More bad arguments for homology as evidence for evolution

We're looking at some more bad arguments from Jackson Wheat for homology as evidence for evolution.
My original video: • Evidence for Evolution...
Jackson's 1st reply: • Misunderstanding Homol...
My first response: • Answering bad argument...
Jackson's 2nd reply: • Responding to Long Sto...
References are below:
1: Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043
Scientist giving up on darwin after reading ID work:
2: • Teoria inteligentnego ...
3: claremontreviewofbooks.com/gi...
4: • Mathematical Challenge...
5:Does ID make predictions, is it testable? • Teoria inteligentnego ...
6: Jargonistic non-answers: Darwin’s Doubt pg 227-228 “Word Salad”
7: Phylogenetic Incongruities: Woese C. 1998. “The universal ancestor.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:6854-6859.
9: Bapteste E., et. al. 2005. “Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 5:33.
10: Convergence: evolutionnews.org/2017/05/the...
hate mail: [e-mail]
regular mail: [e-mail]

[@clap5108]

How is this channel not massive. Almost like truth isn’t valued in todays society, go figure.

[@JessicaSunlight]

haha, do you really think most religious people into science? And Secondly truth is not a popularity contest either. You live in a time when people believe in monkey evolution and natural process - pretty sure people are not going to listen to anything that challenges this fantasy.

[@mcmanustony]

Because it’s creationist nonsense presented for 5 year olds

[@danorris5235]

It's not at all.

[@yohas79]

@@danorris5235 it is

[@danorris5235]

@@yohas79 The channel being massive or the truth being valued? I realize now that I provided no context and you haven't either. Could be about to argue over nothing where there is actually no disagreement at all.

[@zyleafpunch5684]

This channel is going to be big and so i hope, it's admirable the lengths he goes and effort this man puts in defending his points, and with eloquence too. Truly impressive

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

I have seen your video of whale evolution and I was very impressed of your efforts by debunking darwinist whale evolution and video quality. But I must suggest you that your channel needs more attention. You need to promote you videos on KZbin or you can response famous materialist for example " rationality rules". Either way you need to have conversations with other KZbin channel like Darwinian Delusions.

[@DaChristianYute]

Jackson’s response to everything instead of just answering the questions he dodged from the last videos: Nuh uh.

[@carbon1465]

Not sure if you know there are people who appreciate your literature review and deep dive into papers and presenting an empirical publication view. I am a Biochemist and I do understand the amount of work in your effort. I must admit I do pause the video to read the papers. Appreciate your work!

[@CesarClouds]

I don't think you are a biochemist if you actually looked in the description, looked at his sources, and stated what you did in all honesty.

[@TrevoltIV]

@@CesarClouds Nice ad hominem. Anyway

[@CesarClouds]

@TrevoltIV I didn't make an argument so there was no fallacious ad hominem.

[@mcmanustony]

@@TrevoltIV why do you people bleat “ad hominem, AD HOMINEM” any time your dishonesty is addressed. It is extremely unlikely that any biochemist could look at this propagandistic rubbish and respond either anything other than contempt. Pointing that out is NOT an hominem. Don’t throw around terms you don’t understand.

[@farcovidiu3110]

@@mcmanustony Where is the dishonesty? Why do you throw around terms that have no correspondence in reality? Or are you an evolutionist troll, which has to contradict for the sake of contradiction? This is dishonest of you, to say the least. God have mercy on you.

[@SpongeBobImagination]

There aren't enough people on KZbin to counter all the religious "fish to fishermen" evolution propaganda, so your content is very appreciated. Keep up the good work.

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

Evolution is propaganda huh Let's try this..... Do you accept that organisms capable of interbreeding are related? (Tiger and Lion)

[@SpongeBobImagination]

