I have heard that bee and wasp abdomen development are encoded for by entirely different genes, this defies evolution via common descent furthermore I also heard that the gut development of frogs is different to repliles and crocodiles, this again defies evolution... I will try and find evidence of these claims, as I am at univeristy now.
@EvoBiologist Not a problem. I saw them on a video against evolution, stated by the initial team of scientists who came up with ID.
While I'm trying to re-find the video, please state the "mathematics" of evolution, is there a formula perhaps? (Doubtful considering it is based on random mutations, and thus cannot conform to a formula)
Also I asked a while ago for the Empirical evidence, ( falsifiable tests, not inference based observation), can you please state them
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is the most mathematically intense field in biology, so there is far more than just "a formula". The math goes from simple algebra to incredibly complex probabilistic calculus. I actually just gave you an equation regarding rate of evolution and selection (as you requested) in one of the 3 posts from 11 hours ago. I guess you didn't notice it.
That's ok. I noticed I mistakenly said "High relative fitness slows change". It's true, but only AFTER the allele reaches 100%..
So what was the "mathematics" behind your claim? If all you can provide is an arguement from similarities (which doesn't give evidence for evolution or a designer as it can imply either situation), then I must remind you that such inferences are still not evidence.
You cannot directly observe nor test evolution nor can you repeat such things hence it is not empirical, by definition...
@Gilbertus1986 Tests of a common ancestry are repeatable. Each sequence compared is a distinct test of the same set of relationships, and the results can be retested.
Since you insist on not reading a more detailed explanation I linked to:
The proportion of an allele in a population = proportion of homozygote from previous generation squared, times the fitness + proportion of heterozygote squared, times the fitness, all over the average fitness of the pop.
One example is the abdomen in bees and wasps are created via DIFFERENT genes, (which defies Evolution since its mechanism is genetic which should be thes same as it is passed down). Therefore you cannot infer common descent from homology since observing similarities do not tell you how they formed.
@Gilbertus1986 I'm sorry, but I've tried several variants of the link you provided (yes, I replaced the DOT), and can't get a video to pop up. Could you send me the video link by message?
How does allele frequency constitute NEW SPECIES... So does that mean when a population of humans changes the % of hair colour you would take this as evidence of common descent!!!
@Gilbertus1986 My discussion of the mathematics of changes in allele frequencies is a logical demonstration of the situations in which evolution will be expected to change in speed. This was in response to a statement from you 2 months ago:
"Thirdly observations in fossils show long periods of statis, this defies Darwinistic evolution"
If you understand the mathematics I provided, then you will see that the rate of evolution can vary greatly, and is expected to at the macro and micro levels.
@Gilbertus1986 I have never claimed that "similarities = evolution". Evolution occurs through the splitting of groups of organisms in a treelike pattern of similarities and differences. Leaving out the overall pattern and the fact that this pattern encompasses differences as well as similarities is not doing the argument justice. No other explanation for this very specific pattern has been proposed so far. It was enough to convince Michael Behe (for example) that common descent is clearly true.
yes it is observation based but is also EXPERIMENTAL, you cannot experiment with / on evolution after it has occured otherwise you are just making inferences of history, post priori (after the fact), such inferences (as I explained earlier) are not an empirical test.
Your "test" already assumes that similarities = evolution, yet as I explained earlier just because something exists it doesn't tell us HOW it came to be, hence you are assuming this link.
@Gilbertus1986 You claim that "you cannot experiment with / on evolution after it has occured" or it is post priori. However, if a gene has yet to be sequenced, then the predictions made about the gene are a priori until it is sequenced. This is an experimental, observational, and empirical test of common ancestry.
I never claimed "similarities = evolution", and similarity is not what we see in DNA, but a specific tree of similarities and differences that is only predicted by common ancestry.
Considering that Darwins (infered) mechanism is genetic and that genetic trees and morphology trees are different is yet another prediction against evolution since with an (infered) genetic mechanism, you would logically predict that they would be mostly the same.
Hence just calling it inconsequential is a refusal to investigate the problems, (perhaps evidence of bias?).
Also please demonstrate the "mathematics" of evolution, I couldn't find it in your replies.
@Gilbertus1986 I don't have the time or space to explain population genetics math to you, but simply google "Introduction to Natural and Sexual Selection". The page summarizes the basic math and gives examples of stabilizing selection from actual data.
The trees built from genes and morphology are "mostly the same", but there is no logical reason to predict that they'd be identical. A single nucleotide substitution can drastically change morphology, so of course the trees come out differently.
Umm telling me to read a paper isn't demonstrating the "core mathematics" of evolution.. I would prefer YOU to make the statement rather than refer me to a paper of which you can then back out of, if deemed that it doesn't support what you claim. Furthermore it would show that you actually want to discuss rather than "hurling elephants".
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
What falsification measures are used? (consider that living fossils were one, but now has an ad hoc "explaination" to explain it away.
@Gilbertus1986 There is observational, experimental, and mathematical evidence that the rate of evolution of a gene relies heavily on the selective pressures involved. A well suited body plan would only rarely be expected to change in favor of a better suited form.
To falsify the evolutionary theory of common ancestry, I would suggest studying genetics. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of genes. I know of no reason a designer might use such a specific pattern as a family tree, do you?
@EvoBiologist I've asked for the evidence and instead of giving specific examples of the empirical evidence you just say that there is some. If you want me to believe you in this I would suggest providing some examples, thanks.
Why wouldn't a "designer" create genetically similar organisms.. Common Genes = Common Design? No-one can question on what a "designer" would and wouldn't do hence its a red herring.
You do realise that nestled heirarchies are human inventions of clssification?
@Gilbertus1986 Picking up a copy of any of the several journals on evolution, I would challenge you to find ONE of them that didn't have articles providing evidence of how selective pressures change the rate of evolution. You asked for specifics, so try the article, "Stabilizing selection on behavior and morphology masks positive selection on the signal in a salamander pheromone signaling complex" - a random one I just found online.
For an easy case, think of stabilization of human baby weight.
@Gilbertus1986 Since organisms don't have "Common Genes", then I guess we don't have a common design or designer either. Instead, we have a set of genes that are similar and different in a pattern called a "nested hierarchy" (aka a family tree). This is an actual pattern found in nature, and not a human invention, though we did come up with drawing lines as a way to represent it (not that that matters). See my GULOP video.
If we can't predict what a designer would do, then it isn't scientific.
@EvoBiologist Firstly, you've moved away from the ad hoc explainations used for living fossils, I'm going to assume that you have no other reasons to explain them apart from "after the fact" ad hoc explainations.
Secondly you have failed to demonstrate the EMPIRICAL evidence I asked for, as your video here claims a hypothesis requires EMPIRICAL evidence to support it lest we assume that observing a phenomenon and not testing it is enough to base "theories" on.
@Gilbertus1986 I've pointed out that the core mathematics behind natural selection (a direct consequence of Darwin's work) predict cases of stasis under some conditions. I cited a paper on this topic as well as giving an example in humans: birth weight is under stabilizing selection - too big and the baby won't fit, too small and the baby is weak and loses heat too rapidly.
Comparing gene sequences and observing whether they show the same pattern as predicted by Darwin IS "EMPIRICAL evidence".
Yes I know organisms have different genes, I rushed my response and used incorrect terminology thanks for pointing it out.
What I was meaning was you see commonality and you claim evolution, yet that commonality can also refer to a common designer. This is also supported by the evidence of DNA itself since DNA contains information, yet currently all we know is that information only EVER comes from intelligence hence we can ask what intelligence created DNA?
The "Tree of Life" IS a human construct, you know that different trees are contructed from different data. Trees based on morphology can differ greatly to trees based on genetic analysis, hence there is no fundamental tree of life which can be refered to as an absolute, it is all relative nothing is for certain.
@Gilbertus1986 Since very different genes can code for similar morphologies, the fact that morphological trees can differ from genetic ones is inconsequential. The more genes we sequence and compare, the more statistical support for ONE tree we get. If they were contradictory, this wouldn't be so.
A nested hierarchy is nothing like "commonality", so I don't know why you keep saying it. Genes are similar and different in a pattern of groups within groups - a nested hierarchy - not "commonality".
@EvoBiologist Nestled heirarchy is based on commonality of elements that are deemed by the researcher.. hence (as I said it is a human construct). Which similarities used for the heirarchy is at the discression of the researcher hence (as said before) it is a human construct.
Yet despite this how would looking at something and observing similarities make for EMPIRICAL evidence, considering that inference from observation is not a test.. Just something you base a hypothesis on.
@Gilbertus1986 It doesn't matter which genetic sequences you use - the more DNA, the stronger the pattern. Do the comparison yourself - GenBank is a public repository of the sequences from ALL of these experiments. So, the choice of sequence doesn't ultimately matter - the pattern is real.
Here is an empirical test of common ancestry: pick 2 gene sequences from a set of organisms. Common ancestry predicts 2 nested hierarchies that when taken together increase the probability for 1 tree.
@EvoBiologist Yet as I said gene trees are different to the morphology trees hence under your falsification attempt evolution is falsified..... Thanks :)
Furthermore, just because something exists it tells us nothing of how it came to be. Yes we can observe similarities, (but as I said observation is not an empirical test)
I never asked you to explain the basics for me, (since I can find that out for myself), what I have asked is for the strictly EMPIRICAL evidence. The more you delay in this and continue to provide inference based observations the more it seems that evolution is a branch of pseudo-science considering that empirical evidence is the factor seperating the two.
I never said that the trees would be exactly the same, however there are discrepencies that put evolution to shame.
I never asked you to explain the basics for me, (since I can find that out for myself), what I have asked is for the strictly EMPIRICAL evidence. The more you delay in this and continue to provide inference based observations the more it seems that evolution is a branch of pseudo-science considering that empirical evidence is the factor seperating the two.
I never said that the trees would be exactly the same, however there are discrepencies that put evolution to shame.
@Gilbertus1986 How exactly does the fact that morphology and genes don't share a 1:1 relationship falsify evolution? Genes are the hereditary bits, so if we are examining relationships of organisms, we should compare genes.
I gave you a prediction directly derived from the theory of common ancestry and a way to test it based on observation of gene sequence data (aka the scientific method). How is this not empirical? Empirical evidence is BY DEFINITION observational evidence - look it up.
