Thank you for posting this video! It really helped me and my study buddies put together all the concepts we're learning in Zoology. You've got sexy brains!
@EvoBiologist Because evolution is satan's work. Earth is 6000 years old. Science is a liberal conspiracy. God created those transitional fossils in order to test our faith. If you pass the test you will be the best, but if you fail the test you will burn in the lake of the fire eternally. God will never forgive you. Please, don't believe those lies because scientists are atheist liars who are trying to destroy our values. Believe it or not, evolution leads to hell.
@freandwhickquest You seem to contradict yourself. If God made transitional fossils as you say, then the science studying them isn't a conspiracy, but is actually dedicated to understanding the physical evidence that is actually available. Further, I have myself collected organisms, run chemical reactions, poured through the resulting gene sequences, and aligned and compared these sequences to see the resulting family trees that require millions of years of mutations to make.
@TCupUK That's an interesting story. Thanks for pointing it out. I looked into it some more. It turns out that the rate of decay varies by as much as 0.1% and corresponds w/ solar flare activity. Lucky for our radioactive dating systems, it would appear that to drastically change the rate of decay would require some pretty extreme solar activity (i.e. enough to fry the planet).
@TCupUK If you google this quote, "In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves." you'll find a copy of the article I got that from.
I have looked into polonium haloes. I'm no geologist (and neither is Robert Gentry, who published on polonium haloes), but if you google "Polonium Haloes" Refuted, you'll see a geologist's take on it.
@EvoBiologist Okay I now understand where you came up with 0.1%, however you failed to mention its context.
"silicon–32 — relative to a long-lived standard — modulated around its usual value of about 172 years by the order of 0.1%"
I will quote your sources "What we are showing is that decay constants are apparently not fundamental constants of nature Ephraim Fischbach, Purdue University"
The fact that decay is not constant is not up for debate, its cause is.
@TCupUK I'm not arguing that decay rates are totally constant. I'm only pointing out that the amount of variation isn't enough to significantly change any geological dates (and certainly doesn't support a young Earth, which would require rates on the order of 1 MILLION times faster than those observed - not 0.1%).
Robert Gentry is a supporter of creationism and he makes this more than clear. However his personal views do not effect the scientific method applied to his evidence. His evidence has passed scrutiny many times, even if his conclusions do not. Unfortunately it is hard to find the scientific evidence of his findings without encountering the Christian and atheist row. I can provide you with verified scientific papers on his evidence if you want?
@TCupUK According to geologist Baillieul, "[Gentry] doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing.. [He used sections] from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s).. does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples" etc.
@TCupUK ''Gentry's evidence has passed scrutiny many times, even if his conclusions do not. ''
Correct, no one says his halos don't exist. His conclusion is ''We can't explain these so Gawd musta dun it that way.'' The conclusion is not proven by the evidence. No one accepts his LOGIC.
@TCupUK Polonium halos (as in Po218) are actually formed by radon (Rn222) which is a gas formed from by decomposition of radioactive uranium present in granite. That this is true is demonstrated by the fact that Rn222 and Po218 halos are virtually identical and the fact that radiohalos are ONLY observed in granites which also contain large amounts of radioactive uranium. The decomposition of Rn222 to give Po218 is also responsible for lung cancers in environments with high radon incidence
The evidence is based in empirical data on human mutation rates, done by others and his expertise in the power of selection. This is not a pastor or an atheist advocate that has an opinion. J C Sanford is an authority on the power of selection. His expertise is world renown. Accumulating mutations do not create new organisms, they create sickness and death. This is what we observe evolution is what you wish for.
@mejc2 First off, I've read plenty of papers by plenty of people, each of whom are considered "an authority on the power of selection", and have never heard one claim that accumulating mutations can only lead to "sickness and death". Such appeals to authority will only fail you in a field where far less than 1% don't accept common ancestry.
So the claim is based on analysis of a model using data from human mutation rates - have you seen this analysis? Can you point me towards it?
It Seems to me that John Sanford's work pretty much nullifies all the time and effort that Evolutionists have put into arranging organisms into what they call a nested hierarchy. with no known mechanism to create new organisms, body parts, organs, or body plans, imagining that it happened and then arranging organisms in a pattern base on that assumption is a waste of time. A world changing geneticist has examined the empirical data and shown mutation and selection to an impossible cause.
@mejc2 If Sanford has "shown mutation and selection to an impossible cause", then you should be eager to make the case for him here. What evidence does Sanford use to make the case?
Hey Marcus, a team in Australia has found compound eyes equal to modern shrimp eyes in the Cambrian. That kind of shoots the shit out of your primitive adaptations and nested hierarchy. What are advanced adaptations doing at the beginning of the Darwinian cycle. Aren't primitive adaptations supposed to be at the bottom?
@mejc2 First off, the Cambrian is not "the beginning of the Darwinian cycle" (whatever that means), and shrimp eyes are not the most advanced. Second, I am curious as to how the researchers you mention are able to tell from a fossil that the eyes are equal in complexity to modern shrimp eyes. I don't see how one could say that without comparing cells, soft structures, and neural circuitry. Could you provide a reference to this study so I can check it out?
@mejc2 I've read the abstract, but I don't have access to the whole paper. It's a cool find. Here are a few points I'd like to make:
-as mentioned in the abstract, more primitive trilobite eyes predate the more complex eyes discovered
-the eyes studied date back to 515mya, while the Cambrian began around 542mya. The Cambrian is preceded by 10s of millions of years of fossil worm holes. So, though this is a relatively early period, there was still plenty of time.
There is a summary of the article and the authors also made a video for the internet if you are interested ask me and I'll find the links and send them to you. To make the comment off hand that there is plenty of time, I think, is a little premature on your part. Do not those eyes suggest predatory animals with advanced digestive systems, advanced locomotion to secure prey, predatory instincts. advanced body structures, etc. The authors claim it happened in the twinkling of an eye
@mejc2 I am interested, so I'll take you up on the offer to send me the links.
My claim of "plenty of time" is based on simple math given the dates of the fossil and the earliest evidence of animal life. I suppose that from a certain perspective, 10s of millions of years is a "twinkling of an eye", but I don't find it to be a particularly critical problem for slow, gradual evolution.
Also, I don't see how this is evidence of a range of other advanced features.
@mejc2 Thanks for the sources - I looked into this some more. I still don't see where you are getting the claim that this is evidence of other advanced features - they only found the eyes. The authors claim that the eyes are about as advanced as eyes dating to 40 million years later. The eyes are less complex than many modern arthropod eyes. The interesting thing about the study is that we see that higher resolution eyes existed a bit earlier than thought, but still in line with common ancestry.
a bit earlier? You are very lenient with your requirements for Darwinism. I've read through part of JC Sanford's book on Genetic Entropy. He is basically challenging what he calls the primary axiom of Darwinism. Namely that mutations filtered by natural selection Is incapable of driving life from a single celled organism to humans. I might as well have written the book. However, I didn't invent the gene gun and geneticists around the world don't use processes that I invented so..
@mejc2 Okay, so I've read through the book to see what Sanford's actual data-based arguments are. Basically, he uses humans as a model to look at mutation rate vs. selection pressure, and determines that humans are degenerating genetically.
I agree - we are. That's what happens when you remove an organism from a natural situation, and coddle them and compensate for any genetic defects.
Why not use bacteria or something else with rapid genetic change? I can poke holes in his numbers, too.
@EvoBiologist I believe he covers why he doesn't use bacteria. something about short generations I think. However, thanks for taking the time to read what he had to say and giving me your opinion. I am beginning to see that evolution is a world view and not based on any observation. I read evolutionists and creationists points of view on data discovered. How they interpret that data is based on their world view not the data. PHD's on both sides calling each other ignorant. I'll go with the Bible
@mejc2 A short generation time is highly correlated (for obvious reasons) with a rapid rate of evolution. That's why it makes sense to look at bacteria and not humans. Humans have several issues: 1) long generations (slow evolution) 2) unnatural environment (unusual selective pressures) 3) laws making testing the true effects of human mutations damn near impossible
Evolution is typically studied by biologists in organisms with short generations and lots of babies. It makes testing easier.
Oh, Like fruit flies and bacteria. when are those pesky things going to evolve anyway. Also, as I said when we first met. There is no mechanism to write the genetic code needed to create the diversity we see.
@mejc2 Well, fruit flies and bacteria do evolve, and they do so at speeds in line with common ancestry.
So far, the mutations we see and selective pressures measured are theoretically capable of building up change over time in a pattern like that seen in life. The small scale patterns are the same as the long-term ones. Your geneticist, Sanford, was supposed to provide evidence to the contrary, but as I've pointed out, his evidence is flawed in several ways.
At speeds in line with common ancestry? What the hell does that mean? No change is in line with common ancestry and rapid change is in line with common ancestry. The only speed that you would consider out of line with common ancestry is ludicrous speed (heard that in a movie, thought I'd throw it in for laughs).
@mejc2 I can always go for a good "Space Ball's" reference.
