Darwin vs Irreducible Complexity: Why evolution by natural selection remains unshaken

What process could have generated the sophisticated complexity of the human eye, the elegance of the bacterial flagellum, or the fine-tuned structure of a honey bee’s stinger? After more than 160 years of intense debate, evolution by natural selection continues to be the most powerful explanation.
Since Darwin first published his theory in 1859, many of the world’s best and brightest have tried to prove him wrong. While some skeptics are driven by a sincere desire for scientific progress, many who protest are fueled by theological concerns, while others simply find it too hard to believe that Darwin’s simple process could generate such spectacular complexity.
The most famous attempt to dethrone Darwin in living memory is the argument from Irreducible Complexity by professor Michael Behe. In this presentation, Jon Perry explains what Irreducible Complexity is, attempts to steel-man Behe’s argument in its strongest possible form, and then shows why the argument ultimately fails by demonstrating that normal biological evolution (descent with modification acted upon by natural selection) is fully capable of generating irreducibly complex traits.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Irreducible is ALWAYS an appeal to ignorance. Every. Single. Time.

[@DeconvertedMan]

That stinger its still doing things! :O yikes!

[@DeconvertedMan]

nature is amazing and terrifying at the same time! :O

[@spamm0145]

You have way too much faith in molecules without a mind, my faith is in GOD but I do admire your love for matter that cannot 'think'.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@spamm0145 faith must be bad if having more of it is good, therefore we should try to have as little faith as we can - that makes us skeptics! Congrats you no longer believe in god!

[@tomashultgren4117]

Except when you look. At. Reality. Once is enough

[@OceanusHelios]

11:03 Wow! On that stinger! I have a biologist background as well as a machinist background. A machinist would recognize the structures immediately. They would call those "ways" or "slides" that govern the motion of the other two parts around the venom canal. 3-D printer enthusiasts would immediately recognize the structures too. You see this when studying nature. What works tends to be conserved from generation to generation. That's why nature appears to be clever. But that is a result of natural selection looking for "hacks" and "tricks" blindly through mutations. It is an emergent property of natural selection. It's very cool to see something so mechanical in nature that we have also discovered ourselves. We understand why Theists jump to the conclusion of intelligent design. We also know why Theists want us to jump to that conclusion. We just won't ever be able to get any Theist to admit they are jumping to conclusions. And science isn't about jumping to conclusions but describing, recording, taking data, building models, and the process along the way: in other words...arrived conclusions and not conclusions jumped to.

[@Tennethums1]

My favorite exercise with Theists (when they deny Evolution) is first, use Cameron Smith’s method to explain Evolution in his book “The Fact of Evolution” which coincidentally, is the single best explanation of Evolution I have ever heard… …but second, I pick a species of animal (usually bears) and I have them explain to me how this one animal; - exists on multiple continents - is so well adapted to its environment “Start with Noah and the flood and work forward from there”, I say. There is NO Theist I have ever talked to who can explain it from a biblical standpoint. And shouldn’t they be able to? All I ever hear is them trying to poke holes in Evolution, but failing to come up with their own scientific (or historical) evidence for an alternative answer.

[@andrewwood3597]

@@Tennethums1 The theory of evolution could be called the theory of creation. Creationists don't have a theory of creation.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

@@andrewwood3597 "Evolution" is a Creation Myth. No doubt about that. It just happens to be one without the apparent necessity of a creator. @OP. You are a machinist. Tell me: Were those machines you worked with intelligently designed or did they evolve via random processes?

[@andrewwood3597]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 No one ever said things evolve just through random processes. We know that machines evolved through a long process of happy accidents, selection and replication. A flint fell from a cliff, struck another stone and broke into pieces creating sharp edged pieces. This process was replicated and modified and the sharpest edges selected.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

​@@andrewwood3597 Actually they did. But thanks for affirming the intellectual dishonesty there (bait and switch). If you think machines came into being through 'happy accident' and not through hard labor of intelligent agents than you are certifiably insane.

[@shassett79]

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity; the entire argument is an appeal to ignorance. "We don't know, therefore I know!"

[@blupandax7902]

“Appeal to ignorance” is just a catch-phrase and does not help you win debates. Try harder.

[@shassett79]

@@blupandax7902 No, it's a common fallacy that's readily understood by anyone who's been paying attention. Read a book.

[@TheDjnatronic]

@@shassett79 if Irreducible complexity is a myth than you can exist without a heart, lungs, and liver right?

[@shassett79]

@@TheDjnatronic That's... not what the phrase even means? Critics of irreducible complexity aren't proposing that their heart is unnecessary; they're rejecting the baseless argument that their heart couldn't be the product of biological evolution.

[@spamm0145]

You are using intelligence to argue the most complex object ever discovered 'the human brain' did not require intelligence to bring it into existence. How does matter without a mind and therefore incapable of understanding abstracts, metaphors, math, etc, design a brain that can comprehend these abilities that the matter constructing the brain cannot? The ignorance is firmly rooted in evolution, too many paradoxes to overcome from the macro to the micro in order to explain why everything exists without the need for a creator.

[@AlanZucconi]

That was a really interesting talk, thank you sharing it Jon! Also, it happens to pop up in my feed while I was working on some slides about Irreducible Complexity for a class I'm teaching on Evolutionary Computation! 🤣

[@honest_psycho7237]

Very clear and understandable. The more examples we have of adaptation like this, the better.

[@ankyspon1701]

Are you simple? All he has shown are several equally irreducibly complex systems and suggested that one could have given rise to another. There's no proof of how any of them could have evolved on the first place! He even uses the words possibly and probably throughout his idiotic lecture. He's started with an incredibly complex ovipositor and not once attempted to say how that could have originally evolved. Look at the guide rail on the bee stinger! The slide mechanism, the reciprocating pump, the venom tank etc etc. It's irreducible! This isn't science, it's fantasy! Google Denisovans, the images you see are all fake, the only Denisovans fossil remains they have are a single finger bone and some teeth! Some people will believe anything!

[@honest_psycho7237]

@@ankyspon1701 "Are you simple" alright buddy, if you already start an argument with an insult I'm not gonna bother even arguing back. No one changes his mind after an insult. And dont bother answering this, I'll not respond.

[@nayefdaher4604]

when direction creation failed they wanted to give another function to their deities so they came up with directed evolution and irreducible complexity

[@fjolnir3431]

The argument of irreducible complexity is that Natural selection alone cannot change the function of said presenting structures and make them come together for a more complex and efficient function. The theory of evolution and natural selection obviously still holds, but I think Michael Behe's concept is not trying to refute any of Darwin's discoveries but rather arguing that a 165-year-old theory doesn't come close to explaining the mysteries of life, especially on a molecular level and that contemporary theories of Neo-Darwinism that try to merge Darwin's model with modern molecular biology are futile.

[@Angelmou]

Behe is a denialist how interlocking of complexity mechanism work in nature. It is basically the same old lame argument "look you can't rip out a lung without a landmammal to suffocate! How did it fall from the sky?" ignoring that swimmbladder gullet bag organs already in fish evolved oxygen storage for lungfish to establish in dry periods. And that animals with lung organs are the descendants of the gradual adaptation till you could not rip it out as it became vital and life necessary in all the offspring. But it was not so vital in the first fish that had gullet bag mutations for the proto lung swimmbladders. All what Behe argued like the flagella etc. has former forms or even further evolved froms. So is the flagella for locomotion, but when the flagella is duplicated and mutated like around the whole bacterial body it works as additional guard shield not to allow predators like amoeba to gulp the bacteria down and eat them. So that we have waste output - sting - flexibility for movements - duplication around the whole body to shield attackers away.

[@AMC2283]

IC criticizes nothing the theory predicts, evolution isn't a construction process

[@Pay-It_Forward]

most things that end up missing a function or part due to mutation, usually fail to thrive. Those which have an improvement of shape, size, function, or addition functions thrive. Systems only disappear after a new survival mechanism or function makes the old one obsolete & not required for survival. Most transitions happen in very small increments over thousands of years. irreducible complexity, if it was such a thing, doesn't prevent evolution from increasing complexity. However, irreducible complexity is flawed logic & not a thing. Scientists created synthetic life with 95% less DNA & even removed coding genes they felt were not essential for survival, creating new living thriving life, with certain parts & functions removed.

[@OceanusHelios]

For other readers, and I'm sure you are aware of the point I am going to make also, I would like to add something. In the case of lost genes due to mutations, it might not necessarily cause immediate loss of viability as an organism. It entirely depends on which gene, and how the resultent protein will be affected. Many parts of DNA are more structural in function. DNA has to be coiled or it wouldn't fit. It has to be shaped so that pertinent genes are not difficult to express because other parts of the non-coding DNA obstruct them. DNA has to be moved around and needs handles, and in fact, is actually spooled around proteins. That is what I mean by structural DNA. Proteins are the same way. Some portions of proteins are structural while other parts of proteins are the get-down-to-business portions that act as the operating portion. This is especially true with enzymes. To summarize, a mutation can be beneficial, neutral, or negative. And it all comes down to what the organisms life cycle is and what environmental niche that organism lives in. And any theist reading this post might immediately conclude instantly that sky wizard made it happen. Theists like that answer for everything. They don't want to stick around for the "How" part of it, though. "Okay Theist, now stick around and go into greater and greater detail about all of this biology...and explain to us the how and the where and the what and get into finer detail since you are plugged into the god thing." Theists won't stick around for that. They are only interested in more attempts to prosyletize, not debate. Not illustrate in fine detail what is observed, record it, and do science. Basically, Theists want to jump on the bandwagon of scientific credibility and hitch their wagon to it, because their credibility continues to wane. And if that is unsuccessful, they wish to demonize science. The last thing a Theist is ever concerned with is the details and descriptions and working in biology unless it can be subverted to Sky Wizard explanations and "debunked."

[@stephenolan5539]

We have most of the genes to make Vitamin C.

[@magepunk2376]

For those who don’t need the long preamble, he begins his debunking of ID near the 20:00 mark.

[@zt2max]

IC is ID but ID is not IC. Basic logical error of affirming the consequent. If you refute IC or "debunk" it as you phrased it, then it doesn't follow you have also "debunked" ID. In fact IC is only one feature of design and is probably the least interesting.

[@kinglyzard]

@23:30 The manes on such ungulates as wildebeest, giraffes, etc. are hair that has been exapted as nesting material for oxpecker birds, which help the animals by removing ticks, etc.

[@mozkitolife5437]

Just to add to the overall understanding: it’s the environment changing, whether fast or slow, that creates the selective pressures applied upon each individual in every generation. It’s the lottery of life. If it changes too fast (imagine water rising too fast for subsequent generations of webbed feet chickens) then life struggles to evolve with it. This is the crisis we’re creating for species today.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

I already understood exaptation, But these examples have increased my understanding, Always worthwhile to debunk creationism.

[@planetdog1641]

pointless statement

[@mdesm2005]

Religious people spend energy on veneers of rationality. Their foundation is their emotional need to having been created for a grand purpose. ANY thing that's inconsistent with that won't be heard. Period. Period. Period. As for the microphone. Next time, just get the type that sub-mensa people use everyday. Not that silly huge thing.

[@jloiben12]

Irreducible complexity doesn’t exist. We can reduce all biological complexity down to its constituent components. We know the proteins. We know the amino acids. We know the atoms. We know the nuclei. We know the quarks. What they are complaining about is that complex things are complex. That’s all.

[@beefymario88]

I’m an atheist but I have a real problem believing that a random mutation could create an eyeball. Can someone please explain to me, how an organism could evolve an eyeball to process light, that they cannot be reacting too because they don’t have an eyeball? The organism would feel heat from the sun, but how would the evolutionary process to process light from a star 8 million miles away, start without the DNA having the plan for an eyeball and the explanation of what light is from the start? Serious question, I’ve never been able to understand this. How does an organism react to light when it doesn’t know the light is there?

[@AMC2283]

How does anything evolve, mutagens and natural selection cause genetic drift. An organism doesn’t react to light, photochemicals do.

[@StatedClearly]

A retina (the part of the eye that sees) is a collection of light detecting cells that send signals to the brain. Before eyes evolved, basic light detection evolved. Are you asking why basic light detection would evolve in a single celled protist, bacteria, or simple animal? If so: Light can damage DNA, meaning too much light is good to avoid. Light is also essential for photosynthesis and useful in other chemical reactions that some cells use, therefore, there are many selective advantages cells have for detecting light and responding with a change in behavior. Light reception proteins have evolve many times independently in single celled organisms. Many single celled organisms can detect light, including protists closely related to animals. Earth worms, and similar animals without eyes, do have photo detecting proteins and cells. Even without full-blown eyes, they use information about light to guide their behavior (if they detect light, they retreat). Photoreception proteins are any proteins that change shape (or arer bound to a small molecule that changes shape) when hit with a photon of a certain wavelength. In short, light reacting proteins function in cells as binary reporters: Light yes or light no. In cells that use light detection to govern their behavior, the change in protein shape when struck with light will trigger a chemical chain reaction, resulting in a behavior change. Starting with basic light reception, all sorts of things can evolve, including eyes. Here's a video that gives a nice overview of the evo of eyes once photoreception has already evolved: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aImUmqqCprJlqpIsi=k8gGWAy7i_giQ0Zh

[@AMC2283]

And understanding eye evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist, only how superstitious you are does

[@beefymario88]

@@StatedClearly Thank you for your detailed reply but you still haven’t been able to explain how the protein can react to light, if it doesn’t have eyes to know light is there. I understand how it would know ‘something’ was there because of the heat and vitamins, but how it evolves an organ to process light specifically and not just solar panels like a Stegosaurus, or a Vitamin catching organ, is what confuses me. The proteins you described must ‘know’ that you can ‘see’ light in order to create an organ able to process it. How?