Furthermore you've just shown the pseudo-scientific nature of evolution hypothesis since it is so flexible that anything can "confirm" it. Hence no falsifiable predictions can be made since any observation can be twisted ad hoc to fit the "theory".
Science isn't a game, it is the pursuit of knowledge..
However whilst science itself is clear, "science says nothing scientists do", everything a scientist claims must be taken with a grain of salt since all people are subject to bias according to his or her own worldview.
Furthermore the predictions a hypothesis should make are risker ones, as Karl Popper, (the father of falsifiability), claims that the best hypotheisis has the most falsifiable claim, ie- least chance of it occuring
@Gilbertus1986 Science is not "the pursuit of knowledge", but merely one process and set of rules with that goal. It is because of bias and fallibility that the scientific method and peer review process are used, so for a theory like evolution you can either follow the consensus of over 99% of the scientists studying the theory, or you can seek the training needed to understand the research yourself.
Evolution is easily falsifiable - find a complex gene that would have to have evolved twice.
You said "Evolution is easily falsifiable - find a complex gene that would have to have evolved twice."
w w wDOTpnasDOTorg/content/104/9/3295.abstract
Ooops!! Either evolution is falsified or you will make some ad hoc explaination and prove my position correct in that evolution is unfalsifiable (since all the evidence against it has ad hoc explainations to explain them away)...
Very nice, wellspoken and clear video. I am happy to be a new subscriber.
As a side note, in reference to GSFY, I have a phrase I'd like to share: "Please do not feed the trolls." He is obviously not looking for or interested in an intelligent or civil conversation.
I understand your point about GSFY, but as a policy I basically respond to anyone who posts here to me. I only tend to block for spam, and even then it has to be be egregious. It's only happened a couple of times and even then the block has been temporary. As frustrating as it can be, I usually enjoy it and sometimes learn stuff. Others can read the discussions and no one can accuse me of censorship or of avoiding any issues (real or imagined).
@EvoBiologist Here is some major scruitiny for your "theory" of evolution.
Firstly how does the "theory" show HOW evolution works on the biochemical level?
Secondly can it account for complex phenomena of biochemistry for example cell respiration or the immune system, via the step by step method Darwin proposed despite these things being irreducibly complex.
Thirdly observations in fossils show long periods of statis, this defies Darwinistic evolution
"how does the "theory" show HOW evolution works on the biochemical level?"
The biochemistry of mutation events is pretty well understood. The rest is simply population dynamics - math relating to # of offspring, deaths, migration, etc.
Why should it matter if something is currently "irreducibly complex"? That doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved.
"long periods of stasis" do not defy any form of evolution - which evo biologist claims this?
So what are the biochemical mechanisms? Your general response gave no actual answer to my question.
Irreducibly complex systems are a flaw which Darwin cited at the inception of his hypothesis. Your claim here is an argumentum ad futuris. Its more scientific to claim, you don't know.
Long periods of statis are NOT what would be predicted via the evolution hypothesis, hence why an ad hoc explaination was used AFTER the statis was found to explain it away
@Gilbertus1986 "So what are the biochemical mechanisms?"
Are you asking how mutations occur biochemically? It's simply a matter of the replicating machinery making a mistake, such as what happens when radioactive particles or free radicals bump into it. That's the only biochemical process involved directly in evolution.
Can you quote Darwin on irreducible complexity?
Are you saying that even though Darwin's 1st edition of "Origin of Species" discusses stasis, it is an ad hoc addition?
@EvoBiologist Darwin discusses statis as a problem for his hypothesis, he never solved it. Fossil evidence only compounds the problem.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "- Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pg 219
I am asking what biochemical mechanisms set in place systems like cellular respiration... Your answer is genetic not biochemical
@Gilbertus1986 In "Origin", Darwin says that species "have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree", and that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"
Your quote from 219 isn't about irreducible complexity, which only concerns itself with whether or not removing a part makes a structure no longer have it's original function.
@EvoBiologist on pg 219 Darwin is talking about complexity, its pretty self explanatory...
Yet living fossils demonstrate no change whatsoever for MILLIONS of years.. This does defy evolutionary predictions as well as what Darwin noted about the timefram
@Gilbertus1986 If millions of years of little or no physical change defies Darwin's theory, then why did he say in "Origin", "In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus"? Clearly he didn't feel (as I don't) that this poses any sort of problem for evolution. If selective pressure constrains an organism into a specific, stable niche, it's predicted.
The mechanics of gene replication are entirely biochemical in nature, which is why they form a core part of any basic college biochemistry course (I should know - that was a HARD class).
I think you are asking me to describe every step in the evolution of cellular respiration. Well, I won't attempt it, but I will ask this:
Does it bother you that a large part of cellular respiration includes the preexisting glycolitic pathway?
This means that the complexity of the pathway is REDUCIBLE
NO it doesn't bother me since, the facts remain that the other areas of function are unique, unless you can actually demonstrate the process then you are just ASSUMING it did occur. The glycolytic pathway, (glycolysis), is the first part of cellular respiration...Duh. Hence of course it will be the same... Are you sure you studied this?
@Gilbertus1986 Glycolysis is used in anaerobic conditions as well as during respiration. Bacterial fossils predate an atmosphere with oxygen. So, glycolysis could have evolved separately and been co-opted for use in cellular respiration. This is supported by a wide range of organisms having glycolysis, despite having different forms of respiration. Yes, I'm sure I studied this.
Even though some of the other functions are unique, none of the component parts are. All belong to protein families.
Now all you need to do is support it with emprical evidence, (since that is what actual science is based on, as you said in your video).
The components are unique, (yes they are proteins, but they are specific proteins). Furthermore, other problems now arise- where did anaerobic respiration "evolve" from, how did the gap between the two close, how were the different anaerobic systems amalgamated into one aerobic system, etc etc etc
@Gilbertus1986 So the fact that all of the proteins involved in cellular respiration have protein sequences that are related to other proteins in a family tree pattern isn't empirical evidence of an actual family tree? What is?
There is not "one aerobic system", there are a variety of cellular respiration processes in cellular organisms that use components related (in a family tree pattern again) to respiration and other cellular processes in other organisms... a rare and very specific pattern.
Have you read the results of the mapping of Neanderthal DNA? The ONLY thing shown is interbreeding, not some magical "common great ape" ancestor, bull shit.
GSFY - Thus far you've shown NO evidence for your silly notion about humans, gorillas, chimps and Neanderthals - I've asked you many times to highlight any DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns that MIGHT support your inanity, and each time you've run away. You're simply a deluded creationist who thinks his Yoga experience qualifies him to talk on science - it doesn't. Please seek professional help and take the medication.
GSFY - if you're dumb enough to dump your ill-educated nonsense on channels I view then I'm going to point out your idiocies, delusions and lies, and have a good laugh at your expense while at it. If you stick to creationist channels, where there may be some people daft enough to swallow the nonsense you're peddling, then it is unlikely I will reply to it - quite simple really, but perhaps a stretch for you!
@KrokrX - Gosh, he called you a (gasp!) stalker! Next he will be calling you an evodelutionist!
Hey, GSFY - where is your 100% proof that KrokrX and I are not in full agreement with you, but merely playing devil's advocate? For that matter, where is your 100% proof that he and I are different people or, indeed, that everyone with whom you think you have interacted on YouTube are actually different people and not one person with a bunch of sock puppet accounts? Remember, no opinions!
@GoodScienceForYou The neanderthal mapping showed interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, not humans and some other ape. This is unrelated to your claim that apes are the result of hybridizations.
GSFY - 'Straw Man' - you uneducated clown, how is it a strawman to point out that the research discovered interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals, and had NOTHING to do with your daft notion that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps and then mated with the chimps to produce Neanderthals? Your grip on reality gets ever more tenuous, you really should seek professional help and take the medication.
GSFY - I'm still waiting for you to show ANY specific evidence for your silly notion about humans, gorillas, chimps and Neanderthals - I've asked you many times to highlight any DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns that MIGHT support your inanity, and each time you've run away. You're simply a deluded creationist who thinks his Yoga experience and possession of a whiteboard qualifies him to talk on science - it doesn't.
@GoodScienceForYou: "The original first DNA information on Neanderthals is that they were closer to Chimps. Remember? "
.
Ok - now who in that study of Neanderthal DNA suggested that humans had sex with chimps to produce Neanderthals? That is a view only held by religodelusionists. Actually, that word should not be in the plural - there is only one religodelusionist who holds that view.
If you look at the big bang theory of all the universe is moving out away from one point in space, you have nothing but positive testable and repeatable evidence for that. I have studied that for a lot longer than you have been alive. When all evidence points only in ONE direction can you form conclusions.
Thank you for finally giving me an example of a scientific theory that you accept, rather than just listing off applications of technology. I agree with you that the evidence for the Big Bang is good, but I wouldn't call it "absolute evidence". The evidence for evolution is more numerous and from more independent sources than the evidence for the Big Bang.
Each new gene sequence or fossil is an independent test of common descent.
@EvoBiologist Not really! The gene DNA testing shows that creatures are from earth and that is about all. Only when it is absolutely clear can you tie any creature to another. You need about a billion exact copies of the same genetic coding to do that.
@GoodScienceForYou Gene sequencing tells us much more than "that creatures are from earth". Would you not admit that if we compare species within a genus, we can find a family tree of genetic relationships that typically correspond roughly with physical similarity and difference?
Would you agree that in the case of populations in a species and species within a genus, this genetic pattern (the same one observed in viruses) is evidence of their shared ancestry and relative degree of relatedness?
@EvoBiologist You problem is the assumption that ANY genetic similarity you falsely conclude is evidence of some fantasy "evolutionary" tie. You can't even date fossils with any accuracy, you can't get over the delusional belief in things that are completely based on false premises that have never been proven, not one time. This is why after 10 years of the human genome project nothing, no cures have come from it. It is called retardation from belief.
GSFY - so you're back scattering your ill-educated nonsense across various channels that accept the reality of evolution; you really are a sad old man. Are you trying to get some light relief from that impending foreclosure, or just having one of those 'down' periods typical of your mental illness? Please seek professional help and take the medication.
Yes, GSFY the creationist-who-pretends-he-is-a-scientist cannot stay away. And I cannot help calling him on his BS.