You are correct that there are a range of speeds of evolution that are in line with common ancestry. The point is that we have witnessed evolution of genetic sequence, size, shape, and many other measurable traits that are actually FASTER than required for common ancestry to work. How can Sanford argument be correct if this is the case? Would his math work if he looked at mice instead of long-lived humans where we can't test selection?
I don't know. Why don't you call him and ask him. I'm being serious right now. Many, many, many, years ago when I was in college I had to write a paper based on a book. As a supplement to reading the book I called the author and interviewed him. I quoted the phone conversation in my paper and not only received an A for the paper, but also won the respect of my professor and the author. No one is better than you Marcus, don't be intimidated.
@mejc2 I sent Dr. Sanford an email. He responded, but didn't address my concerns about the problem of measuring genetic change and the effect of specific mutations in humans. He said he used humans "because the origin of man is the biggest issue for most of us, and interests most people", and not for scientific reasons. He also said that "mutations per nucleotide per year is pretty constant across life forms", when in fact it is mutations per nucleotide per GENERATION that is fairly constant.
@EvoBiologist Good for you Marcus. E-mail wasn't invented when I was in school. for that matter neither was the personal computer, or the calculator, or color television. Anyway, don't let him off the hook Marcus. I wouldn't go to far on the per year/per generation thing. You can measure many generations in one year of some organisms and some fraction of a generation of others so you can make the math work either way. No sense wasting your time splitting hairs. Dig deeper challenge him/yourself
@mejc2 That "you can measure many generations in one year of some organisms and some fraction of a generation of others" means that you cannot make the math work. Either mutations/nucleotide/year is fairly constant or /generation is fairly constant - not both - and this makes a HUGE difference mathematically (think bacterial generations per human one). His argument is math based.
I didn't let him off the hook - Sanford just hasn't responded to my second email, and it has been several days now.
@mejc2 I'm pretty sure Sanford is doing okay for himself with all those patents. As for his book, most biologists don't make popular books for the public - they're lucky if a lot of people in their very specific field buy their book. So, having a publicly controversial book that appeals to a large religious group can't hurt his pocketbook either. Neither can the many public appearances he is payed to give that he wouldn't have gotten had he had mainstream views.
@mejc2 Not really - I just googled him and read up a bit, so I know who you are talking about. Is there a particular argument of his that you would like to discuss?
I didn't really read his book. It is about genetic entropy basically. What is your opinion that the negative mutations so far outweigh the positive mutations that we are basically self destructing. An analogy that he used is like a boat with many holes even though you are bailing you cannot empty it as fast as it is filling up. Natural selection is the bailing party and negative mutations are the holes.
@mejc2 There are plenty of real world measurement and models suggesting that this is not the case. A broad range of selection pressures and negative/positive mutation rates work with the population genetics math.
This guy seems pretty sharp. What do you think led him to miss readily available information to the point of writing and publishing a book. I have read a few reviews of the book. Creatards love it and Evotards hate it. Some scientists in the middle seem to think he has done some good work. I will read it and get back to you.
@mejc2 "What do you think led him to miss readily available information to the point of writing and publishing a book."
Are you implying that there are no intelligent people who have written in favor of a fundamentally flawed concept, despite evidence to the contrary? My guess is that like many other bright people (think Freud or Plato), he took an interesting and promising idea and went way too far with it, to the point of leaving the realm of reality.
Reality? Do you think The other scientists of Galileo's day were saying thank you we're so tired of dealing with myths. Every time there is a paradigm shift, those in the old paradigm go down kicking and screaming.
@mejc2 Oh, I see - you were making a rhetorical point and not arguing for geocentrism or intelligent falling. Unfortunately for Dr. Sanford, his mathematical model of evolution isn't quite as clear-cut evidence as Galileo or Newton's simple mathematical models of planetary motion. By the way, the scientists following "the old paradigm" in Galileo's and Newton's time were actually pretty quickly convinced of the new clear and elegant solution. Where is the elegant "Miracles from Yahweh" model?
Dude, I love your videos. I do have to say this.....and my voice sucks on video hence my reason for not making videos ......... you sound rather like Ernie from Sesame Street.
@Aikwood666 that also explains why the area of the brain that processes sensory data from the lower jaw, is right next to the area that processes sensory data from the arm and hand (causing phantom sensations in an amputated arm while shaving).
@Aikwood666 arms and legs evolved from fins so they are the same genes but with modification and no, if what you are saying is true, that doesn't mean that fins evolved from gills which is impossible
@blazereef Actually, if you watch the video, you'll see that there is some good evidence (and a lot of research) supporting the idea that fins did evolve from gills. Pectoral fins are right next to gills, and fins are coded by a duplicated gill gene, structurally similar to gills, and share some developmental characteristics with gills.
Hope you do 2nd part dude as that was awesome. Love the morphological examples you give as they aren't readily listed in my textbook & will be fire for upcoming test.
Glad to see passionate for zoology, I am just now going through the throws of conversion from microbiology to macro-type biology, and they feel great.
In fact my professor is American, he was at Princeton but moved to Australia because of the wildlife. His name is Michael Archer, has written some cool books.
@EvoBiologist - I see that mejc2 is claiming again you said "quadrillions of wild historical accidents", but conveniently excludes the preceding words which would show the context in which this phrase may have been used. I also note that when previously asked mejc2 was unable to point to where you supposedly used this phrase - have you been quote-mined, misquoted or incorrectly attributed?
@KrokrX To be honest, I've forgotten where mejc2 is quoting me from. If I said, "quadrillions of wild historical accidents" in the context of an explanation of common descent, then I would assume I was talking about the total number of mutations in every organism that has ever lived on Earth. If so, I was certainly off by many orders of magnitude. The few thousand years since the agricultural revolution have surely seen incredible numbers of mutations purely from solar UV radiation alone.
@EvoBiologist - I fully expected that mejc2 was taking you out of context, if indeed he was quoting you at all.
Good luck with getting mejc2 to see an argument through to the end, he always tries to change the subject when it's clear he's losing. His earlier remarks about 'sunlight' and 'an open system' make it clear he's being dishonest, and/or remarkably thick, with his claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
@EvoBiologist - mejc2 is seriously deluded if he thinks his unsupported ill-educated assertions explain anything! I couldn't help but smile at his 'I don't give anyone this time' - that was so typically laughable and disingenuous. If he had any regard for you he'd dump his ill-educated anti-science nonsense somewhere else, and stop wasting your time. Let's face it, you can read his material on the AIG/DI/ICR websites any time you like.
@KrokrX "Let's face it, you can read his material on the AIG/DI/ICR websites any time you like."
True, but who wants to check there as frequently as mejc2 does? It only really annoys me when he repeats arguments I've already thoroughly refudiated (as the not-so-Shakespearean former governor of Alaska might say).
@EvoBiologist - perhaps mejc2 does save you visiting the AIG/DI/ICR websites to see their latest nonsense, however his dishonesty and evasion must take their toll. I still remember his first outright lie to me about only 'evolutionists' rubbishing the RATE results, which he actually admitted he'd got wrong when I pointed him to an OEC site, but then shortly after repeated - ever since it's been hard to take him seriously. Liked the Palin reference, it seems so appropriate when discussing mejc2!
@EvoBiologist - sorry, I nearly replied to mejc2 to remind him that he claimed that 'all things move to a state of disorder', and that your examples of crystals and hurricanes clearly demonstrated his schoolboy error, but that would have been pointless. He doesn't like to admit his errors and deceits, even when highlighted. Perhaps he thinks that commandment in his bible about bearing false witness is optional!
Awesome job bro. The picture of the pectoral fin comparisons at 5:02 is from the lab I work in. Stay tuned, because there's some interesting novel stuff on Harpagofututor that should be coming out in print next year ;) . I was debating making an evolution of fishes video for youtube but it looks like you've covered it pretty well
@EvoBiologist - glad you had fun and hope the break has done you a world of good. Not much has changed here in the meantime, dear old mejc2 still hasn't answered the questions about his nebulous classification system, or clarified his nonsense about entropy, but then he never gives a straight answer to a question, instead preferring to obfuscate or evade like too many YECs here on YT.
@kyagh - I note that mejc2 has also boasted on other videos of his multiple degrees but refuses to name them, athough he's admitted they weren't in Chemistry or Biology fields, and given his woeful use of maths it''s unlikely they're in Maths or Physics. Favourite would be some field of theology, probably from a religious institution or perhaps even the same place as Kent Hovind! There has to be some reason he's so shy.
Hey Marcus, They just found Cambrian fossils In Morocco 150 million years out of place. I guess that puts the whole trilobites changed into something new theory to rest.
@mejc2 Having Cambrian-like organisms in a later time period alongside more derived groups is no different than having humans and prosimians alive at the same time or having white Americans and Europeans alive at the same time.
Clearly, it is interesting to find out that some of these primitive body plans can be found in more recent deposits than seen before, but if you don't see how this does nothing to undermine the evidence for common ancestry, then you don't understand evolution.
I understand fully how you would not see this as a problem. The story goes that some of the trilobites slowly changed into mythological common ancestors while others survived perfectly well for 150 million years. The unobserved copying errors that produced entirely new genetic programs to create new tissues, organs and body plans filtered through natural selection to create mythological common ancestors only happened to some of the Cambrian organisms while the same type lived on
@mejc2 "The unobserved copying errors that produced entirely new genetic programs to create new tissues, organs and body plans..."