​@@Call_Me_Emo1 __ Hello Emo. As you know, everything on Earth is in a state of (endless) _change_ and no one (not even a Creationist) denies that _small_ changes to organisms take place (so-called "variation within the kinds"). What's disputed, however, is the kind of change that everyday folk refer to as "macro-evolution". Such *_macro_* "fish to fishermen" *_changes_* have never been observed, tested, or repeated. It isn't science. Just because _small_ changes _within the limits_ of an existing body plan are indeed observed does not mean that _complete body plan changes_ will occur if more time is added (e.g., "millions of years"). _That does not follow (except in one's imagination)._ It is often repeated that _billions_ of species have lived and died, with as much as 99 percent of all species having already died out. The key point is that there have been _billions_ of *body plans* (of all ages and sizes) and *none* of these "body plans" are exempt from the phenomenon that's referred to as "natural variation" ("variation within the kinds"). I hope I'm not breaking any news by pointing out that the human mind can function like a powerful "pattern recognising machine". The mind naturally notices similarities and differences between things. Pointing this out is not controversial. Another uncontroversial function of the human mind is that it is a *_story-telling_* machine. People of all intelligence and educational backgrounds employ _story-telling_ to explain evidence and phenomena. The human mind - the human _imagination_ - is very good at inventing stories to "fill in the gaps". I would simply propose to you that those who accept "fish to fishermen" evolution only do so because from birth they have become _inclined_ to "invent or accept a story" for how one body plan "became a different body plan" via gradual changes over millions of years. However, this is a story-telling _and not_ science. Again, no one denies that _small_ changes indeed take place over time. To repeat: everything, including non-living things!, are in a perpetual state of change. It cannot be helped! However, the fact things are in a state of endless change _does not_ entitle anyone to make up stories about how these small changes "add up to become complete body plan changes" as the result. This is just story-telling, and the human mind is *_very_* good at it. None of the "evolutionary stories" have ever been tested, observed, or repeated. Certainly, none of the "evolutionary stories" have been _verified._ Why not? Because _millions_ of years would be needed to verify the story! Therefore, these "evolutionary stories" can't be verified - they are "verified" in one's imagination only. How convenient! When it comes to stories about "fish to fishermen" evolution - one imagines it true and becomes self-convinced. If a laboratory were somehow able to _force_ "a complete body plan change" (of the sort that's denied) under highly controlled and tightly regulated laboratory conditions, then all it would demonstrate is that "intelligent intervention" was needed to provoke such a change. It would never be proof that such a change could happen - or _did_ happen - "naturally" without intelligent intervention. Perhaps you reject a Creator God, but instead embrace the concept of intelligent intervention? That's reasonable. Whatever the case may be, upon proper scrutiny it will always be found that one's imagination is required to invent a story so as to "fill in the blanks" when it comes to "fish to fishermen" evolution. Such "filling in the blanks" via story-telling always occurs in accordance with one's pre-existing belief bias. If someone accepts that the human species once lived in the ocean and exclusively breathed water, then it will be found that at some earlier point in that person's intellectual development they were _fascinated_ by such "evolutionary stories" and delighted in "imagining them true". All this story-telling takes place because _no one was present at the beginning_ and every living (and non-living) thing is in a relentless state of small observable changes!

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@SpongeBobImagination Ok.... So you ignored the question. Cool - Please define a *"Kind"* - Please define *Macroevolution* (fish to fisherman is not a definition) Is the evolution of Brassica considered *Macroevolution* ?? If not, please explain why. *The Evolution of Brassica Oleracea* botanistinthekitchen.blog/tag/brassica-oleracea/ *Eat your Brussels Sprouts!* creation.com/eat-your-brussels-sprouts *Evolution of Brassica [Image]* www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/07/c2/d807c20db7c482dadeee296fb0e86d0b.jpg&imgrefurl=www.pinterest.com/pin/3307399702219639/&h=1048&w=863&tbnid=2O70iqGPu0Y3rM&tbnh=247&tbnw=204&usg=AI4_-kQk4a6ZVx9dyvkgdf9vMKhI883MNg&vet=1&docid=zEHzP_sYHybaQM

[@SpongeBobImagination]

​@@Call_Me_Emo1 __ I don't believe anyone has been able to pin down _exactly_ what is meant by "kind". At least not to the satisfaction of angry atheists. Any effort to define a "kind" will therefore be flawed, but that does not mean "kinds" don't exist. Trying to define a "kind" is in some ways not unlike trying to define "p0rn" - or what fits into a particular p0rn category. It is perhaps easier to say what _isn't_ p0rn (or what _doesn't_ belong to a p0rn category) than what _is_ p0rn (or what _does_ belong _to_ a p0rn category). Unless, of course, it is thoroughly obvious. With that in mind, it is easier to say what _isn't_ of "the same kind" than what _is_ of "the same kind". If you tried to define a "kind" based on "similarity/commonality/homology", then you are eventually going to run into problems just as you would if you were trying to classify (into a single category) a more complicated p0rn video. For example, a rose and a rabbit both start with the letter "R" (a feature that they share or have in common), but they are obviously not of the same kind. A whale and a wasp both start with the letter "W" (a feature that they share or have in common), but are obviously not of the same kind. To repeat, no one has been able to precisely pin down the definition of a "kind", at least not to the satisfaction of the angry atheist, but that does not mean "kinds" don't exist - or that it is impossible for someone to distinguish between the "different kinds". As for a definition of "macro-evolution" - that too is best understood by thinking about examples of "macro-evolution". As an angry atheist you would already know of many "macro-evolution" examples. For example, "macro-evolution" must have taken place whenever an angry atheist asserts that a whale and a wasp both share a "common ancestor" from the long-ago unobserved past. Whatever form that *_unobserved ancestor_* took - to go from _that_ to the modern-day whale, or to go from _that_ to the modern-day wasp would be an example of "macro-evolution". If you accept that the human species once lived in the ocean and only breathed water, then to go from _that_ form to the modern-day land-dwelling and air-breathing form would be an example of "macro-evolution". You do accept that about humans, right? You do think that there has been an unbroken lineage between you (today) and a long-ago unobserved grandma of yours who lived in the ocean and breathed only water, right? That's what you claim, yes? The kind of changes needed to take you from a long-ago unobserved water-breathing form to an air-breathing modern-day form would be an example of "macro-evolution". You believe that is what has happened with the human species, right?

