details anywhere on my channel or videos. I will remove all references immediately, if you do this again you will regrettably be blocked.

[thrashersk87654]

you honestly have been brainwashed by someone and have know idea how this world came to be. HOW ARE U AND ME HERE? where did the earth and universe come from. and i dont wana hear anything about this big bang theory either because where did the dust and rocks come from. You should delete every video u put up and give up. you caant even get to evoltion without explaining this first

[markotark]

There are lots of books about astronomy. Why don't you try opening one of them and reading the words that are printed on the pages. Your ignorance about science doesn't make any of the gods more real, It just makes you ignorant.

[chyrd]

Look up M Theory and String Theory, and then try to make a point.

[Terrencje]

"and i dont wana hear anything about this big bang theory either because where did the dust and rocks come from."

dust comes from erosion. Rocks form by elements drawn together in a compact solid mass. There is no mention of dust or rock in the big bang theory.

"you caant even get to evoltion without explaining this first"

These fields of sciences are not the same, only complementary. A god could have created Earth and the first cell and let it evolve.

[AirbornePig]

Just because we can't be 100% sure how the universe came to be, doesn't make God any more of a reasonable answer. God is merely a guess, a lack of needing an explanation, a fantasy.

[Nerdysaxophoneplaya]

where did the energy come from that makes the big bang?

[ThetaOmega]

Well, assuming there is a "where" for the energy to come from, since there is no "when" or "where" before the big bang, the honest answer is "I don't know."

However, such an answer doesn't immediately translate to "Gawddunnit" since such is a God-of-the-gaps argument, God being used to explain things we do not yet know, just as he was used to explain sunrises, sunsets, rainbows, volcanoes, hurricanes and every natural phenomenon we now understand.

[Nerdysaxophoneplaya]

well God designed the science (what-do-ya-know? they were right in saying that God was responsible for it!). technically speaking, if you say that there is a common designer that created everything, its more scientific than saying everything came from nothing.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Science does not contend that everything came from nothing. Big Bang theory does not comment on the source of the singularity, only its existence and what happened to it. This is the same way that evolution does not comment on the source of life, only what heppened to it once it was here.

Going from "We don't know" to "It must have been an intelligent being" merely shifts the regress one step back. What designed the designer?

[HumanStrategy]

You shouldn't expect any creationists to understand your words seeing how the level of your vocab included words such as 'is' and 'the'.

^^*

[Nerdysaxophoneplaya]

i wouldn't expect any other insults from an evolutionist. you obviously don't have anything real to say or you would've said it instead of trying to insult our intellect

[HumanStrategy]

Your intellect deserves to be insulted.

[Nerdysaxophoneplaya]

yes but saying that we evolved from something that had less cells and chromosomes then us is preposterous when it comes to actual science. Never has a chromosome adding mutation been beneficial, and it sure wouldn't increase your chance of survival. And since when do minerals form life? nobody has ever observed that.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Never has a chromosome adding mutation been beneficial, and it sure wouldn't increase your chance of survival."

You're minsinformed there. There are many plants that have increased their chromosomes during the process of domestication to have double or triple the number of chromosomes their verifiable ancestors have. Many of these plants are far more hardy than the original strains, though some are not. Bacteria readily obtain extra chromosome like segments (plasmids) without ill effect.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"yes but saying that we evolved from something that had less cells and chromosomes then us is preposterous when it comes to actual science."

Not really. Changes from single to multiple cell modes of life (and the reverse) have been observed in microscopic species in response to genetic and environmental changes. The process can be heritable, so it is not inconceivable that a single celled ancestor could produce a milticellular descendant.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"And since when do minerals form life? nobody has ever observed that."

Depends on what you mean by "life". The formation of organic molecules by purely natural processes has been observed in a variety of conditions, as well as the formations of chains of these molecules as in living organisms. RNA experiments have shown that only a short sequence of bases is needed for self replication, perhaps as low as 500 bases. Abiogenesis has many gaps yet, but no science yet rules out its validity.

[Nerdysaxophoneplaya]

where did the energy come from to blow up, form minerals, and form... life from nothing? that is highly improbable. come on. if you want to be scientific then quit presenting a highly unlikely, unproven theory, that has less facts then creationism.

[ThetaOmega]

"that has less facts then creationism."

You a proposing negative facts?

"that is highly improbable"

You say that after the events occurred, as such the probability of them happening is 1, because they happened.

"a highly unlikely, unproven theory" The video was about evolution, which is pretty much the opposite of unlikely and unproven. If you're talking about abiogenesis, it's not as solidly supported as evolution, but science is getting there.

[ThetaOmega]

"where did the energy come from to blow up, form minerals, and form... life from nothing?"