[@beefymario88]

@@AMC2283 So how do photochemicals know that to ‘see’ light you need to build an organ like an eye? Why would they react to light with an organ that allows you to ‘see’ if it cannot ‘see’ what exactly light is? Seems like a pretty lucky guess to me.

[@AlanRobson_]

Beautiful images of the illustrated animals. Helps with speech understanding

[@videos_not_found]

No one walks up a hill without a specific reason. All given examples are very persuasive but still it seems not evident to me what actually drives evolution. The question how random events could lead to such functional and complex structures has become pretty much a dogmatic issue apparently in the scientific community as well. And this might well prevent further progress.

[@Angelmou]

Laypeople usually ignore the deathtoll of trillions of lifeforms each generation. For example how those caterpillars survived to grip on the leaves because by rainstorms thousands of their former aunts and uncles were brushed off to the ground and did starve to death or got pecked by birds or eaten by ants etc.

[@curious968]

Mutation is random. Survival is not. Really, most critics of evolution entirely ignore the second part of it.

[@videos_not_found]

​@@Angelmou That makes me curious! Which person living or dead can feel the deathtoll of trillions of beings?

[@videos_not_found]

​​​@@curious968 I can't think of any experiment proving that randomness drives mutation and leads to function but certainly radiation etc. induce random and deleterious effects in fruitflies etc. Levin er al. experiments with planaria on the other hand indicate a very rapid Adaptation process. See Maya Emmons-Bell et al. iScience. 2019.

[@Angelmou]

@@videos_not_found To give you a weird example how people ain't aware how absurdly not caring nature actually is when it comes to life in general (and I don't mention any great extinction events like the astroid hit to end the dinosaurs) Today live 8 billion individual humans on this earth. However there are living up to 20 quadrillion individual ants currently on this planet. this is 20,000 times trillion. As ants live a short lifespan - none of the individual ant that lives today in the year 2024 was the same ant that lives in the year 2010. So many individual ants did live also in the year 1990, in the year 1721, 5967 years before the roman empire was founded. 47,421,991 years before the year today and all the years in between and so on. And about half of them ate as many individual beetles, caterpillars, bugs, flies, termites, etc. as food as not all did eat fungi like leafcutter ants. And they ate other ants raging giant wars for millions of years. The deathtoll of ants as individuals alone is trillions over trillions over trillions in the last 100 million years. Now think about the 8 billion species of today and the 1 trillion species (not to speak of individuals) that ever existed throughout history. As today scientists estimate 8,6 billion species to be less than 1% of all species that ever existed throughout history of our world. You get a tiny VERY TINY glimpse about what nature is truly about. How insignificant an individual life actually is under the light of evolution and how the world truly and carelessly does work. This is why in overview just in the caterpillar example which did cling to leaves had more offspring till today and exist today as common in populations while their aunts and uncles to the thousands were flushed away by thousands of rainstorms that had no good grip. Lifeforms have eyes today, because those animal ancestry in the oceans with lightsensitive cells did flinch when a shadow did swim over them and had there statistically more offspring against the blind which did not flinch when shadows swam over them and consumed them statistically. This is how eyes originally established in broodstocks. And sometimes the whole ecosystems collapse like with asteroid hits and other happenstances. This is shocking for a big bunch of god believers as they want a masterplan behind life, being nature, behind anything to have feeling of belonging and caretaking like by a loving parent over them etc. While there is none. Just like nature forms hundreds of beautiful snowflake shapes from simplistic water droplets when temperature and air pressure fitts - there is also no parent or snowfairy to care if the snowflake "dies" immediately if it is hitting a hot tin roof or falling into a chimney or if it in fact "survives" for dozens of days before melting away anyway and vanishes as it never existed.

[@sciencenerd7639]

Thanks for sharing this. The examples you shared of the different kinds of insect ovipositors were super interesting.

[@HoraceTorysScaryStories]

Content starts at 1:06. The audio's fine, I'd trim the intro completely. Great bug footage!

[@budd2nd]

Very interesting video I thank the almighty algorithm for suggesting it and also thank Jon Perry for producing it. 👍

[@thegodtalk8217]

Trying to keep a Zombie , 160 years old, alive.

[@Angelmou]

You confuse christianty with the topic and the years are off by 1800+ years. ;-)

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@Angelmou LOL! ;)

[@zt2max]

Exactly! Darwin didn't even know about DNA. Had he known would he have even had the courage to propose evolution? Not likely because they would have been more honest at that point and seen that a code is something that exclusively comes from designers. Evolution is a Victorian concept, we know under natural selection alone it would not have worked as a theory which even evolutionists would agree with today, so why should it still work just because they create rescue-conjecture such as mutations combined with selection? If it was wrong the first time, chances are it was wrong the second time they tried to save it, and will be wrong the third and fourth time.

[@Angelmou]

@@zt2max DNA is a heridity record in which we can directly read repeatably that evolution is true. You have no clue about the topic.

[@lmoelleb]

I must say I agree 100% with Behe on irreducible complexity: it is no more scientific than astrology.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

Well, is Darwinian Evolution scientific or theological? Darwin actually lets you in on this in his writings. The complexity issue is clearly understandable, if you really want to understand it. But one can not help people that are willfully ignorant. They don't want to understand an argument and hence claim it isn't one.

[@lmoelleb]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 Why this focus on Darwin? Sure he did amazing work for his time, but his knowledge is now more than 150 years out of date. And what is this complexity issue? Are you referring to irreducible complexity or something else?

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

@@lmoelleb Why this focus on Darwin? Why not? Credit were credit is due. And if true. There is no such thing as 'out of knowledge'. Why are you using flawed logic in your arguments?

[@lmoelleb]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 "and if true"? If "what" true then "what"? "Out of knowledge" is not a quote of anything I wrote, so not sure what you mean. If you are referring to my comment about his knowledge being outdated, then it certainly is. He did not know anything about DNA for example. And the main reason to not focus on Darwin is that it is irrelevant today. If you demonstrate Darwin thought evolution to be impossible it would not change anything.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

​@@lmoelleb What you insisted on is that something 'true' 150 years is untrue today, because it is 'out of date'. What I say is that it doesn't make any difference WHEN something was said, what matters is WHAT is said. And the Darwin postulates are still logically as flawed today than they were in the past. Decay + Destruction = New Design is simply rubbish not a 'scientific theory' as Darwinian Evolution is peddled. What actually is true that today there is more data available that demonstrates how flawed Darwin's thesis actually is. But it's a paradigm. It's assumed to be true a priori. And then all the Data gets interpreted their way... and at times also skewed. It's huge exercise in question begging and actually a combination of a number of fallacies flanged together to make the thesis sound plausible. While it is done cleverly at times, it got many problems. But to detected and debunk them takes time and resources. Something Evolutionists have since they got academic hegemony, while they critiques are mostly privately funded.

[@tankthomus]

Love the presentation! Insects are so cool to me because they are so biologically foreign and strange. Its so cool to see the radically unique way they survive (compared to humans).

[@diabl2master]

Really interesting talk! That was a perfect example with which to make your point!

[@chrisjcanning5219]

So, what was the flagellum motor before it was a motor?

[@thisnameisunique]

Thanks to knockout tests we know that the flagellum could have performed other functions prior to developing into its current rode. Per ChatGPT: The bacterial flagellum likely evolved from simpler systems with functions other than locomotion. One hypothesis is that its precursor was a secretion system, particularly resembling the Type III secretion system (T3SS) found in some bacteria today. The T3SS functions as a molecular syringe, allowing bacteria to inject proteins into host cells, which can help bacteria infect or interact with host organisms. As this secretion system evolved, the structures gradually adapted, extending in length and acquiring new components, ultimately becoming capable of rotating and producing a propeller-like motion. This adaptive process likely took place through small, incremental changes, with each modification conferring some selective advantage, eventually resulting in the highly complex flagellar motor we see today. This idea is a core part of the exaptation theory, where existing structures gradually acquire new functions through evolutionary processes, leading to complex features like the flagellum.

[@chrisjcanning5219]

@@thisnameisunique One thing that makes me baulk at evolution theory is this; if an organism is responsible for it's own development through a series of improving innovations following a path of logic why then does that organism have no recollection or innate sense of this achievement along with no comprehension or understanding of how it works? The whole process remains an unfathomable mystery. If you improve something shouldn't you remember what it was before you improved it? and at least know how it works.

[@TTTristan1]

@@chrisjcanning5219 I think you'd have to explain why or how organisms would have that innate recollection of their past generations. Why do you see it as a logical outcome that they would have that memory? Not to mention, organisms would need a brain built to comprehend and act on those memories.

[@planetdog1641]

@ none of that is demonstrated experimentally. Theory upon theory upon theory. No mathematical model can uphold this chain of events without some astronomical numbers.

[@itsyaboidaniel2919]

This is definitely a great video, but I think it somewhat missed the mark. I don't believe in irreducible complexity, but the example and explanation given is that stingers came from ovipositors (I didn't know this, and that's very cool), but from there the next question is where did the ovipositor come from? For lack of a better way to put it, you didn't "get down to the bottom of it" and instead "kicked the can down the road". While there is limited time in these presentations, and it is generally better to be thorough, you probably should've breezed through the stinger section to get to an ovipositor section and explained where that came from, or whatever other structure at the bottom of it came from that would "actually" be considered irreducibly complex, then showing how it's not.

[@Angelmou]

There are books about oviduct organ origin. ;-)

[@itsyaboidaniel2919]

@@Angelmou I believe it, but that doesn't carry the video itself.

[@Angelmou]

@@itsyaboidaniel2919 I can highly recommend you a 50 part series about all major life steps called _systematic classification of life_ by aronra. A video like this here which is roughly 30 minutes does not contain dozens or hundreds of steps - there you would need to bingewatch a 20 hour long show with all minor and major steps and even side variations many people do not know existed.

[@lefishe5845]

​@@itsyaboidaniel2919 I mean I feel this is invalid the same way it would to argue you weren't born because your parents don't exist, except they do, but where did they come from? Oh they exist too? Well wher- im sure you get my point. It would be nice to label literally every step but you don't need to complete a full puzzle to see the puzzle makes a picture of a train.

[@itsyaboidaniel2919]

@@lefishe5845 Yes, but that's where irreducible complexity comes in. Eventually, there's a thing at the bottom which (supposedly) shouldn't be able to come about naturally without a foundation. Though I suppose that runs the risk of going all the way back to abiogenesis with being unsatisfied constantly.

[@joelonsdale]

Very interesting video. Liked and subscribed!

[@tobias4411]

Irreducible complexity (IC) is proven wrong. Why? Its based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, totally ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research. Evolutionary biologists already published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe actually can evolve. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

[@dimitrivouliouris9670]

Right !! and we all know that courts are always right.... 😄 !

[@tobias4411]

@@dimitrivouliouris9670 While courts are not infallible, there are several reasons we can still place trust in the judicial system. Can you figure it out?

[@planetdog1641]

IC is an observation. Not a theory.

[@NumaanSaeed]

Hi I wanted to ask what animal shares most total erv sequences with humans? I couldn't find the answer on google but I saw your video on stated clearly and thought it would be better to ask on a more recently uploaded video that might get to u more easily.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

I think it's chimpanzees. The fact that chimpanzees and humans were separately created means that most of the ERVs didn't come from viruses but are part of the original genome and have been present within the genome since creation.

[@lizadowning4389]

@@vesuvandoppelganger Nope. You don't even know what ERVs are, do you? ERV stands for endogenous retroviruses. They are by definition historical viral infections. Retroviruses cannot replicate themselves. That's why they insert their genome into the hosts' genome. So every time the organism's genome is copied, so is the retrovirus' genome, that's how it replicates. Endogenous means they became part of the genome of the host organism. They have been rendered mute (inactive) so they cannot harm the host anymore yet their 'footprint' is still visible a historical scar in the hosts' genome. We can even spot the incisions made in the genome (Z-like cuts). Chimps and humans share 205 out of 214 ERVs, in the exact same loci of the genome. The odds of it being pure chance = 5.38x10^1418, so luck is out of the question. Common ancestry between humans and chimps is the only explanation that makes sense. The fact that we have some that chimps don't have and vice versa points to the fact that these viral infections occured after we diverged from this common ancestor.

[@Angelmou]

@@lizadowning4389 The user Vesuvandoppelganger posts for years denial of evolution in the comment sections of various videos about biology and cosmology. The channel owner even made a video with the title _Did God put Retrovirus DNA in our genome?_ to address this specific conspiracy mindset already. User like him just ignore observations by just being stubbornly dogmatic. They argue basically that ERVs shall be an active deception by a deity as trickster god to fool all of us - very similar like some cultists do argue that dinosaur fossils would be buried by God to test the faith of humans and they argue the fossils did not belong to living critters in flesh and blood. So there is a group of religious cultists arguing that fossils would be fancy mineral decorations as stone art by a great designer only looking like bones to blind humans in a sinister worldwide sheme. What he does is basically like flatearthers arguing that all photos of dozens of space faring nations about the globe shall be fake by default, that solar eclipses would not mean anything and that when we see ships to move over the horizon at sea that the devil himself always sends a deceptive image of the earth curvature into each eye and each camera lense to fake the globe to trick and blind everyone.

[@walkergarya]

@@vesuvandoppelganger You assert that chimps and humans were seperatly created. Why did your god duplicate these ERVs in both genomes? Why did he not fix the gene that in other mammals produced vitamin C?

[@Moist._Robot]

The ONLY explanation.

[@Raydensheraj]

My preferred version of invisible supernatural super being intelligently designed Crohn's disease and Proteus syndrome....😮😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

what does god need DNA for? and the higgs field? just to make it look like nature did it? and what do tour, meyers, ross and behe hope to demonstrate? are they expecting to find a trademark? their denial of evolution is going to be a big embarrassment when they discover - nature did it not god. if god were real he leaves no evidence - they are required to have faith.