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@SpongeBobImagination I actually know what a *"Kind"* is.... I'm just trying to see if you know what your own words mean, and you've failed spectacularly in giving a definition. Are you even familiar with the principles of *Baraminology* ??

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

Good job patiently responding to Jackson. I hope it gets through in some way.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Bread of Life, you wrote, "Good job patiently responding to Jackson. I hope it gets through in some way." It is almost impossible to convince an evolution ideologue that Darwinism is junk science based on overextrapolation of observable data. I am not exaggerating. That is exactly what Charlie Darwin did in his outrageously vain attempt to define life on earth. Dan

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

@@BibleResearchTools Yes, I know. It is frustrating.

[@commonsense0692]

@@BreadofLifeChannel yes frustrating non science religious zealots conmen try to tell actual scientist why their wrong and bible true without a single piece of evidence of god, flood, young earth, not even eyewitness accounts or archaeological evidence of Jesus…frustrating that in 2022 people still making up bullshit cos of a faith based fairytale

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

@@commonsense0692 Thanks for sharing your perspective!

[@commonsense0692]

@@BreadofLifeChannel the perspective of 70-80% of the world, your creationist lies a similar to flat earth, antivaxxers, global warming denial, 5G tower conspiracies….do u see/know that? U are doing the world a major injustice….u are the ppl in the movie don’t look up

[@nesslig2025]

I won't put the link here (since it might be marked as spam by the system), so I will give these instructions: Look up *"the league of reason"* forum and search for *"A Long Story of Misunderstandings and Futility & An Invitation to "Long Story Short"*

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

Can you try posting the link to *League Of Reason* ? I have trouble finding it using Google search. Thanks 👍

[@nesslig2025]

@@Call_Me_Emo1 I have responded with another comment with the link. It can be invisible (that often happens when you post a link in the comment).

[@nesslig2025]

@@Call_Me_Emo1 leagueofreason.org.uk/index.php?threads/a-long-story-of-misunderstandings-and-futility-an-invitation-to-long-story-short.16538/

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@nesslig2025 thanks again for the link. I've went ahead and registered.

[@jray1429]

You have done a great job. Quite patient with others. I appreciate you taking the time to try to reason with others

[@MarkC88]

I'm curious to know if anyone's mind has been changed from their original position because of this back and forth? Seems like both sides are just becoming more entrenched or otherwise not budging (and I'm not saying that's unreasonable, I'm one of them) but if anyone following along has actually changed position please post. I'm glad there is still a dialogue of sorts anyway.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Yep that's the idea, to have a dialogue. As I said in the video, scientists & non-scientists alike have been convinced by looking into these matters for themselves.

[@andoapata2216]

I have

[@MarkC88]

@@andoapata2216 Cool, it's been a while since I saw these videos. I'd like to know more, if you get the time. How many videos of this back and forth did you watch and what made you decide to watch them? How would you describe your original position and what was it based on? How would you describe your position now and what about this back and forth changed your position?

[@andoapata2216]

@@MarkC88 the deciding factor to me was that the materialistic paradigm assumes spontaneous generation as a fact, and the high amount of hoaxes used to push evolution, all of that taught as a fact in school.The rest i found by myself.

[@danorris5235]

Abiogenesis is a capital M Mythos. In biochemistry the scientific method dictates physical evidence and replicable results are flipping mandatory. There's no skirting it. And yet skirting it is a requirement to claim Abiogenesis is even possible. You have to believe in things like magic rocks becoming sentient from lightning bolts, coding languages so complicated a human couldn't write it out in their lifetime writing themselves from nothing, and things like irreducible complexity not being a problem. Bottom line: You claim the existence of a purple dragon. Whenever asked about showing me a purple dragon or getting me a set of instructions on how to make one for myself you obfuscate, wig out, insult my intelligence, and point to everything but a purple dragon to claim your purple dragon is real while ignoring every problem brought up with the concept in the first place while launching literally every logical fallacy at me and demonstrating every kind of cognitive dissonance we know of. It's like, "Yeah... I totally don't think you're an insufferable midwit. Suuuuure, I really think you're intelligent."

[@Draezeth]

Waiting for that video on the Dover trial now.

[@RussianBot4Christ]

Good job, great videos.

[@taylorstevenson9153]

@Long Story Short That was extremely well done and entertaining - great job.. Just subscribed and I hope this channel gets the attention it deserves in time. Human "wisdom" and dogmatic thinking is the surest path to ignorance - a major disconnect and problem on both sides.. Here's some ways people might avoid that - have a genuine desire for truth (many don't), self honest reflection of innermost motives, holding your own predisposition/beliefs to a higher standard than what you're being critical of, and perhaps most of all, humbly accepting the inherent limitations of the interpreting mind and the inability of "self" (the ego) to ever truly grasp in literal terms and fractal form the profundity and ultimately mysterious nature of life.

