Upload

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

by Big Think • 6,919,226 views

Don't miss new Big Think videos! Subscribe by clicking here: http://goo.gl/CPTsV5 Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. According to Bill Nye, aka "the...

Does this sound familiar  Miss OCD?     Scrupulosity is a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues.  It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning.  It's a religious form of obsessive compulsive disorder.  Treating religion as a mental disorder has had successful outcomes for the religious victims, modern drugs can help cure them of this dastardly affliction.   (See Neurologist Kathleen Taylor)
Report spam or abuse
+Roger Campbell  I'll run around the circles. 
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Pinky is ostensibly still having problems taking over the Bill Nye video promoting scientific knowledge, damn that dastardly science and its irreducible complexity.
Report spam or abuse
Damn, he elected to dodge the question. Who wouldn't of thunk it?
Report spam or abuse
All science is falsifiable, if it isn't falsifiable then it isn't science. To reach the status of a scientific theory it also has to be observable, repeatable and testable.  The Theory of Evolution satisfies these requirements thousands of times over. Testable - With the predictions of where fossils should be found. Falsifiable - A fossil out of place would show it to be false. Observable - Speciation in the lab and in nature. Repeatable - Fruit fly experiments and animal husbandry.
Report spam or abuse
+Alfalfa Henry Remember when you're e-feelings were so hurt you had to invent new lies in order to try and cover your old lies? I'll be laughing at that for a long, long time.
Report spam or abuse
Here's kind of the unassailable hurdle: Creationists want to prove that an intelligent, all-powerful deity created the universe. A god. Okay. Prove it's the Christian god.
Report spam or abuse
+Son of Anarchy Didn't really address anything I said, bub. EDIT: oh hey a sons of anarchy avatar you know i don't think i've ever known anyone with one of those who wasn't an abrasive but ultimately cowardly asshole. oh no but you totally seem like an educated dude.
Report spam or abuse
86 posts in 7 hours! Pathetic. Nowhere near your record 119 in 5 hours. Are you getting tired, titties? No stamina, today's 10 year olds.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun All new ammo......still same target...her own feet!
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason Yeah and we won't miss her when she goes (unless we aim wide)
Report spam or abuse
One very good reason one might find so called convergent evolution in microbial families is that ingestion of other microbes often leads to incorporating their DNA. Unless you can show there was no history of such ingestion claiming actual convergent evolution for microbes is not good science.
Report spam or abuse
+Atharkas "It's so amusing to look at her shoot herself in the foot that she placed in her own mouth beforehand!" Still missed her brain by a country mile, though!
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason A mile, nah! I'd say 1.6 kilometer! (She is canadian so, in theory, she should be using the metric system. Then again, I doubt she has the mental capacity to use it.)
Report spam or abuse
I almost feel sorry for creationists whose bankrupt arguments leave them in a no-win situation. If they appeal to the notion that "God done it", to any question they believe is unresolved, their claim fails to explain what mechanisms were actually used, what reactions took place, etc. and this claim essentially becomes indistinguishable from magic. Yet if creationists dare to wade into the depths of explaining the mechanics of how their god actually made things happen by employing the forces of nature to do his bidding, they render their god as a redundant 5th wheel since a god is not required where a natural explanation exists.
Report spam or abuse
Inevitably, their intellectual bankruptcy leaves them only a single choice - criticizing science in the hope that doing so will create in the minds of some people, more gaps in knowledge into which creationists hope they can shoehorn their god. This becomes painfully obvious when one looks at what "research" these theistic "scientists" are actually doing, of which Behe's irreducible complexity is a prime example. Does Behe attempt to address a gap of human knowledge by providing a natural explanation? No. Does he even attempt to prove a "supernatural" (whatever that means) explanation? No. His goal is merely to sow doubt and use that to argue from ignorance that goD must therefore exist.
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot    Hence, the hamster wheel they hurriedly scamper in, round and round while getting nowhere.
Report spam or abuse
I wonder how many creationists had their flu shots or took antibiotic medications while claiming evolution is false. It's like riding a train while denying gravity exists.
Report spam or abuse
+Scott Hunt"Wrong, silly, cartoon, spew" see how informative he is? He kind of forgot to mention the role of transfer- and messenger- RNA, too busy with puerile put-downs (and changing in and out of his 12 accounts). "Silly" is a man who wears an avatar of Charles Darwin dressed up as Santa Claus.
Report spam or abuse
Creationist are a pack of intellectual incompetence who disable replies, use many socks, like their own posts, have their socks like their own posts, say any stupid thing to promote their stupid, science illiterate gibber.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
User Otar the mad said (15 hours ago), in a private yet visible conversation: "a christian can't possibly become an engineer? and they call us stupid... " His correspondent Naruto Uzumaki pointed out Bill Nye didn't say "Christians". Otar tried to explain why he finds Bill Nye closed-minded:  "the type of science that evolution and creationism are in are  COMPLETELY  different then the type of science engineering is in" Perhaps Otar is unaware of the rising use of evolutionary algorithms designed to mimic natural selection. They are used in engineering and robotics (and much more). A good Christian engineer would not pretend they don't work. Good thing most Christians accept some form of evolution, based on mountains of evidence.
Report spam or abuse
+Gary Belliferous Yeah. It's an interesting point , I often think about it. When I read back on old discussions with Alan Clarke and various others, I invariably see myself making the same mistake over and over - that is, I WRONGLY assume they can't be that dense, or that uninformed, or that dishonest. I simple PRESUME nobody is as faulty as all that. It's never clear when talking to them, it's only apparent afterwards, when you can see their projections of their own inability to grasp the topic, and their assumption that they're getting away with it. One thing I see myself saying so many times is that I CAN SEE what they're doing, so why do they think no-one else can. Yet it's not until later, on re-reading, that I can see JUST HOW MUCH bullshit they think is successfuly sneaking past. 
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun   I wander around 18 websites and no, I'm never surprised at the level of religious stupidity.  It's actually depressing to see how many lives have been ruined and stolen by ancient religious beliefs.  These people live in a flat colourless world, you can hear that in their words, I actually feel sorry for them, like you do too. 
Report spam or abuse
Then of course there's Edd's incessant linguistic and logical fallacy foul ups that continually need pointing out to him. Simply one of many "FLAWED IDEAS" that he "HARBOURS WITHOUT REALIZING IT". But  hey....Trying to mask his shortcomings with cocksure arrogance, shouty capitals and (his newly discovered talent on YouTube) of using bold and italic markup is hiding this from everyone....right guys?