A critical misunderstanding of several fields of science has led you to produce a strawman, plus you ask where the energy came from, and then claim it came from nothing, so your question is pointless. The formation of the universe from nothing is not what the current scientific consensus states. It is in fact closer to the beliefs of creationism.

[Celephaith]

Nephilimfree looks like the classic 40 year old child molester living in his mom's basement.

[NephilimFree]

The gene that creates cecal valves has been located and sequenced in the parent population. Go to Amherst University and sarch for cecal valves. The gene has been slightly modified by DNA Recombination so that it would become expressed in the new popuilation.

Sorry buddy. No evolution. It was a grand assumption, a ridiculous one, and a neato idea for evos. But like all evo assumptuions, science squished it.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Go to Amherst University and sarch for cecal valves. The gene has been slightly modified by DNA Recombination so that it would become expressed in the new popuilation."

A search for "cecal valves" At Amhurst University provides only 4 links, 2 of which are too old to be anything to do with this, 1 of which is a news release about the initial discovery fomr april and the last of which is a link to the original paper.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Now, the original paper presents no sequencing data for the valve gene at all. Pubmed searches for any author of the original paper fail to turn up any such data. Unless you can provide a direct link to this data, you have been caught in a lie, or a misunderstanding of the results presented so deeply profound that it throws doubt on your ability to understand any of genetic information you talk about.

Can you provide such a direct link?

[ThetaOmega]

"DNA Recombination" please cite a source for this claim, and while you're at it, actually provide a link to the part of Amherst University that actually shows the sequenced genome you claim exists. Then, explain how this event does not fit YOUR definition of evolution, being "Morphological change," as well as everyone else's definition.

[paulmarko]

Dude, don't bother with NephilimFree. This guy is too far gone.

I tried to leave some comments on his video, very reasonable ones I might add, and he blocked them.

I e-mailed him, and he didn't address my e-mail at all, but said I was blind to the facts and informed me that he blocked me for "hacking"

I don't even know how to hack. He's just completely paranoid, and probably anti-social.

He's seeking approval from some non-existant authority figure and has completely lost his sanity.

[RedDuke77]

Unfortunately, that was a pitiful attempt at negating the 'creationist'....a surly kid simply sneering all the way through...Not real good evidence !

what evidence would be required by the 'evolutionist' would be the total Decoding of the particular reptiles DNA before the 'cecal valves' were present & AFTER the 'cecal valves' appeared.

Without the DNA comparison you Cannot Say the gene which encodes for the 'cecal valves' were Not present in the original species, simply lying dormant.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Without the DNA comparison you Cannot Say the gene which encodes for the 'cecal valves' were Not present in the original species, simply lying dormant."

True, but you can't say the gene (or the version that makes the valves) was definitely in the original population either, as Nephilimfree has. You need the data to know for sure. All you can say for now is that these lizards have a structure that is not observed in their parent population. This is all that is said in the original article.

[StupidCreationists]

Nephilimfree is such a double standard hypocrite. Now wants the animals to evolve in a lab!

How about any evidence for good? let alone getting god in a lab!

[SaviorOfLogic]

And yet they already have (nylon-eating bacteria). He, like some of my christian friends, will only accept evolution if God himself came on to earth and told them.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Apologies if this turns up twice, the message system is being whacky.

Something to be careful of is automatically chalking the caecal valves up to mutation. AFAIK, no sequencing has been done in the lizards yet and the authors of the paper spcifically mention that it may be the result of pre-existing variation, plasticity or an epigentic event. Of course, Neph outright refuses to believe that a scientist would suggest alternatives and says that none of these questions are being addressed.

[ThetaOmega]

Indeed, mutation is one possible source. Even if the genes for the cecal valves were present, but became re-activated, it's still evolution.

[RedDuke77]

ThetaOmega > stop lying to yourself...

i quote "Even if the genes for the cecal valves were present, but became re-activated, it's still evolution."

if you believe that kid you're so desperate.

're-activated' is Evolution...BullShit !

Dog Grow more hair when in cold climate...Re-Activated Gene ??? Evolution ???

Stop Kidding yourself you deluded little boy!

[SaviorOfLogic]

You're wrong, basically, the chicken evolved from lizards, and because the teeth are useless, they were 'turned off'. They will rarely come back, but if the environment made teeth beneficial, the chickens would 're-evolve' to get their teeth back. The same, potentially, happened, with the cecal valves.

[jscience]

Nephilimfree: I try to be respectul, but you're so blatant and shameless a liar it is hard to be that way with you

[jscience]

3:03

counterexample: does he know what the "Golgi Apparatus" is?

[ThetaOmega]

If not, a quick google of the term lands you with the wiki article, is it not present in the cell's DNA?