[@OceanusHelios]

Yeah. Saying progeria is a product of intelligent design would be appalling. To date I've not seen anything more cruel or heartbreaking than progeria.

[@joelonsdale]

Motor Neuron Disease is pretty horrific too - obviously designed by an evil nightmare!

[@howardpalys6929]

The Irreducible complexity argument, was totally destroyed in the 2006 Kitzmiller Vs Dover trial.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

Oh, is it Courts (political power) that now have to decide on what is a valid argument?!

[@Angelmou]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 No, the admission of Behe that ID is exactly like astrology at the court and his tries of active denial of the observable precursor forms of the flagella with the f0f1 input and output system to waste ejection with the sting sidelineage to use the waste as poison and the flexibility mutations by name for the different lineages of locomotion (different flg systems) was the point the jury realized the IC crowd is a bunch of conmen to actively hide observations away from the audience with bearing of false witness against hard working biologists. The proponents would not have a chance today with the same tricksery, simply because since 2006 we already did observed flagella to evolve in various bacteria colonies and re-evolve with brother mutations of a disconnected regulatory system: _Evolution of higher torque in Campylobacter-type bacterial flagellar motors Bonnie Chaban et all_ _Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system Tiffany B. Taylor et all_ and several more. Like where the flagella gene info duplicate mutate 100x around the hull as deflector shield (mentioned before) to fight off amoeba predators unable to swallow the boostes wiggly shield. in laboratory to interlock complexity by chance (stochastically) without any ghost hand of any god to intervene anywhere etc. Something ID conmen hide from the laypeople audience, simply because they do everything they can to prohibit that the core of their believes is not dragged into the bright light of the public to be a big nothingburger evaporating.

[@curious968]

@@metapolitikgedanken612 It's not a question of "valid argument." It's a question of unmasking. The case provided evidence that the first "intelligent design" pamphlet was literally made by taking a creation tract and replacing "creationism" with "intelligent design" very crudely. "Intelligent Design", from its birth, was not an intellectual argument. It was an attempt to end run unfavorable court rulings in the United States by changing some magic words. Go read the decision -- it's in there.

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

@@curious968 Well Creation is a form of intelligent design. The text that you wrote just now did that evolve or did you design it intelligently. I'm really not interested in the court room theatrics of this kind of trials anyway. Courts are political arenas, not something to settle the truth on a matter. But apparently lots of morons believe exactly that.

[@lefishe5845]

​@@metapolitikgedanken612its also worth noting in that same court case, the side avocating for irreducable complexity showed studies... that were chopped up to support their belief. Multiple rows and columns in mulitple studies were completely removed to promote a agenda.

[@erichendriks2807]

Very clever and clear presentation!

[@RaymondHebert-o6u]

Selection selects from existing traits. It does not add new ones. Further, even the simplest life forms are infinitely too complex to be formed by natural processes. Further, even the most basic building blocks cannot come about spontaneously.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Sweetiebuns, selection isn't an agent, it's a process. What adds new traits is gene duplication and mutation. Doesn't need magic like your god does. And yes, the basic building blocks of life do occur naturally in the absence of biological organisms. We find them all on meteors. :)

[@Angelmou]

"Selection selects from existing traits." Yeah this is why arrival of traits by info gain mutations of different types such as tandem duplication mutation, retrotransposed duplication mutation, proximal duplication mutation, dispersed duplication mutation, DNA-transposed duplication mutation and of course whole genome duplication mutation like in various plants and fungi. ;-) And the regulation swappes of parts translocated like with Robertsonian translocation for the raw material. " Further, even the simplest life forms are infinitely too complex" Simplest lifeforms have roughly 700kilobyte of genetic complexity. Non living giant DNAviruses have in contrast 2000 kilobyte genetic complexity. " to be formed by natural processes." Abiogenesis models say otherwise. "Further, even the most basic building blocks cannot come about spontaneously." We have photos of Autocatalysis and acid formation so you just bear false witness.

[@zt2max]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki You need more than building blocks Leszek. You need homichiral polymers of amino acids and homochiral polymers of polynucleotides. You also need contingency planning in place to stop caramelisation, Canizzaro effect, and hydrolysis from breaking down peptide bonds. You can find one billion meteors and one billion earths with building blocks on them but they will only give you ordinary chemistry as proven in labs, what they will not do is give you biochemistry. As usual, evolutionists SOUND smart, but they don't really have anything solid.

[@planetdog1641]

@@Angelmou your examples are switching up pre existing traits. No new protein that promotes new structure in organisms has never been observed or identified. It should be obvious in every lab. (Not my knowledge, other Ph D's on the web such as Steven Myer.)

[@Angelmou]

@@planetdog1641 First of all: ALL traits are ALWAYS existing traits reshaped in evolution as the opposite "design" of organs without the ancestral form would just be a direct denial common descent/ancestry. There is for example no human trait which isn't an ape trait deformation ever discovered. The mutation names for human from ape broodstocks like the brain increase are numerous by name like ARHGAP11B (brainstemcell increase), NOTCH2NL (frontbrain increase), SRGAP2C (synapse increase efficiency), FOXP2 (voice modulation), MYH16 (loose of constrictiongrip of muscles around the skull to squeeze it smaller) and many more A fun fact: 1 is actually a degeneration of the ape restriction gene base to prohibit a tumorous/good cancerous wild growth of the prefrontal cortex where in the former function not working for human as further ape deformations - meaning because 1 ape gene mutated to be insufficient to constrict brain size increases we got smarter than our ape cousins for association tasks. It turned out to be efficient and beneficial to be smarter in survival in that matter - while other human traits are info gain mutations like the broadening hip size to give birth to bigger brained/skulled babies in human variations from the ape broodstock with increasing repeats being copy mutated for the enlargement (broadering) of the pelvis structure. This has survival benefits to then have broader hips to squeeze out increased skulls. Not to even speak about the ape fur/mammal fur base genes in humans by their names from the scale base. Of course we have hundreds of de novo proteins and coding structures - beside the ape brain to human brain and consciousness complexity increase the new toxins but also any gain of nutrient complexity, but also new genital shapes in insects and wing forms for different sounds for courtship flights and so on and so on have been observed. Meyer is a journalist (PhD is in philosophy) and he is co-author of the wedge document of a the DI church to promote political theocracy as agenda against the us democratic constitution).

[@diabl2master]

The objective itself undergoes a kind of walk

[@iiddrrii6051]

Great presentation just miss your voice under good audio

[@maylingng4107]

*Irreducible Complexity* Irreducible complexity is a concept advocated by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box to support Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design proponents argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, and therefore an intelligent designer must be responsible. Irreducible complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement. The concept is considered to be total nonsense when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through - it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions. Dr. Kenneth Miller (a practicing Christian) takes Behe’ s nonsense and tears it to shreds. Interesting reading for the curious; poison for creationists. Michael Behe was placed on the witness stand in 2005 (Kitzmiller vs. Dover), where he was totally embarrassed and discredited as he tried to peddle Intelligent Design (and irreducible complexity). He had to admit (his words) that the definition of Intelligent Design would also include astrology (or tarot card reading). Richard Dawkins one of the most accomplished biologists, destroys Behe and slaps him around as the child Behe is.

[@planetdog1641]

Dawkins is rich off of his rhetoric. Not science.

[@maylingng4107]

@@planetdog1641 Professor Dawkins is one of the most educated biologist in the world.

[@planetdog1641]

@@maylingng4107 Any idea which came first? The heart or the lungs? They both work in concert with staggering mathematical precision within the confines of physics and chemistry. That is undisputable. Yet people like Dawkins can't justify a simple observation because if erodes his theory.

[@gatolf2]

The examples given were not irreducibly complex like the bee stinger. The plant can still thrive with dried out veins and the chickens feet and ducks feet are fine with it without the webbing. The whole foot doesn’t lose function because it has less or more webbing. Behe described irreducible complexity as like a mouse trap. One part is missing and the whole thing is useless. The stinger is an example of that and it doesn’t seem to have any function other than being a stinger. Explaining what the stinger system would be used for with one of those parts missing would be a good way to dismantle the argument of irreducible complexity. Not give examples of totally different biological structures that can function with slight variation and subtly accuse Behe and others of using the “god of the gaps” or coming up with this based on not understanding the entire subject.

[@Angelmou]

Irreducible complex systems are defined that you can't take parts out of the running system without breaking/crashing its very function. A good example would be the gliding function of the wallace flying frog, where you can't take out any toe or web without crashing the system and the frog to the ground, while of course it evolved from the swimming web. What many people do not know is that evolution predicts such systems to evolve for over 100 years. A german biologist from the 1910s named Müller summarized the interlocking of such complexity in his papers. This is why long before Behe and IDpeople even did exist Müllerian Interlocking of complexity was already known and ID people are too late to the party, which is over. The train has left the station. The problem ID people like Behe have is that never any IR system was discovered which did not evolve from precursor ancestral form...EVER. Behe's favorite child was the bacterium flagellum where we now already live saw the re-evolution in 3 month in a lab. The stinger in this video is the refunction of the ovipositor function. Function swappes are an observation where the ID worldview must backpaddle and downplay the gravity of it, while they are completely empty handed. ID people in general have also a huge problem anyway, as they imply that the _to design / to create_ activity would be older in time than life diversification. The huge problem is that the order of history can't just be denied by mere human desperation. In reality did lifeforms diversify already for millions over millions of years before any to create and to design activity originated. What they want is the denial of reality and the order of history with magic&miracles (religious claims) in topics without any faith claims, but only cold and mundane observations.

[@gatolf2]

@@Angelmou all they did was delete one single protein (FleQ) and didn’t mention that NtrC is similar enough to re introduce the flagellum. This if called desperately reaching and the ID community didn’t have to back peddle anything. Evolution, yet again, lacks the explanatory power.

[@Angelmou]

@@gatolf2 Your last post is actually an admission of homolog repurposement - something where your previous post did suggest that it ain't possible, while it is an numerously repeated observation in nature. This is why interlocking of complexity is an observation and ít was a prediction from a time before Behe was even born(!) Same goes for de novo protein gene observations you skipped where at research publications you get hundreds of papers. This is why actual desperation comes from your place, not mine. In my last post (a bit above) I gave the concrete example of the explanatory power about the 4x hox copy for the limbs to be exact digit number lobe finned fish variations with the mentioned enhancers and exact gene + and - development READABLE in each human being (and any other land vertebrate). As it is no arbitrary number of ray finned ones or some other lobe finned lineage number, as it is from 1 VERY specific lobe finned fish broodstock as ancestral base info, which is not explainable by creation believes without active deceive intent by a trickster deity. Similar where people think dinosaur bones were buried by the devil or some trickery belief. Evolution has there the actual explanatory power over the exact lobe finned fish ancestral info in humans and all other land vertebra. It is similar why creationists want created kinds in hebrew: בָּרָא "he created" מיִן "kind" with concrete examples like the clean dove kind in the book of genesis on the ark to fly away and back with a twig in the dove beak why its pigeoness and birdness shall be a deception there as a common bird broodstock base with the saurian teeth genes and clawgenes as repurposement base for the birdwings and beak mouth base. Evolution has the explanatory power why a dove is actually a bird and a sauropsid and a diapsid and predicts in bird species we never genetically analyzed that we find in their DNA as heridity record the saurian base info again. Also is the sharing of scars in the DNA by retroviruses. This means all birds share more ERVs in the DNA with crocodiles and alligators because the last common archosaur ancestor had the scars as baggage and inherited it in both bloodlines - the dino and therefore bird bloodline and the crocodilomorphs. You also speak something about here: " ID community didn’t have to back peddle anything" ID is a community of people in denial of the young origin of the _to design and to create_ activities in historical time periods AFTER thinking organs (called brains) already evolved a certain amount of complexity. This means activities such as the activity _to swim_ in the paleozoic oceans performed by ancient jellyfish are way older in time - in fact hundreds of millions of years older before the very first design and very first creation was ever performed. The ID crowd is with their denial for emotional religious reasons the same "kind" of people who deny the geometric shape of our planet for the wacky idea that you are then free in your personal faith that the Earth could be a cube or plane or pyramid. This is of course denial of how gravity and planetary formation works beside of the repeatable observations. ID is a community of the denial of the young age of historically young activities for the wacky idea that you have then freespace to belief in Jesus-fiddled-cells together and the religious image gives-you-meaningfulness feelings-in-your-heart and other emotional rubbish. This is not going to work.

[@gatolf2]

@@Angelmou there’s a reason why the person in the video explained this away by using a more simplistic structure and didn’t actually address how the bee stinger came to be. I watched the whole thing. If it was already studied and “predicted” by evolution, then they should have already found an answer. Repurposing is an answer to a similar issue than the one that Behe has raised. They’re almost not even the same issue. The rest of your reply was some kind of off topic about flat earth and the devil hiding dinosaur bones. Let’s try to keep it serious here 😂 I hear enough of the sky daddy type language. It just comes from a lack of answers from your side and understanding.

[@Angelmou]

@@gatolf2 We can talk about the evolution of the flagellum with the exact names of the mutations like in figure 1 of lineages in _Evolution of higher torque in Campylobacter-type bacterial flagellar motors_ Or the F0f1 input output system with the enlongation for the waste injection as poison in plague lineages or with the flexibility mutation for the locomotion. It is all an old hat. So come on we can talk about the debunking of Behe's claims by the observations. Lets tackle the exact names and side variations and intermediates.

[@Mefbuz]

Great lecture, thank you!

[@RaymondHebert-o6u]

Evolution is magic. This belief system ascribed all features and functions of an organ as though evolution did it, and speaks not at all in refutation of IR, ID, or of creation. The things that the Creator has done with his creatures is truly astounding.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Nope, but your god is a wizard!