His Neutral Evolution Forum is a ghost town - nobody has posted to it since March 25th except for GSFY himself and he is searching for new people to insult.
One thing that I am looking forward to is when he posts videos of his upcoming European music tour. I'm certain that it will be as successful as his spa business has been.
@AlanCFA - GSFY is an ill-educated clown, but good entertainment. It's quite amusing that he often loves to quote Einstein, I think he deludedly imagines he's similar in some way(s)! His Neutral Evolution Forum gave me an insight into just how deluded a single human being can be, and it contained so many laughs among his rants. Sad to say his music is no better than his science and his 'European tour' undoubtedly another figment of his warped imagination.
@GoodScienceForYou "You problem is the assumption that ANY genetic similarity you falsely conclude is evidence..."
No. Again, I'm talking about a tree-like pattern of similarity and difference, exactly like that seen in branching groups of viruses and unlike that seen in distinct groups hybridizing.
I'm not sure what your point is about the human genome project. Is the claim that no diseases are genetically based? That we should be able to do gene therapy to mutate these in humans? Why?
@EvoBiologist The whole $3 billion funding was based on this idea that evodelusional ideas, using the mapping of the human genome was going to "revolutionize" modern medicine. The problem is that DNA is not the cause. It is the result of the programming deep in the life force that guides healing and adaptation. This is obvious as can be from observing life.
Science is in the dark ages, and it is getting darker with religious bullshit from Evotards with the Evodelusionism religion.
@GoodScienceForYou "The problem is that DNA is not the cause. It is the result of the programming deep in the life force that guides healing and adaptation. This is obvious as can be from observing life."
@EvoBiologist Once you realize that DNA is not the cause of itself, then it starts to make sense. There is only information in DNA. There are no random events in DNA.
The differences shown in offspring can only come from information passed from the parents. You think about it.
GSFY - it is so funny when you tell other people to 'think about it' when it's quite clear that you are unable to do so yourself! If you want to pontificate on scientific matters then get educated, or get laughed at. You could well be the dumbest creationist here on YT, and it's quite a feat to even be in the running for that title with people like NephilimFree about! You're a clown Jimmy.
@GoodScienceForYou "The differences shown in offspring can only come from information passed from the parents."
Right, and that information from the parents includes any mutations that have occurred in the sex cell lineage involved in conception. Whether or not the mutations are truly "random" is irrelevant as to whether evolution works or not.
@EvoBiologist Not really. Evolution according to the religious belief in common use, requires new information and passing of old genetic coding in various "mixtures of permutations/combinations" to offspring is not new information. It is constant rearrangement of existing coding.
GSFY - couldn't help but notice that on another video you added to your assinine claims about humans mating with gorilllas to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals. You've now also claimed that humans mated with a 'four legged animal' to 'create the first ape like primates'?? What is it with you and bestiality Jimmy? Get some professional help and take the medications.
@GoodScienceForYou "Evolution according to the religious belief in common use, requires new information and passing of old genetic coding in various "mixtures of permutations/combinations" to offspring is not new information. It is constant rearrangement of existing coding."
All that is required for "new information" to appear in a genome is an event such as a gene duplication followed by mutation. Both have been observed, and strong evidence of this in the past links genes into families.
@EvoBiologist And yet, you don't have a clue what is going on. You project what you were taught to believe on what you think you see. Typical, of brainwashing.
Seriously go to evolutionforum(dot)info and really read it this time.
@GoodScienceForYou So you admit that new information is created by mutations and that you don't have a reference for your claim about chimp and neanderthal DNA.
@EvoBiologist There is no NEW information that you can show. You cannot demonstrate where the information comes from. Not at all. It is all based on your beliefs and assumptions from beliefs. The term "mutation" does not fit the data. Because you do not know if it really is anything that can be called a mutation. You must prove that it is a change. If it is not a change, then it is not mutation. Get it?
Nylonase added new information. You simply lie and deny it. Yes, they are able to demonstrate where the new information came from. But it does not fit the Bible, so you discount it.
@GoodScienceForYou "There is no NEW information that you can show. You cannot demonstrate where the information comes from... You must prove that it is a change. If it is not a change, then it is not mutation."
As I said before, we have observed many cases of gene duplications as well as substitution mutations. We can "prove that it is a change" because we can compare (and have compared) parent and offspring DNA.
@EvoBiologist If you were to actually read all the data on Humans, Chimps, Neanderthals without your beliefs, it is easy to refute the nonsense of Evodelusionists. There is only genetics. There are no magical processes, and no mystical causes. Neaderthals contain both Human and Chimp DNA. Go get an education.
Then you should have no difficulty proving such a claim as requested. Surely you don't expect us to take your word for it. That would be blind faith in your knowledge and honesty.
@EvoBiologist My question to you is this: Why don't you know these things? Why do I have to teach them to you? Why are you only getting your information from one club, cult or religion..what ever you want to call it. Start reading on every new finding that is published on this. I put the recent articles on my forum for you to read.
GSFY - the only thing you've taught anyone is that they were wrong if they suspected that dear ol' Nephi was as dumb and crazy as a creationist could get. Your inane ramblings have set a new low benchmark for creationist stupidity, congratulations Jimmy, you've succeeded in teaching something at last!
@GodSeanceForYoga: "My question to you is this: Why don't you know these things? Why do I have to teach them to you? Why are you only getting your information from one club, cult or religion"
.
You pretentious moron. You know NOTHING about evolution, genetics, or much of anything else. Your forum is a pathetic joke. Nobody has posted there since late March except you and here you are pleading for subscribers to join a forum that you censor so that they can be insulted
I don't read every article about every subject in biology and neither do you. I have a life - a busy one. I won't go to your forum again, since the last several times it was so unhelpful and I will no longer provide you with traffic. I asked you to cite your source here, so that those reading this conversation can find it. If you can't, then I call BS on your chimp/neanderthal DNA comment. I think you misunderstood something you read,
@GoodScienceForYou - you don't have any facts. If you did, you wouldn't be able to marshal them into a viable theory because you are low IQ and because of your religious beliefs which blind you to the truth.
GSFY: "We are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught"
@GoodScienceForYou "I think you are lazy and don't want to spoil your religious beliefs with facts."
Ditto, which is why each time I ask you for evidence you're so evasive. If you're so concerned with facts, then you should be happy to cite the article in question right here. It's very easy, so the fact that you instead feel the need to argue about what I should know or do seems telling.
Also, since you dropped it, I'm glad you see now that mutations are shown to build new information.
@ReligiousNutJob - you have done nothing here except beg people to visit your pathetic forum, display your ignorance of science, and now top it off with some more of your "knowledge is bondage" mysticism bullshit from your scandal-ridden cult.
.
Karl Popper was right, you are wrong; Charles Darwin was right, you are wrong; these are facts that you deny so that you can continue to live in that castle you built in the sky.
@GoodScienceForYou "The evidence is there for any one to find as I have. I am not going to save you from your ignorance. "jnanam bandaha"."
That is, without a doubt, the lamest excuse I've ever heard for refusing to provide a reference. If you were actually concerned about the dangers of limited knowledge, then you wouldn't have made the neanderthal DNA claim in the 1st place (along with several other unsubstantiated claims). Truly lame.
@EvoBiologist You are just a lame excuse for a scientist. You would not beleive any of the evidence I provide because, unless you discover it for yourself, your religious prejudices are against anything I have taught you. I pity you.
@GoodScienceForYou "You would not beleive any of the evidence I provide because, unless you discover it for yourself, your religious prejudices are against anything I have taught you."
It's true that I don't trust you to give me accurate information. This is based on my experience with you so far, and is precisely why I am requesting a reference from you for your claim that neanderthals are genetically closer to chimps. If you provide a reference, then I can evaluate the evidence myself.
@GoodScienceForYou: "You are just a lame excuse for a scientist". Ha! Coming from you, a lame excuse for pretty much everything. How's that "musical tour of Europe" coming along? You think Europeans are ready for your avante garde music?
.
I'm not so sure that listening to something that sounds like a gerbil being thrown into a garbage disposal will with their hearts and minds, but since you have an IQ of 180, maybe you have deeper insights.
In tough courses, I've found study groups to be helpful. If you can learn something well enough to explain it to a friend, then you have it down solid, and will probably remember it.
"And yet, you don't have a clue what is going on. You project what you were taught to believe on what you think you see" That is you in a nutshell. Since you're a nut, it's quite appropriate.
"Seriously go to christiandeniesevolutionforum(dot)stupidity"
Yes, Jimbo, beg for someone to visit your forum. It's so lonely there, all that time spent talking to yourself - it must make you crazy. Yeah, that's the ticket.
DNA is not the cause? Craig Venter and his team created a new form of life from an existing cell but with a synthetic genome inserted. Don't you read the newspaper?
"Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form"
You need to listen to and follow those "nagging" doubts in your mind. That is the real scientist trying to come out of you. That shit pseudo science is not every going to help you.
If science is against all super natural causes, then how the hell do you come up with evolution, which is full of mystical creatures that have never been found, like the "missing links" of human evolution. Then you have magical processes where by some magical bullshit a fish grows legs and lungs and decides to leave the water in order to develop into humans.
How much more mystical and magical, religious bullshit can you get.
It is a religion and needs to be removed from science.
Many fish already have lungs, and there are intermediates between swim bladders and lungs in fish, as well as varying degrees of complexity in these structures. We have lobe-finned fish and several fossils with more and more leg-like fins and fin-like legs.
The "missing link" was found long ago with the first hominid skull. Now we have many many links. How many should we have?
How many fossils intermediate in form do we need to find?
@GoodScienceForYou "And every fucking thing you said was an opinion based on belief."
Everything I mentioned is an easily observable fact. Apparently, you've never heard of swim bladders, lungfish, or lobe-finned fish in general, and have not examined the fossil lobe-finned fish and early amphibians. Also, you have admitted that we have found skeletons with a blend of human and non-human ape characteristics. You blame this on interbreeding, but it is what was predicted for a "missing link".
@GoodScienceForYou "You are not capable of separating opinions from what you think are facts."
What did I say that was not factual?
"I have studied all about lung fish, Mudskippers"
Then why did you say, "...by some magical bullshit a fish grows legs and lungs and decides to leave the water..."? You just claimed that my statement that there are fish with lungs that go on land was not factual. Make up your mind.
