Genetic Entropy: The End of Biological Evolution ~ Pamela Acker

To donate directly to Pamela: www.givesendgo...
To make a donation to the Kolbe Center to support Pamela's work: www.kolbecente...
Please remember to make a note that the donation is in her name. Checks can also be made out directly to her.
You can find Pamela's books at:
www.kolbecente...
www.kolbecente...
🙏🏻PLEASE HELP OUR CHANNEL GROW 🙏🏻
▶️ 1. Become a Channel Patron: / sensusfidelium
▶️ 2. Visit the website www.sensusfide... for Gueranger, Saint of the Day, Apologetics, Meditation by the Saints, Scripture Study and more.
▶️ 3. BitChute --- www.bitchute.c...
▶️ 4. Paypal, Bitcoin, Anedot, Stripe, Square & PO Box donations - sensusfidelium...
▶️ 5. KZbin: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔
Please "Like" our videos so that KZbin shares it to others by clicking the "Like" thumbs-up under the video = 👍🏻
▶️ 6. Please share this video 📲, and help others find Christ inside the Catholic Church! Please share this video on Facebook and Twitter using the share button.
▶️ 7. Follow on Social Media:
🔴 Facebook: / sensusfidelium
🔴 Sensus Fidelium Twitter: / sensus_fidelium
🔴 KZbin: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔

[@almeggs3247]

As a retired MD. God bless you! You are very courageous in coming forward with this conclusive talk on the failure of evolutionary theory!

[@degaussingatmosphericcharg575]

There is no failure, she is incorrect.

[@Harris19941]

​@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575explain why and how instead of this silly trolling you evolutionists like to engage in

[@ALavin-en1kr]

A higher age perspective refutes mid-nineteenth century Darwinism. Darwin was a biologist, not a cosmologist and it is necessary to understand the Cosmos to understand the human; the microcosm of the macrocosm. As more is learned and understood in the new physics in relation to the cosmos biological reductionism will bit the dust where it belongs. The higher age perspective on human evolution was fourteen versions of the human to a uniquely human prototype in one universal cycle. Evolution of the human from a different species is nonsense. Also today we have eliminative materialism; the latest ism to get it wrong; in an age of the exploration of consciousness and mind and finer forces this crazy theory postulates that all that exists is matter! We have to rescue our minds and intellects, not to mention our common sense from the latest materialist; reductionist nonsense that seeks to hijack philosophy; an ancient and respected discipline from the cluelessness of the reductionists who never rise above a worm’s eye view of reality to a bird’s eye view of reality. It is as if, for them, only the ground exists; the cosmic is alien territory.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

The reality is for the human; the microcosm of the macrocosm the universe is not alien territory we relate to it as it represents who we are in all our cosmic glory as religion defines it in relation to human origin: Let us make man in our image. Man the microcosm of the macrocosm.

[@australiainfelix7307]

Pamela Acker is fantastic! Thanks for hosting these talks.

[@histreeonics7770]

She is incapable of telling the truth either about the biology or the history of science. She is only fantastic in the sense of "unbelievable". I gave up enumerating her lies and errors after about six minutes.

[@marianafaria6960]

I homeschool. Yesterday we were reading a book that took for granted that our eyebrows are what left from our hairy faces. From when men were covered with hair all over. I told my kids that was not true. But it is remarkable how a theory is considered the whole story and factual.

Do your kids a favor, stop lying to them and send them to a public school where they will learn about reality, not your fairy tales.

[@marianafaria6960]

@ ok. I'll do it! :) I'm not sure about my beliefs, so a strange man's idea on KZbin sounds great. God bless you! I'll pray for you today. Have a wonderful Sunday.

[@marianafaria6960]

@ it is no trouble, dear friend. It is a pleasure. Count this one as a victory for you. Your excellent power of persuasion have convinced me. Who can resist such arguments? You put "reality" and "bronze age dogmas" in the same sentence and I'm sold! :)

[@vishnuas1842]

@@marianafaria6960 Oh ! You are going to ruin your children's fate, aren't you? Yes. They need proper education and not some bullshit fallacies and fancy stories written by some goat herders. I bet you also teach your children that Noha's flood was real and a human could live , once , 600 years . And I also doubt that you will be a flat earther and gravity denier. What a shame!