Which new tissues, organs, and body plans are those? As far as I can tell, modern arthropods and trilobites have the same parts. The only differences are quantitative, not qualitative.
Also, the Ordovician trilobites are distinct from the Cambrian ones. So, even these were modified by evolution.
observe adaptation and claim victory for molecules to man evolution. Evolutionary biologist? surly you can do better. You know perfectly well what I am alluding to. However, you choose to microscopically pick apart the argument to defend your story. What next? will you attack my spelling?
@mejc2 "observe adaptation and claim victory for molecules to man evolution."
Not at all. Such scales of evolution require far more than trilobite fossils to build meaningful support for. Luckily, we've got over 150 years of research in several fields that backs up such a claim.
"However, you choose to microscopically pick apart the argument to defend your story."
Oh, I'm so sorry if I'm too thorough in my dissection of your little argument. I guess that's the scientist in me.
Scientist? You flatter yourself. Science does not go around claiming wild historical accidents as causes for billions upon billions of advancements in organisms. That is evolutionism. You can however in all rights call yourself an evolutionist. You defend the evolution story, not science.
@mejc2 "Science does not go around claiming wild historical accidents as causes for billions upon billions of advancements in organisms."
What does science claim is the cause of the structures in those organisms?
I was under the impression that pretty much everything in science is explained by a combination of historical accidents and general natural patterns. Evolution is no different. Are you suggesting magical mysterious miracles would be a better, more scientific alternative explanation?
science= "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method "
scientific method= "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena,"
Evolutionism violates laws and isn't an observed phenomena. I must have missed the wild historical accidents
@mejc2 "Evolutionism violates laws and isn't an observed phenomena. I must have missed the wild historical accidents"
Which laws does it violate? Gobs of observed phenomena have been used to test the predictions of evolution, as well as the predictions of other explanations for the diversity and behavior of life we see. Evolution passes these tests and no other theory does.
As for accidents, each event in history is caused by a combination of rules and chance events - ex: tides, weather, etc.
@mejc2 How exactly does evolution violate the law of entropy while development from an embryo does not?
Pasteur was testing whether flies would spontaneously pop up out of dirt when he came up with the "law" of biogenesis, not whether self-replicating polynucleotides were capable of forming through natural chemistry.
@mejc2 "Gee I thought dirt was made of Chemicals."
Yes, it is. How does that counter my point exactly?
"Embryo is just a growing organism. It is not going from disorder to order."
The matter used to construct the growing organism is most definitely going from disorder to order, while the organism itself is becoming more complex and more highly ordered. If this can happen without breaking the law of entropy, then why is evolution different?
mejc2 - You've tried appealing to authority with your claims of multiple degrees but won't say what they are, and claimed a high IQ although you're inconsistent in what you claim; you're starting to sound uncomfortably like GSFY. He also espouses a similar idea to your creationist 'kinds', and he too ducks and runs away when asked to define them. If you can't define them how can you tell that the speciation events we've given you don't qualify?
@mejc2 "Well pasture showed life doesn't come from dirt"
No, Pasteur showed that flies and other complex organisms don't just pop up out of the dirt. He didn't even know what a polynucleotide was.
"the embryo is following it's program it has nothing to do with the law of entropy. "
How is it that the embryo is able to create order from disorder as it develops into an adult? Why do you think this is not possible for other natural processes like evolution?
The embryo is not creating order from disorder any more than a tree is creating order from disorder when it grows. They are following their program. When I type the computer isn't creating order from disorder. it is following it's program. If this, then that.
"when i type the computer does not create order from disorder"
No but when you run a sorting program you do [bubble sort anyone?] (now we also know that your degree has nothing to do with IT either).
The creation of order from non-order is not a myth, it is not against the laws of physics like you've been taught by your creomommy since you were 3, It simply requires an energy source whose entropy increases more or at least equal to the amount you decrease.
mejc2 - as you seem to be as clueless about entropy as with most other science, I take it that your degrees aren't in any kind of Physics, to go with the Chemistry and Biology you've already eliminated. Your degrees wouldn't be in some kind of theology, or from a religious institution, or perhaps from the same place as Kent Hovind, would they? Don't be shy, you don't have any credibility to lose.
@mejc2 "The embryo is not creating order from disorder any more than a tree is creating order from disorder when it grows."
That's true, both are being directed by genes and building new orderly cells from disorderly chemicals in the environment in direct opposition to entropy. Now, why is it okay for organisms (or computer programs using electricity) to do this but not evolution?
because an outside force has created the program. the execution of the program does not violate the law of entropy, the execution of the program supports the law of entropy because the program will eventually stop and all will return to a balanced level of equilibrium.
mejc2 - I'd almost forgotten what a deceitful little YEC you were. You claimed that evolution violated the 'law of entropy' but, instead of telling us how when asked, you evade the question. You still haven't explained how you can dismiss speciation events when you have no definition of the boundary between your types of creature in your classification scheme. Can't you find suitable answers on AIG?
mejc2 - YOU claimed that evolution violated the 'law of entropy' but have been unable to support this silly assertion, just like all the others you've made. You don't have to defend creationism to address this point. You refuse to address it because you know it's a lie, you're abnormally fond of lies for a supposed Christian - perhaps you should read your beloved 10 commandments a litle more closely.
mejc2 - of course you won't defend your creationist position, it's intellectual dishonesty masquerading as pseudo-science and is indefensible. But even here you can't be honest, you only knock evolution in a dishonest attempt to deceive less well informed people and to shore up support for your biblical literalist position that even most Christians won't swallow.
mejc2 - it's you that misses the point, deliberately, and continue your evasion. You make assertions but won't support them, you quote-mine and strawman and then change the subject when called on it. You make disparate claims of a superior intellect, but never demonstrate it. You regurgitate the nonsense from AIG/DI/ICR but never understand the material you misuse. In short you're simply a dishonest little YEC troll.
Yeah because we all know it ain't true so you're not even gonna bother.
What you should do is providing some evidence of your amaizing credentials, for example how it is possible that someone with an IQ of 2617654 can't perform a google search or someone who has multiple degrees doesn't even know high school chemestry.
I think you should explain yourself on that... what is it? you lied or am i smarter than a genious for doing a google search?
"the execution of the program supports the law of entropy"
Why is it that my electrical bill is so high then? XD
Evolution also does not break any law of TD (if you remembered the first law of TD) evolution is the growth of life just as getting taller is the growth of a tree. The program is not the DNA, DNA is not a code, it is merely a read and write memory, the program IS EVOLUTION.
@mejc2 Oh and just for the hell of it, anything that violates the laws of entropy can happen on earth from trees growing which violates the law of entropy to rainfall which violates the law of entropy to evolution etc... the reason is simple and you can see it with two easy steps: 1)get out of your house during the day 2) Look up.
Oh yeah BTW if you're a genious as you claim here's the demonstration, it should be elementar to you:
@mejc2 "because an outside force has created the program. the execution of the program does not violate the law of entropy,"
How is that at all relevant? As an organism develops, it converts matter from a state of chaos to one of highly ordered cells. In order to do so, it must convert energy from it's surroundings from chemical energy (or light energy) to heat. By doing this, entropy in the organism is decreased, but elsewhere is increased. Programming has nothing to do with energy exchange.
It is relevant because the function has been set in motion by an outside force.
Computers are not violating the law of entropy when they run a program. However if the computer assembled itself, wrote its own program, and then executed it, that would violate the law of entropy.
@mejc2 "It is relevant because the function has been set in motion by an outside force."
Why does that matter? Are you saying that we can somehow stop the gradual decay of everything into a state of low order heat by writing programs? If life develops by programs and evolution is simply a by-product of that program, then what's the problem?
Maybe we should start over - what do you mean by entropy? You seem to be using a definition that is far removed from the one used in thermodynamics.
I am using that exact definition. Although we can act upon matter to to change it's natural path, the end result is the same. the matter, however, can not act upon itself to write programs to change it's natural state.
E.G.
You have an accounts receivable program. You cannot copy it millions of times and assuming errors in copying, accumulate enough errors to have an accounts receivable and an accounts Payable program.
@mejc2 "matter, however, can not act upon itself to write programs to change it's natural state."
If you are "using that exact definition" of entropy from thermodynamics, then where do "programs" and "natural state" come into play? How do such things relate to the decay of energy to heat?
More importantly, how does evolution contradict this process? Is the claim that by increasing organismal complexity over time, the amount of heat is somehow decreased? How exactly?
The amount of heat is increased. If dirt comes alive it increases heat. machines don't arise from dirt and begin to operate. if they did, it would violate the law of entropy.
mejc2 - you previously tried hard to obfuscate your ignorance of science and your propensity to lie, but your latest comments are so transparent it makes me wonder if it's the same person making these comments. Are you a single individual or is this just an AIG/DI/ICR sock account?
@mejc2 "The amount of heat is increased... machines don't arise from dirt and begin to operate. if they did, it would violate the law of entropy."