@EvoBiologist By the way I have studied all about lung fish, Mudskippers, Not one of those fish have any evidence of evolution. There is nothing to show any creatures that came before or after.
@EvoBiologist "Everything I mentioned is an easily observable fact." The more you write or speak, the more stupid you sound. When did you observe fish that decided to change into reptiles? When did you see exactly how, with no opinions, but with observations, human evolution from any other life form?
GSFY - and the more you keep repeating the same nonsense the clearer it is to everyone else that not only don't you have the intelligence you boast of , but you also have serious psychological problems.
@GoodScienceForYou "When did you observe fish that decided to change into reptiles?"
When did I ever claim to have? In fact I said that if I had, it would destroy evolutionary theory.
"When did you see exactly how, with no opinions, but with observations, human evolution from any other life form?"
Again, I never claimed to have. All I said was that the term "missing link" originally referred to something intermediate in form between a human and an ancient ape. Something you admit exists.
@EvoBiologist "Something you admit exists." WTF are you talking about. I have looked at all the evidence and there is only dead ends. All the hominids died out and did not transition into anything. There are no missing links, they do not exist.
There is this thing in science. The lack of evidence IS the lack of evidence. You cannot be any sort of scientists and have beliefs in things with no physical evidence and only religious like belief as you do.
What I was saying was that Darwin predicted that we would find a fossil one day with a blend of characteristics of both humans and a more "primitive" ape. This predicted fossil was called "the missing link".
On your forum you claimed:
"The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals."
Therefore, you admit that we have found fossils matching the description of "the missing link", otherwise you couldn't make such a claim.
@EvoBiologist It is interesting that you only took the speculative parts and remembered them. That is a sign that you are only looking for that which you can use against me. That is why I put these things. They are for you to think about. If you look at the mDNA of the Neanderthal it seems to fit that hypothesis. It is all from interbreeding and normal genetics without the bullshit of things "morphing" into new genus. The lack of evidence IS the lack of evidence.
@GoodScienceForYou "t is interesting that you only took the speculative parts and remembered them."
It is unimportant whether it was a speculation on your part or not. There is a reason you suggested that Neanderthals might be a mixture of humans and chimps and that is because Neanderthals (as well as other fossil hominids) have characteristics of modern humans as well as those of more "primitive apes".
So, you must therefore be admitting that Darwin's "missing link" prediction is true.
@EvoBiologist Interbreeding amongst compatible creatures is not evolution. It is normal genetics. There are no missing links and Neanderthals lived at the same times as both humans and chimps. The mDNA shows that they found on the Neanderthals a similarity more towards chimps than humans, yet the morphology is more human. Go look at the Chimp & Human skeletons and the Neanderthal for a long time. Meditate on this.
We do not have any evidence of any missing link, but we do have evidence in DNA,Chromosomes, and in morphology of the present creatures. The DNA of chimps and the Chromosomes are TOO similar to humans to be some split off speciation from a common ancestor. It shows direct interbreeding. And the Chimp's amazing mental abilities show this as well. Did you look at all the Chimp videos I put up on evolutionforum(dot)info It is compelling.
@EvoBiologist Do you understand that the idea of Neanderthal as missing links has been removed, because they existed the same time as humans? Do you not know this? What do you think about the "Hobbit". One PHD professor realized over that one that he was delusional because this and many other facts ate away the belief. He regrets wasting his life on chasing a phantom. There are many real scientists who don't believe in evolution and got free of this shit. You can get free of this religion.
Neanderthal DNA isn't closer to chimp than human. It is so close to human that they've been labeled a subspecies.
I agree that Neanderthals aren't a human ancestor, but they (and more so other hominids) have the physical characteristics Darwin predicted in "the missing link".
What do you think of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus? How do you explain the nested hierarchy in apes (not just the similarity of humans and chimps)?
@EvoBiologist That depends on where you get your information. I suggest that you read the articles and studies on this mDNA from Neanderthals. There is lot of chimp in it because chimps are 94.6 DNA similar to humans. Don't you know this?
Who were your teachers? Were they sleeping in their classes as well?
Oh really? Name one scientist who claims that humans and chimps are anything remotely close to "100 or so million years" separated from each other as you claim.
You claim to be well read on evolution - ESPECIALLY human/chimp relatedness. You even go so far as to claim that your own alternate hypothesis is supported by all the evidence and yet you think that we claim a chimp is more divergent from a human than a platypus is.
@EvoBiologist "How many fossils intermediate in form do we need to find?" You need to find and prove objectively and obviously that there are ANY transitional fossils. You can't do that, because it is all based on belief projected on fossils.
Since I have no beliefs and don't allow anyone to force their bullshit beliefs on me, I have objectivity. I was not raised with any religion bullshit. I have no religion. I only go with what is shown to be true with no other plausibility.
GSFY - you say 'I have no beliefs', but what about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Siddha Yoga(based on Hindu spiritual traditions), don't they count? And for someone who claims to have 'been a scientist for over 45 years' why do you boast of having read 'over 200 books just on astrology'? Did you even need to read the first to recognise pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo?
You're seriously deluded, please seek psychiatric help and take the medications offered.
GSFY - you lose your bet, not that anyone will be surprised. The vast majority of books I've read weren't 'given to' me by anyone, and encompass a huge variety of subjects, even some pseudo-science ones(but I've never read 'over 200' and not recognised that, unlike you). As for being ignorant, it's you that kept on resorting to profanity rather than coherent argument.
GSFY - I genuinely do pity you. It must be difficult having been a failure all your life(in education, marriage, business etc.). .... it must hurt to be you, so naturally you try to compensate for it with your delusions that you're some kind of genius, and by hitting out at everyone. Seriously, get some professional help.
GSFY - You may not realise how much information is held by the state(court records, CPS, financial transactions, etc.) and is now easily accessible online. And then there are those business related forums you used to post on - fascinating stuff, but so much of it.
I got a reply from your brother and it seems he holds an equally high opinion of you, but expressed himself in a much more civil manner than you normally manage.
GSFY - I found the Potholer54debunks video (watch?v=kBocwCLPuwk) and read the comments. Looks like I'm not the first to discover so much about you. And It's also obvious that you keep repeating the same magic mantras - must be that Siddha Yoga training. I've also looked into Siddha Yoga and it's philosophies - and found leavingsiddhayoga[dot]net, it all makes fascinating reading - boy they did a job on you.
GSFY - astrology is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and if you don't realise that, even after reading 'over 200 books', your delusions are even worse than I suspected, your grasp on reality less than tenuous, and your supposed intelligence clearly a fiction. Please seek some professional help and take the medications.
GSFY - thus far all you've given us are your opinions. I've asked you before to highlight the specific DNA sequences, or the specific ERV patterns, that support your 'hypothesis' about Gorillas, Humans & Chimps, rather than the accepted evolutionary one. You've ducked that on each occasion, so how about trying now? No more profanities, insults, assertions, just some simple evidence.
GSFY - your comment is incoherent nonsense. Please try again, and highlight the specific DNA sequences, or the specific ERV patterns, that support your 'hypothesis' about Gorillas, Humans & Chimps, rather than the accepted evolutionary one. No more profanities, insults, assertions, just some simple evidence.
Yoga is a path, not a person, or a teacher. I have had many teachers in yoga. Paramahasa Yogananda, Neem Karoli Baba, Sri Anandamayi Ma, Ramana maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and many others. Yoga is a way to find the truth by not becoming the witness of your mind. Once you can see your own folly, it is easy to see it in others. Beliefs are the crutch of the mind that is supposed to quell fear, but it are almost always made from fear and so are always delusional. Why don't you know this?
GSFY - a list of your Yoga teachers has no relevance to your competence to talk about scientific matters, and your failure to understand that is part of your sad delusional state. You never actually address any actual points of science, but fall back on your loony aphorisms about belief, and your foul-mouthed rants. EPIC fail!
GSFY - you've said elsewhere on YT 'When someone tells you how to think, they have mentally raped you' - and that says what about those Yoga teachers of yours!? You then went on to say 'If you let them, that makes you a whore' - hmmmm, doesn't that apply to you then?
@KrokrX You obviously are delusional. The methods of yoga, used are totally involved with getting your objective perspective of yourself and your life, so you can get control of your mind, that is normally controlled by emotionally driven things. That is why the song Human Emotional Mental Garbage is number 4 in all of rock on soundclick. You are wrapped up in ego, beliefs, and delusions as all people are, but you think you are in control, when your mind/emotions are in control of your life.
GSFY - you are just so funny! You have no idea how to form a coherent argument. According to you everyone else is delusional except you, but as always you have that completely backwards. I still can't decide if you misplaced the decimal point when you claimed an 'IQ over 180' or dishonestly added a 1 at the beginning.
@KrokrX Your problem is you have no clue about yourself and you project what you think I am based on what you are. That is your problem. In order for you to understand who I am and what I know you have to learn from me. So far all you do is Straw Man bullshit and hate. Neither of which is helping you to understand anything, because you know what I teach, and you don't have the first clue.
GSFY - you simply keep on with the same rants. When asked for evidence to support any of your nonsense, such as your humans mating with gorillas to produce chimps, you evade and rant some more. You've yet to display any significant knowledge on any subject.
You continually seem to have a problem with your reading comprehension. I've told you before I don't hate you, you aren't important enough for any such emotional investment on my part, but I do pity you, and do find you funny.
@EvoBiologist
I have heard that bee and wasp abdomen development are encoded for by entirely different genes, this defies evolution via common descent furthermore I also heard that the gut development of frogs is different to repliles and crocodiles, this again defies evolution... I will try and find evidence of these claims, as I am at univeristy now.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 "I will try and find evidence of these claims"
Please do, they genuinely sound interesting.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Not a problem. I saw them on a video against evolution, stated by the initial team of scientists who came up with ID.
While I'm trying to re-find the video, please state the "mathematics" of evolution, is there a formula perhaps? (Doubtful considering it is based on random mutations, and thus cannot conform to a formula)
Also I asked a while ago for the Empirical evidence, ( falsifiable tests, not inference based observation), can you please state them
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is the most mathematically intense field in biology, so there is far more than just "a formula". The math goes from simple algebra to incredibly complex probabilistic calculus. I actually just gave you an equation regarding rate of evolution and selection (as you requested) in one of the 3 posts from 11 hours ago. I guess you didn't notice it.