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

@@vishnuas1842 Ah, damn. You played the goat-herders card! What can simpletons do now against such august wisdom?!

[@aircrew705]

Sharks are related to lawyers.

[@OSB911]

As sharks are one of my favorite animals, I find this highly insulting. :-)

[@elizabethkale7044]

Haha!!!

[@rosamurphy6988]

🤣

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

I mean, have you ever actually seen Chris Ferrara and a shark in the same room at the same time? Hmmm 🧐 😝

[@conscience333]

Fascinating talk! Thank you for bringing this to subscribers!

[@johncastino2730]

This lady is brilliant.

[@gamers7800]

What!! You mean theres no smart ass remarks aimed at our host for defending her faith thur science. Hummmm!

[@sethapex9670]

what about Darwin's Tubercle?

[@seaislevel7233]

You lost me at lady queen of the angels. Which tells me you know nothing of the Bible.

[@patrickalle]

So this is not an area I’m well-versed in but what about the immune system and how it adapts and changes in such a way that makes one immune to new kinds of viruses and things that the body hasn’t seen before?

[@JPX7NGD]

Adaption is inborn into mankind. "evolution," as is discussed, is claiming we are beasts.

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@JPX7NGD wrong... You people always crack me up with how uneducated you are. Please science more and don't speak on subjects you don't understand. It just makes you look stupid.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

@@jasonjennings8465 “Please science more...” Wow, and with that atrocious grammar, you breathlessly tell other they make themselves look stupid? Hahahaha

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@jefffinkbonner9551 apparently your dumb ass has never heard the saying "please science more"... 😂😂

[@johncastino2730]

@@jasonjennings8465 Jason, hopefully your kinder than your comments indicate.

[@sethapex9670]

As far as I am aware, most of earth's oxygen came from cyanobacteria that obviously only arose after life had begun, in an event called the oxygen catastrophy, which wiped out much of the life on earth that was not adapted to living in an oxygen environment. This event formed large mats of these bacteria which also died out and sank to the ocean floor and were buried by sediment until they formed the shale and oil deposits we use today for fuel. The descendants of these bacteria are also what produce all the oxygen constantly being replenished on earth today. So while there may have been enough oxygen to oxidize rocks in the prebiotic era, the supply would have been effectively finite, especially with no organisms to replenish it yet. The real issue is that without oxygen, you can't form an Ozone layer in the atmosphere to block UV radiation, especially from a much younger and much brighter Sun. This could be mitigated with other forms of radiation shielding however the best explanation would actually be that amino acids in the prebiotic era were not formed in the atmosphere but rather deep under water close to volcanic vents which supplied hydrogen and sulfur and heat to drive reactions, where the water above would shield radiation. occasionally a bubble containing some precursor molecules might float to the surface and if there were a storm occurring, water in the clouds might shield enough and a lightning strike could excite the molecules in order to form the requisite amino acids. Admittedly the Miller-Urey experiment did not feature enough deatails to confirm this is what happened, it only showed it is chemically possible that, given the right mix of ingredients, it is possible for amino acids, and potentially rudimentary proteins to form. We don't actually know what the first proteins were like or whether they can only be produced with one chirality of amino acid. if they can, the first protein might have used a mix of different chirality amino acids and given rise to proteins which could convert one chirality to another.

[@MillionthUsername]

"As far as I am aware, most of earth's oxygen came from cyanobacteria..." Well, there's really no way to become "aware" of that except to just believe it. These are just stories told by evolutionists of all stripes. Modern "science" is an overarching philosophy (an explanation of existence and reality) based on naturalism/materialism. The central belief is that everything, or nearly everything, is explained by what amounts to a quasi-infinite regression of mindless and purposeless material/physical causes from the present back into some mythical deep-time past, and weaved into a narrative featuring unending "just so" stories for any imaginable question or difficulty along the way. They believe nature explains itself and basically causes itself. Once they applied methodological materialism (which one can safely use in normal science, at least in the practical sense) to the question of origins (the universe, planets, stars, galaxies, life, species), they turned modern science into a sort of all-encompassing atheistic philosophy that "explains" everything by merely imposing this belief system onto every observation and every imagined condition of the past.

[@ThePtoleme]

There's not even absolute proof that oil is of fossil origin... That's just the most likely explanation so far.

[@sethapex9670]

@@ThePtoleme what's the other explanation?