[@AMC2283]

No afterlife if you’re just an evolved organism and you can’t face reality, sound about right?

[@Angelmou]

"Evolution is magic." Since when are observable and testable breeding and heridity laws and mechanism "magic"? Because you want to bear false witness about the topic? "This belief system ascribed all features and functions of an organ as though evolution did it," We can show how organs evolved like the sting from the oviduct organ or how penguin flippers evolved from birdwing organs versus hooffeet flippers in whales. "and speaks not at all in refutation of IR, ID, or of creation." The activity _to create & to design_ did not exist in the distant past as life was already diversifying. The activity _to swim_ for example is hundreds of millions of years older in origin than any create activity. "The things that the Creator has done with his creatures is truly astounding." There is no such thing as a creator.

[@walkergarya]

Your denial of the evidence and ignorance of science does not refute that science.

[@Fatherfractal]

There's two types of scientists, the ones who do believe in a creator and one's that don't, the ones that do are blown away by everything they look at and the ones that don't are saying where is this evidence whilst looking at the evidence.

[@Angelmou]

This is not how truth works, how science works and how explanations work.

[@curious968]

Think about what you are saying here. You're saying that if you _assume_ there is a creator, you find evidence for it. If you don't believe ahead of time, you don't find any evidence. We don't say that about, for instance, gravity. Nobody has to "believe" in gravity to find ample evidence of it. Gravity is convincing whatever we believe in advance. You drop things, they fall. Assuming no mental defect, you eventually catch on. God is not like that by your own admission. It suggests a problem with the state of the evidence. Also, you haven't dealt with the problem that those who presume Allah is the creator find evidence for Allah and not the Christian God. What's up with that? How come they never find evidence against Allah and for the Christian version even though they are almost the same God?

[@Fatherfractal]

It cant be explained. Look how important bee's are to the eco system for one instance, just another coincidence ? that they wear a high vis jacket and are armed.​@@Angelmou

[@Fatherfractal]

I don't listen to other people when it comes to the God question, they are just people.​@@curious968

[@Angelmou]

@@Fatherfractal Bees are of course important for the ecosystems after flowering plants (angiosperms) evolved. That is why the wasp ancestry did not have any such species variety before flowering buds developed in the jurassic and why you won't find any bees or wasps in burials of the paleozoic time periods. You need to understand how time periods and evolution works: Quaternary 2.6 to 0 million years ago (Modern humans appear here - most mega faunas like mammoth died out, the last terrorbirds, sabretooth cats etc. disappear at the end of the time period) Neogene 23 to 2.6 million years ago (Grassplants are dominating wide steppes, Apes have chimps and humans and bonobos as variations here, the ice age huge mammals establish with cycles) Paleogene 66 to 23 million years ago (Mammals start to rule the landmasses, primates have a lot of species, elephant forms develop from small Proboscidea, some hoof mammals adapt to water lifestyle like whales first only in beachcolonies similar to seals today and in african structures the dugong adapt to the water lifestyle and terrorbirds hunt small ancestors of horses which were the size of much later tabbycats) Cretaceous ~145 to 66 million years ago (Flowering plants start to dominate the plant on earth the bees and wasps get a huge variety of species, Beakbird establish while teethbird have a huge variety of species. The first actual lobsters appear from shrimplike ancestry. Dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles like Mosasaurs died out at the end of it due to asteroid crash) Jurassic 201.4 to 145 million years ago (First mammals and first birds do establish here. High ruling time of most dinosaur species including huge long neck sauropods. The Ichthyosaurs ruling the waters start to vanish in the end. Fist flowering plants appear wasps have bees as variations) Triassic 251.9 to 201.4 million years ago (Dinosaurs appear from the former surviving archosaur variations, Pistosaurs evolve to plesiosaurs, first ichtyosaurs in the water adapt with migrating noseholes similar like much later hoof mammals adapt to whales. Oldest established moths ave first butterflies as variations.) Permian 298.9 to 251.9 million years ago (Archosaurs and synapsidian mammal ancestors rule the land - last trilobites die out at the end and 90% of all former marine lifeforms vanish from marine layers in younger burials due to the siberian trap vulcanoes thousands of dominating species cease to exist.) Carboniferous 358.9 to 298.9 million years ago (Amphibians dominate here and resist longer dry periods - first collapse of the very first rainforests lead to extinction of numerous established lifeforms.) Devonian 419.2 to 358.9 million years ago (Huge insects and first tetrapods starting to conquer the land, trees develop and the soil development took place. Kellwasser event extinction of cooling climate) Silurian 443.8 to 419.2 million years ago (Tracheophytes plant spread on land. Genetic clock indicates springtails and insects establish as 6 leg crustatean variations. More speciated Jawfish outcompete squids and scorpions. Now fish hunt the other sea critters. Scorpions adapt to the land) Ordovician 485.4 to 443.8 million years ago (Giant cephalopods and 8 legged crustacean sea scorpions variations compete with eachother in ocean for domination, fish have at the beginning as minor role mostly as food for squids. Mass extinction of hundreds of species of bryozoan and brachiopots in the ocean extinction event) Cambrian 538.8 to 485.4 million years ago (Massive radiation of wormlike animals with shells. Ruling trilobytes. Apex predators of velvet worm related shelled predators like Anomalocaris and Timorebestia ruled the oceans) Ediacaran 635 to 538.8 million years ago (First actual landfungi fossil remains, First jellyfish and worms and radiation of already existing sponges establish in the oceans, various animal bodyshapes which were outcompeted in the end.) Cryogenian 720 to 635 million years ago (First Lichen algae symbionts spread on land at the end of the period, first fossils that can be interpreted as sponge animal precursor formation) Tonian 1000 to 720 million years ago (First animal cell clusters and their cousins the choanoflagellatea establish from choanozoa cell ancestry, first greater diversification of cell types in multicell organism) Stenian 1200 to 1000 million years ago (Choanozoa cells establish as variations of Holozoa eukaryote cells) Ectasian 1400 to 1200 million years ago (Genetic clock of air adaptation indicates fungi spread already on landmasses) Calymmian 1600 to 1400 million years ago (Other lineage of Eukaryote cells also with mitochondria (amorphea) have fungi as 1 variations alongside of amoeba cousins and holozoa cells; first idication of multicellularity of eukaryotes in the fossil record and independently by genetic clock estimation) Statherian 1800 to 1600 million years ago (Some eukaryrote cells with mitochondria cells in them also went to a second symbiosis between cyanobacteria to form proto algae and much later plant ancestry to allow the so-called autotrophic lifestyle) Orosirian 2050 to 1800 million years ago (Eukaryote cells evolve from earler Archaen most likely from Asgardian-archeaen cells due to mitochondria cell symbiosis of the mitochondria alphaproteobacterial ancestor, indication of first capacities of sexualreproduction called oogamy) Rhyacian 2300 to 2050 million years ago (Iron deposits in use of cells, development of some iron trigger protein binds from less efficient primitive cell metabolism due to genetic clock analysis, nucleus cell core establishment) Siderian 2500 to 2300 million years ago (aerobic metabolism of cyanobacteria evolved) Neoarchean 2800 to 2500 million years ago (actual oxygenic photosynthesis evolved in cyanobacteria) Mesoarchean 3200 to 2800 million years ago (first known glaciation of parts of earth and diversification of archaea and bacteria, anoxygenic photosynthesis appears) Paleoarchean 3600 to 3200 million years ago (ealiest archaean and bacteria variations of even earlier cell ancestry) Eoarchean 4031 Mya to 3600 million years ago (last universal cell ancestor LUCA establishes somewhere in this time period (most likely 3,8 billion years ago) most likely from even earler ribocyte protocell ancestry (RNA to DNA reductasis) Hadean 4567.3 ± 0.16 - 4031 million years ago (Earth & moon formation and cooling periods)

[@RickMason-yj7pv]

Lucretius said man evolved from 'the beasts of the fields'. Charles grandfather Erasmus believed in evolution. The mechanics and reason behind it were missing factors.

[@speaklifegardenhomesteadpe8783]

I appreciate many of your videos. I just pray your eyes and heart are open to truth. Enropy destroys evolution.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

How we have a sun and geothermal vents?

[@LeLennoshe]

Entropy doesn't even apply to earth nor living things... entropy not only does not "destroy evolution"... it CAN'T

[@andaIusich]

It's not a coincidence that when you type irreducible complexity on youtube, all videos promoting it are hidden while those against it are in plain sight. They wouldn't censor it if they didn't think irreducible complexity is a problem. The fact they censor it, tells you everything you need to know.

[@TTTristan1]

Or is a niche hypothesis created and endorsed by conspiracy theorists, and so few people hold it as truth that its debunking is more popular than the hypothesis itself. Like flat earth, but a bit more intellectual lol

[@bengreen171]

yeah - I can't help feeling the Lion King would have been a very different experience if it had been about wasps.

[@b-m605]

"Maybe... maybe...marbe..maybe...maybe....maybe...maybe... maybe,,,,,maybe...maybe..maybe...maybe....maybe...maybe... maybe, we don't know. But that's how it happened"

[@AMC2283]

what an inane way of saying evolution is just against your religion

[@b-m605]

@@AMC2283 maybe. I just noticed how often he said maybe. That indicates he has no idea. Maybe you should have another listen. Maybe I'm on to something. Maybe he's just propping up his religous faith. Evolution is a creation myth for atheists. Maybe, maybe the key to you getting a different perspective.

[@AMC2283]

@@b-m605 evolution is the process of hereditary change, it’s exhaustively verified. This isn’t about one bad video, evolution threatens your concept of an afterlife, isn’t that the real objection?

[@Angelmou]

@@b-m605 "Maybe...maybe" Is how scientists formulate their case as it always need to be open for new information (falsification criteria). In reality he does not need to be as careful but it makes him a good scientist. For example the human reproduction model shows how mothers give birth to children we have video footage from hospitals about mothers having children and so on. However a good scientist does not exclude that one day someone could come by with 1 case where a stork could deliver a baby, while the probability that this is going to happen is at the current knowledge "neglectable". It could also be the case that we live in the matrix and therefore outside the computer program babies would be delivered by storks and only inside the matrix as delusion it works like it is described by human reproduction model with mother. Aka you need ALWAYS to be open for any new info to go against the theory of human reproduction, while a good scientist could never say dogmatically "it never happens" as he sticks to the open mindness of the falsification criteria (Karl Popper). This is the opposite of being dogmatic or religious. I'm less careful for that matter when you write nonsense like quote " Evolution is a creation myth for atheists." Creation comes from _to create_ which is a young activity in time that originated millions of years after life already existed. That is why any opinion which would involve this idea not a legit opinion as it is just a denial of the order of history. Evolution is a term for known and observable breeding and heridity laws. Not only how wolves evolved to 250 dog breeds but also speciation like Equus to the horse species, the 3 zebra species and the wildass/donkey species. It sheds a light how 1 older ape broodstock had various ape adaptatons like chimpanzees and bonobos and humans as the 3 ape adaptations.

[@ReapingTheHarvest]

"You can easily imagine."

[@joelschachter6755]

I'm always amazed how people obsess the complexity of the eye, when the amazing splendor of the endoplasmic reticulum, or any odd membrane protein, is so fascinating, and not point to that as proof of divine creation. But, yeah, the eye. hehehe😀

[@Angelmou]

Maybe some did read farther than the introduction already with Charles Darwin's old book where he already presented the eye intermediates in his introduction arguments, where creationists have usually the audacity to quotemine Darwin in cutting out his extensive answer to the eye problem he himself introduces. So instead of the creationists who are 170 years+ behind or run away from the chapter after the introduction, those who would mention cell organelles are just like 100+ years behind current understanding.

[@janzmudzki3293]

same bzdury,bez dowodów i konkretów

[@0607guy]

This guy does not explain irreducible complexity. It's just making a whole lot of assumptions.

[@easyminimal_6130]

You're one of the few evolutionists that intellectually tackle Behe; & are respectful about it... awesome🙌 But, it appears Dr. Behe covered all the bases... You're entire presentation here is what Behe calls a "𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒚" aka 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 pathway- not the actual pathway This is the same thing that's done with the evolution of the eye - different kinds of eyes on different unrelated organisms are lined up to sort of prove eye evolution Firstly, this linear depiction (adaptive walk) is contrived & one system can't be tied the next one, let alone the previous one. Add to that that each of those systems could be irreducibly complex themselves And what I could immediately tell was that the grasshopper scrapers/nubs kind of made a leap into a fully-functional (irreducible complex😉) Katydid ovipositor complete with pump mechanisms, fluids & even the "digging structures". Obviously there's a few steps you missed in showing how it evolved but you fairly point out that this is "probably" how you "imagine" they evolved

[@thehowlingjoker]

You know that Behe tried to argue for irreducible complexity in a court of law and lost "Kitzmiller v Dover". Did you know that Behe, and the Discovery Institute he works for were caught admitting that they create such things to deliberately undermine science education in America. We know this from the leaked Wedge Document and that they were caught replacing the words like "Creationism" and "Creator" with "intelligent design" and "intelligent agent" in books like Of Panda And People. They also don't actually back any of their claimed "science" with actual scientific works, they usually just print pieces in their websites and at best sometimes their own journal for "Creation Science". Behe's whole job is to lie to people like you, they are not people to be trusted. "You're entire presentation here is what Behe calls a "𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒚" aka 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 pathway- not the actual pathway" He says this about any system, even if we have evidence for the stages, since it isn't "absolute evidence" he denies it as imagined. Thankfully, science isn't that stupid. Plus he doesn't care. People have managed to meet the burden of his mousetrap challenge and he just denies that too and shifts the goalposts.