That's ok. I noticed I mistakenly said "High relative fitness slows change". It's true, but only AFTER the allele reaches 100%..
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
So what was the "mathematics" behind your claim? If all you can provide is an arguement from similarities (which doesn't give evidence for evolution or a designer as it can imply either situation), then I must remind you that such inferences are still not evidence.
You cannot directly observe nor test evolution nor can you repeat such things hence it is not empirical, by definition...
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Tests of a common ancestry are repeatable. Each sequence compared is a distinct test of the same set of relationships, and the results can be retested.
Since you insist on not reading a more detailed explanation I linked to:
The proportion of an allele in a population = proportion of homozygote from previous generation squared, times the fitness + proportion of heterozygote squared, times the fitness, all over the average fitness of the pop.
High relative fitness slows change.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Here is the video showing evidence that homology doesn't directly display common decent
youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=pMVBFJCqFXc&list=LL-ELzGBIDHmVcarkgnmlfZg&index=19&feature=plpp_video
One example is the abdomen in bees and wasps are created via DIFFERENT genes, (which defies Evolution since its mechanism is genetic which should be thes same as it is passed down). Therefore you cannot infer common descent from homology since observing similarities do not tell you how they formed.
Gilbertus1986 3 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'm sorry, but I've tried several variants of the link you provided (yes, I replaced the DOT), and can't get a video to pop up. Could you send me the video link by message?
EvoBiologist 3 months ago
@EvoBiologist
How does allele frequency constitute NEW SPECIES... So does that mean when a population of humans changes the % of hair colour you would take this as evidence of common descent!!!
Gilbertus1986 3 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 My discussion of the mathematics of changes in allele frequencies is a logical demonstration of the situations in which evolution will be expected to change in speed. This was in response to a statement from you 2 months ago:
"Thirdly observations in fossils show long periods of statis, this defies Darwinistic evolution"
If you understand the mathematics I provided, then you will see that the rate of evolution can vary greatly, and is expected to at the macro and micro levels.
EvoBiologist 3 months ago
@EvoBiologist
You are claiming similarities = evolution, since you claim that it only fits within the model of common descent.
Post priori experimentation / explainations are part of PSEUDO-SCIENCE... Perhaps that is what evolutionary "science" is...
Gilbertus1986 3 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I have never claimed that "similarities = evolution". Evolution occurs through the splitting of groups of organisms in a treelike pattern of similarities and differences. Leaving out the overall pattern and the fact that this pattern encompasses differences as well as similarities is not doing the argument justice. No other explanation for this very specific pattern has been proposed so far. It was enough to convince Michael Behe (for example) that common descent is clearly true.
EvoBiologist 3 months ago
@EvoBiologist
yes it is observation based but is also EXPERIMENTAL, you cannot experiment with / on evolution after it has occured otherwise you are just making inferences of history, post priori (after the fact), such inferences (as I explained earlier) are not an empirical test.
Your "test" already assumes that similarities = evolution, yet as I explained earlier just because something exists it doesn't tell us HOW it came to be, hence you are assuming this link.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 You claim that "you cannot experiment with / on evolution after it has occured" or it is post priori. However, if a gene has yet to be sequenced, then the predictions made about the gene are a priori until it is sequenced. This is an experimental, observational, and empirical test of common ancestry.
I never claimed "similarities = evolution", and similarity is not what we see in DNA, but a specific tree of similarities and differences that is only predicted by common ancestry.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Considering that Darwins (infered) mechanism is genetic and that genetic trees and morphology trees are different is yet another prediction against evolution since with an (infered) genetic mechanism, you would logically predict that they would be mostly the same.
Hence just calling it inconsequential is a refusal to investigate the problems, (perhaps evidence of bias?).
Also please demonstrate the "mathematics" of evolution, I couldn't find it in your replies.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I don't have the time or space to explain population genetics math to you, but simply google "Introduction to Natural and Sexual Selection". The page summarizes the basic math and gives examples of stabilizing selection from actual data.
The trees built from genes and morphology are "mostly the same", but there is no logical reason to predict that they'd be identical. A single nucleotide substitution can drastically change morphology, so of course the trees come out differently.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Umm telling me to read a paper isn't demonstrating the "core mathematics" of evolution.. I would prefer YOU to make the statement rather than refer me to a paper of which you can then back out of, if deemed that it doesn't support what you claim. Furthermore it would show that you actually want to discuss rather than "hurling elephants".
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
What falsification measures are used? (consider that living fossils were one, but now has an ad hoc "explaination" to explain it away.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 There is observational, experimental, and mathematical evidence that the rate of evolution of a gene relies heavily on the selective pressures involved. A well suited body plan would only rarely be expected to change in favor of a better suited form.
To falsify the evolutionary theory of common ancestry, I would suggest studying genetics. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of genes. I know of no reason a designer might use such a specific pattern as a family tree, do you?
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist I've asked for the evidence and instead of giving specific examples of the empirical evidence you just say that there is some. If you want me to believe you in this I would suggest providing some examples, thanks.
Why wouldn't a "designer" create genetically similar organisms.. Common Genes = Common Design? No-one can question on what a "designer" would and wouldn't do hence its a red herring.
You do realise that nestled heirarchies are human inventions of clssification?
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Picking up a copy of any of the several journals on evolution, I would challenge you to find ONE of them that didn't have articles providing evidence of how selective pressures change the rate of evolution. You asked for specifics, so try the article, "Stabilizing selection on behavior and morphology masks positive selection on the signal in a salamander pheromone signaling complex" - a random one I just found online.
For an easy case, think of stabilization of human baby weight.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Since organisms don't have "Common Genes", then I guess we don't have a common design or designer either. Instead, we have a set of genes that are similar and different in a pattern called a "nested hierarchy" (aka a family tree). This is an actual pattern found in nature, and not a human invention, though we did come up with drawing lines as a way to represent it (not that that matters). See my GULOP video.
If we can't predict what a designer would do, then it isn't scientific.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Firstly, you've moved away from the ad hoc explainations used for living fossils, I'm going to assume that you have no other reasons to explain them apart from "after the fact" ad hoc explainations.
Secondly you have failed to demonstrate the EMPIRICAL evidence I asked for, as your video here claims a hypothesis requires EMPIRICAL evidence to support it lest we assume that observing a phenomenon and not testing it is enough to base "theories" on.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 I've pointed out that the core mathematics behind natural selection (a direct consequence of Darwin's work) predict cases of stasis under some conditions. I cited a paper on this topic as well as giving an example in humans: birth weight is under stabilizing selection - too big and the baby won't fit, too small and the baby is weak and loses heat too rapidly.
Comparing gene sequences and observing whether they show the same pattern as predicted by Darwin IS "EMPIRICAL evidence".
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Yes I know organisms have different genes, I rushed my response and used incorrect terminology thanks for pointing it out.
What I was meaning was you see commonality and you claim evolution, yet that commonality can also refer to a common designer. This is also supported by the evidence of DNA itself since DNA contains information, yet currently all we know is that information only EVER comes from intelligence hence we can ask what intelligence created DNA?
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
The "Tree of Life" IS a human construct, you know that different trees are contructed from different data. Trees based on morphology can differ greatly to trees based on genetic analysis, hence there is no fundamental tree of life which can be refered to as an absolute, it is all relative nothing is for certain.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Since very different genes can code for similar morphologies, the fact that morphological trees can differ from genetic ones is inconsequential. The more genes we sequence and compare, the more statistical support for ONE tree we get. If they were contradictory, this wouldn't be so.
A nested hierarchy is nothing like "commonality", so I don't know why you keep saying it. Genes are similar and different in a pattern of groups within groups - a nested hierarchy - not "commonality".
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Nestled heirarchy is based on commonality of elements that are deemed by the researcher.. hence (as I said it is a human construct). Which similarities used for the heirarchy is at the discression of the researcher hence (as said before) it is a human construct.
Yet despite this how would looking at something and observing similarities make for EMPIRICAL evidence, considering that inference from observation is not a test.. Just something you base a hypothesis on.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 It doesn't matter which genetic sequences you use - the more DNA, the stronger the pattern. Do the comparison yourself - GenBank is a public repository of the sequences from ALL of these experiments. So, the choice of sequence doesn't ultimately matter - the pattern is real.
Here is an empirical test of common ancestry: pick 2 gene sequences from a set of organisms. Common ancestry predicts 2 nested hierarchies that when taken together increase the probability for 1 tree.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Yet as I said gene trees are different to the morphology trees hence under your falsification attempt evolution is falsified..... Thanks :)
Furthermore, just because something exists it tells us nothing of how it came to be. Yes we can observe similarities, (but as I said observation is not an empirical test)
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
I never asked you to explain the basics for me, (since I can find that out for myself), what I have asked is for the strictly EMPIRICAL evidence. The more you delay in this and continue to provide inference based observations the more it seems that evolution is a branch of pseudo-science considering that empirical evidence is the factor seperating the two.
I never said that the trees would be exactly the same, however there are discrepencies that put evolution to shame.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
I never asked you to explain the basics for me, (since I can find that out for myself), what I have asked is for the strictly EMPIRICAL evidence. The more you delay in this and continue to provide inference based observations the more it seems that evolution is a branch of pseudo-science considering that empirical evidence is the factor seperating the two.
I never said that the trees would be exactly the same, however there are discrepencies that put evolution to shame.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 How exactly does the fact that morphology and genes don't share a 1:1 relationship falsify evolution? Genes are the hereditary bits, so if we are examining relationships of organisms, we should compare genes.
I gave you a prediction directly derived from the theory of common ancestry and a way to test it based on observation of gene sequence data (aka the scientific method). How is this not empirical? Empirical evidence is BY DEFINITION observational evidence - look it up.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Here is the definition of empirical, em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Furthermore you've just shown the pseudo-scientific nature of evolution hypothesis since it is so flexible that anything can "confirm" it. Hence no falsifiable predictions can be made since any observation can be twisted ad hoc to fit the "theory".
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
Science isn't a game, it is the pursuit of knowledge..
However whilst science itself is clear, "science says nothing scientists do", everything a scientist claims must be taken with a grain of salt since all people are subject to bias according to his or her own worldview.