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "ANYONE CAN SEE THE OTHER BITS OF IT AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON!" Just as they can see the last time you blundered onto this comment section with your "NOTHINGNESS" gambit and how that played out for you by referring to my link plus.google.com/u/0/b/105357787002235900971/105357787002235900971/posts/DjExKFJZ8qM
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason "..."The link to the dictionary entry I quoted from is given, Turkey Buzzard! I quoted the RELEVANT portion of it - BUT ANYONE CAN SEE THE OTHER BITS OF IT AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON!" Just as they can see the last time you blundered onto this comment section with your "NOTHINGNESS" gambit and how that played out for you by referring to my link plus.google.com/u/0/b/105357787002235900971/105357787002235900971/posts/DjExKFJZ8qM" Hahahahahahahahahahaha! The definition of "NOTHINGNESS" has been presented here, Turkey Buzzard! If you wish to contest its validity, be my guest! But I suspect you're just relying on dark insinuations, eh Turkey Buzzard? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
"The greatest challenge facing evolutionary accounts of enzyme origins is explaining how enzymes with new fold structures first appeared. ", proclaims a retard who has never studied evolution. Let me think REEEEEAL hard... now what do they call those stupid things again?... Oh yeah, mutations, Yeah that's it. Mutations. I knew I could figure it out if I applied ONE FREAKING SECOND to it
Report spam or abuse
+The CeIestial Coffeepot   "Show the mathematical probabilities."    I wish that could be done. However the necessary critical figure which is the ratio of useful mutations to lethal ones that can come from any given set of genes in a given environment - may forever be unknown simply because the range of possible variations is so huge that it's beyond computability (especially when you factor in the need to determine how the proteins would fold and the interaction of that protein with the rest of the cell).       One can however deduce that finding useful mutations is very likely to be easier for the evolutionarily young than for the highly evolved simply because there are more things that can be interfered with in the older, more complex organisms.
Report spam or abuse
Quote mining, the last refuge of the ethically challenged. Recruiting slogan "No moral backbone? The Creationists need YOU!" LOLOL
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu It's the Creatards who believe they exist without evidence. LOL
Report spam or abuse
So, let me get this straight. Some bronze age illiterate goat herders had "visions" so I am supposed to ignore the work of Newton, Einstein, Bohrs, Feynman, Susskind, Hawking, Darwin, Dawkins, etc so I can worship a deity who had this as his "global plan": "ywhw/jesus sacrificed yhwh/jesus to yhwh/jesus to save us from yhwh/jesus"?
Report spam or abuse
christianity is the same as taoism: belief in made up shit
Report spam or abuse
I see giggles has completely melted down over her little sock puppet game. LOL She's spoken of nothing else for 10 hours since I left. SInce nobody has contacted me, and her Breast Reduction puppet has the hallmark of her few puppets left that can be seen, it can be confirmed it's hers.
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Coated Reason You are Breastie. Guilty. Done and dusted. Your own proud multi-sock history gives you away. And now you don't approve of socks? What a genius IQ you have, old hag.
Report spam or abuse
Wow, the schizophrenia/multiple personality disorder amongst the "creationists" is just pandemic! I guess when a creationist loses every single argument their best move is to just put a different voice in their head in charge and try try again! ROFLMAO!
Report spam or abuse
+gsundiszno "Why do yhwh hate Native Americans and Aborigines?" Don't be silly, Tonto! Hahahahahahahaha! "....yhwh/jesus sacrificed yhwh/jesus to yhwh/jesus to save us humans from yhwh/jesus. Now that makes a whole lot of sense! LOL!" This is just DRIVEL, Tonto! Have you been chewing COCA LEAF again? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu yhwh must have hated Native Americans since he didn't manage to get the "good word" to them until after 1492. Aborigines had to wait until after 1606. He made the universe but just forgot huge numbers of people. Unless he is a totally man-made myth and men had to do the informing. Gosh, that makes total sense, unlike an omniscient deity who "forgot". god did sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself, if the Christian myth is distilled down to its core essence. Gosh, ain't so pretty when you do that, is it, LITTLE VICAR LICKER ????
Report spam or abuse
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that many aspects of life in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause, like, say, natural selection.  Intelligent design is sometimes mistaken as strictly being a negative argument against neo-Darwinian evolution.   That is incorrect.
Report spam or abuse
Intelligent design includes a very strong positive argument which is based upon finding in nature the kind of information and complexity which in our experience only comes from intelligence.  In our uniform experience, whenever we find something like a language based code, it must always emanate from an intelligent cause.  No exceptions. It always traces back to a mind, an intelligent being.
Report spam or abuse
"In other words, given infinite time, infinite things are possible." This is representative of the kind of bullshit one gets when one extrapolates to infinities without thinking. Rather one should say "Given infinite time (or space), things which are improbable are nonetheless 100% guaranteed to happen."     Even an elementary school child should be able to catch the distinction between these two versions and determine which one is bullshit.
Report spam or abuse
+The CeIestial Coffeepot Do you mean "no one else hopes I am making sense" or "no one else is making sense". Your post does not make that clear in any way.
Report spam or abuse
Tits is now trying to redefine Irreducible Complexity. Shame Behe didn't think of that one in 2005 at the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial !   XoD.    Comedy just doesn't get better than this!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "That was hardly an example of what you CLAIMED!" What? Of Behe needing to change his definition? It came straight from the horse's mouth! Are you still covering your eyes and poking random numbers for your tax return or what? "The quotation can IN NO WAY be VALIDATED!" What nonsense. Simply copying the quote into Google brings up Behe's original PDF and links to the testimony he made under oath about it in the Dover Trial. Now are you accusing Behe of perjury? "Besides, EVEN IF TRUE, it DOESN'T show Behe saying there is a deficit in HIS definition - but rather in the notions of Darwinism! " Nice try but nope - as his trial testimony under cross examination will attest !  I'd get back to your Tax Return Edd. Your dancing will probably impress the HMRC better than your pitiful attempts here!
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason "....."That was hardly an example of what you CLAIMED!" What? Of Behe needing to change his definition? It came straight from the horse's mouth! Are you still covering your eyes and poking random numbers for your tax return or what?..." Hahahahahahahahahaha! You have not properly referenced that quote! But, in any case, it is NOT saying anything about Behe changing his definition; He was actually criticising Darwinism in that quote, assuming it is his own! The "deficit" he is referring to is NOT in his own work - but in Darwinism! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "....."The quotation can IN NO WAY be VALIDATED!" What nonsense. Simply copying the quote into Google brings up Behe's original PDF and links to the testimony he made under oath about it in the Dover Trial. Now are you accusing Behe of perjury?..." While why don't you supply a link to this pdf? That would be easier than typing out a bit of it here, wouldn't it? Besides, HE SAID NOTHING in his testimony at the trial to indicate he wanted to change his definition of Irreducible Complexity - and certainly not in the piece of text you claim is quoted from him! "...."Besides, EVEN IF TRUE, it DOESN'T show Behe saying there is a deficit in HIS definition - but rather in the notions of Darwinism! " Nice try but nope - as his trial testimony under cross examination will attest !  I'd get back to your Tax Return Edd. Your dancing will probably impress the HMRC better than your pitiful attempts here!" Hahahahahahahahahahaha! As ALWAYS, the moment you atheists are firmly challenged, you COLLAPSE like a pack of cards, and DISSOLVE like mist in bright sunlight - as is the case with EVERYTHING based on LIES! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
Why is the quality default always set on 144. No one wants to watch a fuzzy bill nye talk about how bad creationism is.