[@khalidkhatri100]

👌🏻

[@Angelmou]

""𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒚" aka 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 pathway" Only that the gene mutation names are there known (observations people like Behe or you do not not want to address the names like variation of the gs9 mutations and so on) so that human imagination freedom is simply not allowed to even exist in the topic. This is the funny thing when you write something like: "kind of made a leap" when you merely wish that your faith could be secured, while reality is simply not allowing human worldview freedom there without a human actively deciding for dishonesty. Your post is basically an appeal of a false sense of security.

[@curious968]

I'm surprised creationists are still at this one. We proved _in the 1980s_ that the eye evolved at least 60 different times. That was before we started sequencing genomes so that we could see the intermediate steps in the genome as well as "line them up in nature". Really, eye evolution is about the driest hole for creationists to plumb. They keep at it simply because (I presume) they can sucker the ignorant into nodding their head. It certainly _is not_ about the state of the evidence, which was decisive 40 years ago.

[@Angelmou]

@@curious968 creationists are denialists of observations with fabricating guard tales for their emotions. this is why one of Behe's fanboys reacted by modern footage of evolved flagella in lab and single to multicells in more than 1 lab with "Yeah now we observe this how flagella in this bacteria evolved on camera and those single cells now evolved to multicells... but how can you be so sure it also happened in the past that way with those other cells...where you there????" All types of apologetics (finding excuses/apologies for something extraordinary) rely on mislead, deceit or being flat out mistaken about great many things. This is not special to creationism. I even found a flatearther who argued with the bible that the Earth must have been flat, because Jesus was put on a high mountain in the gospels to see all kingdoms of the earth, which is impossible on a globe as only on a flat plane makes it possible (in his opinion). By me pointing out that we have globe photos the flatearther argued: _Well now the world might be a globe_ (while he was not convinced that photos are real) but he asked me _"where you there at Jesus' time to confirm the shape of the planet back the day?_ _maybe in the meanwhile a miracle took place! Can you exclude a miracle reshaped in an unobserved past the earth or maybe the earthquake happening at Golgatha mentioned in the bible just... reshaped the flat pencake to a ball we see today from before it was flat._ Me pointing out that this would have destroyed the world by how physics and planetary mechanism even work was not convincing for him, exactly like Behe & his fanboys won't be convinced by genetic facts. The mindset behind is just being irrational. It is actually identical to the excuses psychiatry patients invent why the doctos and nurses shall all be robots or why they must be mistaken when they argue that Napoleon is long dead, when the patient sees himself as Napoleon. Because the topic is not about what is true. It is about to fabricate an artificial bubble of a complete false sense of security for falsely imprinted emotions towards tales (In the ID case: hidden teleological masterplan conspiracy, human shall not be mammals conspiracy etc.) Imagine for a moment how gigantic the mental stubborness and gymnastics truly are to just try to handwave all the transitional australophticine and hominid findings away incl. the DNA comparison between the great apes. You really need to sit in a room and scratch your head with a lot of criminal energy and mulishness like "hmmm how can I just pretend chromosome fusion number 2 does not mean anything the best way?...what do I truly need to pretend 98% of genetic sharing of chimps and humans shall not mean anything and how can I sell it best to my partners in crime?" If you are already deep down the rabbit hole honesty was never even remotely any goal - making up wacky excuses to guard a false mindset is the main issue to channel criminal energy.

[@FestinaFirefly]

His arguments & examples are simply "just so" stories. Very cute and superficially persuasive, but they all skip over that each special adaptation presupposes ID. Sure, stinger B evolved from stinger A. But the complexity of stingers in general cannot ne explained by purely random evolution. Wallace knew this and published a whole book on it.

[@MrAwombat]

Not sure this really addresses irreducible complexity. This just assumes evolution and uses that to prove itself. Circular reasoning.

[@AMC2283]

IC isn't a thing--evolution isn't the gestation process

[@MrAwombat]

@CDK008-hm3ue I think in some of cases functional precursors are a good explanation, but in some cases individual elements would make a trait less fit overall. I guess my point is there are a lot cases of irreducible complexity and this video was very dismissive of the entire category without very much evidence. It's not a bad theory for bee stingers, but not a slam dunk.

[@zt2max]

@CDK008-hm3ue Mrawombat the problem with your argument is that it only focuses on one element of design which is irreducible complexity. Life still is overqualified as design by all the other features of design such as specified complexity, (which is more important), contingency planning, correct materials, clever innovations to innate problems, integration of systems, etc, etc...to believe this all is just evolution I am sorry to say, was never science, just the credulity of scientists that desired a Godless answer to an overt creation.

[@lefishe5845]

​@@zt2max You wonder why everything is fit for the earth we are on right now? Well its because it evolved on that same earth! It might be hard to understand how everything came to be exactly how it is now, but thats because examining a single creature ignores the greater web of evolutionary pressures surrounding this ecosystem, and how everything interacts with its surroundings.

[@jerehaw]

This video series helped me understand the origins and relevance of Natural Selection in a broader sense. I learned a lot more about the mechanism of evolution theory kzbin.info/www/bejne/n17Pgn57iJ2jgLM

[@PeterAtWork430]

There is a microphone right there, take a direct feed off it and match it to the video, would be a much better listen.

[@alexb2082]

But where is the Q&A? Aww.😢

[@martindebouck1013]

Marvellous presentation about unmistakable evidence for micro-evolution ( which is another word for variation within a species )! To my knowledge there is no hard proof though for macro-evolution. The famous 'tree of evolution' is nothing more than wishful thinking, extrapolating on the mechanism of micro-evolution.

[@AMC2283]

there's simply no sense in you being ok with evolution but not evolution

[@mutwa_0]

Problem is that macro evolutionists dont understand the arguments against Darwins origin of species.

[@AMC2283]

@@mutwa_0 what’s that, your god did it?

[@edmondantes4338]

_"To my knowledge there is no hard proof though for macro-evolution."_ Depends what you mean by hard proof. We have absolutely conclusive genetic and fossil evidence of it and we have just as much hard evidence against the main competing theory (young earth creationism). However since full speciation would require several thousand years at least we have never observed it in real time from start to finish. We can however observe the intermediate stages, that's what subspecies and ring species are.

[@AMC2283]

@@edmondantes4338 don’t play their stupid game. Observable isn’t some biologist watching for millennia. It’s physical evidence.

[@donwilson8872]

I don’t think my Dog believes in God, I can’t be sure but I haven’t had an intelligent enough conversation with him on the subject. I do though think that sometimes he looks at me as if I’m God but I don’t really think he has thought it through. Just like most of the evolutionists on this chat. All of you, do not wish to believe in God, you will never entertain any argument in favour of creation. Without looking at any evidence you first decide there is no God then you try and make anything fit. To the point where you can’t even remember that evolution is a theory and you inexplicably refer to it as a fact. You still hang your hat on Darwin (excuse me while I laugh) what a rusty nail that is……….and you call those who believe in God ignorant……..me…..I prefer to think for myself, I use logic, study and evidence…..an alien concept to most of you.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***natural selection is a factor not bthe main reason for evolution***

[@a2sbestos768]

Hmm, a bee stinger. Sounds kinda interesting

[@a2sbestos768]

Ohhh, this blew up a bit. Heck ye!!

[@ReapingTheHarvest]

All hail the magical exploding dot that magically evolved into everything. We shall call it science.

[@Angelmou]

Do you deny that we can observe the rapid expansion of the space time? Are you aware that you yourself at home can observe the Big bang? Like with the old analogue TVs where the snow static and the annoying "CRRRR" noise you hear is mostly the big bang observation in your own home.

[@RickMason-yj7pv]

Darwin is MY GOD.

[@crabb9966]

Irreducible complexity remains a strong argument for me, I don't see why you dismiss it on the basis that you did. I don't think you refuted it at all. But at least I gave you a chance!

[@AMC2283]

Evolution isn’t the gestation process, IC criticizes precisely nothing the theory of evolution predicts.

[@crabb9966]

@@AMC2283 elaborate. It does criticize evolution as a matter of fact, but you can think of it as erroneous if you want.

[@AMC2283]

@@crabb9966 the criticism is if you start removing parts the organism dies, therefore it couldn’t have survived the evolution process of millions of years waiting for parts to grow. Except evolution is the process of hereditary change, not a construction or gestation process.

[@crabb9966]

@@AMC2283 that's a simplified version of it. In the cells we see evolution is impossible to have happened blindly.

[@AMC2283]

@@crabb9966 So now your religion teaches that evolution is true but your god guides it?

[@kellydalstok8900]

I think it is wrong to respect religion, as it is based on claims without evidence. It should be treated like every other superstition. You wouldn’t extend the same curtesy to people who believe in unicorns, fairies and leprechauns, now would you.

[@AMC2283]

well, no human is completely rational all the time, atheist or religious, scientist or chef

[@SpriteGuard]

... yeah, I would. 'cause they're people, and deserving of respect. Of course I would. Wouldn't you? Is your respect for fellow humans so thin as that, to be torn by something as harmless as a quirky belief? Like, you're not even talking about harmful beliefs, you're just talking about oddities. Respect isn't hard and it doesn't cost you anything, why withhold it for such petty things?

[@blupandax7902]

Yet atheists believe in magical firecrackers (big bang) which can make universes explode from nothing? Yeah okay 😂

[@blupandax7902]

@@SpriteGuardthank you, I appreciate what you said.

[@andrewwood3597]

@@SpriteGuard You shouldn't respect people who are trying to to make you believe something they have no evidence for.

[@samlazar1053]

In American democratic society its the Survival of the most Oppressed and Survival of the Victim

[@DocReasonable]

Hitler hated the idea of evolution and ordered the burning of all of Darwin's books. “Nazi racial ideology was creationist. Hitler considered that the different human races had been created separately. The Aryan race was the “master” race, created as “God’s highest handiwork”, the other races (Jewish, Black, Slav, etc) were literally “sub-human”. The races had been created by God in their current form (humans had not evolved from other animals).” -Professor Coel Hellier

[@flyinghorseknuckles]

This was an outstanding oversimplification of the Herculean amounts of random change that must take place for novel biological machinery to appear. ADAPTATION, not evolution, is prominent in all DNA driven entities. Built into every type of genome is a wide spectrum of allowable variances that enable a creature to adapt when necessary, then return to center if and when the causes for the variant are no longer present. Pepper Moths...

[@Angelmou]

"This was an outstanding oversimplification of the Herculean amounts of random change that must take place for novel biological machinery to appear." only that it isn't, as novel biological machinery is *always* a variation of already pre-existing former forms. That is the very point. There was never a system in any lifeform discovered that would count as truly novel or as a design signal what anti-evolution people do demand in their believes. We do not for example find all of a sudden underwater respiratory organs in whales or seasnakes or crocodiles or seafowls or seaturtles or seaotters or pinnipeds or manetees etc. Because such novel organ system would then not have former existing tissues or info to repurpose. In reality evolution operates by local optima not by "total random happenstances let jump out XYZ without common ancestral info for that particular feature". That is why common ancestry can't be ignored, just because people don't like it. "ADAPTATION, not evolution, is prominent in all DNA driven entities." Evolution is adaptation: That is the very reason why humans are the ape adaptation to the open savannah lifestyle of the same ape broodstock where chimps are still jungle adaptations. This is how speciation works like Equus to the mountain desert adaptation as wildass/donkey species, the great steppe adaptation as horse species and the 3 zebra species adaptation to the savannah lifestyle. Fun fact: By centromeric balance mutations different chromosome numbers appear and makes the new species unable to crossbreed with fertile offspring of the former broodstocks and their cousin species. Mountain zebras for example have 32 chromosomes, Plain zebras 44 chromosomes and Grevy's Zebra 46. African donkeys have 62, Modern horse breeds have 64 , Feral Przewalski horses have 66 and Asian Onagers have 56 and the Kulan has 54 and the Northern and Southern Kiang has 48 and 52. This is why zebra hybrids and zonkeys and zorses and mules are infertile without further grandchildren capacities. This is why whales are hoof artiodactyla mammals to the water lifestyle while seals are the canineformia water lifestyle adaptation as they are closer cousins to wolf and fox and dhole ancestry which remained on land. "Built into every type of genome is a wide spectrum of allowable variances that enable a creature to adapt when necessary," This is not how the deathtoll forces survivors with fitting mutations to have more offspring so that they adapt by death of the not fitt enough before being mating partners to the everchanging circumstances. Also we have mummies and teeth of stoneage wolves to show they did not have a hidden spectrum for dogs. We can read that. If you however just want to argue yeah well it based anyway always on what was already there - then congratulation that is common ancestry where never a creator fiddles into the existing animals as miracles of foreign info needed to be put into a lifeform is not necessary. As none of all existing lifeforms ever needed any foreign new info. "then return to center if and when the causes for the variant are no longer present. Pepper Moths..." This is not how pepper moth population dynamics work. If 1 form has less offspring but the other stock characteristic does not go exinct they can re-dominate a population by the fragmented remaining stock to take over to have just much more offspring statistically again if a certain characteristic does drive with a selection pressure to the former dominating stock traits (changing deathtoll pressure) .

[@AMC2283]

Ooooh ok so it can happen, it just can’t be random, your god has to sign off on it.

[@ic3clop533]

20:11

[@jonelrender3260]

Ha, ha, l thought Charlie had left the room long ago. Some habits are hard to shake.

[@freznelite]

Exaptation is a nonintuitive but interesting hypothesis for the mechanism of adaptation. However, this is a long cry from proving that Evolution actually is able to blindly create the necessary gene sequence required for these mechanisms, and this explanation does not actually address the underlying irreducible complexity. The gene record connecting Alleles to Brand New Genes in steps of less than 50 monomers is something we MUST show to prove Classical Evolution is the essential underlying mechanism and Not something else. Can a geneticist please furnish the necessary Gene Record connecting any one species of animal to another with a common ancestor? If indeed we share a common ancestor, then there should be a common connection between any gene in any organism using a long trace of short steps. My hypothesis is, that we will not be able to connect even half of 1% of the E Coli genome to every other gene in steps of 50 monomers or less. In fact, I’ll bet you couldn’t even connect ten genes from Synthia (450 base pairs) to each other in steps of 50 or less.

