-1 vote

Evolution: Modern Myth (100 Ways To Kill Darwin's Evolution)


http://youtu.be/Gjvuwne0RrE

Subscribe if you like this.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The anwer to Evolution

We have the answer.

Now comes the work.

http://www.dailypaul.com/331127/ius-proof-of-god-through-sci...

Look.....

Evolution had/has to happen, there is no other way to spread a species. If they don't evolve and adapt they will die off. Now saying "micro" or "macro" is irrelevant when one is just the longer version of the other. It HAS to be the way it's done, or nothing would have even taken root.

No train to Stockholm.

Careful not to equate adaptation and evolution

That's called adaptation or speciation, the variation within a species allowed by the diversity of the genetic code already present. The problem is assuming that a process whose only mechanism is to eliminate genes from a gene-pool actually does the opposite. Well over 99.9% of gene mutations are harmful to a species reduce its chances of survival. Accidents don't produce working processes any more than explosions in an electronics factory produce a working computer. Mathematics is not on the side of the macro-evolutionist. The irreducible complexity of literally hundreds of interdependent systems in the human body is insurmountable. Not even one could be explained as arising by chance, but when one considers their reliance upon each other, all at the same time, one cannot be a serious student of probability or logic and consider the absurd. Take, for instance, the enzyme involved in the oxygen exchange process in our bodies. Without that exact enzyme -- and the exact key for it to fit into -- both present, CO2 would build up too quickly in the body and we would die. It stretches credulity to imagine that those two things evolved at the same time as the enzymes which allow digestion, and the numerous other processes which are necessary to even make daily life possible.

Newp

"Accidents don't produce working processes any more than explosions in an electronics factory produce a working computer."

Completely incorrect. You only need to go as far as looking at how we've changed as a species in different areas of the world to adapt to our situations. Look at sickle cell anemia as a method of dealing with malaria in Africa. A good book that looks at how our environment changes our genes is Survival of the Sickest. Really good depth and an interesting read.

Eric Hoffer

Threads like these should be

Threads like these should be titled "100 Ways To Make Sure The Liberty Movement Fails."

Maybe there's a god, maybe there isn't. I don't know and neither does anyone else. Maybe god created evolution? Who knows. But when you attack basic tenets of science with mountains of evidence behind them, you make yourself look like you're still living in a cave, painting on the walls, and thinking the sun is a god and thunder is the gods being angry. No one is going to listen to anything you have to say about liberty after that.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

The accepted theory of evolution is probably wrong

Not totally wrong, just incomplete. The theories of Lamarck, who thought that the experiences of an individual could be passed on to its offspring, were spurned in favor of 'random' mutation and natural selection. New research being done all over the world shows that evolutionary change is not random, but that certain experiences of an individual are indeed passed along to future generations via genetic material.

I hate to brag, but having argued for this idea for a long time, I feel vindicated. A good friend of mine is a biologist and I can't wait to say "I told you so!"

******************
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

that is evolution

It isnt random; it is a result of several variables that led to the change in a species DNA, favoring specific genes that allows for better survival and procreation. If a person's experiences have made so that certain genes are invariably selected or passed on to the offspring, that is still evolution.

There' some nuance involve

The modern theory of evolution in university, and high school, textbooks does not allow for the events of an individuals lifetime altering the DNA of that individual. The current "accepted theory" has two mechanisms: 1. Random mutation which occurs due to variation during DNA replication 2. Natural selection, where the mutations of the individual are either successful and lead to reproduction or unsuccessful and lead to termination.

It is only in the past few years that the field of epigenetics has shown that the events in an individuals life do affect the genetic information passed on to the next generation.

******************
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

Sigh

What does evolution have to do with where things have come from? Are we that dense that we can't separate sciences at this point?

As for observable evolution in action:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Is a great example.

Eric Hoffer

Point 2.