[@vishnuas1842]

@@MillionthUsername You are not contraditcting his explanation. What's your point here? What you have said here is some ranting on science without any substance and even baseless! Cyanobacteria was actually responsible for the O2. You idiots never learn anything. Only you can do is bashing on science and believing some Sky Daddy created everything, which is actually not the case.

[@vishnuas1842]

@@sethapex9670 Actually , Miller experiment had led to some 20 types of amino acids, which he wasn't able to notice at that time. And also the Volcano-in- tube experiment also cofirmed the hypothesis.

[@CreationMyths]

There's a reason you don't find "genetic entropy" in actual scientific literature: It has never been observed, the math doesn't work, and it isn't real. ENCODE didn't show that most of the genome is functional. Not in the 2012 paper, and not in their more recent work. They've actually gotten more conservative over time. They've definitely shown that a lot of the DNA has some kind of biochemical activity, but that's not the same thing as "functional". We've also never thought that all non-protein-coding DNA was junk. tRNA genes, for example, were discovered decades before the term "junk DNA" was coined. Lot of errors in this presentation.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

I'm pretty sure your very first premis is false. John sandford has some co authored data on genetic entropy that is peer reviewed. It is just glossed over because the data can't be refuted, and since it cant be refuted, AND it presents data against standard evolutionary thought the only option is to ignore it.

[@CreationMyths]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 you’re referring to the 2012 H1N1 paper, which, among other problems, fails to actually measure viral fitness, uses the wrong reference sequence to document mutation accumulation, and claimed a lineage that still exists went extinct. It’s bad. See my channel for a more detailed critique.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@CreationMyths I read the paper, it claimed the original 1918 lineage attenuated, and went extinct by about 1960, and that due to a frozen sample leak it was reintroduced around 1970, or so. It also claimed that the 2009 outbreak had likly gone extinct due to attenuation also, but it didnt make a definite claim on that. As far as I remember that all comports with the standard understanding of H1N1 history. So if you take issue with it, then it's not just with john sandford paper but many of his references as well. As for not measuring fitness properly. My guess is that your wanting to just use a different definition of fitness than the paper did. Which is fine, but its dishonest to try to frame that as a claim that it was wrong. The papers defintion of viral fitness is very clearly a combination of a givens strains mortality/transmitability in proportion with its mutation accumulation. The whole paper is showing the linear correlating trend of mutation accumulation in viral strains, along side a equal/near equal linear trend of virus mortality. It acknowledges that other factors like herd immunity, sanitation, and medical advances are also factors to consider, but also rightly points out that those other factors would not produce a linear trend that comports with mutation accumulation like it does. And it says because of this, it is more likly that the mutation accumulation causing attenuation is the factor at play causing the linear trend of decline in viral mortality since it also lines up with the linear trend of mutation rates in viral strains. And I'm not so sure how that controversial to you. It's very straight forward, and makes the most obvious sense. And it presents a clear definition of "fitness" that being the viral mortality. In so far as it using the wrong sequence to determine these things, I'd have to ask which one, and how? Because he used many different strains for different measurements. But if your referring to him using the frozen 1918 sequence as a base marker for all subsequent strains that did not jump from animal to human after the 1970s; then how? It's not like he got a different 1918 strain then any of the other papers he cited. For that matter it's not like he got different strains than any other paper he cited. As far as I'm aware, he didnt produce his own samples. The only time sandfords paper seems to be put down as wrong is when the implications of viral attenuation/genetic entropy get brought up, because it is so obviously not a good thing for the neodarwinian paradigm. But whenever its referenced for other medical studies, or viral attenuation studies nothing gets called into question. If its correct for those things, the implications it brings against the neo darwinian mechanism do not suddenly make it wrong.