Furthermore the predictions a hypothesis should make are risker ones, as Karl Popper, (the father of falsifiability), claims that the best hypotheisis has the most falsifiable claim, ie- least chance of it occuring
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Science is not "the pursuit of knowledge", but merely one process and set of rules with that goal. It is because of bias and fallibility that the scientific method and peer review process are used, so for a theory like evolution you can either follow the consensus of over 99% of the scientists studying the theory, or you can seek the training needed to understand the research yourself.
Evolution is easily falsifiable - find a complex gene that would have to have evolved twice.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvoBiologist
You said "Evolution is easily falsifiable - find a complex gene that would have to have evolved twice."
w w wDOTpnasDOTorg/content/104/9/3295.abstract
Ooops!! Either evolution is falsified or you will make some ad hoc explaination and prove my position correct in that evolution is unfalsifiable (since all the evidence against it has ad hoc explainations to explain them away)...
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
Very nice, wellspoken and clear video. I am happy to be a new subscriber.
As a side note, in reference to GSFY, I have a phrase I'd like to share: "Please do not feed the trolls." He is obviously not looking for or interested in an intelligent or civil conversation.
eldelectable 1 year ago
@eldelectable Thanks!
I understand your point about GSFY, but as a policy I basically respond to anyone who posts here to me. I only tend to block for spam, and even then it has to be be egregious. It's only happened a couple of times and even then the block has been temporary. As frustrating as it can be, I usually enjoy it and sometimes learn stuff. Others can read the discussions and no one can accuse me of censorship or of avoiding any issues (real or imagined).
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Understood. Good on ya.
eldelectable 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Here is some major scruitiny for your "theory" of evolution.
Firstly how does the "theory" show HOW evolution works on the biochemical level?
Secondly can it account for complex phenomena of biochemistry for example cell respiration or the immune system, via the step by step method Darwin proposed despite these things being irreducibly complex.
Thirdly observations in fossils show long periods of statis, this defies Darwinistic evolution
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 1st off, evolution isn't MY theory.
"how does the "theory" show HOW evolution works on the biochemical level?"
The biochemistry of mutation events is pretty well understood. The rest is simply population dynamics - math relating to # of offspring, deaths, migration, etc.
Why should it matter if something is currently "irreducibly complex"? That doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved.
"long periods of stasis" do not defy any form of evolution - which evo biologist claims this?
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
So what are the biochemical mechanisms? Your general response gave no actual answer to my question.
Irreducibly complex systems are a flaw which Darwin cited at the inception of his hypothesis. Your claim here is an argumentum ad futuris. Its more scientific to claim, you don't know.
Long periods of statis are NOT what would be predicted via the evolution hypothesis, hence why an ad hoc explaination was used AFTER the statis was found to explain it away
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 "So what are the biochemical mechanisms?"
Are you asking how mutations occur biochemically? It's simply a matter of the replicating machinery making a mistake, such as what happens when radioactive particles or free radicals bump into it. That's the only biochemical process involved directly in evolution.
Can you quote Darwin on irreducible complexity?
Are you saying that even though Darwin's 1st edition of "Origin of Species" discusses stasis, it is an ad hoc addition?
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Darwin discusses statis as a problem for his hypothesis, he never solved it. Fossil evidence only compounds the problem.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "- Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pg 219
I am asking what biochemical mechanisms set in place systems like cellular respiration... Your answer is genetic not biochemical
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 In "Origin", Darwin says that species "have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree", and that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"
Your quote from 219 isn't about irreducible complexity, which only concerns itself with whether or not removing a part makes a structure no longer have it's original function.
cont.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist on pg 219 Darwin is talking about complexity, its pretty self explanatory...
Yet living fossils demonstrate no change whatsoever for MILLIONS of years.. This does defy evolutionary predictions as well as what Darwin noted about the timefram
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 If millions of years of little or no physical change defies Darwin's theory, then why did he say in "Origin", "In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus"? Clearly he didn't feel (as I don't) that this poses any sort of problem for evolution. If selective pressure constrains an organism into a specific, stable niche, it's predicted.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist Its "predicted" "after the fact" which is not a prediction at all
Furthermore its quite simple
1- (One definition of) Evolution claims living organisms change and adapt to become new species
2- No change is observed in many different types of fossils
3- Therefore if no change is observed then it defies the hypothesis that there is change
4- Your explaination is an ad hoc explaination, (you do realise this?)
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
cont.
The mechanics of gene replication are entirely biochemical in nature, which is why they form a core part of any basic college biochemistry course (I should know - that was a HARD class).
I think you are asking me to describe every step in the evolution of cellular respiration. Well, I won't attempt it, but I will ask this:
Does it bother you that a large part of cellular respiration includes the preexisting glycolitic pathway?
This means that the complexity of the pathway is REDUCIBLE
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
NO it doesn't bother me since, the facts remain that the other areas of function are unique, unless you can actually demonstrate the process then you are just ASSUMING it did occur. The glycolytic pathway, (glycolysis), is the first part of cellular respiration...Duh. Hence of course it will be the same... Are you sure you studied this?
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 Glycolysis is used in anaerobic conditions as well as during respiration. Bacterial fossils predate an atmosphere with oxygen. So, glycolysis could have evolved separately and been co-opted for use in cellular respiration. This is supported by a wide range of organisms having glycolysis, despite having different forms of respiration. Yes, I'm sure I studied this.
Even though some of the other functions are unique, none of the component parts are. All belong to protein families.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
@EvoBiologist
Great story :)
Now all you need to do is support it with emprical evidence, (since that is what actual science is based on, as you said in your video).
The components are unique, (yes they are proteins, but they are specific proteins). Furthermore, other problems now arise- where did anaerobic respiration "evolve" from, how did the gap between the two close, how were the different anaerobic systems amalgamated into one aerobic system, etc etc etc
Gilbertus1986 5 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 So the fact that all of the proteins involved in cellular respiration have protein sequences that are related to other proteins in a family tree pattern isn't empirical evidence of an actual family tree? What is?
There is not "one aerobic system", there are a variety of cellular respiration processes in cellular organisms that use components related (in a family tree pattern again) to respiration and other cellular processes in other organisms... a rare and very specific pattern.
EvoBiologist 5 months ago
going to Hawaii for 2 weeks - on hiatus - Peace
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Have you read the results of the mapping of Neanderthal DNA? The ONLY thing shown is interbreeding, not some magical "common great ape" ancestor, bull shit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - Thus far you've shown NO evidence for your silly notion about humans, gorillas, chimps and Neanderthals - I've asked you many times to highlight any DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns that MIGHT support your inanity, and each time you've run away. You're simply a deluded creationist who thinks his Yoga experience qualifies him to talk on science - it doesn't. Please seek professional help and take the medication.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX You are a stalker. That means you are mentally ill. You don't understand anything, but your sick religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - if you're dumb enough to dump your ill-educated nonsense on channels I view then I'm going to point out your idiocies, delusions and lies, and have a good laugh at your expense while at it. If you stick to creationist channels, where there may be some people daft enough to swallow the nonsense you're peddling, then it is unlikely I will reply to it - quite simple really, but perhaps a stretch for you!
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
AlanCFA 1 year ago
Comment removed
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@KrokrX - Gosh, he called you a (gasp!) stalker! Next he will be calling you an evodelutionist!
Hey, GSFY - where is your 100% proof that KrokrX and I are not in full agreement with you, but merely playing devil's advocate? For that matter, where is your 100% proof that he and I are different people or, indeed, that everyone with whom you think you have interacted on YouTube are actually different people and not one person with a bunch of sock puppet accounts? Remember, no opinions!
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou The neanderthal mapping showed interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, not humans and some other ape. This is unrelated to your claim that apes are the result of hybridizations.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Straw Man. Go read again.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - 'Straw Man' - you uneducated clown, how is it a strawman to point out that the research discovered interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals, and had NOTHING to do with your daft notion that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps and then mated with the chimps to produce Neanderthals? Your grip on reality gets ever more tenuous, you really should seek professional help and take the medication.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - I'm still waiting for you to show ANY specific evidence for your silly notion about humans, gorillas, chimps and Neanderthals - I've asked you many times to highlight any DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns that MIGHT support your inanity, and each time you've run away. You're simply a deluded creationist who thinks his Yoga experience and possession of a whiteboard qualifies him to talk on science - it doesn't.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist The original first DNA information on Neanderthals is that they were closer to Chimps. Remember?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - care to give a citation for your claim 'The original first DNA information on Neanderthals is that they were closer to Chimps.'?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou: "The original first DNA information on Neanderthals is that they were closer to Chimps. Remember? "
.
Ok - now who in that study of Neanderthal DNA suggested that humans had sex with chimps to produce Neanderthals? That is a view only held by religodelusionists. Actually, that word should not be in the plural - there is only one religodelusionist who holds that view.
.
GSFY quotes:
"I pray that you die! And soon!"
"We are honest Christians who believe in God..."
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The original first DNA information on Neanderthals is that they were closer to Chimps. Remember?"
Definitely not closer to chimps than they are to humans.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
If you look at the big bang theory of all the universe is moving out away from one point in space, you have nothing but positive testable and repeatable evidence for that. I have studied that for a lot longer than you have been alive. When all evidence points only in ONE direction can you form conclusions.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "If you look at the big bang theory..."
Thank you for finally giving me an example of a scientific theory that you accept, rather than just listing off applications of technology. I agree with you that the evidence for the Big Bang is good, but I wouldn't call it "absolute evidence". The evidence for evolution is more numerous and from more independent sources than the evidence for the Big Bang.
Each new gene sequence or fossil is an independent test of common descent.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Not really! The gene DNA testing shows that creatures are from earth and that is about all. Only when it is absolutely clear can you tie any creature to another. You need about a billion exact copies of the same genetic coding to do that.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Gene sequencing tells us much more than "that creatures are from earth". Would you not admit that if we compare species within a genus, we can find a family tree of genetic relationships that typically correspond roughly with physical similarity and difference?