How exactly would this violate the law of entropy, since you just admitted that it would increase the overall heat in a system (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts)?
I think if you actually try to understand the 2nd law so as to answer this question, you'll see that evolution doesn't violate it for the same reason development doesn't.
The second law doesn't predict the increase in heat on a system without outside influence.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
@mejc2 "The second law doesn't predict the increase in heat on a system without outside influence."
Yes, it does.
""Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example)."
unusable energy - AKA "heat"
In other words, no matter what we do, no matter how much order we create from chaos, in the process of doing such a thing, more heat is created in the process. Air conditioning is a simple example - more heat is generated outside.
mejc2 - still displaying your ignorance of entropy and and the theory of evolution and avoiding the outstanding questions. You're still ducking the question of how exactly does evolution violate the 'law of entropy' as you claimed - why are you still running away from that lie? Don't you like that commandment in your bible about bearing false witness? So much for those 'facts' you claim to state!
mejc2 - and still no answer to the fish question? How can you consider these two fish the same type/kind in your classification system when the Green Pufferfish has less than 0.25% of the DNA sequences of the marbled lungfish? How much DNA difference does it take before you will accept that two creatures are not the same in your classification system? And how were you able to discern the much smaller genomic differences between the 'cow' and other mammals?
"Exactly the system doesn't create the order. We do. Evolutionism claims that the system creates the order "
Where in the definition of entropy we discussed is this relevant? Unusable energy (aka heat) is not decreasing at any step, so no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics occurs.
This quote from Georgia State University" should clear things up a bit.
"If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience..... So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics. "
It never happened kid.You have been fed a pack of BS. It is being exposed more and more everyday. Not science, just stories. the science is against the story. So, like you, evolutionists keep rejecting the science. Not an isolated or closed system? Really. How is the earth's ecosystem an open system? And please don't give me the standard line about sunlight. Sunlight is in no way enough input to cause the programming language needed for life. That is what the science shows.
After many years of experiments, all of them have failed. Science, so far has shown us that there is no way for sunlight to cause molecules to arrange molecules into the complex codes needed for creating new organisms, tissue or body plans.
@mejc2 Your comment was about abiogenesis, not the evolution of pre-existing organisms, which is what we were discussing.
Experiments have shown that sunlight can cause a variety of mutations to the genetic code, many of which make it more complex. Sunlight is also capable of providing the energy necessary to synthesize the production of more complex molecules from simpler ones.
So, tell me again how evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
all things move to a state of disorder. not a state of increasing order. There is no mechanism, it has never been observed to create new tissue, body parts, or body plans, The fossil record starts and ends with complex organisms. We observe sudden appearance, stasis, and extinction. The story of evolutionists is a made up fairy tale which ignores evidence. Birds and dinosaurs found in the same strata are ignored to preserve the fairy tale of dinosaurs changing into birds. Etc.
@mejc2 "all things move to a state of disorder. not a state of increasing order."
How about crystals? Hurricanes?
"The fossil record starts and ends with complex organisms."
True, but wouldn't you agree that the higher layers contain some organisms that are more complex than any in the lower layers (mammals, dinosaurs, birds, etc.)?
animals buried in a catastrophic watery disaster would be expected to be caught in different levels of sediment. More mobile intelligent at the top less mobile intelligent at the bottom. That is exactly what we see in general. there are a few exceptions.
Mobility and intelligence. Star fish appear pretty far down. If you want to impose the evolutionism time scale, they appear around 440-450 million years ago.
Yeah, but still about 100 million years after the Cambrian explosion, where several more mobile and more intelligent organisms can be found. They are even found above several jawless fish.
So do you accept now that some things (like crystals and hurricanes) can gain order naturally and that this doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
patterns are not complexity. patterns in sand caused by the wind, crystal formation, snowflakes, cloud formation, hurricanes, are in no way analogous to the digital code required to create new tissue body parts,body plans or computer operating systems. Given enough time Windows would not evolve. However somehow I feel that you use an apple computer.
Actually, "complexity" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. A highly ordered pattern can be either simple or complex, as can a highly disordered one. This is about entropy. A crystal is more highly ordered than a solution of dissolved minerals all mixed together, and a hurricane is more ordered than a bunch of wind going in different directions. So, it is possible for nature to create order from disorder.
shape is not order. it doesn't matter in what order the molecules in a hurricane fall. In crystals, it is the natural property of the chemicals. For example, all salt crystals are cubed. scramble the molecules oh a hard disc for a million years, let me know when you get an operating system for a pc. If you could randomly scramble the molecules on a hard drive and eventually end up with the windows operating system. That would be a convincing argument that mutations create code.
This is turning into a semantic argument. You're wrong here, but it doesn't really matter. The only relevant issue is that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy is simply an increase in the heat of a system (aka unusable energy), which is why a change in entropy is calculated by dividing the change in heat by the absolute temperature of a system. You have not demonstrated how evolution reduces the amount of heat (unusable energy) in a closed system.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase."
OK? Randomness and chaos increase. not molecules arrange themselves into massively complex order to write the digital code of li
@mejc2 As usable energy in the universe degrades into unusable energy (aka heat), this increases disorder in the universe. This is because usable energy is required to build order locally (but consequently some of this energy is converted into unusable heat energy in the process). So I ask you once again, how exactly does evolution decrease the amount of heat in the universe? If it does not, then it cannot possibly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, by definition.
@mejc2 "Randomness and chaos increase. for evolution to work randomness and chaos must decrease. Therefore, evolution violates the 2nd law"
Randomness and chaos increase in the system as a whole because of the conversion of usable energy to heat. You are acting as if order cannot be created in the process, when this is the very principle by which an air conditioner is able to move heat from cool to hot areas. This is a local increase in order in exchange for a global decrease in order.
So what is your contention? In your air conditioner example, work is being completed by the machine built by men. Although it is an example of local increase at the expense of a global decrease. I don't accept it as an analogy of randomness moving towards order undirected. A better analogy is randomly mixing up the 1's and 0's on a computer disk and creating an operating system via some sort of selection process.
@TCupUK Exposure to neutrinos is the theorized reason behind the accelerated rates. Good job on debating the athiest scum. Your holding your own.
seraph595 1 month ago
Where is Chordate Evolution (2/2)?
GJHess890812 1 month ago in playlist Evolutionary Biology & Abiogenesis
@GJHess890812 I know, I know... My son was born and I never finished part 2. Some day...
EvoBiologist 1 month ago
@EvoBiologist Congratulations on having a child!
GJHess890812 1 month ago
@EvoBiologist Ah, that explains it. I check your channel every now & then to see if you have uploaded the 2nd part.
NeoPsiTom 1 month ago
Thank you for posting this video! It really helped me and my study buddies put together all the concepts we're learning in Zoology. You've got sexy brains!
therachelschrader 3 months ago
@therachelschrader Glad I could help. Maybe one of these days I'll actually get around to finishing part 2.
EvoBiologist 3 months ago
@EvoBiologist EVOLUTIONİSTS WILL GO TO HELL!!!
freandwhickquest 1 week ago
@freandwhickquest Why?
EvoBiologist 1 week ago
@EvoBiologist Because evolution is satan's work. Earth is 6000 years old. Science is a liberal conspiracy. God created those transitional fossils in order to test our faith. If you pass the test you will be the best, but if you fail the test you will burn in the lake of the fire eternally. God will never forgive you. Please, don't believe those lies because scientists are atheist liars who are trying to destroy our values. Believe it or not, evolution leads to hell.
freandwhickquest 1 week ago
@freandwhickquest You seem to contradict yourself. If God made transitional fossils as you say, then the science studying them isn't a conspiracy, but is actually dedicated to understanding the physical evidence that is actually available. Further, I have myself collected organisms, run chemical reactions, poured through the resulting gene sequences, and aligned and compared these sequences to see the resulting family trees that require millions of years of mutations to make.
EvoBiologist 1 week ago
I wonder how you date these?
"The Sun is changing the supposedly constant rates of decay of radioactive elements, and we have absolutely no idea why"
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK That's an interesting story. Thanks for pointing it out. I looked into it some more. It turns out that the rate of decay varies by as much as 0.1% and corresponds w/ solar flare activity. Lucky for our radioactive dating systems, it would appear that to drastically change the rate of decay would require some pretty extreme solar activity (i.e. enough to fry the planet).
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist I would love to see the source of this comment "decay varies by as much as 0.1% ".
I can show you peer reviewed papers and scholar articles contradicting this statement.
You should read up on polonium halo's.
"the crystallization of terrestrial rocks within minutes of the creation of radioelements trapped within them."
Our radio dating system is wrong and we know it is for a fact, like so many things are in science currently. Physics is having a bit of a melt down.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK If you google this quote, "In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves." you'll find a copy of the article I got that from.
I have looked into polonium haloes. I'm no geologist (and neither is Robert Gentry, who published on polonium haloes), but if you google "Polonium Haloes" Refuted, you'll see a geologist's take on it.
EvoBiologist 4 months ago
@EvoBiologist Okay I now understand where you came up with 0.1%, however you failed to mention its context.