Report spam or abuse
+John Smith If you find out how to set the default to maximum, let me know. This is very irksome.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
My sock puppets can post everyone else off the front page, Interesting use of the Argumentum ad Populem Logic Fallacy Bucktooth Al must be proud of you drlen. LMFAO
Report spam or abuse
+werriboy55 Ugh! This is just DRIVEL! YOU'RE NOT EVEN SURE WHETHER YOU EXISTS OR NOT, are you, Dag? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+werriboy55 I believe "you exists" (sic) LOL
Report spam or abuse
Therefore the theory of evolution is indeed falsifiable.
Report spam or abuse
Nuclear Fallout- Blocked, trolls will be blocked. (you talk too much)
Report spam or abuse
+John Smith Just one of her many names.
Report spam or abuse
I used to believe in God 100% but now as I'm older and are learning more and more things I'm beginning to doubt everything in the bible
Report spam or abuse
+Fallible Fiend Don't be melodramatic! I'm just a PEST-KILLER! And DAMNED GOOD AT MY JOB! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
Report spam or abuse
+ergonomover  Tits burped: "(yawn) Two points for Pierre: " "#1 Thanks for affirming the functionality of what was formerly 'junk' DNA;  " "#2 Since I don't believe in any deity, I don't give a rat's ass that cancer exists." "Since I don't believe in any deity" ? I wonder if Edd knows he's colluding with an atheist?
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason Good point! Tits once denied belief in any Abrahamic god but has now moved the goalpost even further. Is Tits a (*gasp) atheist after all the nasty things she said about them? Or is she just a bald-faced liar. 
Report spam or abuse
The farce of intelligent design is a dead end idea, forever trapped in circular reasoning. We can't even DO the farce without human consciousness and its capacity for abstract thinking. And yet the comical concept is utterly useless and unable to serve up an explanation for why a creator lent humans its consciousness in the first place.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun "Face it, titties, you have the IQ of an onion. A diploid onion." If only it was the same size as a polyploid genome?
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason Let's not make her angry - you know she'll hurl insults from which we will NEVER recover if she gets mad. Bwar har har har.
Report spam or abuse
Deadhead Edd plays the unevidenced "plucked feather" card again despite being pressed for specific evidence which is unforthcoming. Hey Ho ! "YOU in fact, are the one who has been PLUCKED CLEAN OF FEATHERS, aren't you, Turkey Buzzard?" Erm...nope. (Edd's latest bout of shits and giggles can be found here): plus.google.com/u/0/b/105357787002235900971/115574859536387471187/posts/N1PBBssDSRx "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! HOW do you determine what is HUMAN - WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SHAPE? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" Are you channelling your chimps again Edd?
Report spam or abuse
+Transtlan Tico Hahahahahahahahaha! Do stop WHINING! It's PATHETIC!  Hahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Are you admitting that YOUR concept of "human" doesn't go beyond SHAPE, Turkey Buzzard? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" More non-sequitur red-herrings, Crimson Fishmonger? Or is that one of your so-called "non-requiters"[sic] ? Why don't we let people read the original thread and decide whether your question follows. They'll see it is you who has the shape fixation. Your presuppositional linguistic projection games are so transparent, Eddze. plus.google.com/u/0/b/105357787002235900971/115574859536387471187/posts/N1PBBssDSRx
Report spam or abuse
"Only the fool says in his heart "There is no god"" - Psalm 14 "Atheists are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none of them who does good." - Psalm
Report spam or abuse
FUNgineer Sock Account: Blocked.
Report spam or abuse
+Nicholas Christie-Blick I wonder if youtube keeps track of the number of times an account is blocked and takes action accordingly when flags are raised.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2   Time to raise the flag Mr 2, enough is enough.
Report spam or abuse
Creationists, including ID creationists, pathologically misrepresent the facts, laws, logic, theories, history, philosophy, methods and BASIC TERMINOLOGY of science because they are science illiterates whose religious convictions make them fearful of scientific inquiry. Example: They HABITUALLY misrepresent the scientific terms theory, law, transitional, evolution, vestigial, &c. Science illiterates should not define science policy or science curricula or misinform children about basic science.
Report spam or abuse
name one single critic who have done experimental work
Report spam or abuse
Hopefully the ppl will grow up in the comments. this guy is just giving his opinion in the long run no one will remember it lol instead just let it go. You will never change someone's mind and how they live it.
Report spam or abuse
+Common Dissent You forgot to include yourself and your sock accounts on that list of cyberbullies and exclude everyone you listed so far. That's the only thing that needs fixing. ^_^
Report spam or abuse
Right on, thanks for the warning. Though my only issue was with him telling me how to raise my kids.. just the American in me I guess lol.
Report spam or abuse
Plz give me one peace of observible evidense that proves darwins claim plz it has to be obserible from one creature chNging into a diffrent one plz
Report spam or abuse
+matchlock fun  What would the evidence look like for speciation Titsy Giblets?  It wouldn't look like 20,000 species of trilobite arthropods would it? 
Report spam or abuse
a christian can't possibly become an engineer? and they call us stupid... +Naruto Uzumaki
Report spam or abuse
your profile picture is sooooo cute :3
Report spam or abuse
Dragon Slayer (aka 633495) said : Hey, Gary, do you sometimes stop and think (careful, there...) about just how utterly ineffectual you are with your nonsensical posts - DEVOID of any appreciable scientific content. And yet, unlike you, he has a better understanding about science than you. After all, he accepts what is demonstrated in science and do not make claims about a religious thing like "intelligent design".
Report spam or abuse
+Atharkas The key word is "appreciable", as in appreciable scientific content: the faker clearly doesn't appreciate modern science. On a side note: the faker appears to have sacrificed the account 'ergo no moron' (indeed never was) in order to create 'Dragon slayer' (exact same creation date). 'Slayer' bravely has me blocked...Mais, j'ai des yeux partout.
Report spam or abuse
+ergonomover C'est plutôt pathétique sa manière d'agir.
Report spam or abuse
Creationists cannot design any study that could eventually lead to a change in their belief. If such a concept cannot apply, if nothing can change your theory, you are - by consequence - in the area of belief, tautology (in its logical sense), faith, or religion; not science.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+MikecuCUNT the faillible fiend pretending shithead And there goes your comment, you steamed little boy.