[@AMC2283]

keep talking scientifically like you can rationally conclude your god did it.

[@freznelite]

@@AMC2283 If evolution is so easy, show me one instance where we scientifically observe speciation in a laboratory setting. I am not interested in adaptation, nor superficial modification. Give me one proven instance of speciation.

[@AMC2283]

@@freznelite feel free to google the evolutionary path of any species known to man

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Good grief. Even a simple google search for "laboratory speciation" gives loads of results. Here's the opening statement from wiki: "Laboratory experiments of speciation have been conducted for all four modes of speciation: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric; and various other processes involving speciation: hybridization, reinforcement, founder effects, among others. Most of the experiments have been done on flies, in particular Drosophila fruit flies.[1] However, more recent studies have tested yeasts, fungi, and even viruses." If you cannot even bother doing an exceedingly simple search which took me a couple of minutes, before spouting online, what's your point in posting at all?

[@Angelmou]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki Creationists ain't interested in different observations of different types of speciation FOR REAL. This is just a charade. They are denialists of reality especially the order of historical events and therefore reality itself. So do they want that the _to create_ activity shall be _older in time_ than for example first jellyfish and the time where jellyfish did perform the swimming activity in cambrian oceans. In reality the swimming activity existed long before the create activity originated. It is like you would talk with a guy who stomps to the ground because he wants that Julius Ceasar did fly into battles of the ancient roman empire via airplane and did not ride into them on horseback. Because he want to push the lie that planes would be older in time than horse taming/riding is old in history. Creationists do so to create a false meaning in their life feeling - especially when they think that their life is finite. No afterlife if they are just another evolved mammal alongside horses and lemurs. So they lie about their mortality as they lie about the order of history as they lie about genetics or about observations of speciation and so on. For example when you point out further insect speciation of some flies all creationists will try their very best to bear false witness about the particular topic as well. Either to downplay the speciation observations with dull slogans like "its still a fly and not a hippopotamus", BUT especially they avoid to answer the crucial question why the fruitfly and also wasps and a ladybug are all still insects and also still arthopods like the evolutionary law of monophyla forces them to be for the same reason an elephant and a human are still mammals. The background is the direct literal reading (evangelical ideology) of the biblical text (they usually try to deny even the name of christ in that matter to fake a false sense of neutrality if you ask them about their true religious reasons why they bear so much false testimony about these topics) - aka when the book of genesis talks about baramin = bará (בָּרָא‎, he/the lord created) and min ( מִין‎, "kind") with very concrete text examples in genesis like the dove kind as clean kind on the imaginative ark of noah to fly away and back with a twig in the dove beak. Or at other occations the "bald locust kind" and "grasshopper kind" in both leviticus and also in deuteronomy. The self declared bible literalist/creationist must imagine that either a deity did spoke magically a dove (or bald locust in that matter) out of thin air into being or he did glue a dove like a puzzle assembler from dislocated pieces together all to fake the pigeoness and birdness of the dove as great deception. Or in the case of the bald locust "kind" or the fruit flies to fake their insectness as just more giant deceptions too. Worship of the great deceiver. In reality dinosaurs had teethbirds and then beakbirds as further speciated variations till you have today roughly 12,000 species of birds evolved from a common therapod dinosaur ancestor (more bird species variety than the roughly 6,800 species of mammals as variety in contrast). In creationism they can't admit why birds are still birds as the bible give way to specific examples by name like the dove kind and a little owl kind or the raven kind and so on. While in reality any doves or owls or ravens are of course evolved from common ancestry and 20,000 species of orthoptera insects are there locust species. The DI church incl. Behe have a long list of bearing of false witness about great many things. Be it hiding benign mutations by names in sheets of bear evolution, the observation of de novo genes or the upright walking of ape to human transitional forms like Lucy where they also hide other upright walking australophticine specimen like Kadanuumuu, where they try fake a telltale that Lucy would be the only Australophiticine. They also ignore the ape gene base in human DNA by their names anyway incl. chromosome number 2 fusion and so on and so forth.

[@martindebouck1013]

I understand your position and I grant the evolutionary view, on the surface, sounds reasonable...no question about it. Still...it is and will always remain an interpretation, a solid guess. The same holds true for the creation-model. Both models have their proponents, and their phd- scientists who can defend their model with solid arguments. Question is what presuppositions one adopts, that lead one to choose between the two.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

One yec and evolution r not equal and being a Christian is required to believe in yec not evolution. Don't be a presuppositionlist

[@keepingup2952]

Jon Perry, your lack of description of the mechanism that inserts sequences into a haploid genome and getting passed on to offspring shows that you don't know cell biolgy. The sequence has to be present on both gametes in the same exact locus, or synapsis wil not initiate and there will be no pregnancy.

[@StatedCasually]

Hmm, you seem to have crossed a few concepts here. Here's a quick refresher: 1. A new genetic sequence (a new allele) only needs to be in one gamete to be inherited. 2. Having two different versions of a gene (or even indels) on homologous chromosomes is called being heterozygous. 3. Not only is heterozygosity common, it's important for genetic diversity and good health. A lack of heterozygosity can be a sign of inbreeding and can cause recessive disorders. 4. Synapsis happens during meiosis, not fertilization, and it’s about pairing homologous chromosomes, not identical sequences. 5. The length of the sequences doesn't need to match up perfectly for synapsis to occur. Differences in sequences don’t stop synapsis or pregnancy.

[@keepingup2952]

​@@StatedCasually Your description of "concepts" is blurred when you equate an allele with an insertion mutation on a haploid chromosome, and I believe that's because your mind is sequestered by the still unconcluded 1982 idea that there was a chromosomal fusion in a great ape offspring that led to humans. I never mentioned allelic variance caused by a substitution mutation (which would make it a "new genetic sequence" as you put it You're not following the rules of Cell Biology. If there are any indels on a haploid chromosome, they do not get passed on. Those gametes cause failed pregnancies, meaning that they don't begin to form a gamete in the first place, since the indel is now the cause of the mismatched newly unaligned coding regions in the opposite gamete. This is the main concept that you do not understand. There is no passing on of an indel to offspring, unless that same exact indel on the same exact locus of the same exact potential homologous chromosome of the opposite gamete also exists. The coding regions, need precise vertical alignment, in order for synapsis to occur. Those two chromosomes simply will not pair without precise vertical alignment. That's how the chromosomes 'gravitate' toward each other, by the same intermolecular polar forces that cause the nucleotides to hydrogen bond in the helical structure of the DNA. Without this precise alignment, the external attraction force of the chromosomes is disrupted by the indel offsetting the the alignment of every single purine/pyrimidine that previous to the indel was responsible for the perfect sequential attraction force that pairs the chromosomes. You never even attempt to describe how an insertion into a haploid gets passed on to offspring. I'm listening.

[@keepingup2952]

​@@StatedCasually In order for a sequence insertion in a gamete to get passed on to offspring, the same sequence insertion must be present on the homolog chromosome of the opposite gamete in the same exact locus, or the chromosomes will never pair since they have lost vertical alignment. The coding regions would now be offset and synapsis will not occur. This has nothing to do with alleles or any substitution mutations that modify those alleles. You never explain how an insertion in a gamete gets inherited in an offspring. You just say that if a sperm cell gets infected it will be in every cell of the offspring. You need to detail that mechanism in full, and for that you would earn The Nobel Prize in Biological Sciences, because that's not what happens. No pregnancy occurs with a gamete that has a sequence insertion, because the homolog no longer recognizes it. I'm not wrong. You need to explain.

[@keepingup2952]

@@StatedCasually In order for a sequence insertion in a gamete to get passed on to offspring, the same sequence insertion must be present on the homolog chromosome of the opposite gamete in the same exact locus, or the chromosomes will never pair since they have lost vertical alignment. The coding regions would now be offset and synapsis will not occur. This has nothing to do with alleles or any substitution mutations that modify those alleles. You never explain how an insertion in a gamete gets inherited in an offspring. You just say that if a sperm cell gets infected it will be in every cell of the offspring. You need to detail that mechanism in full. No pregnancy occurs with a gamete that has a sequence insertion, because the homolog no longer recognizes it.

[@DocReasonable]

Even Michael Behe, inventor of the irreducible complexity lie, accepts the fact of evolution, creatarded 0afs. In his book 'The Edge of Evolution' Behe states inside the dust jacket - 'There is little question that all species on Earth descended from a common ancestor.' And on page 12 'Evolution from a common ancestor is very well supported.' And on page 72 'The bottom line is this: common descent is true.' And again on page 72 'Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on Earth are biological relatives.'

[@ikemiracle4841]

This video doesn't refute irreducible complexity, it's very ignorant to the arguments truly made, most of the examples shown here are not problems for ID proponents. You weren't even close to hitting the nail on the head. And for those of you that truly believe in evolution to their deaths I hope you're doing that without throwing away reason and blindly following an 1800s theory.

[@AMC2283]

Irreducible complexity garbage criticizes nothing the theory of evolution predicts.

[@Angelmou]

" refute irreducible complexity, " The video explains how systems where you can't take out parts of the system without breaking/crashing said system did evolve from earlier forms and structures. Till this very day no anti-evolution person could even show even 1 single system in any lifeform in existence, which did not evolve from already existing ancestral structures due to common ancestry and repurposement. That was the point. The example there was the sting organ as irreducible complex form as the sting function does crash and fail if just 1 single part is removed from it, while it originated as mere variation from the already working ovipositor mechanism due to the function switch as the sting has there a different function then the eggfunction.

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@Angelmou how can you know the examples they've listed when you don't read and carefully listen to their arguments? Though a good representation of their arguments wasn't made here at all, I'll say that showing different insects with completely working organs doesn't proof that evolution can produce irreducible complex structures. The heart of the matter is the information in the biochemistry to be precisely generated by chance and error. The maths never works when it comes to the biochemistry, time becomes trivial and probability shows weak functional outcome. New life forms/functions require new proteins and proteins are close to impossible to generate through mere natural selection. All you darwinists do is to compare already existing life and force your claims on them but you do not truly test them to truly see the truth, Whatever you discover that goes against that 1800s theory you shove down to the sewers where no one will notice, it's frustrating.

[@Angelmou]

@@ikemiracle4841 Beside that you get over 300 research papers at google-scholar by searching "de novo protein-coding genes" in the search field - like in yeast and fungi brood stock observations to have de novo proteins as observations. My goodness we can read the copy errors as heridity record in the DNA itself for the ovipositor the GS9 with the GP8&9 gene info mutations. You have no background understanding that we do not talk about something from the 1800s. We talk about directly readable heridity records in the DNA itself. You seem to be completely unaware of the matter that we could read Design / Creation in the DNA like "this is a human hand designed to be a human hand" *IF it would be there* . BUT that is simply not what we *ACTUALLY* observe and *ACTUALLY* read in the DNA itself, repeatably again and again in each research we do. Hands of humans for example are not "designed" like by blueprint or out from scratch - All of that would be readable aka Del/ Gli /Xtj + / - regulation deformations & organ recycling. Translated into proper english it means: Lobe finned fish fin MINUS 2 digits PLUS Finger enlargements = "paw" MINUS the webs PLUS Thumb opposable = Human Hand in this steporder readable. (Also claws to be flattened to nails). This is also why we have a 4x hox base duplication with the enhancers and not for example unique ones unique to humans or just like 7 rows like ray finned fish or some other arbitrary numbers pointing to other fish ancestry there like with ray finned fish variations where duplication info gain took place to further extand of the HOX base. Containing recycling the former ancestral hierachy incl. unnecessary digits deactivated of the lobe fin base. This is why humans are to exact 0% ray finned fish - but to 100% very specific 7 digit lobe finned fish descendants with deregulated digit parts. RIGHT NOW. Not for example a 22 digit lobe finned fish deformations in that exact recycling-repurposement order. That is why we as humans are today even still very specific DEFORMATIONS of highly specific digit lobe finned fish GENETICALLY by how the activation order read, but absolute not ray finned fish sub-sub...variations nor specific 20 digit lobe finned fish as cousins etc. This direct and repeatable observation for all human beings makes ABSOLUTE no sense outside of Evolution. It makes absolute no sense to observe facts like that without being very VERY specific digit lobe finned fish deformatory descendants WHATSOEVER. You have the complete false impression that we would not observe and read the stuff, while we do. This is why I mentioned that we even see live observed flagella in 3 month to re-evolve with unrelated genes generating them again (nitrogen system genes in that matter.)

[@lizadowning4389]

"blindly following an 1800s theory" That's rich ... Would you then not by definition really object to a 2,000 years old story?

[@peters972]

Exaptly!

[@mariamsaleh6521]

Faith is supernatural claim based on supernatural evidence prophets and revelations.hitorical testimonies.

[@TempestofSolace]

How long does such adaptation take so we may be able to talk about evolution? Supposedly, all species descend from one common ancestor, in which case, why did some of them evolved into lower forms, e.g. insects, and others into higher forms, e.g. man? Given that evolution is taking place, shouldn't it be the case that over time organisms with a lower degree of complexity evolve into those with a higher degree, rather than reversing? And if so, why do we observe such interspecies differences to this day, e.g. we still have chimpanzees here, and at the same time humans exist? What was wrong with the chimpanzee that it had not yet transformed into a human? Was there any visible example of evolutionary regression in the history of the world, where, for example, an amphibian turned back into a fish? Why is the exchange of semen between different species that are not closely related blocked, not resulting in emerging new organisms, when it would theoretically be evolutionarily desirable?