The claim that no new species have come into existence requires an impossible amount of observation, not even the NSA can observe so much of the world to possibly know if that is correct.
"New" species are discovered all the time however it is not certain how long those species have existed. To claim that all of those species were present at the time of the "creation" and thus, no new ones have evolved, you would need some sort of biblical text which accounts for every species on earth. If that existed, then every time a species is discovered, you could easily point to a page in the bible and say, "See, there it is. We just found the first one but it was written about in the bible long ago. We just never saw one until now."
Roughly the same can be said for species going extinct. You can't actually be certain they are extinct until you've looked everywhere (sort of like the existence of God). The larger they are, the more certain you can be but again, it takes an almost unattainable amount of observation to know for sure.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

No one claimed ALL those species were present at creation

Logical fallacy number 2.

If you watched the video you would get to the part where he describes the Silver Fox experiments and how speciation can occur in just a few generations using identical parents.

This idea that creationist don't observe the everyday variations of life is misinformed. You only need to go as far as looking at mixed couples to see the results of their offspring. This is not the "evolution" being discussed where one kind like a dog turns into a completely different kind like a whale or even a simple beneficial addition to the genetic code results in a transitional form.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

I barely listened but many Creationists

believe in speciation - although based on Mendelian genetics and not 1000+ eukaryotic mutations. Yes, I do believe in wolphins!

Point 1.

"It has to be exactly the way that it is for us to exist."
False
It has to be exactly the way that it is for us to exist exactly the way that we do.
This theory that we were created so well lacks perspective. That perspective would show that most living things failed. Most species died out. The species which are alive right now fit into a very narrow niche and that niche is precarious at best.
To think that we are so well made that it must have been God's work ignores the fact that the same god created vastly more species that didn't make it. Its like getting an "A" on your math test after having failed it 99 times. Then when you pass it on the 100th attempt, you claim that you are brilliant.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Not necessarily

You only have to read about the fall in Genesis to understand when the winding down of everything began or the process of entropy was introduced into nature.

If creation was perfect upon the beginning and played out that way then all these species you suggest "didn't make it" would still be around. However, because of the introduction of entropy or death we see all the problems that were never part of the ideal design.

This is Christianity 101 which lays out the need for a savior. This life is not like Heaven as it was meant to be, that is the entire point.

And another poster gave an excellent example challenging why on every other known planet and universe we haven't discovered a single sign of sentient life, not even a microbe if your presumption had any weight.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

I listened to 15 minutes. I

I listened to 15 minutes. I can't get over the way he moves his hands while he talks, it is like he has to reassure himself. Is he actually conducting a musical disguised as a evolution debunking documentary?

Are you that distracted

by his hand movements and the difference in the way he talks to not understand the material or are you having a bad day?

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Trust me, while i was

Trust me, while i was watching the material I already accepted that he is different in his own way. I listened intently. I simply was annoyed by his hand movements and have reason to believe that it is him beinga tryhard

The crazed expressions & hand movements are ridiculous.

It's probably because a) he's a lunatic; b) most of what he says is nonsense so he has to overemphasize to try to make it convincing; c) trying to "dazzle" you with bullshit.

Hitler used gesticulations to 'entice' his followers.

When someone says a speaker is hypnotic is this what they mean?

Does it create an emotional connection when a rational one is impossible?

Free includes debt-free!

I couldn't tell you.

Only gesticulation of Hateler's I could think of: Nazi salute.

The guy in that vid above is simply 100% religious lunatic.

Hmmm

Have you ever wondered, God or no God, where everything came from?
And if there is a God, where did she come from?
And if there is an end to space, then what is beyond it?
And if there is something on the other side of space, what is beyond that...?

This reminds me of drunken history

I was going to watch the whole thing thinking it was a serious counter argument to evolution, but I cant stand 10 minutes of this.

I mean is he high or drunk? He sounds like a mix between the drunken history guys and the sham-wow guy. 'But wait there's more, if you listen now I will throw in the earth free."

He gets the entire concept wrong from the begining. Thinking evolution sprouts new species all at once. Then he thinks the earth appeared like it is now and not that it changed over time, like any complex system. No references to these absurd numbers that require a special type of mathematics itself to even work with.

And of course he wants to talk about statistical numbers and wants proof while referencing the bible.