Report spam or abuse
Evolution is a theory(a belief)it isn't fact, no matter how much you want it to be. Evolution tries to explain how life evolved through natural selection, but how did life start in the first place Bill? Answer that one genius. And you need many species to already exist for natural selection even to work, so how did they get there? Answer that one genius. Evolution has never explained how a single celled organism has evolved into a full central nervous system. Ever. This might shock you, but I don't believe in evolution, and my world isn't a mystery, and it's still exciting.
Report spam or abuse
Same thing happens to climate change all the time. Except place the religion part with corporations.
Report spam or abuse
+max Eguizabal Can't believe I heard this from a guy with a Minecraft avatar.
Report spam or abuse
+Belt4in1 I don't play minecraft anymore. I just forget to change it.
Report spam or abuse
Okay- so I'm supposed to believe in evolution because it helps the research of evolution gain more knowledge?
Report spam or abuse
+pridelandlions No. You're supposed to accept evolution as true because it's demonstrated to have occurred and still occur.
Report spam or abuse
I can hardly wait for the almighty scientist Nicholas Christie Blick to block me. He has to, since I don`t appear to agree with his high and mighty scientist`s views on evolution... ...even though he`s not: a geneticist, a molecular biologist, a paleontologist, but merely a geologist. ...then again, who really gives a crap if you`re blocked by this old fart, anyway!?
Report spam or abuse
+ergonomover Resistance is Useless!! LOL XD If GigglesBorg here keeps up her shouting and ranting of the same bits over and over again, maybe someday she'll be promoted to Senior Shouting Officer.
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye is ignorant on this subject. Sure I agree with him when he fits his house with solar panels/wind turbine, because I believe we need to be good stewards of this planet God gave us, but he states that creationism is just plain wrong. He does not even go through the trouble of differentiating between the different views of creationism, and ignores that some views align with that of evolution, but with a guided hand in the process. Take the present or future for example, if bacteria/virus, etc. knew we were genetically engineering them for our purposes, should they deny our guiding hand in the process which many could call creation ? How about when we eventually are successful to manipulate the human being by D.N.A. designs that change who we are, and what we do. Would he think that creationism that accepts all the current timetables for the universe still ignorant ? How is he so sure he is not the ant in the glass, and God is the being on the outside looking down ? His arrogance is baffling, simply baffling.
Report spam or abuse
+Bungalo Bill You are right, creationism being right is an assertion without evidence that can thus be rejected.
Report spam or abuse
+Annonymous4Life '-but he states that creationism is just plain wrong.' And rightly so, because it is. Even if you plan to go down the semantic route, he's obviously talking about the young earth version, so your comment is unnecessary.
Report spam or abuse
Account matchlock fun created April 23rd, mission: troll this forum. Co-impersonators by the same user: extant frodo2, Chocolate Coated Reason, The Celestial Coffeepot. Here to tell us what's wrong with modern science he doesn't even grasp, or to take cheap shots at Bill Nye and anyone who agrees with him. Works for ID creationism, a Christian movement.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlock fun You haven't provided any evidence that your criticism was valid to begin with. In other words, as always, you're shooting rhetorical blanks.
Report spam or abuse
Yet another day, yet not a single empirical evidence of an intelligent agent/deity is provided. Not a single thing that makes the scientific theory of evolution false. Why can't they present a single thing to support their claim?
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu You finally admit that what you said was nonsense! You are finally starting to wake up!
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
This is a sack religious video, and I find it shocking, and appalling. Bill Nye, Just because a portion of the American society doesn't believe what YOU believe, doesn't mean anyone's being held back. People can believe and teach their children whatever they want to believe. I'm glad you don't get to say what belief systems children will be taught by their parents, because that's their choice. If you want to brain wash kids so much into believe what you believe in, why not have your own?
Report spam or abuse
Kids should be taught about creationism and its most certainly appropriate for them Bill Nye. You disappoint me Bill. Now jog on everyone else.
Report spam or abuse
+MethodOx You just contradicted yourself. Again, the passage from unicellular lifeforms to multicellular has been observed. Exemple  : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity/
Report spam or abuse
Creationists are without exception science illiterate liars.
Report spam or abuse
+Roger Campbell "Flying fish" INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, wouldn't you say? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
Athiest's : Gets Butthurt because some people believe in God(s)(dess)
Report spam or abuse
I guess he doesn't know that there is a God.  I'm going to go cry now
Report spam or abuse
O.k., so obviously there are some people who believe in god, but run away butt hurt every time they are questioned about it.  Yeah, I've heard that infinite digress fairy tale before.  So let me tale the true tale of evolution.  First, let's note that abiogenesis (dealing with origin) is not the focus of evolution.  Scientist do not pretend to understand origin yet but has ideas, which is one of the main most important differences between science and religion, being that science changes with new evidence and is a growing body of knowledge.  There is a repeatable experiment from the 50's, called the Miller Urrey experiment that demonstrates that organics and come from nonorganics and formed amino acids so it is now known that life can arise just out of chemistry.  We perhaps and are likely to know.  Not knowing something doesn't mean it's God.  We didn't understand volcano's once and sacrificed children to appease the God's.  We are witnessing a modern event now of science understanding more about homosexuality, that it isn't choice, and now there is no longer reason to oppress them (not that it mattered if it's choice or not, just another problem with your faith).  But now let's get to evolution actually.........You see, scientist have ideas of origin and origin is a separate issue.  Through the fossil record it is easily observable that there was a time when the Earth just contained microbes, then more complex microbes, to simple life, to more complex life all the way up to amazing animals like humans, dolphins, and elephants.  No where on Earth are fossils found out of order.  You never find a T rex above a human.  In the fossil record we can see a time before mammals and a time with simple mammals and then now there is a great array of varied animals.  We can see the animals that are extinct and exist no more.  You may notice that mammals have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth four limbs, a tail or tailbone, and five digits on each limb.  Yest hand bones are found in dolphin and whale flippers as well as bats wings.  Yes a dog has a fifth digit in higher on it's leg.  Indeed you can see how the bones fuse together to make hoove's on some animals.  Even snakes have vestigal legs which are quite noticeable in some species.  And there are things like two toed salamanders showing their remnant legs.  But it is obvious that animals changed and followed a tree of life through the fossil record.  What is also obvious is some of the ways in which it happens.  Genetic isolation is an obvious one to see.  You may notice a family resembles each other and you may have heard of ancient royalty trying to keep their genes in the family but had birth defects.  Well, if some animals, say turtles, get stranded on islands then each island would get a different turtle in the long run and perhaps a new creature eventually, like the case of the fossa on the Island nation of Madagascar.  The Fossa looks like a cat, but it is indeed a Mongoose.  The Mongoose is all over the world.  This is where genetics comes in.  The fossa is extremely closely related to mongoose all over the world cause it is a creature that just, relatively recently in deep time, evolved from the Mongoose.  What's more is the fossils it evolved from are found on the Island.  Plate tectonics is one of the ways animals get stranded on Islands.  Also using genetics man is most closely related to the Chimp.  We, humans are related more to a chimp than Gorilla's.  Exactly what you would expect if you wondered if genetics proves evolution.  And today 99.9% of scientist understand evolution to be a fact.  You would want to make well sure that your doctor believes in evolution before you allow her/him to give you any advice.