[@lefishe5845]

Well, flies still exist, yes? They are quite successful at what they do, and that is the only metric that natural selection cares about. It's important to realize evolution isn't specifically trying to create us or some greater being. It's just creating a being suited for the environment it's in. Flies are really successful. They produce tons of eggs and will likely never die out unless we go full nuclear on this earth. Sharks are a interesting case for this same reason! They are super successful in a environment that hasn't demanded much change from them in many many many years. In fact, sharks were still here before trees! Mostly because they fit their environment, and although they changed slowly, there was no pressure to adapt to any new ecosystem.

[@StatedCasually]

1. How long does adaptation take so we can talk about evolution? Evolution is a slow process, usually taking thousands to millions of years. Small changes can happen quickly, but big changes take a lot longer. 2. Why did some species evolve into simpler forms, like insects, and others into more complex ones, like humans? Evolution doesn’t aim for higher or lower forms. Species evolve in ways that help them survive best in their environment. Insects and humans evolved differently because they faced different challenges. 3. Shouldn’t simpler organisms eventually evolve into more complex ones? Not always. Simpler organisms can survive better in some environments. Evolution is about what works best, not necessarily becoming more complex. 4. Why do chimpanzees still exist if humans evolved? Humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor but went down different paths. Chimpanzees are well-suited to their environment, so they didn’t need to evolve into humans. 5. Why didn’t chimpanzees evolve into humans? Evolution has no long-term goal and no end point. Humans aren’t the pinnacle of evolution; we’re just one branch. Chimpanzees evolved differently because when our populations split, they were subjected to different selection pressures and they had different random mutations than we did. 6. Has there ever been an example of an animal evolving backward, like an amphibian turning back into a fish? Evolution can go in any direction but full reversals are rare. That said, pseudo reversals are common. Some animals have adapted to water after living on land (whales, beavers, turtles, seals...), but they didn’t turn back into fish-they evolved to fit a watery environment in new ways. 7. Why can’t animals from different species create new kinds of animals? When animals from different species try to breed, their genetic material often doesn’t match up well. They have simply changed too much since their common ancestor. This mismatch usually means they can’t have babies together, or if they do, the offspring might not survive or be able to reproduce.

[@lefishe5845]

In the same vien with seals and whales, it is important to note whales basicly undid all of the leg bones entirely when adapting back towards the water, while seals still use them for good. It is an obvious example of how evolution can be different for two similar animals.

[@videos_not_found]

Probably we still lack an understanding of oneness of all things we observe as apperently seperate in space and time. Whatever we see in nature is way more intelligent than all humanity combined could ever be and its all from one common source- call it by whatever name you like most. I do admit that digging deeper needs an understanding of tangible mechanisms which are in time refined by intelligence and experience being itself an evolutionary process I guess. But still humbleness and modesty when faced with questions of such majesty are not displaced, or are they? We still might well be far from understanding the true dynamic of evolution and future generations might well smile at our proudness and certitude.

[@MJAli89]

All theists and atheists need to do is to reconcile with each other on the facts and you will get harmony. Evolution is the process by which God created the natural world.

[@AMC2283]

Your religion teaches this?

[@MJAli89]

@@AMC2283 Teaches what?

[@AMC2283]

@@MJAli89 that your god took eons evolving organisms that continue to mutate

[@MJAli89]

@@AMC2283 God is the creator, of course he will take time to craft his work.

[@AMC2283]

@@MJAli89 no, I’m asking you if your religion says evolution ongoing over 4 billion years, or something like miracles in 6 days

[@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425]

This lecture actually just reinforces the ID proponents stance.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

At 20:06 starts where he explains the misconception in this particular argument (of irreducible complexity) for intelligent design resp. against evolution via natural selection. The key part is that selective pressure on structures function can change. So even if the structure for it's current purpose couldn't evolve for this purpose alone, it can evolve when the objective of the structure changes over time. The talk gives an explicit counterexample (stinger of worker bees) to the claims mentioned at the time stamp that checks all the boxes for "irreducible complexity", but there is a clear path (comparative anatomy) for natural selection to evolve this structure by changing the objective over time.

[@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425]

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Behe’s argument was specifically focused on the subunits of a flagellum motor found in bacteria. He argued that the flagellum motor was reliant on subunits that could not be used in intermediate steps leading up to the motor. His argument still stands. But an infinitely more difficult irreducible complexity problem exists in the membrane embedded, proton gradient driven, ATP synthase complex, which in turn relies on complexes i-iv to create the gradient required for its function. Nick Lane of UCL has no idea how it might’ve evolved… kzbin.infoUgkxIDk-G60VghlMoVijtSGiTxuaELYTp8xO?si=emYRXOrikz1ryUJp

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 There are four points to make: 1. *The logic of Behe's argument:* That is disproven in this video by giving a biological counterexample to the logical reasoning. So it's just not even a valid argument. 2. *Your original comment:* Have you changed your mind on the original comment. Because you're not defending your original position but changing it to essentially "not fully addressed". 3. *Your new comment:* "... infinitely more irreducible complex problem ..." If A (irreducibly complex) is not sufficient for B (not a result of evolution by natural selection), then a more clear example of A does not change the lack of implication to B. What you would need is an entirely new argument with a valid logical deduction. 4. *About the two structures in your last comment:* A video on these would be interesting independent of the invalid logic used by proponents of intelligent design.

[@diabl2master]

​@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 "[insert name of researcher] has no idea how it might have evolved" Is that meant to convince us that it was intelligently designed?

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 He argued for irreducible complexity in court and lost, he couldn't show a single irreducibly complex system and was given countless papers showing all his claims were full of it.

[@samueltopping7812]

ID is not an appeal to ignorance or the God of the gaps- it is inferring the best explanation through a posterior argumentation- using deduction and induction. People confuse methodological materialism with ontological materialism

[@Angelmou]

Of course it is an appeal to ignorance as the traits intelligence and the activity _to design_ is younger in the history of time than life is old. ID is there just the open denial of the order of history. Like someone would argue that Julius Ceasar did not ride to his battles on horseback but used a battle tank to drive there, in denial of the order of history there - while horse taming and horse riding is thousands of years older in history and originated further back in time than the origin of driving and building tanks.

[@samueltopping7812]

@@Angelmou begging the question… so you assume life began somehow and intelligent primates came later and …. What on earth r u talking about.😂

[@Angelmou]

@@samueltopping7812 So you deny that the activity _to design_ came historically later in time than other activities such as the activity _to swim_ for example where already the first jellyfish were performing the swimming activity many millions of years before the design activity actually originated? Do you also deny that the Ancient Roman Empire is older than New York City? Or that you say the activity to browse on the inet would be older than the photosynthesis activity performed by algae? There is no begging the question. As reality does not allow the Design idea to be even a legit opinion without being dishonest with history. Plain and simple.

[@AMC2283]

it's your religious beliefs, and they're evidence of nothing

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Is this supposed to explain why the fairy tale of evolution by natural selection remains unshaken?

[@walkergarya]

Creationists work very hard not to understand Evolution so they can continue to lie about this science. The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all modern biology and has a huge body of evidence supporting it, something NO creationist can refute or match.

[@ReapingTheHarvest]

​@@walkergarya Nice projecting.

[@walkergarya]

@@ReapingTheHarvest If you have evidence that shows creationism, bring it. I have yet to see any.

[@zt2max]

@@walkergarya Walkergarya, you are switching the burden of proof. You have to show evidence of Darwin's claims an insect wing evolved. Where is it? What about a bat's wings or sexual reproduction? What about an eel's electric system? If creation is true and living things reproduce according to kind, the evidence would be an absence of the evolution of the things i have just said, which is exactly what we find. Look around you, the miracles of abscission, metamorphosis, embryological growth, a quarternary DNA code, a myriad of spectacular solutions to problems that arise for particular organisms. The evidence of creation is right under your nose, as for evolution, the evidence is nowhere.

[@lefishe5845]

​@zt2max You misunderstand burden of proof. Sure baseless claims can be dismissed without evidence, but the thing is evolution has evidence, which means you now have to prove why such evidence is invalid and why your model fits better. It's like the shape of the earth. Sure, you might think it's flat as a default, but now we very much know it's round, and if you wanted to say it's flat again, you'd have to prove why.

[@edgein8632]

Absolute nonsense. The consensus in biochemistry since the 1970’s is random mutations cannot create new useful proteins. That means none of the body parts to create a bee could be created. A small 100 amino acid protein has 20^100 possible configurations and one folds correctly. There are only 10^70 atoms in the universe. Proteins must be created in groups to create systems. This is impossible by any random process. Even the definition of evolution does not describe a mechanism to build “ a change in allele frequency over time”. Blue and brown eye color are two different alleles, more brown in a population does not build. Evolutionists make up stories. I’m laughing at your nonsense.

[@Angelmou]

We had this topic also before. You get over 300 research papers at google-scholar by just tryping "de novo protein-coding genes" in the search field - like in yeast and fungi brood stock observations with beneficial outcomes to have de novo proteins as direct observations several even on camera. If you do not care about research even with photos for dogmatic denial reasons (similar why a flatearther denies real actual photos of the globe for hatred against the form of a sphere itself) - be honest and state it that way. You were also informed before about this error: "A small 100 amino acid protein has 20^100 possible configurations and one folds correctly." No, a variation of a precursor form does chain and fold in 1 specific way and the possible usable mutations are higher than just 1 single outcome. This means to cut through the core to your pseudoargument: You wish that only 1 fold shall be a usable as you wish of a planned endgoal to be used at all, while in reality trillion of configurations are just as usable. Because you have a destabilizing or fine tuning mind image in your head like any easily breaking computer code in your mind which ain't a truthful image for this protein topic - while a truthful image is more like a moldable rubber clay with sometimes more useful hooks to get survival benefits to dominate a broodstock after some generations. That you do not like this particular way more accurate mind image is due to your religious uprising in which you really REALLY wish we would need a deity inserted into all of these proteomics topics - while you are just desperate to cling emotionally to your inaccurate images.

[@lefishe5845]

This assumes exactly one protein could do a certain function and no others. This is wrong. But I feel like in these discussions, I'm just spilling digital ink. It's not like I'm going to convince you otherwise.

[@edgein8632]

@@lefishe5845 Clueless. A protein must have an exact amino acid order so that it folds in the correct functional form. It only does one very specific job. Just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.

[@lefishe5845]

@edgein8632 Take insulin for example. Insulin across animals that use insulin is different. It's not the same sequence. The receptor proteins are also not identical across animals that have insulin. This leads to varying effectiveness across animals. And oh look that "exactly one sequence" turns into a seemingly infinite amount of functional sequences if you have even a little curiosity.

[@edgein8632]

@@lefishe5845 Wow dum dum…insulin is species dependent moor on. Only one configuration works for humans…one works for cows etc. Humans, dogs, pigs etc have different configurations of proteins that are in the same system but are species dependent. Pay attention dum dum….a single amino acid substitution creates sickle cell anemia, two and it’s death….a single amino acid substitution created Darwin’s finches beaks, the difference in intelligence in modern humans and Neanderthals…..proteins have to be that exact in amino acid configuration. A change degrades the protein. Clueless

[@ssehe2007]

This is all great and good. But you’re never gonna have an ID guy in the room to push back.

[@StatedCasually]

I've invited them. They don't respond.

[@Angelmou]

@@StatedCasually An unrelated topic: You need to check the _What is the evidence for evolution?_ comment section as the troll user Gustave Larsen/Oscar has yet again more sockpuppet account to accuse everyone "to be Andrew" as the most harmless spam (I assume he has at least 30 double accounts due to instant upvote storms of +15 upvotes in a minute).

[@lizadowning4389]

How would "an ID guy" push back? With more unfounded claims? Whenever has an ID guy presented verifiable data data in a peer reviewed scientific journal, so we can all evaluate the evidence, check whether the experiments were conducted correctly, and the results confirm convincingly the hypothesis? Never, because all they do is throw out baseless assumptions, misrepresent science and most of all think that claims make up evidence and sound argument. What did Michael Behe offer in support of his IC proposition? A scientific paper? Nope. He showed a video with ... a mousetrap analogy ... how scientific. Suppose Darwin, instead of writing all his books full careful analysis of his observations, would simply show a bird cage with two different beaked finches while stating "this is proof of descent with modification ... it's natural selection !"

[@sammyking9407]

Found the myth channel. Amusing.

[@Angelmou]

This user does not address observations shown in the video. So the comment can be dismissed as denial of observations.

[@mutwa_0]

The speaker has not understood Behes argument hence all that is shown is evidence for micro evolution.

[@AMC2283]

Grandpa’s argument is that his god did it.

[@Angelmou]

"shown is evidence for micro evolution" Good that humans came from earlier ape broodstocks due to micro evolution and that the term "macroevolution" is not a mechanism but a counting number of microevolutionary traits. ;-)

[@AMC2283]

evolution isn't the gestation process and it never was

[@logickedmazimoon6001]

I don't think anyone ever said that?

[@christopherhamilton3621]

What do you mean by that?

[@AMC2283]

@@christopherhamilton3621 I mean irreducible complexity is worthless

[@mdesm2005]

amen, always end a prayer with amen

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@AMC2283 Why didn't you say that in the first place? Your OP was horrible.

[@freznelite]

“We show examples of how a process could have happened, therefore this proves it happened.” No, we need mathematical proof of classical evolution at the genetic level, not allegorical examples. When you look at the math, you will find that the system is irreducibly complex. Just show the steps between 10 genes in steps of only 50 monomers or less in the Synthia genome (which by the way is only 450 genes long). My hypothesis is that, you can’t. And if you can, then I will change my mind about classical, unguided evolution. If you can show the connection between all 450 genes, then evolution would actually be a valid theory, rather than a clever but incorrect observation of causality.