Would you agree that in the case of populations in a species and species within a genus, this genetic pattern (the same one observed in viruses) is evidence of their shared ancestry and relative degree of relatedness?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You problem is the assumption that ANY genetic similarity you falsely conclude is evidence of some fantasy "evolutionary" tie. You can't even date fossils with any accuracy, you can't get over the delusional belief in things that are completely based on false premises that have never been proven, not one time. This is why after 10 years of the human genome project nothing, no cures have come from it. It is called retardation from belief.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - so you're back scattering your ill-educated nonsense across various channels that accept the reality of evolution; you really are a sad old man. Are you trying to get some light relief from that impending foreclosure, or just having one of those 'down' periods typical of your mental illness? Please seek professional help and take the medication.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX
Yes, GSFY the creationist-who-pretends-he-is-a-scientist cannot stay away. And I cannot help calling him on his BS.
His Neutral Evolution Forum is a ghost town - nobody has posted to it since March 25th except for GSFY himself and he is searching for new people to insult.
One thing that I am looking forward to is when he posts videos of his upcoming European music tour. I'm certain that it will be as successful as his spa business has been.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@AlanCFA - GSFY is an ill-educated clown, but good entertainment. It's quite amusing that he often loves to quote Einstein, I think he deludedly imagines he's similar in some way(s)! His Neutral Evolution Forum gave me an insight into just how deluded a single human being can be, and it contained so many laughs among his rants. Sad to say his music is no better than his science and his 'European tour' undoubtedly another figment of his warped imagination.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You problem is the assumption that ANY genetic similarity you falsely conclude is evidence..."
No. Again, I'm talking about a tree-like pattern of similarity and difference, exactly like that seen in branching groups of viruses and unlike that seen in distinct groups hybridizing.
I'm not sure what your point is about the human genome project. Is the claim that no diseases are genetically based? That we should be able to do gene therapy to mutate these in humans? Why?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist The whole $3 billion funding was based on this idea that evodelusional ideas, using the mapping of the human genome was going to "revolutionize" modern medicine. The problem is that DNA is not the cause. It is the result of the programming deep in the life force that guides healing and adaptation. This is obvious as can be from observing life.
Science is in the dark ages, and it is getting darker with religious bullshit from Evotards with the Evodelusionism religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The problem is that DNA is not the cause. It is the result of the programming deep in the life force that guides healing and adaptation. This is obvious as can be from observing life."
Yeah, sure buddy.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Once you realize that DNA is not the cause of itself, then it starts to make sense. There is only information in DNA. There are no random events in DNA.
The differences shown in offspring can only come from information passed from the parents. You think about it.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - it is so funny when you tell other people to 'think about it' when it's quite clear that you are unable to do so yourself! If you want to pontificate on scientific matters then get educated, or get laughed at. You could well be the dumbest creationist here on YT, and it's quite a feat to even be in the running for that title with people like NephilimFree about! You're a clown Jimmy.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The differences shown in offspring can only come from information passed from the parents."
Right, and that information from the parents includes any mutations that have occurred in the sex cell lineage involved in conception. Whether or not the mutations are truly "random" is irrelevant as to whether evolution works or not.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Not really. Evolution according to the religious belief in common use, requires new information and passing of old genetic coding in various "mixtures of permutations/combinations" to offspring is not new information. It is constant rearrangement of existing coding.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
"It is constant rearrangement of existing coding". That actually describes your videos quite nicely.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
GSFY - couldn't help but notice that on another video you added to your assinine claims about humans mating with gorilllas to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals. You've now also claimed that humans mated with a 'four legged animal' to 'create the first ape like primates'?? What is it with you and bestiality Jimmy? Get some professional help and take the medications.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Evolution according to the religious belief in common use, requires new information and passing of old genetic coding in various "mixtures of permutations/combinations" to offspring is not new information. It is constant rearrangement of existing coding."
All that is required for "new information" to appear in a genome is an event such as a gene duplication followed by mutation. Both have been observed, and strong evidence of this in the past links genes into families.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist And yet, you don't have a clue what is going on. You project what you were taught to believe on what you think you see. Typical, of brainwashing.
Seriously go to evolutionforum(dot)info and really read it this time.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou So you admit that new information is created by mutations and that you don't have a reference for your claim about chimp and neanderthal DNA.
I see.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist There is no NEW information that you can show. You cannot demonstrate where the information comes from. Not at all. It is all based on your beliefs and assumptions from beliefs. The term "mutation" does not fit the data. Because you do not know if it really is anything that can be called a mutation. You must prove that it is a change. If it is not a change, then it is not mutation. Get it?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Nylonase added new information. You simply lie and deny it. Yes, they are able to demonstrate where the new information came from. But it does not fit the Bible, so you discount it.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There is no NEW information that you can show. You cannot demonstrate where the information comes from... You must prove that it is a change. If it is not a change, then it is not mutation."
As I said before, we have observed many cases of gene duplications as well as substitution mutations. We can "prove that it is a change" because we can compare (and have compared) parent and offspring DNA.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist If you were to actually read all the data on Humans, Chimps, Neanderthals without your beliefs, it is easy to refute the nonsense of Evodelusionists. There is only genetics. There are no magical processes, and no mystical causes. Neaderthals contain both Human and Chimp DNA. Go get an education.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GodScienceForYou "There are no magical processes, and no mystical causes"
.
Careful, you god might hear you dismissing his holy book.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Neaderthals contain both Human and Chimp DNA."
Then you should have no difficulty proving such a claim as requested. Surely you don't expect us to take your word for it. That would be blind faith in your knowledge and honesty.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist My question to you is this: Why don't you know these things? Why do I have to teach them to you? Why are you only getting your information from one club, cult or religion..what ever you want to call it. Start reading on every new finding that is published on this. I put the recent articles on my forum for you to read.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - the only thing you've taught anyone is that they were wrong if they suspected that dear ol' Nephi was as dumb and crazy as a creationist could get. Your inane ramblings have set a new low benchmark for creationist stupidity, congratulations Jimmy, you've succeeded in teaching something at last!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GodSeanceForYoga: "My question to you is this: Why don't you know these things? Why do I have to teach them to you? Why are you only getting your information from one club, cult or religion"
.
You pretentious moron. You know NOTHING about evolution, genetics, or much of anything else. Your forum is a pathetic joke. Nobody has posted there since late March except you and here you are pleading for subscribers to join a forum that you censor so that they can be insulted
You're an imbecile
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Why don't you know these things?"
I don't read every article about every subject in biology and neither do you. I have a life - a busy one. I won't go to your forum again, since the last several times it was so unhelpful and I will no longer provide you with traffic. I asked you to cite your source here, so that those reading this conversation can find it. If you can't, then I call BS on your chimp/neanderthal DNA comment. I think you misunderstood something you read,
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I think you are lazy and don't want to spoil your religious beliefs with facts.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou - you don't have any facts. If you did, you wouldn't be able to marshal them into a viable theory because you are low IQ and because of your religious beliefs which blind you to the truth.
GSFY: "We are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught"
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "I think you are lazy and don't want to spoil your religious beliefs with facts."
Ditto, which is why each time I ask you for evidence you're so evasive. If you're so concerned with facts, then you should be happy to cite the article in question right here. It's very easy, so the fact that you instead feel the need to argue about what I should know or do seems telling.
Also, since you dropped it, I'm glad you see now that mutations are shown to build new information.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist The evidence is there for any one to find as I have. I am not going to save you from your ignorance. "jnanam bandaha".
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@ReligiousNutJob - you have done nothing here except beg people to visit your pathetic forum, display your ignorance of science, and now top it off with some more of your "knowledge is bondage" mysticism bullshit from your scandal-ridden cult.
.
Karl Popper was right, you are wrong; Charles Darwin was right, you are wrong; these are facts that you deny so that you can continue to live in that castle you built in the sky.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "The evidence is there for any one to find as I have. I am not going to save you from your ignorance. "jnanam bandaha"."
That is, without a doubt, the lamest excuse I've ever heard for refusing to provide a reference. If you were actually concerned about the dangers of limited knowledge, then you wouldn't have made the neanderthal DNA claim in the 1st place (along with several other unsubstantiated claims). Truly lame.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are just a lame excuse for a scientist. You would not beleive any of the evidence I provide because, unless you discover it for yourself, your religious prejudices are against anything I have taught you. I pity you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You would not beleive any of the evidence I provide because, unless you discover it for yourself, your religious prejudices are against anything I have taught you."
It's true that I don't trust you to give me accurate information. This is based on my experience with you so far, and is precisely why I am requesting a reference from you for your claim that neanderthals are genetically closer to chimps. If you provide a reference, then I can evaluate the evidence myself.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou: "You are just a lame excuse for a scientist". Ha! Coming from you, a lame excuse for pretty much everything. How's that "musical tour of Europe" coming along? You think Europeans are ready for your avante garde music?
.
I'm not so sure that listening to something that sounds like a gerbil being thrown into a garbage disposal will with their hearts and minds, but since you have an IQ of 180, maybe you have deeper insights.
.
p.s. your forum sucks.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist wow! a taliban scientist, just kidding, damn your smart, i hope to get A in science any advice?
manq211 1 year ago
@manq211 Thanks.
In tough courses, I've found study groups to be helpful. If you can learn something well enough to explain it to a friend, then you have it down solid, and will probably remember it.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@GodScienceForYou
"And yet, you don't have a clue what is going on. You project what you were taught to believe on what you think you see" That is you in a nutshell. Since you're a nut, it's quite appropriate.
"Seriously go to christiandeniesevolutionforum(dot)stupidity"
Yes, Jimbo, beg for someone to visit your forum. It's so lonely there, all that time spent talking to yourself - it must make you crazy. Yeah, that's the ticket.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
DNA is not the cause? Craig Venter and his team created a new form of life from an existing cell but with a synthetic genome inserted. Don't you read the newspaper?
"Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form"
watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A
AlanCFA 1 year ago
You need to listen to and follow those "nagging" doubts in your mind. That is the real scientist trying to come out of you. That shit pseudo science is not every going to help you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
If science is against all super natural causes, then how the hell do you come up with evolution, which is full of mystical creatures that have never been found, like the "missing links" of human evolution. Then you have magical processes where by some magical bullshit a fish grows legs and lungs and decides to leave the water in order to develop into humans.
How much more mystical and magical, religious bullshit can you get.
It is a religion and needs to be removed from science.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
None of this is mystical or magical.