Evolution doesn't mean shit appears from nothing. Slight defects causes changes and if that change is beneficial it survives, if not it dies. (unless humans has something to do with it) Evolution doesnt even have anything to do with the creation of life, only the method to change and increase its complexity.
Why doesnt he compute the odds of a god coming about. If you assume a god does exist and go from that then we can assume life does exist and go from that.

"...if not it dies" - not necessarily

what if you have a very slight negative defect in which there is no death or health issue to the creature. So basically natural selection's 'surveillance' does not detect and weed out most of these types of defects.

If you have to be so literal

If you have to be so literal and not understand the principal,
If it is not the best fit to survive over time it will reproduce less and therefore its species will die out, or adapt in another way.

More biologists are rejecting this binary outcome of natural

selection. And the ramifications complicate the evolutionary progression even more. You can look into 'genetic entropy' to find out more.

Who said this method has to

Who said this method has to be binary? In fact if it was then there would be a single species line not branches.

There can be several specializations adapted from one origin or even mixtures and partial adaptations. Even some of the detrimental traits can survive for a time, but probability dictates that those better adapted will win out over time.

As for the genetic entropy, I will have to do further research on it but here are my comments from a quick glance.

- A creationist came up with this concept which immediately puts it in doubt since they never have any evidence to their wild theories. They also tend to fail at understanding basic scientific concepts.

- The threads that I came across on it mostly talked about his personal bias and the fact that nothing he did proves anything.

- I could believe that human and even a lot of plant and animal DNA is in fact degrading. I often mention how Idocracy is an amazing yet sad movie, part of it is infact for this very reason, de-evolution. We have taken out natural selection and survival of the fittest. So when a detrimental degradation of DNA takes place, that organism is still allowed to propagate because of our intervention.

As some have pointed out on the threads, usually mixture of the species is enough to correct any degradation of DNA, (offsprings DNA is a mix of 2 DNA's not just one damaged) But in a lot of species that we cultivate and breed we practice selective breeding and propagate a single DNA strain because of its desired traits. But this does not allow for any natural selection to take place and the species then becomes stagnate.

Now is this DNA degradation taking place? I don't know I haven't found any good studies done on it yet. But the whole point of live is that we counter the entropy by activity spending energy to repair this degradation and damage. Think about it when you get a cut you body doesn't just ignore it, it repairs it.

If you have any decent studies and evidence on this topic please link it for me so I can learn more on the topic.

Just a few nits to pick

First, humans aren't the only force of nature that can wipe out a species ... think about a volcano errupting on a small island.

Further, I believe in God but don't see why anybody else who does even pretends to know how He made all everything. Heck, for all we know God could be playing a game of SimEarth over a bag of Cheetoes on an x386. In other words; God very well could have used evolution to shape the world as we know it and it wouldn't make one bit of difference as far as I'm concerned. He created all everything, He did it how He did it, and if I'm really that concerned about the "snapped his fingers" theory vs. the "clay snake" theory (put forth in Far Side comics) then I'll ask Him when I meet Him.

Till then; here we are and here we stay. Make the most of it.

The comment about humans was

The comment about humans was the fact that we are ending the 'survival of the fittest' concept. While evolution may still take place, weather or not its an evolution to advance us or revert us is up for grabs. I highly recommend watching 'Idocracy' for further explanation of my point. I find it hilariously funny but sadly depressing because it is happening.

As for your points on god, while I cant say he doesnt exist I find it highly unlikely. And if he does you must explain his existence.
But assuming he does, then yes maybe evolution was his way of doing things. Maybe we are his game of Spore. Or maybe we are just computer simulations designed to compete and modify ourselves with each successive generation. After all we are trying to create AI in the same manner.

The fact is we see evolution happening now and have evidence from the past to show how things came to be about. There is no debating that since we can watch bacteria mutate and change on a timescale that is manageable to a human. What started life is a different topic completely separate from evolution.

Yea, Idiocracy was pretty scary

The beginning was freaking hilarious.

Evolution

He absolutely destroys evolution as I would imagine the joker doing so. The comical genius is entertaining and informative.