Cracking "Crack the Code"

I go over a creationist's video and point out the flaws it makes in its arguments. The original video makes claims about evolution that are unfounded. Many of the subjects I have touched on before. I expose four quote mines and explain them (if you can call the Wald quote a quote mine).

Original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtUyWqEsBnE

I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technolo...
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/...
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.

I am unable to make this a video response to the original video, so I will add what is in their description box in the hopes that it will allow people to see this video as a related video.

"Deciding to follow Christ requires your heart and MIND to be engaged.

CRACK THE CODE plays on a DaVinci Code theme to raise questions in even the most skeptical of minds. Intelligent Design or Random Chance... You decide."


Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#DarwinRaceQuotes
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

For more videos about evolution, please visit http://www.youtube.com/group/evolving and http://www.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=tpwc

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• creation
• creationism
• ID
• Lucy
• Java
• man
• abiogenesis
• spontaneous
• generation
• Charles
• Darwin
• George
• Wald
• Stephen
• Jay
• Gould
• race
• species
• Homo
• erectus
• Australopithecus
• afarensis
• intelligent
• design
• davinci
• da
• vinci
• code
• crack
• evolution
• awesome
• monty
• python
• animation
• Piltdown
• Nebraska
• hoax
• hominin
• hominid
• hominins
• hominids
• conspiracy
• missing
• link
• transitional
• fossils

[rbx01x]

it's survival of the cleanest in my house, and I want to know why my dog, probably the first domesticated animal, living in houses for well over 2000 years hasn't evolved to be able to use and flush the darn toilet?!

[jebus6kryst]

So your creation hypothesis does not have a prediction for the mechanism that stops evolution? Sounds like a really weak hypothesis if it cannot predict something so fundamental to your argument.

But again, the fossil record shows that there is no limit to the amount of change life can go through. Like I stated earlier, I pointed out just a few transitional life forms. There are thousands more.

[mejc2]

The reason small changes don't ad up to bigger changes is unknown. We don't know why there is a limit to how big organisms can grow, or why there is a limit to how long something can live, or why you can only go so high in sugar content of a plant. We do know however, that these limits exist and we reach them all the time in agriculture and husbandry.

[jebus6kryst]

Dr. Gould came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to explain the evidence that we see in the fossil record. You can read any of his books, which explains it far better than I could.

What lie? I talked about a few transitional fossils in this video. It seems that you agree that little changes can happen, so what is the mechanism that stops those little changes form adding up to equal a big change?

[jebus6kryst]

Animals adapted because there are changes in their environments, which equal some individuals in the population to have a higher fitness. Because of that, they pass down more of their genes than the individuals that are not fit for that environment. This is simple biology again. I asked this in the other comment; you seem to agree that organism can change over time, why cannot those changes over longer periods equal bigger changes?

[mejc2]

That's the point no one knows why animals adapt. However we observe them adapting all the time. We just don't see simple organisms changing into more complex organisms gradually over time. Evolutionism claims that it has happened billions of times.

[mejc2]

Dr Gould invented the story of punctuated equilibrium because he realized that the evidence didn't support Gradualism.

Change in allelic frequency happens. No doubt, not disputed. Adaptation happens, no doubt. Natural Selection happens.

It is the gradual ascent from simple to complex organisms that is the lie. It has never been observed or duplicated and the fossil evidence doesn't support it.

The best lies always have some truth in them. That's what makes them believable.

[jebus6kryst]

...we cant be sure; until that has been looked at, the changes cannot definitely be attributed to natural selection.) For now, natural selection for efficient plant-eating is the main suspect for this whole suite of changes, but the case is not yet closed."

Well we have looked at the genetics and we have seen that it is a mutation (see the article I have already cited). I mean even from that quote it seems like Dr. Judson does not really know she is just writing a story about it for the news.

[jebus6kryst]

Never the less, let see what the whole quote looks like: "But so far, the basis of these various changes remains unknown: theres an outside possibility that they are induced by leaf eating, and are thus due to the environment rather than genetics. (This seems unlikely — even lizards that are just hatched, and havent had a chance to do much eating, have the valves. But without doing the genetics,...

[jebus6kryst]

You are a strange creationist, I will give you that.

Nevertheless, rapid evolution is not a problem for evolution (any change in allelic frequency over time is evolution, no matter what you want to call it), have you not heard of punctuated equilibrium. These lizards would be a great example of it.