[@lynxurfriend421]

Fun fact! When darwin wrote his theory on evolution, he did not suggest that humans evolved from animals

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

It was already known that humans are animals

[@nesslig2025]

Just a reminder, I have put a link to a thread on the *league of reason forum* where you can easily join and discuss the points. Also Jackson made a reply video a few weeks back, but you probably saw this already. If you are busy with something else [especially considering the current corona situation], that's fine.

[@kathleennorton2228]

Please, I really am not understanding the Jackson character, what he is saying he is saying way too fast with an unnatural sound which is hard to follow, especially over my phone. Please find a way to make him a funny character but more understandable. Thank you!

[@synthtonic4954]

I guess, you could just watch his original response on his own channel beforehand to fully understand it. But I agree, it's hard to understand and probably a little bit too fast. Especially for not native speakers.

[@yohas79]

darwinian’s have such a childish way of thinking they truly believe that by changing the meaning of words is like using a video game cheat code that will quickly take them to victory not realizing that the very use of a cheat code implies design

[@CesarClouds]

Design implies artificiality, man made. That's it. No magic. Less talk for you and more study.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

design in nature is an illusion nothing more.

[@janicemoore30]

@@CesarClouds Correction: "Designer-made." You are assuming without foundation that only human beings can design. You are ASSUMING that there is nothing but the material. You may be right. You are, nevertheless, engaging in supposition, not science. Less talk -- more thinking. 🙂

[@CesarClouds]

@janicemoore30 I didn't assume, it's a fact humans design things; and you assumed that I assumed all things are material. Only what is man made, which is a fact I didn't go beyond. Also, your "correction" is a negligible point.

[@alfonstabz9741]

evolutionist assume that this anthropological assumptions are beyond reasonable doubt.

[@nickpuencho]

Jackson accept the truth

[@janicemoore30]

Heh. How about this version? Jackson! Accept the truth! 😄

[@lenroystewart2904]

Me gusta

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Homology is a very powerful evidence for Evolution and your video fails to make a dent in this, even though I listened to the end. It is obviously very important to deny that similar features in different species are inherited from a common ancestorz however that is the rock solid conclusion from the evidence available. Homology suggest ls evolution happened.

[@danorris5235]

This doesn't solve the problem of not having physical evidence or replicable results for abiogenesis, Darwinism, or capital E Evolution necessary for the entire theoretical web to make any sense. The fact homology comes up at all in a discussion ending in the biochemistry involved in the origin of life just shows how wild the abiogenesis crowd is willing to get to make their baseless idea make sense. The arguments have literally reached the point where the abiogenesis crowd needs to display directly both physical evidence and replicable results. This is biochemistry, not sociology. The scientific method dictates, not hopes and wishes.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@danorris5235 Evolution and abiogenesis are quite separate ideas. Again there is no reason not to suppose that life started spontaneously - no evidence to the contrary I mean. Evolution makes no claims about how life started, only how speciation has occurred and the context of this video is Evolution. As for Homology: look at Gorillas, look at us, look at the behaviour of great apes, their use of facial expressions, the number of bones in their skeletons and their muscles - similar homology is a testable prediction made by Evolution.

[@danorris5235]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu There is no reason not to suppose we didn't crash here on an asteroid with a million other bipeds and simply forgot to write it down either. No evidence to the contrary, I mean. You could say the same for the Christian God, Hinduism, or any First Peoples creation story. Your claim funnily doesn't pony up evidence either. That's my problem with it. It doesn't seem to have to be held to same standards the Scientific Method dictates for every other field, even biochemistry, which is funnily a massive component for the D&A crowd. I get mocked a ton for demanding the same standards imposed upon everything else, though? (Not that you're mocking me). As far as trying to separate the ridiculousness of abiogenesis from Darwinism it does nothing to solidify Darwinism. One begets the other. Trace the idea of a common ancestor back far enough for all life and you're stuck holding a box called "all came from the same thing" full of the same problems: Irreducible complexity in cellular life. No driver to create the need for any difference between anything when it's all in the same environment. A programming language that changes its own parameters. No evidence that anything changes, changed, or will change outside of speciation. Natural Selection and capital E Evolution fills in the explanation gaps just look at a fish they're all the same thing pretty much. Add abiogenesis claims specific to them: A programming language wrote itself from nothing without sentience involved from nothing helping it and navigated every barrier bewildering every confine of space, time, chemistry, biology, and physics that you have to trust me on bro because there's the tiniest possible chance that it did happen and you can't disprove a negative so I'm right. All abiogenesis believers are darwinists. Not every darwinist believes in abiogenesis. All of them are naturalists. Every square is a rectangle. Not every rectangle is a square. They're all geometric shapes. I'm not trying to be nasty, but I'm either missing a massive key component here or something screwy is going on. If you take the time to break it down for me on why you think Abiogenesis and Darwinism are very different and why the same standards of the scientific method don't apply here I'd be very grateful.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

I subscribed for the "dumb and misleading videos".