"silicon–32 — relative to a long-lived standard — modulated around its usual value of about 172 years by the order of 0.1%"
I will quote your sources "What we are showing is that decay constants are apparently not fundamental constants of nature Ephraim Fischbach, Purdue University"
The fact that decay is not constant is not up for debate, its cause is.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK I'm not arguing that decay rates are totally constant. I'm only pointing out that the amount of variation isn't enough to significantly change any geological dates (and certainly doesn't support a young Earth, which would require rates on the order of 1 MILLION times faster than those observed - not 0.1%).
EvoBiologist 4 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Robert Gentry is a supporter of creationism and he makes this more than clear. However his personal views do not effect the scientific method applied to his evidence. His evidence has passed scrutiny many times, even if his conclusions do not. Unfortunately it is hard to find the scientific evidence of his findings without encountering the Christian and atheist row. I can provide you with verified scientific papers on his evidence if you want?
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK According to geologist Baillieul, "[Gentry] doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing.. [He used sections] from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s).. does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples" etc.
EvoBiologist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TCupUK ''Gentry's evidence has passed scrutiny many times, even if his conclusions do not. ''
Correct, no one says his halos don't exist. His conclusion is ''We can't explain these so Gawd musta dun it that way.'' The conclusion is not proven by the evidence. No one accepts his LOGIC.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@EvoBiologist Use google scholar to find this "watts-up-with-that-follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story/"
It should only bring up one page.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK Geologists knew the earth was million of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was 4,545 million years old, + or - 2 million years.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@TCupUK Polonium halos (as in Po218) are actually formed by radon (Rn222) which is a gas formed from by decomposition of radioactive uranium present in granite. That this is true is demonstrated by the fact that Rn222 and Po218 halos are virtually identical and the fact that radiohalos are ONLY observed in granites which also contain large amounts of radioactive uranium. The decomposition of Rn222 to give Po218 is also responsible for lung cancers in environments with high radon incidence
gregrutz 3 months ago
The evidence is based in empirical data on human mutation rates, done by others and his expertise in the power of selection. This is not a pastor or an atheist advocate that has an opinion. J C Sanford is an authority on the power of selection. His expertise is world renown. Accumulating mutations do not create new organisms, they create sickness and death. This is what we observe evolution is what you wish for.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 First off, I've read plenty of papers by plenty of people, each of whom are considered "an authority on the power of selection", and have never heard one claim that accumulating mutations can only lead to "sickness and death". Such appeals to authority will only fail you in a field where far less than 1% don't accept common ancestry.
So the claim is based on analysis of a model using data from human mutation rates - have you seen this analysis? Can you point me towards it?
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
if you google issu msytery of genome, the entire book is online. You can read it for yourself.
mejc2 6 months ago
It Seems to me that John Sanford's work pretty much nullifies all the time and effort that Evolutionists have put into arranging organisms into what they call a nested hierarchy. with no known mechanism to create new organisms, body parts, organs, or body plans, imagining that it happened and then arranging organisms in a pattern base on that assumption is a waste of time. A world changing geneticist has examined the empirical data and shown mutation and selection to an impossible cause.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 If Sanford has "shown mutation and selection to an impossible cause", then you should be eager to make the case for him here. What evidence does Sanford use to make the case?
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
Hey Marcus, a team in Australia has found compound eyes equal to modern shrimp eyes in the Cambrian. That kind of shoots the shit out of your primitive adaptations and nested hierarchy. What are advanced adaptations doing at the beginning of the Darwinian cycle. Aren't primitive adaptations supposed to be at the bottom?
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 First off, the Cambrian is not "the beginning of the Darwinian cycle" (whatever that means), and shrimp eyes are not the most advanced. Second, I am curious as to how the researchers you mention are able to tell from a fossil that the eyes are equal in complexity to modern shrimp eyes. I don't see how one could say that without comparing cells, soft structures, and neural circuitry. Could you provide a reference to this study so I can check it out?
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
# Lee, M. S. Y. et al. 2011. Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature. 474 (7353): 631-634.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 I've read the abstract, but I don't have access to the whole paper. It's a cool find. Here are a few points I'd like to make:
-as mentioned in the abstract, more primitive trilobite eyes predate the more complex eyes discovered
-the eyes studied date back to 515mya, while the Cambrian began around 542mya. The Cambrian is preceded by 10s of millions of years of fossil worm holes. So, though this is a relatively early period, there was still plenty of time.
-nested hierarchy still fits
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
There is a summary of the article and the authors also made a video for the internet if you are interested ask me and I'll find the links and send them to you. To make the comment off hand that there is plenty of time, I think, is a little premature on your part. Do not those eyes suggest predatory animals with advanced digestive systems, advanced locomotion to secure prey, predatory instincts. advanced body structures, etc. The authors claim it happened in the twinkling of an eye
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 I am interested, so I'll take you up on the offer to send me the links.
My claim of "plenty of time" is based on simple math given the dates of the fossil and the earliest evidence of animal life. I suppose that from a certain perspective, 10s of millions of years is a "twinkling of an eye", but I don't find it to be a particularly critical problem for slow, gradual evolution.
Also, I don't see how this is evidence of a range of other advanced features.
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
As always the evolutionists that found this, have concocted a whole scenario of how and why the animal needed the eye and how it used it.
this is the title of the u tube vid "New Fossils Demonstrate That Powerful Eyes Evolved in a Twinkling"
This is the title of the university press release." New fossils provide evidence of powerful eyes "
keep in mind that all of these people are evolutionists.Therefore, they fit their findings into their world view.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 Thanks for the sources - I looked into this some more. I still don't see where you are getting the claim that this is evidence of other advanced features - they only found the eyes. The authors claim that the eyes are about as advanced as eyes dating to 40 million years later. The eyes are less complex than many modern arthropod eyes. The interesting thing about the study is that we see that higher resolution eyes existed a bit earlier than thought, but still in line with common ancestry.
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
a bit earlier? You are very lenient with your requirements for Darwinism. I've read through part of JC Sanford's book on Genetic Entropy. He is basically challenging what he calls the primary axiom of Darwinism. Namely that mutations filtered by natural selection Is incapable of driving life from a single celled organism to humans. I might as well have written the book. However, I didn't invent the gene gun and geneticists around the world don't use processes that I invented so..
mejc2 7 months ago
@EvoBiologist
You can find Sanford's book on genetic entropy online at issu. He mainly works with plants so you and he may have something in common.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2 Okay, so I've read through the book to see what Sanford's actual data-based arguments are. Basically, he uses humans as a model to look at mutation rate vs. selection pressure, and determines that humans are degenerating genetically.
I agree - we are. That's what happens when you remove an organism from a natural situation, and coddle them and compensate for any genetic defects.
Why not use bacteria or something else with rapid genetic change? I can poke holes in his numbers, too.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist I believe he covers why he doesn't use bacteria. something about short generations I think. However, thanks for taking the time to read what he had to say and giving me your opinion. I am beginning to see that evolution is a world view and not based on any observation. I read evolutionists and creationists points of view on data discovered. How they interpret that data is based on their world view not the data. PHD's on both sides calling each other ignorant. I'll go with the Bible
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 A short generation time is highly correlated (for obvious reasons) with a rapid rate of evolution. That's why it makes sense to look at bacteria and not humans. Humans have several issues: 1) long generations (slow evolution) 2) unnatural environment (unusual selective pressures) 3) laws making testing the true effects of human mutations damn near impossible
Evolution is typically studied by biologists in organisms with short generations and lots of babies. It makes testing easier.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Oh, Like fruit flies and bacteria. when are those pesky things going to evolve anyway. Also, as I said when we first met. There is no mechanism to write the genetic code needed to create the diversity we see.
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 Well, fruit flies and bacteria do evolve, and they do so at speeds in line with common ancestry.
So far, the mutations we see and selective pressures measured are theoretically capable of building up change over time in a pattern like that seen in life. The small scale patterns are the same as the long-term ones. Your geneticist, Sanford, was supposed to provide evidence to the contrary, but as I've pointed out, his evidence is flawed in several ways.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist
At speeds in line with common ancestry? What the hell does that mean? No change is in line with common ancestry and rapid change is in line with common ancestry. The only speed that you would consider out of line with common ancestry is ludicrous speed (heard that in a movie, thought I'd throw it in for laughs).
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 I can always go for a good "Space Ball's" reference.
You are correct that there are a range of speeds of evolution that are in line with common ancestry. The point is that we have witnessed evolution of genetic sequence, size, shape, and many other measurable traits that are actually FASTER than required for common ancestry to work. How can Sanford argument be correct if this is the case? Would his math work if he looked at mice instead of long-lived humans where we can't test selection?
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist
I don't know. Why don't you call him and ask him. I'm being serious right now. Many, many, many, years ago when I was in college I had to write a paper based on a book. As a supplement to reading the book I called the author and interviewed him. I quoted the phone conversation in my paper and not only received an A for the paper, but also won the respect of my professor and the author. No one is better than you Marcus, don't be intimidated.