[jscience]

The Golgi itself is coded for, but its function is to make all sorts of things that are not coded for

[TangibleEvidence]

If Evoloution was not real, I'd want to beat nfree with a dinosaur bone instead of a lead pipe. Fortunately, the lead pipe option is real due to the Evolution of Mechanical Engineering.

[chuckawobbly]

Actually, DNA is not a code.

[Charlymaumushi]

what a dumb fuck. Thats the reason you should go to school before the shit roles out your mouth. Oh well. 5/5

[LittleTruckingBozo]

I gave up on educating NF a wile back. No matter how many times you explain "THAT's NOT EVOLUTION" he just does not care. Because to him, it's best to use a dishonest version of "None standard" version of evolution to get the results he wants. The guy is totally dishonest. And the odd part is I feel sorry for this guy now. When I know I should still be laughing at him. But something not right in his head. Sadly he is doing more damage to the vary same religion he is promoting.

[Danmill23]

He talks about a "lab"

Remember the lizards are on an island. This serves as the "lab". They are isolated on the island.

[HellionX]

To add to what Danmill23 just said, the lizards were almost extinct and were placed on the island where no other of these species of lizards existed. They left them there and came back years later only to find these lizards flourishing on the island with the fecal valve.

[ThetaOmega]

Good point Danmill, the island would work as a lab, however since Nephy's mention of it was simply an attempt at shifting the goalposts, so he'd probably demand "controlled conditions" although evolution like this requires natural selective pressures, so I don't know how "controlled" the conditions can be.

[laxguy22655]

oooooh i know how the internet came around i mean did god magically make it appear and how it has evolved as apposed to it just appeared this way that would be somewhat entertaining

[laxguy22655]

but theres that but the fact there are people that believe the world is flat and everything revolves around us is rather disturbing you know what would be entertaining have a fact debate about idk something stupid between thunderfOOt Theta on one side and then aronRA and Donexudus2 on the other using satire for idk im sure we could come up with something that would really mess with the creationists wouldnt it

[Xenithan]

Brief? You nearly hit the time limit.

[Section41]

Are you a member of Lamda lamda lamda?

[laxguy22655]

this one almost beats outs the world is flat and the universe revovles around the sun arugment against evolution but least he is trying to use biology

[Atriviality]

I still like when Nephie threw in with the group that said UFOs are from Satan.

[laxguy22655]

even if they "had" this adaption before the loosing of them would still be evolution in a way and gaining them back would still be evolution i think this guy neph is a closet evolutionist i think he needs to have an intervention and just bring it out of him his Idd must be slapping the crap out him inside his head

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

You bring me hope for the future of our species.

[ulthea]

Had to laugh when he required "observation in a laboratory setting" yet takes his religious belief on blind faith, and against all possible logic. Go figure. Another good vid, mate =)

[jebus6kryst]

What a joke. For this reason NephilimFree got my vote for the Golden Croco-Duck.

[rozeboosje]

Instead of learning that a lot of evolution occurs by nature re-using and adapting existing functionality, NephilimFree wants to, indeed, "move the goalposts" by insisting that only the magical appearance of completely new structures out of thin air could be called "evolution". No evolutionary scientist would ever said that, and all he's doing is erecting a large elaborate strawman.

[rozeboosje]

What a silly argument. "Evolution" is nothing other than change over time. First there were no cecal valves, then there were. That is evolution. And clearly the structure is complex AND known from other species, which means that this particular bit of evolution must be a question of a few small changes in a few control genes, NOT a major new development. Hurray. And it's still evolution all the same. LOL

[rozeboosje]

@0:44 Lemme guess. "They're still lizards", right?

[debnadaviebna]

the argument he is using used to be denied by creationists, they said that there cannot be new information

and if the same information that creates a fin also creates an arm means that a lizard can overtime become a bird, and I call that evolution

[SeenAndNotSeen]

Nephi won't admit evolution happens until there is a new genetic mutation discovered that isn't in an organism's DNA. Yeah, I know that the above sentence is, by definition, impossible.

Somehow, he thinks that the fact that a mutation is found in DNA means that it's not evolution.

[daswann14]

I thought you put these up in the wrong order. Nephi is an idiot.

[Didums222]

Everything that can ever be made in an organism can be coded for by A-T-G-C. Now, he probably thinks for some reason that there would have to be, lets say, R added to ATGC for there to be new structures but he's terribly confused over how DNA Actually codes for things. Thats not how DNA codes for things, it codes in triplets of 3 (amino acids), example: AAG. And these are made in chains that make proteins, AAG GCG TTA etc. He doesnt get that the differences in the pattern create the changes.