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

Is this person saying that defining *"Common Design"* as being similarities due to common design and then using as evidence for *"Common Design"* is circular reasoning?? Anyways, pretzel logic aside..... You seem to come down on Homology so much but you already accept Homology between humans for example (even Behe accepts it up to Family)...... The question is, where exactly does Homology (similarities due to common ancestry) break down in any given clade? Or how can we distinguish similarities due to common designs from those due to common descent?? You have an argument..... But you don't seem to be able to apply it to anything specific. For example, is *Ensete* related to *Musa* ?? Give reasons for your answer

[@BibleResearchTools]

Call Me Emo, you wrote, "Is this person saying that defining "Common Design" as being similarities due to common design and then using as evidence for "Common Design" is circular reasoning?? Anyways, pretzel logic aside..... You seem to come down on Homology so much but you already accept Homology between humans for example (even Behe accepts it up to Family)...... The question is, where exactly does Homology (similarities due to common ancestry) break down in any given clade? Or how can we distinguish similarities due to common designs from those due to common descent??" A common ancestor is a certainty only within observable families, or, in some cases, the genera. For example, the human is a common ancestor to a human, the finch to a finch, the E. coli to and E. coli, and so forth. Everything else is speculation. Listen to a few scientists who have taken the time to examine the science of homology, or the lack thereof. For example, as mentioned in this video series, Mark Ridley stated in his undergraduate text book that the evolutionary meaning cannot be used as evidence of evolution: _"In this chapter, the term 'homology' has a non-evolutionary meaning, which was common before Darwin's time. It should not be confused with the evolutionary meaning (Section 15.3, p. 427). The non-evolutionary usage is needed here in order to avoid a circular argument: evolutionary concepts cannot be used as evidence for evolution." [Mark Ridley, "Evolution." Blackwell Publishing, 3rd Ed, 2004, FN1, p.55]_ In an earlier year, in the journal called Cladistics, philosopher Ronald H. Brady elaborated: _"By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science." [Ronald H. Brady, "On the Independence of Systematics." Cladistics, Vol.1, No.2; March, 1985, p.6]_ Think about that. Much earlier, Sokal and Sneath elaborated even more: _"Even when fossil evidence is available, this evidence itself must first be interpreted in a strictly phenetic manner-with the exception that a time scale is given in addition, which may restrict certain choices of interpretation of the phylogeny-since the criteria for choosing the ancestral forms in a phylogeny are phenetic criteria and are based on the phenetic relationship between putative ancestor and descendant. Any attempt to decide the phylogeny on one set of characters, in particular those believed to be homologous (derived from a common ancestor, by the common definition of the term), or to decide the lines of descent without resorting to phenetic criteria, or to decide a priori which characters are important or are reliable guides to the phylogeny, soon leads to a tangle of circular arguments from which there is no escape." [Sokal & Sneath, "Principles of Numerical Taxonomy." W. H. Freeman and Company, 1963, pp.56-57]_ This is the scientific definition I prefer the most -- short and to the point: _"[H]omology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution. homology is not evidence of evolution nor is it necessary to understand homology in order to accept or understand evolution." [David Wake,"Homoplasy, homology and the problem of 'sameness' in biology", in Brian K. Hall, "Homology: Novartis Foundation Symposium 222." John Wiley & Sons, 1999, p.27]_ onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470515655.ch3 David Wake is a Professor Emeritus of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley. This is a list of 436 publications he authored or co-authored: wakelab.berkeley.edu/publications/ Anyway, that is 40 years of secular scientists defining homology in the same manner. Biology textbooks are notorious for tricking children into believing homology is evidence of evolution, including me when I was studying biology in college (and, perhaps, you!) But now I know that what they were really saying was, "common descent explains the similar structures, and the presence of similar structures is evidence of common descent." That is a circular argument, no matter how you slice it. For the record, if ID'ers and creationists (like me) used the same circular reasoning many evolutionists do, then we would believe homologous structures are evidences of a common designer. Dan

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@BibleResearchTools oh I'm going to have fun with you. Why exactly is common ancestry a *certainty* within Families but not between them? What's preventing me from also saying that common ancestry is a *certainty* within *Classes* (eg: Polypodiopsida)?? ...... After all, according to your logic, Ferns produce Ferns right?? *Class Polypodiopsida (Ferns 11,000+ Species); Call Me Emo, 2020:* [Comparative Illustrations] m.imgur.com/a/6u7XM62

[@BibleResearchTools]