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 I sent Dr. Sanford an email. He responded, but didn't address my concerns about the problem of measuring genetic change and the effect of specific mutations in humans. He said he used humans "because the origin of man is the biggest issue for most of us, and interests most people", and not for scientific reasons. He also said that "mutations per nucleotide per year is pretty constant across life forms", when in fact it is mutations per nucleotide per GENERATION that is fairly constant.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist Good for you Marcus. E-mail wasn't invented when I was in school. for that matter neither was the personal computer, or the calculator, or color television. Anyway, don't let him off the hook Marcus. I wouldn't go to far on the per year/per generation thing. You can measure many generations in one year of some organisms and some fraction of a generation of others so you can make the math work either way. No sense wasting your time splitting hairs. Dig deeper challenge him/yourself
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 That "you can measure many generations in one year of some organisms and some fraction of a generation of others" means that you cannot make the math work. Either mutations/nucleotide/year is fairly constant or /generation is fairly constant - not both - and this makes a HUGE difference mathematically (think bacterial generations per human one). His argument is math based.
I didn't let him off the hook - Sanford just hasn't responded to my second email, and it has been several days now.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Well don't let him go. Let's see if he is willing to discuss when no money is involved. However, I don't think that book made him much money.
mejc2 6 months ago
@mejc2 I'm pretty sure Sanford is doing okay for himself with all those patents. As for his book, most biologists don't make popular books for the public - they're lucky if a lot of people in their very specific field buy their book. So, having a publicly controversial book that appeals to a large religious group can't hurt his pocketbook either. Neither can the many public appearances he is payed to give that he wouldn't have gotten had he had mainstream views.
I won't pester the guy by email.
EvoBiologist 6 months ago
Hey Marcus, Are you familiar with the writing of John C Sanford?
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 Not really - I just googled him and read up a bit, so I know who you are talking about. Is there a particular argument of his that you would like to discuss?
EvoBiologist 8 months ago
@EvoBiologist
I didn't really read his book. It is about genetic entropy basically. What is your opinion that the negative mutations so far outweigh the positive mutations that we are basically self destructing. An analogy that he used is like a boat with many holes even though you are bailing you cannot empty it as fast as it is filling up. Natural selection is the bailing party and negative mutations are the holes.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 There are plenty of real world measurement and models suggesting that this is not the case. A broad range of selection pressures and negative/positive mutation rates work with the population genetics math.
EvoBiologist 8 months ago
@EvoBiologist
This guy seems pretty sharp. What do you think led him to miss readily available information to the point of writing and publishing a book. I have read a few reviews of the book. Creatards love it and Evotards hate it. Some scientists in the middle seem to think he has done some good work. I will read it and get back to you.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 "What do you think led him to miss readily available information to the point of writing and publishing a book."
Are you implying that there are no intelligent people who have written in favor of a fundamentally flawed concept, despite evidence to the contrary? My guess is that like many other bright people (think Freud or Plato), he took an interesting and promising idea and went way too far with it, to the point of leaving the realm of reality.
EvoBiologist 8 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Think Galileo or Newton.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 I'm curious - where do you think Newton and Galileo left the realm of reality with their ideas?
EvoBiologist 8 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Reality? Do you think The other scientists of Galileo's day were saying thank you we're so tired of dealing with myths. Every time there is a paradigm shift, those in the old paradigm go down kicking and screaming.
mejc2 8 months ago
@mejc2 Oh, I see - you were making a rhetorical point and not arguing for geocentrism or intelligent falling. Unfortunately for Dr. Sanford, his mathematical model of evolution isn't quite as clear-cut evidence as Galileo or Newton's simple mathematical models of planetary motion. By the way, the scientists following "the old paradigm" in Galileo's and Newton's time were actually pretty quickly convinced of the new clear and elegant solution. Where is the elegant "Miracles from Yahweh" model?
EvoBiologist 7 months ago
@mejc2
"What do you think led him to miss readily available information to the point of writing and publishing a book"
Religion.
DNAunion 7 months ago
Hahaha he does sound like Ernie (in a way).
justrixx 8 months ago
Is the second part gone or not done yet? Thanks.
Golkarian 1 year ago
@Golkarian It's still unfinished - sorry, I'll try to get to it.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist that's okay, I was just wondering if I should watch for it in the future.
Golkarian 1 year ago
Dude, I love your videos. I do have to say this.....and my voice sucks on video hence my reason for not making videos ......... you sound rather like Ernie from Sesame Street.
jmcanoy1860 1 year ago
@jmcanoy1860 Yeah, I know. My voice is pretty similar in some ways to Jim Henson's. Glad you like the videos.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
if the same genes that make gills , make fins and arms, does that mean that fins evolved from gills?
Aikwood666 1 year ago
@Aikwood666 That is the thinking, yes.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@Aikwood666 that also explains why the area of the brain that processes sensory data from the lower jaw, is right next to the area that processes sensory data from the arm and hand (causing phantom sensations in an amputated arm while shaving).
udoloh 1 year ago
@Aikwood666 arms and legs evolved from fins so they are the same genes but with modification and no, if what you are saying is true, that doesn't mean that fins evolved from gills which is impossible
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef Actually, if you watch the video, you'll see that there is some good evidence (and a lot of research) supporting the idea that fins did evolve from gills. Pectoral fins are right next to gills, and fins are coded by a duplicated gill gene, structurally similar to gills, and share some developmental characteristics with gills.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist i ment to say that gills didnt evolve from fins.
blazereef 1 year ago
Hope you do 2nd part dude as that was awesome. Love the morphological examples you give as they aren't readily listed in my textbook & will be fire for upcoming test.
Glad to see passionate for zoology, I am just now going through the throws of conversion from microbiology to macro-type biology, and they feel great.
In fact my professor is American, he was at Princeton but moved to Australia because of the wildlife. His name is Michael Archer, has written some cool books.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 Thanks, I'll try to get that second part soon.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - I see that mejc2 is claiming again you said "quadrillions of wild historical accidents", but conveniently excludes the preceding words which would show the context in which this phrase may have been used. I also note that when previously asked mejc2 was unable to point to where you supposedly used this phrase - have you been quote-mined, misquoted or incorrectly attributed?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX To be honest, I've forgotten where mejc2 is quoting me from. If I said, "quadrillions of wild historical accidents" in the context of an explanation of common descent, then I would assume I was talking about the total number of mutations in every organism that has ever lived on Earth. If so, I was certainly off by many orders of magnitude. The few thousand years since the agricultural revolution have surely seen incredible numbers of mutations purely from solar UV radiation alone.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - I fully expected that mejc2 was taking you out of context, if indeed he was quoting you at all.
Good luck with getting mejc2 to see an argument through to the end, he always tries to change the subject when it's clear he's losing. His earlier remarks about 'sunlight' and 'an open system' make it clear he's being dishonest, and/or remarkably thick, with his claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - mejc2 is seriously deluded if he thinks his unsupported ill-educated assertions explain anything! I couldn't help but smile at his 'I don't give anyone this time' - that was so typically laughable and disingenuous. If he had any regard for you he'd dump his ill-educated anti-science nonsense somewhere else, and stop wasting your time. Let's face it, you can read his material on the AIG/DI/ICR websites any time you like.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX "Let's face it, you can read his material on the AIG/DI/ICR websites any time you like."
True, but who wants to check there as frequently as mejc2 does? It only really annoys me when he repeats arguments I've already thoroughly refudiated (as the not-so-Shakespearean former governor of Alaska might say).
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - perhaps mejc2 does save you visiting the AIG/DI/ICR websites to see their latest nonsense, however his dishonesty and evasion must take their toll. I still remember his first outright lie to me about only 'evolutionists' rubbishing the RATE results, which he actually admitted he'd got wrong when I pointed him to an OEC site, but then shortly after repeated - ever since it's been hard to take him seriously. Liked the Palin reference, it seems so appropriate when discussing mejc2!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - sorry, I nearly replied to mejc2 to remind him that he claimed that 'all things move to a state of disorder', and that your examples of crystals and hurricanes clearly demonstrated his schoolboy error, but that would have been pointless. He doesn't like to admit his errors and deceits, even when highlighted. Perhaps he thinks that commandment in his bible about bearing false witness is optional!
KrokrX 1 year ago
part 2???
7starfox 1 year ago
Ah interesting. Thanks for sharing.
COMB0RICO 1 year ago
Awesome job bro. The picture of the pectoral fin comparisons at 5:02 is from the lab I work in. Stay tuned, because there's some interesting novel stuff on Harpagofututor that should be coming out in print next year ;) . I was debating making an evolution of fishes video for youtube but it looks like you've covered it pretty well
Crossopterygii 1 year ago
@Crossopterygii Thanks! Cool research (and cool name) - I'm looking forward to hearing about the latest in fish fin evolution.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
what happened to part 2?
socialnoocrat 1 year ago
@socialnoocrat Hopefully I'll have time soon to finish part 2 when my wife and 9 month old are out of town.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
going to Hawaii for 2 weeks - on hiatus - Peace
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - Enjoy!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX "Enjoy!"
Thanks - I did!