Report spam or abuse
If you love death and hate life, then Bill Nye is your guy.  You see in real science we use evidence.    All the evidence shows only one thing as far as evolution. When seeking the truth in the phenomenon all the evidence we can test and study always shows the same conclusion, or it is not science.  The truth is revealed when you remove your emotions from the study.  The Truth  always evokes strong emotions of denial in people, simply because most are guilty of supporting the cause of diseases.  The reason why the theroy of evolution cannot be proved is because they misinterpret all the data to say what the government wants to say.  There is no government controlled by the rich plutocrats going to allow the truth about how horribly they have managed life on earth.  The same people who sell you "save the planet", "save the whales", "save the children" and "save the chimpanzees" are the ones who are destroying all life on earth, human greed. They are not concerned about you, your children, nor your grandchildren.  The nature of greed is total selfishness and concern for one thing.  So they make up magical reasons why humans are so sickly and die so young.   The medical industry is evidence of human failures.   The medical industry in the USA spends over $9,200,000 per citizen per year in all the medical related revenues being transferred.  Disease is a "good" business.   nearly $3,000,000,000,000 per year in just the USA.   Every genetic disease rising by 10 times per capita (per 100,000 people) in less than 100 years. Some are more like 15 times (diabetes).  And we have accumulated some 17,000 genetic diseases,  The cause is infected reproduction.   You cannot share any sexual contact outside of a monogamous uninfected (clean of viral, fungal, amoebic, bacterial STD's)  marriage and have healthy babies.  And once you have any of the standard viral STD's, they never go away.  It becomes part of your reproductive cells.  There is no cure for viruses.   Cancer was 1 in 42 in 1847 as a cause of death.  Cancer was 1 in 20 at the start of the 20th century (1900).   Now it is 1 in 3 dying of this disease.   Congenital heart disease is up 200% in 29 years. We now have so many diseases that are brand new, never were seen before in all the historical records of humanity. We now have huge cancer hospitals strictly for the treatment of children.  If we did not have so many sick children they would never exist.  These are all new in the last 15 to 20 years, because of the phenomenal rise of childhood cancers.    The CDC has issued Biblical instructions for stopping STD's.  This is because STD's have risen by 20,000,000 cases each year for the past 11 years.  Most of the infected are young girls ages 13 to 24.  Second is males 13 to 24. (All at peak reproductive years) These "kids" are just  following the sexual misconduct as being good ideas of society.   Movies with sex, violence and killing as the constant and well received theme by stupid people.  Promoting sexual misconduct as being good in the classroom.  It is pure irony that most of the movie "stars" all support gun control and taking guns away from citizens, and they use guns in nearly every movie they make, brainwashing young people into a violent mindset.  They also have sex for no reason with random sexual partners as if that was a good thing to do.   The CDC clearly states that there is no safe sex outside of a marriage to an uninfected person.  (You cannot find an uninfected person according to STD statistics)This is because this massive sales job on condom use was a lie.  Kissing, touching, oral contact with any sexual area infected is not  affected by condom use.  Skin to skin contact around the "condom" will give you several diseases.   You cannot deep kiss and not get infected with HSV-1, HSV-2, HPV, HBV. HIV (HIV; if there is any  blood contact, and this is more common than you think).   Humans are totally infected today and will never allow any idea of saving the lives of the offspring to enter into the compulsive sexual immorality.  This is why we are doomed as a species to suffering, diseases, continual rise of retardation, and mothers taking their children to the hospital over and over trying to keep them alive from some horrible disease.  I have studied many hundreds of cases to the point of reading mothers "blogs" on the torture of taking their babies to the hospital as many as 50 times to keep them alive, only to have them die after the 10th surgery.  These new diseases are extremely horrible.  This is what the evidence shows.
Report spam or abuse
+GoodScienceForYou All the more reason to consider using genetic engineering to provide your children with only the best genes.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 There are 17,000 genetic diseases. The chances are 100% for you to produce a diseased child, no matter what you do.
Report spam or abuse
The knowledge currently stored in the libraries of the world is estimated at 10^18 bits.  If it were possible for this information to be stored in DNA molecules, 1 per cent of the volume of a pinhead would be sufficient for this purpose. If, on the other hand, this information were to be stored with the aid of megachips, we would need a pile higher than the distance between the earth and the moon.
Report spam or abuse
People really like to go against the tides when it comes down to what people believe in on how the Earth was made and what has gotten us to this point in history. As a youth raised in the clash between Creation and Science, I think I need to remind others that it doesn't really matter. I honestly only see having factual knowledge is the purpose of how the world was created and evolution. Since it is so slow we cannot see it, why bother? Yes, it demonstrates how we got to where we are, but is it nothing more than facts after that? And I've never seen many respectable religious youth in my day and age fully reject science. What irks me about Bill Nye is that, despite how a good sum of religions in the world call for acts of peace, love, charity, and coexistence with nature, why does he have to be blunt with denying anyone's beliefs? It's quite rude to outwardly deject a religion, you see, and I'm apparently being dejected. Yeah, so what if I'm a Christian? That doesn't mean I am lacking an open mind. I accept the Big Bang and evolution as God's "steps" to mankind. I try to find symbolic representations of science inside of The Bible to help connect the two, such as in Genesis, during the description of creation, man is the most recent and final life form to come into play on Earth. It would take some time to go into detail with every connection I have made so far, but I don't want to make this impossibly long, just long. But in all seriousness, people shouldn't go around spewing literal hate speech until they've sat down and analyzed things like I have in order to make both sides are happy with the end result. It is one of my two future careers, becoming a Christian pastor, that is.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun 1) Frustrated? No, I'm just finding this boring now. 2) I have already been taught what you all tell me, but not with such bias. 3) No, I really don't care if you think I'm right or wrong. 
Report spam or abuse
+Mike Riles But it seems, sir, that you care very much. You said "Say whatever bull you want" "End of Discussion; my time wasting with you is over"
Report spam or abuse
If you cannot imagine data that can convince you that your theory is wrong, you are are not being scientific.
Report spam or abuse
However, now, if somebody reported the genome of a 1-million-year-old humanoid fossil and found that it is exactly the same as that of a contemporary human being, the theory of evolution of species would be completely changed.