[@AMC2283]

evolutionary biology isn't a math equation genius, it's the process of hereditary change. but go on and show the calculations that prove your god did it.

[@Angelmou]

"you will find that the system is irreducibly complex." This video is about the oviduct to sting organ evolution and how an irreducible complex organ system did evolve gradually with the steps. Did you _even_ watch the video? Because your question is about a laboratory bacteria: "Just show the steps between 10 genes in steps of only 50 monomers or less in the Synthia genome (which by the way is only 450 genes long)." Mycoplasma laboratorium is not LUCA (aka the Synthia is NOT the very first universal cell ancestor). The very first cells were variations of ALREADY existing self replicating ribozytes with the DNA in life to be a reductasis reaction of the RNA with uracil to methyluracil variations called thymine. This has nothing to do with the topic of the video. You seem to have no clue how DNA originated when you ask your question. "My hypothesis is that, you can’t." What has your DEMAND to show how a bacteria shall be fiddled together like you engineer something to do with A.) The topic of evolution about life diversification or B.) How cells actually originated ? It gets even worse: "And if you can, then I will change my mind about classical, unguided evolution." You do not even understand the context of evolution of Mycoplasma bacteria IN GENERAL as it seems. As you do not get how simplistic bacteria are not the same as cell ancestry. For example your question here is suggesting that you do not get the Mollicutes bacteria ancestry of younger and historically LATER Mycoplasma bacteria where Synthia is a subvariations of that older ancestral forms. "If you can show the connection between all 450 genes, then evolution would actually be a valid theory," There the question is not even clear do you want to understand the older ancestry of the Mollicutes genes or do you want to have them ...I don't know by thin air shaken together by pure happenstances AGAINST how evolution and common descend does work in direct denial of common ancestry with your question and how evolution even works?

[@freznelite]

​@@Angelmou For classical evolution to work, there must be a step-by-step sequence of events by which a starter set of genes evolved new functions. Classical evolution (unguided) is fundamentally a random series of events which supposes itself to resolve the statistical improbability of each new gene design from environmental feedback alone. The feedback is supposed to guide a new gene into existence through chance, but the probability that leaps between useful genes Without preexisting complexity is a Huge question mark. This is why the actual leaps to new genes must be roughly 50 pairs or less difference (E-30 odds per instance) than all other genes within the genome (and we can include any mutations, recombination and substitutions). This whole argument against classical evolution could be completely silenced if a simple Chain of Genes were demonstrated which connect a series of genes in subsequent species to each other through time, proving each step had a plausible likelihood of occurring. If such a chain of genes could be furnished, then it would follow that classical evolution is a completely valid theory and very nearly proven. On the other hand, if the explanation for a phenomenon is possible but extremely unlikely, then it is extremely unlikely that such a hypothesis is correct. The reason I picked one of the simplest organisms to connect so far is because we should assume life started from some extremely small set of functional genes. This process could potentially be reversed if we were to isolate what the essential building blocks are for a functional genome. You would think with the vast swaths of genomic sequencing technology, we would have found this simple genomic connection for at least a significant subset of the most basic genomes, specifically bacteria. We have Apes and Humans, both of which share DNA. But what we are not accounting for is the actual genomic path back to the common ancestor, the steps which that DNA took to get to the end state. So rather than tackle something extremely complicated (like a Bee or a Human), why not tackle the simplest possible subset of genes to connect? I trust math a lot more than allegorical examples which could support either argument.

[@Angelmou]

@@AMC2283 "evolutionary biology isn't a math equation" but evolution biology actually has very good math equations. A good lecture for them is this video: watch?v=MJqUeJOjc0c showing how the math equations in fact hold up very good despite of all whining by the usual antiscientific cultists. ;-)

[@freznelite]

​@@Angelmou Do you have proof of the origin of DNA? If not, then how can I have a clue about where DNA originated from? We are observing an extremely complicated system, and we take for granted its existence, the seeming verity of connection. Remember, evidence is not proof, and as a scientist you must always be open to completely changing your mind. Please remember to approach science with an open mind, even if what others say is heretical to your understanding (lest you be confused with religious people).

[@christie5436]

Atheism is the suspension of all common sense.

[@Angelmou]

Atheism is the lack of being convinced that there are deities. A deity is the idea of a thoughtorgan lacking thinker usually with superpowers like teleportation or seeing visual infos without any eye organs to register light or without any ear organs able to detect any air vibrations. That is why a deity shall hear or see believers to pray, while there is no organ to allow the deity to do so. If you are personally convinced that 1 or more thoughtorgan lacking thinkers or squared circles or married bachelors and other self-contradictory ideas have merit in your personal life - feel free to belief in those.

[@walkergarya]

Nope. That would be theism. You have no evidence for any god or miracle.

[@planetdog1641]

Let's remember that Darwin himself said his theory cannot explain the eye and other complex systems.

[@a2sbestos768]

No, he didn't. Even AiG agrees. Not to mention we know quite a lot about evolution of these.

[@Angelmou]

Sorry planetdog you have been deceived. Darwins book starts with the eye as an complex example before in his introduction to the problem he explains the gradual evolution from light sensitive cells over hole eyes and cupeyes to lense eye selection. Creationists, who hate Darwin quote him out of context, meaning they quote his introduction to the problem but hide fully on purpose the answer he gave from the very same text. This dishonesty exist to deceive laypeople. If someone would do so with religious texts it would be like for example someone quotemining the bible completely out of context like Kings 8: 23, "...there is no God..." 2 Kings 1: 16, "...there is no God..." 2 Chronicles 6: 14, "...there is no God..." Psalms 14: 1, "...There is no God..." with then proudly claiming with a swollen chest that the bible would be just one of many books about ATHEISM and the bible would admit that there is no God, while it would just be quotemining the bible out of text context. The creationists usually know they are lying and they do so, anyway.

[@planetdog1641]

@@Angelmou gross oversimplification

[@Angelmou]

​@@planetdog1641 We can talk about all over 180 major mutations steps of rhodopsins, transducins, lense shape, eye color. There are books with hundreds of side variations and exact mutation names from the PAX6 base with focus on eye evolution. _Eye evolution and the origin of Darwin's eye prototype Walter Gehring & Makiko Seimiya_ as base research and _Evolution of neuronal cell classes and types in the vertebrate retina Joshua Hahn (...) et al_ -> there Figure 1 extended data Where the extended gene mutations from the gene toolkit deformations in various directions are listed. We can talk about the toolkit variations. Like I said you were deceived. This is the same nonsense creationists come up with the flagellum. Where we do not only know the different types of flagella variation of the FlgP, FlgQ, PflA, PflB, and FlgO researched in genome sequences, but live re-evolution of flagella in only 3 month, the solid and flexibility mutation rows in different adaptations - we also have the copied info around the hull and refuctioning as shield protection instead of the locomotion steps. You have no clue about the gradual known copy error names as you did never dig into the research data and what it did reveal to the world with hundreds upon hundreds of pages of data. The eye evolution alone has more papers filled with research data than the bible has pages revealing all types of subadaptational rows.

[@lefishe5845]

Who gives a flying fish what Darwin has to say. Most of the evolutionary processes were discovered after his time. If your not directly lying about what he says, it could be entirely reasonable for him to not believe this could account for everything because at the time *he didn't know about the things that would account for such systems*

[@samlazar1053]

Hitler and to a lesser degree Stalin read Darvin EXTENSIVELY

[@Angelmou]

Nazigermany and the Soviet union both did forbid Darwins work (List of forbidden books).

[@alexiscorral5594]

Please don't confuse evolutionary biology withn social darwinism/eugenics.

[@a2sbestos768]

Meanwhile uniforms of the former beared "god with us" on them. Weird, innit?

[@DocReasonable]

Hitler hated the idea of evolution and ordered the burning of all of Darwin's books. “Nazi racial ideology was creationist. Hitler considered that the different human races had been created separately. The Aryan race was the “master” race, created as “God’s highest handiwork”, the other races (Jewish, Black, Slav, etc) were literally “sub-human”. The races had been created by God in their current form (humans had not evolved from other animals).” -Professor Coel Hellier

[@zt2max]

it's not evolution versus irreducible complexity, it's evolution versus design. IC is only one feature of design. Biomimetics engineering has shown life has all the features of design, the only difference is that the features of design in life are far smarter which is why biomimetic engineers PLAGIARISE them. It's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum because, "if they were not really intelligently designed, then we would be able to come up with better design." you then can infer the modus tollens; we can't beat the design therefore life is intelligently designed because it's smarter. As for evolution, all of the direct evidence is missing conspicuously. Absentia ad expectata testimonio versus argumentum ad silentia. The former winning out, because all of the difficult things to have had to evolve, have never been found to have any evidence of evolution. No evolution of the insect wing, or bats, or pterosaurs, no evolution of eels or the bombarider's explosive matrix. TODAY, Darwin's claims are still just as unsupported as they were back then.

[@Angelmou]

What are you talking about? Intelligence is a younger in time trait, which originated *AFTER* thinking organs (brain area complexity) evolved gradually to allow activities like the _to design_ activity & the _to plan_ activity to be executed. This is why younger in time activities such as the _to design_ activity did not exist for hundreds of millions of years, where life ALREADY diversified in high numbers. An example is the much older _to swimm_ activity of jellyfish species in ancient paleo panthallasic oceans of the precambrian&cambrian time periods long time before the first design activity was even performed. ID proponents are basically denialists of the actual order of history and how activities originated for real. Meaning they do not want that design is younger than swimming or speciation. IDpeople are highly similar to people in active denial that Julius Ceasar did ride on horseback into battles at the corners of the ancient Roman empire for the very weird idea Ceasar would have flown there via plane - because the denier of history does not want that horse taming and horse riding is thousands of years older in time than planes are. Your nonsense talk about lack of direct evidence is ALSO just denial of directly observed types of speciation like allopatric, peripatric, parapatric & also sympatric speciation with thousands of examples from plants over fungi to insect broodstock observations. Speaking of insects: You have no clue what you copy and paste an example are Adephaga beetles with the bombardier beetle to be a variety of Brachinidae (7500 species) adaptation within beetles. That is why they are still beetles (and also insects to biological laws like the law of monophyly) and their heridity history is readable in their DNA as heriditary record from the Adephaga base. You have literally no clue that humans have no faith freedom or opinion freedom in any those cold and fact driven biology topics. The act of denial is not artificially creating for you some sort of safespace or bubble where you can put your faith into. Darwin lived also in the 19th century before DNA was discovered and read as heridity record crossconfirming common ancestry. We read today DNA like the vg wing disc genes & the apAB gene for insect wings from the lateral tergum of wingless bases. We also have third wing pairs reshaped into stings, guard shells, spikes and leaf camouflage from the same base with treehopper insect species. This is why we KNOW by reading the mutation rows and enhancers how those bodytraits evolved from precursor forms. Your problem most likely comes from a false approach of what truth is in reality. Truth is established by very cold and unpersonal evidence people must nod to like mindless robots react to the data. NOT for example by an imaginary personal relationship to some concept of a deity as a surrogate parent you could talk to or a gut feeling about some Jesus idea. This is a severe misimprinting of parental feelings (false imprinted feelings) humans are able to have at an early age. This means humans have the tendancy to assume a parent is there as a counter agent to your own "I" and as relationship partner UPFRONT your own self-awareness. In reality the oldest parents are results of unpersonal activities older than any relationship activities. This means first comes the emotionless cold activities that then did lead to agents able to perform the parenthood activities AFTERWARDS in later social and tribal animal constellations. This is very counter-intuitive for most humans as they do not get that activities pre-date consciousness and personhood and the very origin of what a family even is. This means when a young human has a loving parent as center of attention and his/her whole world he/she experiences - the grown up adult is sometimes unable to detach this care-for-your worldview from a much more accurate picture of the world in which your own "I" is cut out as unimportant for the topic overview. This is also true for all individuals: They are still growing today from embryos to babies to toddler - as personhood and self-awareness grows gradually and also decays gradually in old age again with dementia, amnesia or alzheimer disease. This is also the reason you very own "I" did not just appear as adult person in the chair you sit in (or was always there) and why your own I can't remember what happened in the year 1655 as you were not even born back the day. (Being Finite and mortal to have a start and an end). And that is also the reason why fables and hearsay stories about people undoing their dead and rising from the grave again are just stubborn fairytales against the reality of mortal and finite activites like heartbeat, brain activities and so on.

[@lefishe5845]

I'm specificly going into biology to create better life just you watch. But no, seriously, there is indeed great evidence that this isn't intelligently designed. I'd first forward DNA, which most of which is entirely inactive. Not very intelligently designed to have so much dead space, huh? [Yes, some non protein coding dna has other functions, but the vast majority does not]

[@TheDjnatronic]

Yes but the ducks and chickens are all still birds, they didn't turn into fish because being a fish would be even better than webbed feet....Plants turning into plants is not really that surprising...If as you say Mitochondria the powerhouse of the cell originally wasn't in the cell, how would the first cells have made energy? Do we have any fossil records of those cells or is it just a "belief" or do I dare say "faith" that they exist?

[@AMC2283]

duck isn't a species, it's a family of anseriformes. Oops.

[@TheDjnatronic]

Still birds right?

[@AMC2283]

@@TheDjnatronic bird isn’t a species either, it’s a class of vertebrates. You should really just be happy with your religious beliefs. No one’s trying to stop you.

[@bunkarchive]

If a duck could turn back into a fish, that would be a serious challenge for evolution.

[@stephenolan5539]

​@@TheDjnatronic Still dinosaurs. If you want to argue against Evolution then you have to argue against Evolution. Arguing against something it does not say does not help you.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

Oh wow. Still spreading pseudo science & lies.