Call Me Emo, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools oh I'm going to have fun with you." Science is fun. Exposing pseudoscience, such as evolution, uniformitarianism and cosmology, is even more fun. =================== Call Me Emo, you wrote, "Why exactly is common ancestry a certainty within Families but not between them?" Genetics. All genetic pathways for common descent have been "shut down." For example, coordinated mutations beyond a single pair are virtually impossible in humans, as is coordination beyond a few pair in more populous organisms: _"Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of 60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." [Durrett & Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution." Genetics, Vol.180, No.3; Nov 1, 2008, p.1507]_ The developmental gene regulatory network (dGRN) is another barrier: _"Each apparently redundant spatial control mechanism turns out to have a special function, often not evident a priori. The overall control principle is that the embryonic process is finely divided into precise little"jobs" to be done, and each is assigned to a specific subcircuit or wiring feature in the upper level dGRN [developmental gene regulatory network.] No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." [Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology." Developmental Biology, Vol.357, Iss.1; Sept 1, 2011, p.40]_ We have also learned that virtually all (if not all) of the non-coding DNA is functional, which renders it non-evolvable, and most (if not all) species on earth began to diversify about the same time: _"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations-think ants, rats, humans-will become more genetically diverse over time. But is that true? "The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution. For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP. The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP. That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age? Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?" [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." __Phys.Org__, May 28, 2018, pp.1-2]_ That report also found that species have "very clear genetic boundaries": _"And yet-another unexpected finding from the study-species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." __Phys.Org__, May 28, 2018]_ It gets worse. When Michael Behe examined a 2009 report by an Oregon group, Behe said, "my jaw dropped." This is Behe's summary: _"The [2009 Joseph Thornton] Oregon group's work on steroid receptors points strongly to a simplified justified twenty-first-century version of Louis Dollo 's arbitrary nineteenth-century law. I 'll call it Dollo 's Timeless Law (Table 8.1). The original law looked only backward in time, ruling out for bare convenience the reappearance of any visible feature that had been lost in a lineage. In contrast, a time-independent, molecular-level, experimentally well-supported Dollo 's Law essentially shuts off both the past and the future to Darwinian evolution. Not only is the reappearance of a complex functional molecular feature ruled out for all intents and purposes; so is its appearance in the first place." [Dollo 's Timeless Law, in Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves: the New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution." HarperOne, 2019, Ch.8, pp.208-211]_ =================== Call Me Emo, you wrote, "What's preventing me from also saying that common ancestry is a certainty within Classes (eg: Polypodiopsida)?? After all, according to your logic, Ferns produce Ferns right?? Class Polypodiopsida (Ferns 11,000+ Species); Call Me Emo, 2020: [Comparative Illustrations] m.imgur.com/a/6u7XM62" It depends. Sometimes, due to evolutionary presuppositions, certain families, such as humans, have been subclassed under a different family, such as homidae. Using the evolutionary classification system, homidae should rightly be classified as an order, since humans only produce humans. That may be also the case with the Fern "class," that is, perhaps the polypodiopsida is just another family that was misclassified, and the classification system is missing a level at the bottom. I don't know much about ferns, but is there any evidence that ferns have evolved into something other than a fern? Dan

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@BibleResearchTools we'll get back to my main argument in a bit, but let's address the side arguments first starting with *Body-Plans* It seems like you're on the verge of comprehending something most Creationists don't, and that is the fact that Evolution does not require the evolution of *"New Body-Plans"* . From the same author ad your previous quote, what do you understand by the following quote??: "Thus we can think of a crown group dGRN as an evolutionarily terminal, finely divided, extremely elegant control system that allows continuing alteration, variation, and evolutionary experimentation only after the body plan per se has formed, i.e., in structural terms, at the dGRN periphery, and in developmental terms, late in the process. It is no surprise, from this point of view, that cell type re-specification by insertion of alternative differentiation drivers is change only at the dGRN periphery, quite a different matter from altering body plan. In terms of their general hierarchical depth, the dGRNs of all living (non-degenerate) bilaterians are probably approximately similar (Peter and Davidson, 2011), though the number of subcircuits required at each given developmental stage or dGRN level to complete the body plan is likely much greater for some forms than others." *EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; Eric H. Davidson, 2011:* www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135751/

[@BibleResearchTools]