Report spam or abuse
I have to say this bill nye looks old as hell
Report spam or abuse
And indeed when you look at the technical literature and look for unguided evolutionary explanations of the origin of these elements at the heart of life – you don’t anything remotely close to a rational explanatory framework. At the end of the day, Intelligent Design doesn’t need at all to define itself as a negative argument against neo-Darwinism.
Report spam or abuse
It stands alone as a positive explanatory structure for what the empirical data show at the very heart of life.
Report spam or abuse
But this process does not explain the derivation of 'sense" in any strand. 'sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. Trevors and Abel. As far as I can tell this means "It doesn't fit what we think it should be so it's wrong". Consider that the authors may be the ones who are wrong by trying to impose an inappropriate model.
Report spam or abuse
The chew toy said : " But your exercise of abstract thought to confirm facts is completely DIVORCED from mere reproduction and survival. I see a problem here." Only you sees a problem. To be able to use abstract though helped the survival of our ancestor. It is a product of our evolution. Your very argument is evidence that evolution is real.
Report spam or abuse
+Extant Frodo2 I'm sorry, but what part about "express surprise-disgust" (from your own source) was too complicated for you, pee-wee? Stick around and we'll school and rule you some more on Canada, religion, science and the world. Again, how did you get so clueless?
Report spam or abuse
+Atharkas This is just DRIVEL! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
However it is simple to knock them away
Report spam or abuse
With an identical strategy. Only using a lot less effort .
Report spam or abuse
But apparently causing a lot more rage from Tits - judging by this weekend!
Report spam or abuse
If all junk DNA have functions, then how come no creationist or ID proponent has been able to predict what these functions are? Just a little something to keep Numbernuts up at night and staring at the ceiling.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlock fun It's one thing to accuse me of something. It's another thing altogether to prove it. Let me know when you have actual examples of me spouting out superficial knowledge or unwarranted generalizations. Until then, I'm calling your bluff. Still waiting for you to provide a function of junk DNA in a peer-reviewed paper that isn't a overcomplicated jab at GENOME from the DiscoToot. ^_^
Report spam or abuse
I studied holistic health for over 8 years and kept up with the science on this.  Bill Nye has "bowel cancer" shown in his face.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+GoodScienceForYou Thanks, now providing I believed you in the first place, I now know what companies products to avoid since, provided you are one of the designers, they are shoddily built and can be trusted about as far as I could throw them.
Report spam or abuse
matchlockfun just blurted: "The wise old Alan Clarke is here today, a bit pissed about accusations of dishonesty in creationists." Hypocrite. Your new sock account BREAST REDUCTION is all yours, clown. It's got your mental DNA and clown style like fingerprints all over it!
Report spam or abuse
Breast Reduction is the latest sock account of matchlockfun (immediately below, see ridiculous video arcade game handgun as the avatar): Let the belly laughs begin!
Report spam or abuse
+Gary Belliferous:  "With the predictions of where fossils should be found." Hardly.  Please point me to the "prediction" made by evolution that 20+ animal phyla should make a geologically abrupt appearance in the Cambrian.
Report spam or abuse
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE has ironically been blocked.
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason Futile's account was created the exact same day as Dr len. (sept 11 2006)
Report spam or abuse
You'd think they'd learn and stop already.
Report spam or abuse
For years, scientists had no explanation for why so much of our DNA doesn’t code for proteins. These non-coding parts were dismissed with the term ‘junk’ DNA. But gradually, this position has begun to look less tenable, for a whole host of reasons.
Report spam or abuse
Perhaps the most fundamental reason for the shift in emphasis is the sheer volume of ‘junk’ DNA that our cells contain.  One of the biggest shocks when the human genome project was completed in 2001 was the discovery that 98% of the DNA in a human cell is ‘junk.’  It doesn’t code for any proteins.
Report spam or abuse
Imagine walking into the Ferrari car factory and observing only 2% of the workers building cars with the remaining 98% sitting around doing absolutely nothing.  This would be ridiculous, so why would it be like this in our genomes?
Report spam or abuse
If there is no UNCONDITIONAL EXISTENCE - i.e. GOD - there can be NO CONDITIONAL EXISTENCE either! CONDITIONAL EXISTENCE - TO WHICH CATEGORY EVERYTHING AFTER THE BIG BANG BELONGS - CAN ONLY DERIVE FROM UNCONDITIONAL EXISTENCE; OR DO YOU THINK IT DERIVES FROM NOTHINGNESS - MAGICALLY? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! CONDITIONAL EXISTENCE IS THE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF UNCONDITIONAL EXISTENCE - GOD!
Report spam or abuse
+Mike Lushey "YOU'RE NOT REALLY EXPECTING THEM TO SPEAK ENGLISH, are you" "If a lion told you" ROTFLMFAO@u...etc..." EVEN ATOMS AND MOLECULES CAN TALK TO YOU, SHIT EATER - never mind sophisticated animals like lions! You just have to understand their language! HOW DO YOU THINK THAT GENES CAN BE DECODED, for instance, if they didn't have a language? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! These STUPID atheists(shakes head)! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
An additional example is the "sequence convergence in the peptide-binding region of primate and rodent MHC Class Ib molecules" (Yeager et al., 1997) and the "independent origin of Prosimian, Platyrrhine, and Catarrhine Mhc-DRB genes" (Kriener et al., 2000). Moreover, Jost et al. (2008) report on "4 taxonomically diverse species of pufferfishes (Tetraodontidae)" which "each evolved resistance to the guanidinium toxins tetrodotoxin (TTX) and saxitoxin (STX) via parallel amino acid replacements across all 8 sodium channels present in teleost fish genomes."
Report spam or abuse
If an atheist truly believes that there is no god, then how does the atheist remain sane in a world with unpunished crimes that are unpunished by humans? Atheists have no real morals, and no real purpose in life other than pretending, richard dawkins: "Atheists do not have a purpose in life without god" "Only the fool says in his heart "There is no god"" - Psalm 14
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+FUNgineer Sock Account Oh, not this moldy old chesnut again. * sigh *
Report spam or abuse
Creationists still claim that fossilized human footprints (or "giant man tracks") were discovered alongside dinosaur tracks in Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas, allegedly providing dramatic 'evidence' against the theory of evolution and the standard geologic timetable.
Report spam or abuse
Seriously, when people think that being a Christian means deial of everything science it annoys me. God said that we are made of dust. We don't all live purposely in arrogance and darkness, guys.
Report spam or abuse
+Time4Gaming "We don't all live purposely in arrogance and darkness," If you deny what is demonstrated empirically then yes, you are living purposely in arrogance and darkness. Just ask Common Dissent (or her numerous other accounts) how she denies what is demonstrable empirically in favour the failed hypothesis of intelligent design.