[@CreationMyths]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 I'm a virologist and evolutionary biologist, but thank you for correcting me? That paper is a mess for so many reasons. I probably can't link my video on it in the comments, but go to my channel and find the H1N1 video. In short, that's not what fitness means, they didn't measure fitness (replication rate for viruses) at all, but used 2 extremely poor proxies, they counted as harmful a number of mutations that were actually adaptive, they ignored pandemic dynamics (intra- vs inter-host competition) and how those factors change what traits are high-fitness over time, they claimed the pre-2009 lineage went extinct in 2009 (it didn't), and they used the 2009 pandemic lineage as the modern reference sequence to document mutation accumulation since 1918 despite that being a different lineage that differed almost entirely due to reassortment rather than point mutations, meaning the very basis for their paper, the mutation accumulation since 1918, was tallied incorrectly. And these errors would have been caught in review if the paper had been published in a virology or evolution journal, rather than a mathematical biology journal. Anyway, see my video on the topic if you want more details.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@CreationMyths and one of the guys who contributed to the paper is a geneticist. One who understands Gene's so well he invented one of the most used genetic modification tools in the world to date. And that not his only contribution to the world of genetic understanding, just his most famous, and noteworthy one. So if you wanna try that argument from authority nonsense, that might have worked if I was the one who produced the paper you were arguing. But people vastly more accomplished, and professional than you, in a field far more technically relevant to the issue; are the ones who made it. Not me. So I dont think that arguing from authority is going to work in this case. Attempts to argue from authority are almost always bullshit anyways. Like what happens if we were talking about any of the virologists who have cited this paper? They obviously have no qualms with the data in it cause they are citing it. And they obviously disagree with you, while also having the same "authority" as you do.

[@simoncooper6752]

One thing I want to know is, is Behemoth a dinosaur?

[@simoncooper6752]

@Qwerty Rhinos don't have tails like cedars. Nor do elephants or hippos. A sauropod dinosaur seems to better fit the description, and people must have been aware of them after the flood if 2 of every kind were saved.

[@Pandemonium00]

dinosaurs are a fiction dreamed up by a couple freemasons in the 1800s.

[@Pandemonium00]

@Qwerty i am being dead serious. dinosaurs never existed. do some basic research.

[@sethapex9670]

a unicorn is also likely a rhino.

[@marianafaria6960]

@@Pandemonium00 why can't dinosaurs have existed?

[@viviantambe7030]

Is it possible then that the patriarchs did actually live for 900 years and we've just accumulated bad mutations over time? 🤔

Genetic Entropy is bullshit. Every organism that survives to breed must have a viable genome therefore the species is protected from this garbage.

[@CloroxBleach-hv4ns]

A worthless theory

[@BhikPersonal]

Genetic entropy is peer reviewed and empirical science. Search the paper: "A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918 Robert W Carter and John C Sanford" Please do not be ignorant. It's only dismissed by ignorant people. Whereas knowledgeable people agreed with John Sanford's theory of Genetic entropy.

[@marcomclaurin6713]

We decend from a genetically superior creature I demonstrate in my video 'Begining of understanding ' By electrical process

[@jasonjennings8465]

Where was the theory of evolution refuted here?

[@richsouks4902]

It literally takes 5 minutes of researching to work out that evolution is bogus

[@stevejurgens9985]

You are just too stupid to understand this so no need to explain it here to you again.

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@stevejurgens9985 lol, so what you mean is this video is a joke like you. Got it. We both know you nor this video used the scientific method to refute the published science used to validate evolution. I bet you think the theory is still "Darwinism" 😂😂😂

[@stevejurgens9985]

@@jasonjennings8465 You cannot "validate" something. This is positivism and is refuted long time ago, you can just falsifie something. never heard of Karl Popper? No, of course not. You are still stuck in 1850.

[@jasonjennings8465]

@@stevejurgens9985 lol, keep making excuses to run from actually refuting the published science used to validate evolution 😂😂😂 Joe many publications over ERV's have you replicated and refuted using the scientific method? How about fossils? How many have you examined and explained their appearance differently than the published science? How many experiments like the guppies experiment did you replicate and refute using the scientific method to show they did not demonstrate evolution? I bet you have done none of that. Yet you purposely lie and claim they are false. Would you get mad if your teacher failed your research project before she even read it? Wouldn't you consider her actions dishonest? You know you would. You are doing the same thing. Shame on you.

[@fantom5894]

This is fundie stuff ("creation science") not worthy of Catholicism

[@jasonroberts2249]

Your mentality is why Roman Catholicism is now essentially a dead tradition no different from secularism.

[@BhikPersonal]

Genetic entropy is peer reviewed and empirical science. Search the paper: "A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918 Robert W Carter and John C Sanford" Please do not be ignorant. It's only dismissed by ignorant people. Whereas knowledgeable people agreed with John Sanford's theory of Genetic entropy.