Call Me Emo, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools we'll get back to my main argument in a bit, but let's address the side arguments first starting with Body-Plans. It seems like you're on the verge of comprehending something most Creationists don't, and that is the fact that Evolution does not require the evolution of "New Body-Plans". I understand that it is common for evolutionists to move the goalposts, rather than allow Darwinism to be falsified; but this is the first I have heard of evolutionists trying to tear them down! That is my job! LOL! ================== Call Me Emo, you wrote, "From the same author ad your previous quote, what do you understand by the following quote??" _"Thus we can think of a crown group dGRN as an evolutionarily terminal, finely divided, extremely elegant control system that allows continuing alteration, variation, and evolutionary experimentation only after the body plan per se has formed, i.e., in structural terms, at the dGRN periphery, and in developmental terms, late in the process. It is no surprise, from this point of view, that cell type re-specification by insertion of alternative differentiation drivers is change only at the dGRN periphery, quite a different matter from altering body plan. In terms of their general hierarchical depth, the dGRNs of all living (non-degenerate) bilaterians are probably approximately similar (Peter and Davidson, 2011), though the number of subcircuits required at each given developmental stage or dGRN level to complete the body plan is likely much greater for some forms than others."_ - Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology; Eric H. Davidson, 2011 I am a little biased since I have read the entire article, but he appears to be saying that once the body plans form, evolution of those plans is, for all practical purposes, finished. He elaborates here: _"Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan." [Ibid. pp.35-36]_ And here: _"Each apparently redundant spatial control mechanism turns out to have a special function, often not evident a priori. The overall control principle is that the embryonic process is finely divided into precise little "jobs" to be done, and each is assigned to a specific subcircuit or wiring feature in the upper level dGRN [developmental gene regulatory network.] No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." [Ibid. p.40]_ Summarizing, mutations in the DNA will not change the basic body plan (the species are fixed within their respective families;) and changes in the developmental gene regulatory network is always disastrous. There has been no evolution. Gould said much the same thing: _"The sweep of anatomical variety reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination, not expansion. The current earth may hold more species than ever before, but most are iterations upon a few basic anatomical designs... The maximum range of anatomical possibilities arises with the first rush of diversification. Later history is a tale of restriction, as most of these early experiments succumb and life settles down to generating endless variants upon a few surviving models." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, Chap I, p.47]_ Genetically speaking, the origin of the species is beginning to look more and more like this: _"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen __1:21__ KJV_ Dan

[@ReedBetweenTheLines]

You're seriously comparing pursuits like archaeology, criminal forensic, and SETI to Intelligent Design? Criminal forensics is the pursuit of details that are already known to be associated with human activity. Archaeology is the recognition of artifacts that we already have a precedent of design for. Even SETI is an application of the, probably misguided, assumption that an intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would communicate similarly to human communication. In all three cases, we are looking for variations on what we already have seen an intelligence issue. We have never seen an intelligence build a lifeform, a planet, nor a universe. There are no discoveries that have ever come about by testing, and subsequently confirming, any prediction derived from the assumption of Intelligent Design. ONLY AFTER a discovery is made by secular science (often by testing predictions derived from common descent, abiogenesis, the big bang, and/or uniformitarian principles) do we see ID advocates claiming they "would have" expected it if Intelligent Design were true.

[@CesarClouds]

The uploader also fails to realize that the word "design" implies artificiality.

[@johnglad5]

You are essentially accepting ID in some cases but rejecting it in others because it is in opposition to your paradigm. I look at a cell, see all its components and interrelationships, and deduce ID. When someone says they believe dna and the code of life written on it came about by natural means I just shake my head.

[@CesarClouds]

@johnglad5 ID is accepted in observed artificial instances, but not in unobserved magical ones.

[@johnglad5]

@@CesarClouds I don't see how you would apply ID to something unobserved. Was that a cheap shot at God? God was observed when he sent his son Jesus to show us how to live. Performed miracles too numerous to keep track of. He was executed and resurrected 3 days later according to scripture. That last paragraph has nothing to do with ID but is surely worth mentioning. The entire history of the universe and the life of Jesus was documented in a book called the Bible.

[@CesarClouds]

@johnglad5 I'm talking about science and the applicability of observed artificial ID, I'm not talking about religious stories.

[@CesarClouds]

Evolution is defined as changes in alleles frequencies in populations which has been observed: William R. Rice and George W. Salt Evolution Vol. 44, No. 5 (Aug., 1990), pp. 1140-1152 (13 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press

[@johnglad5]

You have changed the definition, everyone agrees with that definition. The real definition is the tree of life. Not observed and no process has been brought forth.

[@CesarClouds]

@johnglad5 The tree of life is not the definition of evolution and the one I provided is the one used by biologist.

[@johnglad5]

@@CesarClouds biologyonline. Says something different. What is your point? My point is that the tree of life, soup to sapien is unobservable and without a process.

[@CesarClouds]

@johnglad5 It says the same thing: "Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations" They used "genetic composition" while I used the more technical "alleles frequencies". That's been observed and documented in the journal I cited.

[@johnglad5]

@@CesarClouds Nothing was mentioned in the abstract that I noticed. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was observed was most likely heredity. Alleles are heredity. Mutations do not build, they destroy and kill. Let's make this simple, do you believe in the tree of life? There is no definitive evidence for it. In the present we should observe single called organisms morphing into multicelled organisms. All those branch nodes on the tree are philosophical. All those branch nodes are paramount to miracles. The fossil record is false due to the finding the Colecanth. Just because a creature was not found in a layer does not mean it wasn't alive at the time the layer was deposited.