Report spam or abuse
And what do we find at the very heart of life?  At the heart of life, in our DNA, is a language-based code.  Notable scientists such as Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, and Francis Collins – they all acknowledge that at the heart of life there is essentially a digital code that uses computer-like programming to convert information from our DNA to be able to generate protein output. Our DNA contains a language-based code that contains computer-like commands that are processed by the molecular machines of our cells to convert that information – in our DNA – into protein-based machines, proteins.
Report spam or abuse
But where in our experience do things like language-based codes, computer-based information processing, or machine-like structures come from?  In all our experience, each of those things all come from intelligence – and yet this is what we consistently see at the heart of life.  So Intelligent Design is a compelling positive explanation for what we see at the very heart of life.
Report spam or abuse
And really the only way to explain, using a positive argument for the origin of the language-based code of DNA, the computer-like information processing, the abundance of molecular protein machines filling all of the cells of our bodies – the only way to rationally explain its origin – is to invoke an intelligent cause.
Report spam or abuse
Why is there some who still dont believe in evolution it completely baffles me. Its not a theory anymore its a fact there's consensus in the scientific community all evidence points towards evolution. Creationism is a complete joke all sciences whether it be geology to biology suggests creationism is false. Please if you still believe in creationism you really need to go back to school and take some basic courses. Its completely disgusting that we have this much ignorance towards science. Lets just put it like this do you believe in an ancient book or hundreds of years of scientific study and now to the point where over 97% of scientist agree that evolution is now a fact. For me im going with the 97% of scientist but its up to you
Report spam or abuse
@ matchlockfun: "So you admit Breast Reduction is a stunningly clever addition..." Are you that freakin' stupid to think that by BLOCKING me you can somehow "succeed" in talking behind my back and save some face? How long will you actually KEEP your newly hatched "mammary minimizing" sock account? <=O(
Report spam or abuse
...or will it (very likely) be a flash-in-the-pan-permanent-reminder of your stupidity, hypocrisy, and - worst of all - lack of creativity??!?!!??
Report spam or abuse
I get his concerns, but I respectfully disagree with his assertions. There is an vivid simplicity that is derived from looking at biology through creationist perspective. Not to mention, many people are extremely literate and competent in scientific fields and hold to creationism. The labeling of something as science or nescience is really dubious when aspects outside the observable are brought into question. In fact, strong arguments can be made on the nescience of Darwinian evolution and its derivations (albeit unpopular arguments). Also, there seems to be a strange amalgamation and slight confusion of semantics in what Nye was talking about. He shifted the context of the word evolution from biological evolution to stellar (or abiotic) evolution. At least, I thought I heard him make that segway.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 How do fossils, and data from them, present definite, objective contradiction to creationist models?
Report spam or abuse
+ImpossibleIsNothin They don't present with all animals starting in the lowest layers  as would be the case if creationsim were true.
Report spam or abuse
More recently most creationists have largely abandoned the "man track" claims, although a few persistent individuals, including Carl Baugh and Don Patton continue to promote such claims.
Report spam or abuse
In the wake of mounting evidence against the 'man track' claims, several loose slabs know as the Burdick Prints - containing alleged 'man-tracks' - were suddenly brought forth by Baugh & Patton as 'evidence'. Subsequent investigations have revealed that the Burdick Prints have an ambiguous history and curiously bizarre anatomical properties.
Report spam or abuse
The discovery in the 1970s that only a tiny percentage of our DNA codes for proteins prompted some prominent biologists at the time to suggest that most of our DNA is functionless ‘junk.’ Although other biologists predicted that non-protein-coding DNA would turn out to be functional, the idea that most of our DNA is junk became the dominant view among biologists. That view has turned out to be spectactularly wrong.
Report spam or abuse
Ironically, even after the 2003 completion of the Human Genome Project which confirmed functionality of non-protein coding DNA, leading apologists for Darwinian evolution ratcheted up claims that “junk DNA” provides evidence for their theory and evidence against intelligent design.
Report spam or abuse
Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions.
Report spam or abuse
The outer hair cells of mammals are specially designed to amplify high frequency sound. Among all mammals, the ones with the greatest sensitivity to high frequencies are the echolocating bats and whales. The cochleae of echolocating bats and whales display convergent anatomical features. For example, recent work demonstrates, from an evolutionary view, that the prestin of echolocating bats and of dolphins has undergone the same structural changes.
Report spam or abuse
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shakespeare. That's for people like Bill, people who only believe what the crowd believes.
Report spam or abuse
+MethodOx "For example, E=Mc^2 makes perfect sense to me. The Space time continuum makes perfect sense to me. Time dilation..." So you'll understand why a young earth conflicts with the concommitent energy release of radioactive isotopes that you should be able to calculate if your Relativity is as good as you claim.  And its actually E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. You'll also accept the time light would have needed to travel from distant stars to get to us.  "and the double slit theory make sense to me." Then why don't you accept the quantum mechanics and particle physics that describes the weak interaction that drives the fusion in the sun and radioactive decay? "I love studying history and astronomy. " OK so how old would you say the solar system is based on observations. How old would you say the universe is based on observations?  "Calculus makes sense to me. " You just couldn't make it as far as Schrodinger though? "And I believe in God" That's fine. Teach that too......but in bible study/R.E.  *Not* the science classroom.
Report spam or abuse
Cuevas et al. (2002) have furthermore documented, in retroviruses, the occurrence of molecular convergences in 12 variable sites in independent lineages. Some of these convergent mutations even took place in intergenic regions (changes in which are normally thought to be selectively neutral) and also in synonymous sites. The authors note that this is fairly widely observed among HIV-1 virus clones in humans and in SHIV strains isolated from macaques, monkeys and humans.
Report spam or abuse
When you observe an effect whose cause you cannot observe, which of the conclusions below would be the most reasonable for you to draw: 1. The effect has NO CAUSE 2. The effect is produced by a CAUSE THAT DOES NOT EXIST - i.e. "CHANCE" 3. The effect is produced by a CAUSE that DOES EXIST BUT IS UNOBSERVABLE TO YOU - SUCH AS GOD!
Report spam or abuse
+Transtlan Tico FYI waki  zaki has admitted that his non-replies are an admission of defeat. Keep up the good work.
Report spam or abuse
So why is the first cause exempt from needing a cause?  This is what you call special pleading
Report spam or abuse
U have not a pittance the force of will that has true nothingness
Report spam or abuse
+Transtlan Tico This is IGNORANT NONSENSE! Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Coated Reason  You are correct CCR. Applying the scientific method, the only example of complexity found at the level of the complexity found in DNA code has intelligent design as it's progenitor, therefore the scientific method points to intelligent design as the answer. Science says yes to intelligent design, while atheist weep at Darwins shrine, and Bill Nye auctions off his bow ties for less than a dime. LMAO!!!