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist - glad you had fun and hope the break has done you a world of good. Not much has changed here in the meantime, dear old mejc2 still hasn't answered the questions about his nebulous classification system, or clarified his nonsense about entropy, but then he never gives a straight answer to a question, instead preferring to obfuscate or evade like too many YECs here on YT.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Dude, you're goanna love it. Every direction you turn your head is like a post card picture. Have a great time.
mejc2 1 year ago
@kyagh - I note that mejc2 has also boasted on other videos of his multiple degrees but refuses to name them, athough he's admitted they weren't in Chemistry or Biology fields, and given his woeful use of maths it''s unlikely they're in Maths or Physics. Favourite would be some field of theology, probably from a religious institution or perhaps even the same place as Kent Hovind! There has to be some reason he's so shy.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Hey Marcus, They just found Cambrian fossils In Morocco 150 million years out of place. I guess that puts the whole trilobites changed into something new theory to rest.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Having Cambrian-like organisms in a later time period alongside more derived groups is no different than having humans and prosimians alive at the same time or having white Americans and Europeans alive at the same time.
Clearly, it is interesting to find out that some of these primitive body plans can be found in more recent deposits than seen before, but if you don't see how this does nothing to undermine the evidence for common ancestry, then you don't understand evolution.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I understand fully how you would not see this as a problem. The story goes that some of the trilobites slowly changed into mythological common ancestors while others survived perfectly well for 150 million years. The unobserved copying errors that produced entirely new genetic programs to create new tissues, organs and body plans filtered through natural selection to create mythological common ancestors only happened to some of the Cambrian organisms while the same type lived on
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The unobserved copying errors that produced entirely new genetic programs to create new tissues, organs and body plans..."
Which new tissues, organs, and body plans are those? As far as I can tell, modern arthropods and trilobites have the same parts. The only differences are quantitative, not qualitative.
Also, the Ordovician trilobites are distinct from the Cambrian ones. So, even these were modified by evolution.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
observe adaptation and claim victory for molecules to man evolution. Evolutionary biologist? surly you can do better. You know perfectly well what I am alluding to. However, you choose to microscopically pick apart the argument to defend your story. What next? will you attack my spelling?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "observe adaptation and claim victory for molecules to man evolution."
Not at all. Such scales of evolution require far more than trilobite fossils to build meaningful support for. Luckily, we've got over 150 years of research in several fields that backs up such a claim.
"However, you choose to microscopically pick apart the argument to defend your story."
Oh, I'm so sorry if I'm too thorough in my dissection of your little argument. I guess that's the scientist in me.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Scientist? You flatter yourself. Science does not go around claiming wild historical accidents as causes for billions upon billions of advancements in organisms. That is evolutionism. You can however in all rights call yourself an evolutionist. You defend the evolution story, not science.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Science does not go around claiming wild historical accidents as causes for billions upon billions of advancements in organisms."
What does science claim is the cause of the structures in those organisms?
I was under the impression that pretty much everything in science is explained by a combination of historical accidents and general natural patterns. Evolution is no different. Are you suggesting magical mysterious miracles would be a better, more scientific alternative explanation?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
science= "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method "
scientific method= "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena,"
Evolutionism violates laws and isn't an observed phenomena. I must have missed the wild historical accidents
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Evolutionism violates laws and isn't an observed phenomena. I must have missed the wild historical accidents"
Which laws does it violate? Gobs of observed phenomena have been used to test the predictions of evolution, as well as the predictions of other explanations for the diversity and behavior of life we see. Evolution passes these tests and no other theory does.
As for accidents, each event in history is caused by a combination of rules and chance events - ex: tides, weather, etc.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
The law of entropy, and don't give me any of that open system crap. the law of biogenesis.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 How exactly does evolution violate the law of entropy while development from an embryo does not?
Pasteur was testing whether flies would spontaneously pop up out of dirt when he came up with the "law" of biogenesis, not whether self-replicating polynucleotides were capable of forming through natural chemistry.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Gee I thought dirt was made of Chemicals. Embryo is just a growing organism. It is not going from disorder to order.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 "Gee I thought dirt was made of Chemicals."
Yes, it is. How does that counter my point exactly?
"Embryo is just a growing organism. It is not going from disorder to order."
The matter used to construct the growing organism is most definitely going from disorder to order, while the organism itself is becoming more complex and more highly ordered. If this can happen without breaking the law of entropy, then why is evolution different?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Well pasture showed life doesn't come from dirt and the embryo is following it's program it has nothing to do with the law of entropy.
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2 - You've tried appealing to authority with your claims of multiple degrees but won't say what they are, and claimed a high IQ although you're inconsistent in what you claim; you're starting to sound uncomfortably like GSFY. He also espouses a similar idea to your creationist 'kinds', and he too ducks and runs away when asked to define them. If you can't define them how can you tell that the speciation events we've given you don't qualify?
KrokrX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 "Well pasture showed life doesn't come from dirt"
No, Pasteur showed that flies and other complex organisms don't just pop up out of the dirt. He didn't even know what a polynucleotide was.
"the embryo is following it's program it has nothing to do with the law of entropy. "
How is it that the embryo is able to create order from disorder as it develops into an adult? Why do you think this is not possible for other natural processes like evolution?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
The embryo is not creating order from disorder any more than a tree is creating order from disorder when it grows. They are following their program. When I type the computer isn't creating order from disorder. it is following it's program. If this, then that.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
"when i type the computer does not create order from disorder"
No but when you run a sorting program you do [bubble sort anyone?] (now we also know that your degree has nothing to do with IT either).
The creation of order from non-order is not a myth, it is not against the laws of physics like you've been taught by your creomommy since you were 3, It simply requires an energy source whose entropy increases more or at least equal to the amount you decrease.
kyagh 1 year ago
mejc2 - as you seem to be as clueless about entropy as with most other science, I take it that your degrees aren't in any kind of Physics, to go with the Chemistry and Biology you've already eliminated. Your degrees wouldn't be in some kind of theology, or from a religious institution, or perhaps from the same place as Kent Hovind, would they? Don't be shy, you don't have any credibility to lose.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The embryo is not creating order from disorder any more than a tree is creating order from disorder when it grows."
That's true, both are being directed by genes and building new orderly cells from disorderly chemicals in the environment in direct opposition to entropy. Now, why is it okay for organisms (or computer programs using electricity) to do this but not evolution?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
because an outside force has created the program. the execution of the program does not violate the law of entropy, the execution of the program supports the law of entropy because the program will eventually stop and all will return to a balanced level of equilibrium.
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2 - I'd almost forgotten what a deceitful little YEC you were. You claimed that evolution violated the 'law of entropy' but, instead of telling us how when asked, you evade the question. You still haven't explained how you can dismiss speciation events when you have no definition of the boundary between your types of creature in your classification scheme. Can't you find suitable answers on AIG?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX as usual crock you miss the point you must defend evolution i don't need to defend creation.
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2 - YOU claimed that evolution violated the 'law of entropy' but have been unable to support this silly assertion, just like all the others you've made. You don't have to defend creationism to address this point. You refuse to address it because you know it's a lie, you're abnormally fond of lies for a supposed Christian - perhaps you should read your beloved 10 commandments a litle more closely.
KrokrX 1 year ago
mejc2 - of course you won't defend your creationist position, it's intellectual dishonesty masquerading as pseudo-science and is indefensible. But even here you can't be honest, you only knock evolution in a dishonest attempt to deceive less well informed people and to shore up support for your biblical literalist position that even most Christians won't swallow.
KrokrX 1 year ago
mejc2 - it's you that misses the point, deliberately, and continue your evasion. You make assertions but won't support them, you quote-mine and strawman and then change the subject when called on it. You make disparate claims of a superior intellect, but never demonstrate it. You regurgitate the nonsense from AIG/DI/ICR but never understand the material you misuse. In short you're simply a dishonest little YEC troll.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@mejc2
"i don't need to defend creation"
Yeah because we all know it ain't true so you're not even gonna bother.
What you should do is providing some evidence of your amaizing credentials, for example how it is possible that someone with an IQ of 2617654 can't perform a google search or someone who has multiple degrees doesn't even know high school chemestry.
I think you should explain yourself on that... what is it? you lied or am i smarter than a genious for doing a google search?
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2
"the execution of the program supports the law of entropy"
Why is it that my electrical bill is so high then? XD
Evolution also does not break any law of TD (if you remembered the first law of TD) evolution is the growth of life just as getting taller is the growth of a tree. The program is not the DNA, DNA is not a code, it is merely a read and write memory, the program IS EVOLUTION.
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 Oh and just for the hell of it, anything that violates the laws of entropy can happen on earth from trees growing which violates the law of entropy to rainfall which violates the law of entropy to evolution etc... the reason is simple and you can see it with two easy steps: 1)get out of your house during the day 2) Look up.
Oh yeah BTW if you're a genious as you claim here's the demonstration, it should be elementar to you:
dU = δQ - δW, dS = δQ / T, dS = (dU + δW)/T
Isn't it obivious?
kyagh 1 year ago
@mejc2 "because an outside force has created the program. the execution of the program does not violate the law of entropy,"
How is that at all relevant? As an organism develops, it converts matter from a state of chaos to one of highly ordered cells. In order to do so, it must convert energy from it's surroundings from chemical energy (or light energy) to heat. By doing this, entropy in the organism is decreased, but elsewhere is increased. Programming has nothing to do with energy exchange.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
It is relevant because the function has been set in motion by an outside force.