[@scisher3294]

Your quips are great, but your content flips when it comes to your final goal of “debunking”. I love to delve into the areas of science that have holes and lack of data. What is really hard to swallow is when you hand wave valid reasoning and just say “nuh uh. That can’t work…” especially to things like “dogs only make dogs”. Because 10’s of millions of years back, with fossil EVIDENCE, and genetic EVIDENCE, and morphological EVIDENCE we can see the path way for a Ursa/Canine ancestor that fits in as a common ancestor of dogs and bears… not one thing is “Proof”. You can’t prove it. We just have evidence to write a story, and your hand waving does not discredit the evidence.

[@janicemoore30]

There is no fossil evidence that "evolution" (i.e., random mutation and natural selection) is the mechanism for cell membrane construction, for clams, for elephants, or for dogs and bears or for anything we have observed. When all you have is hot air to deal with, you wave your hand.

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

Design doesn't make any predictions , design is a ad hoc and unpredictable . Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the post-sanity world.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Sounds like you're not too familiar with design theory. See Appendix A of Meyer's book Signature in the Cell for a host of predictions.

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I am just laughing at the immense stupidity of the darwinist. Commitment to something can make you stupid. We naturally recognize a design because of higher intelligence and consciousness.

[@chaotickreg7024]

I can't believe apologetics have brought us "Intelligent Design of the Gaps." Looking at all of the evidence for evolution and saying "Yeah but God made it that way on purpose because he had plans for biology" is basically Last Thursdayism: God made all things, living or dead, fossil or fresh corpse, history or recent events, all things, and he made then last Thursday. Any evidence that you have for a predictable and historical world before last Thursday is simply God's holy deception. Have faith and ignore the evidence of a reality before last Thursday. Replace last Thursday with about 6000 years and you have young earth creation and intelligent design.

[@chaotickreg7024]

@@LongStoryShortVideos It sounds like you aren't familiar enough to make your own argument? And as a former "scientific Christian" I am fully aware of both arguments. If your evidence for creation is "evolution isn't likely" then you have a HUUUUUUGE burden of proof, and you should be versed in it. Darwinian Evolution made countless predictions that came true. A long running experiment on E. Coli has proved it could evolve to live in toxic environments. Birds and fish have shown speciation after a few generations in the wild under the direct observation of scientists.

[@chaotickreg7024]

Oh dude he wants you to PURCHASE A BOOK in order to finish this argument. There are predictions made by design dude, I swear, and for just $29.99 you could test those predictions!

[@nadermilite5652]

You schooled this guy

[@CesarClouds]

He's not in a position to school anybody, he will literally fail a high school science test.

[@janicemoore30]

@@CesarClouds Sure.

[@commonsense0692]

U deny proven evidence so what is your claim

[@withlessAsbestos]

See the thing is… he could have a uno reverse card… cute dog btw

[@commonsense0692]

@@withlessAsbestos science is proven, observed and tested and agreed by 95% of all scientists and around 80% of people in the world irrespective of race, sex & religion, even the pope trusts evolution and Big Bang over bible, so ur playing the Uno reverse card in a game of chess, it doesn’t make sense. The problem is untrustworthy creationist who even though have been disproven by science and law still spread lies to fulfil their beliefs, I want to know what’s his claim? Magic? They spent Millions/Billions of poor followers donations on trying to disprove science yet still do not admit or have a single piece of evidence of god in 2000 yrs religion is faith based, dictionary definition without evidence.. What’s his end game? Dark ages? No more science or just money and greed like most churches…we had that before it set humanity back a thousand years.. so far they full of bs excuses but can’t admit simple questions and poorly try to attack but refuse to defend the obvious fairytale…I find nobody lies like a Christian, which is ironic really. Thanks Bert the dog is currently taking up too much room on the bed

[@withlessAsbestos]

@@commonsense0692 he’s talking about speculative science tho

[@commonsense0692]

@@withlessAsbestos it isn’t speculative science watch video, again science ALL tested, observed & proven kzbin.info/aero/PLwDQpkr75su6e8KZM5nDhWHGeyE7W_2aT This is the problem creationist throw enough shit at the wall some idiots will believe it, these are conmen who steal millions, don’t pay taxes etc. still haven’t answered my questions what’s ur claim and end game? These ur videos?

[@withlessAsbestos]

@@commonsense0692 Bruh this dude isn’t some mega pastor

[@cloroxbleach3809]

Evolution: A useless dogma.

[@commonsense0692]

Religion and your god: A useless dogma of no evidence

[@CesarClouds]

It can't be useless if it has all these applications: This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research. Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example: Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003). - Talk Origins

[@janicemoore30]

@@CesarClouds You missed Bleach's point. "Evolution" (i.e., that random mutation and natural selection are the mechanism for the creation -- oops! -- rather, the manifestation of the cell, the various species, etc.) is unsupported by observation. Therefore, it is dogma. Useless except to confuse and deceive.

[@CesarClouds]

@@janicemoore30 Their point, without argument, was that it's useless and dogma. It's neither. It's a science and useful.