Report spam or abuse
Now that evolutionary theory has been roundly humiliated by the revelation that ‘junk’ DNA is actually not the residue of millions of years of copying errors, what is its role in the cell?  If it’s not coding for proteins, what is it doing biologically?
Report spam or abuse
It’s becoming apparent that ‘junk’ DNA has a multiplicity of different functions, perhaps unsurprisingly given how much of it there is. Some of it forms specific structures in the chromosomes, the enormous molecules into which our DNA is packaged, preventing it from unravelling and becoming damaged.  As we age, these regions decrease in size, finally declining below a critical minimum that can predispose to cell death or cancers.
Report spam or abuse
Other structural regions of ‘junk’ DNA act as anchor points when chromosomes are shared equally between daughter cells during mitosis.   Yet others act as insulation regions, restricting gene expression to specific regions of the chromosomes.  In each and every example, the old outdated notion of ‘junk’ DNA that may at one time have coded for a protein in an evolutionary ancestor is utterly overturned.
Report spam or abuse
The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence, a phenomenon that describes instances in which unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics. When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.
Report spam or abuse
Another example is reported by Robson et al. (2000), who document that 28 of the amino acids in the oothecin protein of the cockroach are in exactly the same order as those in the lamprey lamprin protein. The authors state that "sequence similarities between lamprin and oothecin, which share a 28/30 amino acid sequence identity, may represent one of the best examples of primary sequence convergence so far identified."
Report spam or abuse
Yes the master want's to play game's with the laster Some got to lose to win sum yes shoe gum for every one what a lucky ducky day quack quack O is that a fact?
Report spam or abuse
+Transtlan Tico Ugh! This is just IGNORANT DRIVEL! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
A recent study published in Nature, "Mammalian microRNAs predominantly act to decrease target mRNA levels," has confirmed how microRNAs (miRNAs) have such an important effect upon gene regulation.  A news story in ScienceDaily explains the discovery:
Report spam or abuse
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Turkey Buzzard, WHY NOT TRY PRESENTING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT instead thinking dark insinuations alone will do your work for you against my arguments? THEY WON'T, you know? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Roger Campbell "Bone fingers in bat wings and whale fins" Sounds like one of those so-called "hopeful monsters" of the Darwinists! Hahahahahahahahahahaha! More like "HOPELESS MONSTER", if you ask me; None of them survive more than a few hours at most, do they? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
Appealing to the "onion test," junk defenders argue that if most onion DNA is useless, the same must be true for human DNA.  As one proponent puts it: “The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA.  Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?”
Report spam or abuse
For example, pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated:
Report spam or abuse
Evolution's Grand Challenge Molecular biology is characterized by growing questions and shrinking answers. It's like the guy who, after untying his boat, finds himself with one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat. As the gap grows, it becomes increasingly hard to ignore.  And uncomfortable. And temporary.
Report spam or abuse
And this is evolution's grand challenge: The complex programs and amazing molecular machines at the heart of life simply cannot be explained by any current or proposed theory of evolution, nor by any other completely material cause.  Apologists for materialism cannot hide this fact much longer. Neither the volume of their arguments nor any level of vitriol can change the fact that the data is skewing against them.
Report spam or abuse
Rarely has any field of science had to deal with questions so difficult, or that cut so deeply into the worldviews, minds, and hearts, of thoughtful men and women. Evolution sits at the center of a front-and-center debate -- with too much to explain, in too little time, with insufficient causal power, and with so many watching and so much at stake.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Hopeful education and not these deluded classical fiend risen two face rat race snot shot's  Yes what the fuck is so special about U in truth? Just a whorish self lie Sci guy
Report spam or abuse
Tell us why do you hate Tesla and yet love to use the tech that originated from his findings? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you do know that Tesla wasn't straight, don't you?HAHAHAHAHAHA
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Thirdly, large-genomed organisms like the onion seem to have undergone genome duplications.  This phenomenon, called polyploidy, shows that genomes can occasionally multiply in size, especially in plants.  Perhaps the onion genome was originally designed small, but ballooned through such natural duplications. That this may have happened in a few plant species doesn't by any means demonstrate that most DNA in most species is junk.
Report spam or abuse
Houston, we're getting increased temperature readings from inside the Breast Restraining Apparatus (B.R.A.). We could be heading for another meltdown.
Report spam or abuse
Yes I can confirm those readings, Houston. Non-stop whining towards the Reduction and Enragement units indicates that a runaway thermal breach could be imminent.
Report spam or abuse
This evidence now implicates deep levels of design not just in the sequences of protein, but also in the regulation of the entire transcription and translation process. MicroRNAs must be specially tailored to bind to the proper mRNA transcripts in order to foster their degradation and repress translation, when appropriate. Other mechanisms must inhibit repression and allow for translation.
Report spam or abuse
The article’s revelation of the disparities between molecular and morphological phylogenies was striking:  “When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics.
Report spam or abuse
Causal Requirements and Causal Forces Aside from the obvious (and intriguing) challenge of understanding the enormous complexity of life's information payload, evolution purports to explain its origins. The origin of life is perhaps the most obvious example of information's formidable hurdle to evolutionary explanations.  First life requires all of the following:
Report spam or abuse
And fill in the gaps with drivel
Report spam or abuse
Yes, absolute copy-paste whining. The funniest thing is, she really thinks this rear guard effort after Intelligent Design's absolute HUMILIATION at the Dover vs Kitzmiller hearings is working.
Report spam or abuse
Such short-sightedness from the ostensibly qualified spectacle salesbod.
Report spam or abuse
Kinesin offers a fascinating example of undiscovered information in action.  What programs and machinery are required to assemble the structure and function of kinesin? What information is needed for kinesin to achieve its "runtime" functions? How does kinesin know where to go to pick up a load, what load to pick up, what path to take, and where to drop its load? How does it know what to do next? All this functionality takes information, which must be encoded somewhere.
Report spam or abuse
These are just two illustrations of many safeguards in the cell. If you think about human monitors, like traffic cops or inspectors, they are aware of the downstream consequences of failure to meet requirements.  Robots and machines can also be programmed to detect contraband or errors. The robot may be "dumb," but whoever programmed it had to know; he or she had to have "forward thinking" and plan for the errors or failures to meet requirements.
Report spam or abuse
Intracellular Targets and Signaling   The locations of mRNAs is important in many cells during development for expressing genes in certain locations of cells, and for determining the cells' spatial axes.  So how do mRNAs end up in the right location?  It could be said that cells use a "zip code" system to help direct molecules to the proper locations. The localization of mRNAs commonly depends on specific sequences in their untranslated regions.  Like postal zip codes, such sequences identify the "addresses" in the cell to which the mRNAs are to be sent.
Report spam or abuse
Here's another example explained from the University of Basel: "Two are better than one -- another checkpoint enzyme for flawless cell division."
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...