Many fish already have lungs, and there are intermediates between swim bladders and lungs in fish, as well as varying degrees of complexity in these structures. We have lobe-finned fish and several fossils with more and more leg-like fins and fin-like legs.
The "missing link" was found long ago with the first hominid skull. Now we have many many links. How many should we have?
How many fossils intermediate in form do we need to find?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "And every fucking thing you said was an opinion based on belief."
Everything I mentioned is an easily observable fact. Apparently, you've never heard of swim bladders, lungfish, or lobe-finned fish in general, and have not examined the fossil lobe-finned fish and early amphibians. Also, you have admitted that we have found skeletons with a blend of human and non-human ape characteristics. You blame this on interbreeding, but it is what was predicted for a "missing link".
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are not capable of separating opinions from what you think are facts. Sad! :(
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You are not capable of separating opinions from what you think are facts."
What did I say that was not factual?
"I have studied all about lung fish, Mudskippers"
Then why did you say, "...by some magical bullshit a fish grows legs and lungs and decides to leave the water..."? You just claimed that my statement that there are fish with lungs that go on land was not factual. Make up your mind.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist By the way I have studied all about lung fish, Mudskippers, Not one of those fish have any evidence of evolution. There is nothing to show any creatures that came before or after.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "Everything I mentioned is an easily observable fact." The more you write or speak, the more stupid you sound. When did you observe fish that decided to change into reptiles? When did you see exactly how, with no opinions, but with observations, human evolution from any other life form?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - and the more you keep repeating the same nonsense the clearer it is to everyone else that not only don't you have the intelligence you boast of , but you also have serious psychological problems.
Please, get some professional help.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "When did you observe fish that decided to change into reptiles?"
When did I ever claim to have? In fact I said that if I had, it would destroy evolutionary theory.
"When did you see exactly how, with no opinions, but with observations, human evolution from any other life form?"
Again, I never claimed to have. All I said was that the term "missing link" originally referred to something intermediate in form between a human and an ancient ape. Something you admit exists.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "Something you admit exists." WTF are you talking about. I have looked at all the evidence and there is only dead ends. All the hominids died out and did not transition into anything. There are no missing links, they do not exist.
There is this thing in science. The lack of evidence IS the lack of evidence. You cannot be any sort of scientists and have beliefs in things with no physical evidence and only religious like belief as you do.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "WTF are you talking about."
What I was saying was that Darwin predicted that we would find a fossil one day with a blend of characteristics of both humans and a more "primitive" ape. This predicted fossil was called "the missing link".
On your forum you claimed:
"The Chimp and Human produced the Neanderthals."
Therefore, you admit that we have found fossils matching the description of "the missing link", otherwise you couldn't make such a claim.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist It is interesting that you only took the speculative parts and remembered them. That is a sign that you are only looking for that which you can use against me. That is why I put these things. They are for you to think about. If you look at the mDNA of the Neanderthal it seems to fit that hypothesis. It is all from interbreeding and normal genetics without the bullshit of things "morphing" into new genus. The lack of evidence IS the lack of evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "t is interesting that you only took the speculative parts and remembered them."
It is unimportant whether it was a speculation on your part or not. There is a reason you suggested that Neanderthals might be a mixture of humans and chimps and that is because Neanderthals (as well as other fossil hominids) have characteristics of modern humans as well as those of more "primitive apes".
So, you must therefore be admitting that Darwin's "missing link" prediction is true.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Interbreeding amongst compatible creatures is not evolution. It is normal genetics. There are no missing links and Neanderthals lived at the same times as both humans and chimps. The mDNA shows that they found on the Neanderthals a similarity more towards chimps than humans, yet the morphology is more human. Go look at the Chimp & Human skeletons and the Neanderthal for a long time. Meditate on this.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
We do not have any evidence of any missing link, but we do have evidence in DNA,Chromosomes, and in morphology of the present creatures. The DNA of chimps and the Chromosomes are TOO similar to humans to be some split off speciation from a common ancestor. It shows direct interbreeding. And the Chimp's amazing mental abilities show this as well. Did you look at all the Chimp videos I put up on evolutionforum(dot)info It is compelling.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Do you understand that the idea of Neanderthal as missing links has been removed, because they existed the same time as humans? Do you not know this? What do you think about the "Hobbit". One PHD professor realized over that one that he was delusional because this and many other facts ate away the belief. He regrets wasting his life on chasing a phantom. There are many real scientists who don't believe in evolution and got free of this shit. You can get free of this religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Neanderthal DNA isn't closer to chimp than human. It is so close to human that they've been labeled a subspecies.
I agree that Neanderthals aren't a human ancestor, but they (and more so other hominids) have the physical characteristics Darwin predicted in "the missing link".
What do you think of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus? How do you explain the nested hierarchy in apes (not just the similarity of humans and chimps)?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist That depends on where you get your information. I suggest that you read the articles and studies on this mDNA from Neanderthals. There is lot of chimp in it because chimps are 94.6 DNA similar to humans. Don't you know this?
Who were your teachers? Were they sleeping in their classes as well?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "That depends on where you get your information."
Oh really? Name one scientist who claims that humans and chimps are anything remotely close to "100 or so million years" separated from each other as you claim.
You claim to be well read on evolution - ESPECIALLY human/chimp relatedness. You even go so far as to claim that your own alternate hypothesis is supported by all the evidence and yet you think that we claim a chimp is more divergent from a human than a platypus is.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "How many fossils intermediate in form do we need to find?" You need to find and prove objectively and obviously that there are ANY transitional fossils. You can't do that, because it is all based on belief projected on fossils.
Since I have no beliefs and don't allow anyone to force their bullshit beliefs on me, I have objectivity. I was not raised with any religion bullshit. I have no religion. I only go with what is shown to be true with no other plausibility.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you say 'I have no beliefs', but what about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Siddha Yoga(based on Hindu spiritual traditions), don't they count? And for someone who claims to have 'been a scientist for over 45 years' why do you boast of having read 'over 200 books just on astrology'? Did you even need to read the first to recognise pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo?
You're seriously deluded, please seek psychiatric help and take the medications offered.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you lose your bet, not that anyone will be surprised. The vast majority of books I've read weren't 'given to' me by anyone, and encompass a huge variety of subjects, even some pseudo-science ones(but I've never read 'over 200' and not recognised that, unlike you). As for being ignorant, it's you that kept on resorting to profanity rather than coherent argument.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - I genuinely do pity you. It must be difficult having been a failure all your life(in education, marriage, business etc.). .... it must hurt to be you, so naturally you try to compensate for it with your delusions that you're some kind of genius, and by hitting out at everyone. Seriously, get some professional help.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - You may not realise how much information is held by the state(court records, CPS, financial transactions, etc.) and is now easily accessible online. And then there are those business related forums you used to post on - fascinating stuff, but so much of it.
I got a reply from your brother and it seems he holds an equally high opinion of you, but expressed himself in a much more civil manner than you normally manage.
Let's put that aside and get back to evolution.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - I found the Potholer54debunks video (watch?v=kBocwCLPuwk) and read the comments. Looks like I'm not the first to discover so much about you. And It's also obvious that you keep repeating the same magic mantras - must be that Siddha Yoga training. I've also looked into Siddha Yoga and it's philosophies - and found leavingsiddhayoga[dot]net, it all makes fascinating reading - boy they did a job on you.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - astrology is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and if you don't realise that, even after reading 'over 200 books', your delusions are even worse than I suspected, your grasp on reality less than tenuous, and your supposed intelligence clearly a fiction. Please seek some professional help and take the medications.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - thus far all you've given us are your opinions. I've asked you before to highlight the specific DNA sequences, or the specific ERV patterns, that support your 'hypothesis' about Gorillas, Humans & Chimps, rather than the accepted evolutionary one. You've ducked that on each occasion, so how about trying now? No more profanities, insults, assertions, just some simple evidence.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - your comment is incoherent nonsense. Please try again, and highlight the specific DNA sequences, or the specific ERV patterns, that support your 'hypothesis' about Gorillas, Humans & Chimps, rather than the accepted evolutionary one. No more profanities, insults, assertions, just some simple evidence.
KrokrX 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Yoga is a path, not a person, or a teacher. I have had many teachers in yoga. Paramahasa Yogananda, Neem Karoli Baba, Sri Anandamayi Ma, Ramana maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and many others. Yoga is a way to find the truth by not becoming the witness of your mind. Once you can see your own folly, it is easy to see it in others. Beliefs are the crutch of the mind that is supposed to quell fear, but it are almost always made from fear and so are always delusional. Why don't you know this?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - a list of your Yoga teachers has no relevance to your competence to talk about scientific matters, and your failure to understand that is part of your sad delusional state. You never actually address any actual points of science, but fall back on your loony aphorisms about belief, and your foul-mouthed rants. EPIC fail!
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - you've said elsewhere on YT 'When someone tells you how to think, they have mentally raped you' - and that says what about those Yoga teachers of yours!? You then went on to say 'If you let them, that makes you a whore' - hmmmm, doesn't that apply to you then?
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX You obviously are delusional. The methods of yoga, used are totally involved with getting your objective perspective of yourself and your life, so you can get control of your mind, that is normally controlled by emotionally driven things. That is why the song Human Emotional Mental Garbage is number 4 in all of rock on soundclick. You are wrapped up in ego, beliefs, and delusions as all people are, but you think you are in control, when your mind/emotions are in control of your life.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you are just so funny! You have no idea how to form a coherent argument. According to you everyone else is delusional except you, but as always you have that completely backwards. I still can't decide if you misplaced the decimal point when you claimed an 'IQ over 180' or dishonestly added a 1 at the beginning.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX Your problem is you have no clue about yourself and you project what you think I am based on what you are. That is your problem. In order for you to understand who I am and what I know you have to learn from me. So far all you do is Straw Man bullshit and hate. Neither of which is helping you to understand anything, because you know what I teach, and you don't have the first clue.
This is why you are 100% Straw Man.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you simply keep on with the same rants. When asked for evidence to support any of your nonsense, such as your humans mating with gorillas to produce chimps, you evade and rant some more. You've yet to display any significant knowledge on any subject.
You continually seem to have a problem with your reading comprehension. I've told you before I don't hate you, you aren't important enough for any such emotional investment on my part, but I do pity you, and do find you funny.
KrokrX 1 year ago