Computers are not violating the law of entropy when they run a program. However if the computer assembled itself, wrote its own program, and then executed it, that would violate the law of entropy.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "It is relevant because the function has been set in motion by an outside force."
Why does that matter? Are you saying that we can somehow stop the gradual decay of everything into a state of low order heat by writing programs? If life develops by programs and evolution is simply a by-product of that program, then what's the problem?
Maybe we should start over - what do you mean by entropy? You seem to be using a definition that is far removed from the one used in thermodynamics.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
I am using that exact definition. Although we can act upon matter to to change it's natural path, the end result is the same. the matter, however, can not act upon itself to write programs to change it's natural state.
E.G.
You have an accounts receivable program. You cannot copy it millions of times and assuming errors in copying, accumulate enough errors to have an accounts receivable and an accounts Payable program.
You're welcome.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "matter, however, can not act upon itself to write programs to change it's natural state."
If you are "using that exact definition" of entropy from thermodynamics, then where do "programs" and "natural state" come into play? How do such things relate to the decay of energy to heat?
More importantly, how does evolution contradict this process? Is the claim that by increasing organismal complexity over time, the amount of heat is somehow decreased? How exactly?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
The amount of heat is increased. If dirt comes alive it increases heat. machines don't arise from dirt and begin to operate. if they did, it would violate the law of entropy.
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2 - you previously tried hard to obfuscate your ignorance of science and your propensity to lie, but your latest comments are so transparent it makes me wonder if it's the same person making these comments. Are you a single individual or is this just an AIG/DI/ICR sock account?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The amount of heat is increased... machines don't arise from dirt and begin to operate. if they did, it would violate the law of entropy."
How exactly would this violate the law of entropy, since you just admitted that it would increase the overall heat in a system (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts)?
I think if you actually try to understand the 2nd law so as to answer this question, you'll see that evolution doesn't violate it for the same reason development doesn't.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
The second law doesn't predict the increase in heat on a system without outside influence.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
You're welcome.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "The second law doesn't predict the increase in heat on a system without outside influence."
Yes, it does.
""Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example)."
unusable energy - AKA "heat"
In other words, no matter what we do, no matter how much order we create from chaos, in the process of doing such a thing, more heat is created in the process. Air conditioning is a simple example - more heat is generated outside.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Exactly the system doesn't create the order. We do. Evolutionism claims that the system creates the order
mejc2 1 year ago
mejc2 - still displaying your ignorance of entropy and and the theory of evolution and avoiding the outstanding questions. You're still ducking the question of how exactly does evolution violate the 'law of entropy' as you claimed - why are you still running away from that lie? Don't you like that commandment in your bible about bearing false witness? So much for those 'facts' you claim to state!
KrokrX 1 year ago
mejc2 - and still no answer to the fish question? How can you consider these two fish the same type/kind in your classification system when the Green Pufferfish has less than 0.25% of the DNA sequences of the marbled lungfish? How much DNA difference does it take before you will accept that two creatures are not the same in your classification system? And how were you able to discern the much smaller genomic differences between the 'cow' and other mammals?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@mejc2 I'm back from vacation... it was awesome.
"Exactly the system doesn't create the order. We do. Evolutionism claims that the system creates the order "
Where in the definition of entropy we discussed is this relevant? Unusable energy (aka heat) is not decreasing at any step, so no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics occurs.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
This quote from Georgia State University" should clear things up a bit.
"If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience..... So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics. "
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "This quote from Georgia State University" should clear things up a bit."
I didn't know colleges could write quotes.
I'm not talking about "isolated systems".
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
It never happened kid.You have been fed a pack of BS. It is being exposed more and more everyday. Not science, just stories. the science is against the story. So, like you, evolutionists keep rejecting the science. Not an isolated or closed system? Really. How is the earth's ecosystem an open system? And please don't give me the standard line about sunlight. Sunlight is in no way enough input to cause the programming language needed for life. That is what the science shows.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "How is the earth's ecosystem an open system?"
You weren't aware that we get a constant influx of energy from the sun?
"And please don't give me the standard line about sunlight."
Oh - so you already knew it wasn't a closed system - then why the question?
"Sunlight is in no way enough input to cause the programming language needed for life. That is what the science shows."
Really? Where does "science" show this? How much is needed exactly?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
After many years of experiments, all of them have failed. Science, so far has shown us that there is no way for sunlight to cause molecules to arrange molecules into the complex codes needed for creating new organisms, tissue or body plans.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Your comment was about abiogenesis, not the evolution of pre-existing organisms, which is what we were discussing.
Experiments have shown that sunlight can cause a variety of mutations to the genetic code, many of which make it more complex. Sunlight is also capable of providing the energy necessary to synthesize the production of more complex molecules from simpler ones.
So, tell me again how evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
all things move to a state of disorder. not a state of increasing order. There is no mechanism, it has never been observed to create new tissue, body parts, or body plans, The fossil record starts and ends with complex organisms. We observe sudden appearance, stasis, and extinction. The story of evolutionists is a made up fairy tale which ignores evidence. Birds and dinosaurs found in the same strata are ignored to preserve the fairy tale of dinosaurs changing into birds. Etc.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "all things move to a state of disorder. not a state of increasing order."
How about crystals? Hurricanes?
"The fossil record starts and ends with complex organisms."
True, but wouldn't you agree that the higher layers contain some organisms that are more complex than any in the lower layers (mammals, dinosaurs, birds, etc.)?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
animals buried in a catastrophic watery disaster would be expected to be caught in different levels of sediment. More mobile intelligent at the top less mobile intelligent at the bottom. That is exactly what we see in general. there are a few exceptions.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "animals buried in a catastrophic watery disaster would be expected to be caught in different levels of sediment."
Why don't we find any bottom-dwelling jawed fish anywhere near the bottom? How about starfish?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
Mobility and intelligence. Star fish appear pretty far down. If you want to impose the evolutionism time scale, they appear around 440-450 million years ago.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Star fish appear pretty far down."
Yeah, but still about 100 million years after the Cambrian explosion, where several more mobile and more intelligent organisms can be found. They are even found above several jawless fish.
So do you accept now that some things (like crystals and hurricanes) can gain order naturally and that this doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
patterns are not complexity. patterns in sand caused by the wind, crystal formation, snowflakes, cloud formation, hurricanes, are in no way analogous to the digital code required to create new tissue body parts,body plans or computer operating systems. Given enough time Windows would not evolve. However somehow I feel that you use an apple computer.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "patterns are not complexity."
Oh, really?
Actually, "complexity" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. A highly ordered pattern can be either simple or complex, as can a highly disordered one. This is about entropy. A crystal is more highly ordered than a solution of dissolved minerals all mixed together, and a hurricane is more ordered than a bunch of wind going in different directions. So, it is possible for nature to create order from disorder.
Do you see this now?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
shape is not order. it doesn't matter in what order the molecules in a hurricane fall. In crystals, it is the natural property of the chemicals. For example, all salt crystals are cubed. scramble the molecules oh a hard disc for a million years, let me know when you get an operating system for a pc. If you could randomly scramble the molecules on a hard drive and eventually end up with the windows operating system. That would be a convincing argument that mutations create code.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "shape is not order."
This is turning into a semantic argument. You're wrong here, but it doesn't really matter. The only relevant issue is that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy is simply an increase in the heat of a system (aka unusable energy), which is why a change in entropy is calculated by dividing the change in heat by the absolute temperature of a system. You have not demonstrated how evolution reduces the amount of heat (unusable energy) in a closed system.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase."
OK? Randomness and chaos increase. not molecules arrange themselves into massively complex order to write the digital code of li
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 As usable energy in the universe degrades into unusable energy (aka heat), this increases disorder in the universe. This is because usable energy is required to build order locally (but consequently some of this energy is converted into unusable heat energy in the process). So I ask you once again, how exactly does evolution decrease the amount of heat in the universe? If it does not, then it cannot possibly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, by definition.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
"As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase."
Randomness and chaos increase. for evolution to work randomness and chaos must decrease. Therefore, evolution violates the 2nd law.
Gee Marcus you are usually a little quicker on the draw.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Randomness and chaos increase. for evolution to work randomness and chaos must decrease. Therefore, evolution violates the 2nd law"
Randomness and chaos increase in the system as a whole because of the conversion of usable energy to heat. You are acting as if order cannot be created in the process, when this is the very principle by which an air conditioner is able to move heat from cool to hot areas. This is a local increase in order in exchange for a global decrease in order.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist
So what is your contention? In your air conditioner example, work is being completed by the machine built by men. Although it is an example of local increase at the expense of a global decrease. I don't accept it as an analogy of randomness moving towards order undirected. A better analogy is randomly mixing up the 1's and 0's on a computer disk and creating an operating system via some sort of selection process.
mejc2 1 year ago