Why Darwin was Wrong: The Princess and the Nucleotide

If you haven't already, first watch the earlier videos in this playlist. PLEASE: rather than trying to debate me, you should read the book yourself and check the references. I'm not a scientist, and coming up with questions I can't answer proves nothing. The source material for this video is the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" by Dr. J. C. Sanford. Read it!

Credit for the background music goes to:
halc (Drew Wheeler), OverClocked ReMix (http://www.ocremix.org)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Dr. J.C. Sanford
• Genetic Entropy
• Evolution
• Darwin
• Creationism

[halc9bit]

ha, cool music. ;D

[Kanbei85]

@halc9bit

Thanks to you! I once aspired to be a game composer myself, but wound up changing majors in college. My university wasn't really ideal for that path, and I wasn't focused enough.

[MsPaleMoon]

LOL,for a well spoken guy,you are as dumb as a rock:-D

[Kanbei85]

@MsPaleMoon

Indoctrination means seeing everyone that disagrees with your doctrine as "dumb", even when the evidence points to the contrary.

[Mithcoriel]

Well I basically already adressed this argument in another video's comment: no, it's not like a single letter changes and immediately natural selection favours it. Natural selection only acts on it when it becomes noticeable through the phenotype. And yeah, it might well happen that an animal has a brilliant new mutation, but then it falls off a cliff and the mutation is lost. But that doesn't happen all the time. Anyway this argument at most slows evolution down, not make it impossible.

[SwissTopper]

@circusOFprecision Sorry, but do you actually have point to make?

If you wish to know more about genetics, just ask, I'll be happy to explain what I can.

[SwissTopper]

@Kanbei85 Evidence? You've yet to present any :D

The best you've managed to do is misinterpret the processes (due to a complete lack of understanding) and then claimed that your alternative, an imaginary genocidal maniac must have done it instead.

And yet you have the gall to say I'm biased. Bravo :D

[circusOFprecision]

@SwissTopper

Ah, so you prefer to be condescending and misrepresent my argument. Typical, and sad. Just because the HAR 1 gene is a problem for the mutation/selection model doesn't mean God. How ironic you would infer that without logically examining it, or looking at it through the science we do understand. It's fine by me if you want to run away and make fallacious arguments instead. I'm quite used to it. I'll go find a real intellectual instead of a poser.

[Kanbei85]

@SwissTopper

Recognizing the signs of intelligent workmanship is not a god of the gaps argument. You're just so biased *against* God that you aren't willing to accept any evidence that's presented to you.

[SwissTopper]

@circusOFprecision Ahh, so you prefer the "god of the gaps" style argument, anything that science doesn't yet fully understand is proof that "god did it!"

Yes, and people used to think that about lightning too.

[circusOFprecision]

@SwissTopper

I believe they are relevant, very much so. The HAR 1 gene has clusters of mutations that go way beyond the expected mutation rate. Not only that, but the nature of the mutations are so extremely favorable to intelligence, it begs the question to assume they are just random and that each individual, or even each small cluster (possibly frame shift), confer anything that that would build up so quickly in a small hominid population.

[SwissTopper]

@circusOFprecision Sorry, I'm not familiar with them, are they relevant?

(Sorry for the spam, youtube was giving me errors.)

[odinata]

Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist.

Young Earth Creationism is a farcical notion.

A religious opinion.

[circusOFprecision]

I'd also you like you to explain the fact that some ERVs in fact serve important roles in genetic expression scientifically. And while you are at it, why don't you get into the fact that nearly all of the genetic code, including "frame shifted" sections of code in non-protein coding regions, gets translated into RNAs. I'd like you to explain the cutting your cake and eating it too mentality of "functionless" pseudo-genes and magically "functional" gene duplicates. Thanks.