>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

It's still all about the missing link, which has never been found. You have a lot of theory and speculation, but you would be surprised how much science takes on faith about evolution, and these discoveries. Entire societies have been fabricated from the find of a single tooth! Or an armbone..but there is no real proof, which is why science still desperately searches for the missing link that they'll never find.

I'll get back to you on the information question because I need to read through the articles..but even if there was some process for it, how do you get from inanimate material to life? Here's a quote:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.






>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.


>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.

You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.

But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.

A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.
True transitional forms are plenty. It's just that "people like you" set the bar unreasonably higher and higher so it cannot be ever reached.
Example with numbers:
Scientists give you: 1,2,3,4,5,6,...
And "you" go: but where is 1.5,2.5,..?
Scientists find: 1.5,2.5,...
And "you" go again: but where is 1.25,1.75,...?
>> ^shinyblurry:
Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them.
It has been shown that the building blocks of DNA can come together naturally, just because "we" have yet to figure out how it went from there does not mean it is not possible. All evidence leads to the conclusion that it somehow works.
Additionally, proteins have been shown to come together naturally too, so DNA and proteins do not need each other. It is the cell (as we understand a cell) who needs both to function.
Oh and please do not use "the chicken and the egg problem", it reduces the percived credebility of your whole argument.

>> ^shinyblurry:

And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.
True transitional forms are plenty. It's just that "people like you" set the bar unreasonably higher and higher so it cannot be ever reached.
Example with numbers:
Scientists give you: 1,2,3,4,5,6,...
And "you" go: but where is 1.5,2.5,..?
Scientists find: 1.5,2.5,...
And "you" go again: but where is 1.25,1.75,...?

>> ^shinyblurry:
Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them.
It has been shown that the building blocks of DNA can come together naturally, just because "we" have yet to figure out how it went from there does not mean it is not possible. All evidence leads to the conclusion that it somehow works.
Additionally, proteins have been shown to come together naturally too, so DNA and proteins do not need each other. It is the cell (as we understand a cell) who needs both to function.

Oh and please do not use "the chicken and the egg problem", it reduces the percived credebility of your whole argument.

Don't put words in my mouth..I don't recall ever agreeing with sarah palin on anything..im not a republican, im an independent.

And I'm not looking down on you..i was responding to the fact that you decided to mock my beliefs instead of adding something to the discussion. and im people like you..christians are not better than anyone..the difference is, we're (trying to) follow Gods will.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

Ahh, I'm crushed that an intellectual such as yourself--who agrees with such luminaries as Sarah Palin--is looking down your nose at me.
I'll read the bible (again) to see how I should deal with the people who are different than me. During 6000 years you would think that you guys could have rid the world of the likes of me.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

Ahh, I'm crushed that an intellectual such as yourself--who agrees with such luminaries as Sarah Palin--is looking down your nose at me.

I'll read the bible (again) to see how I should deal with the people who are different than me. During 6000 years you would think that you guys could have rid the world of the likes of me.

I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

>> ^kulpims:
go, shinyblurry. go!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7Vu7cqB20&feature=related

I watch science videos all the time. Far from being ignorant of science, I was going to make it my career..it didn't turn out that way, but I would say I know more about science in general and astronomy in specific than the average bear. Thank you for watching it with an open mind..I found it fascinating simply of the basis of the illustration of molecular machinery. I agree with the irreducible complexity not on the basis that things like this couldn't necessarily evolve..but simply on the information content of something like DNA..which could not have evolved on its own. Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them. Science just doesn't have any good theories on these things..nature is not matching up to darwinian evolution. And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

>> ^Skeeve:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry There are more than 1.1 million biological and geological scientists in the US. You posted a video from one of the approximately 150 American biologists who are creationists.
Please (and this is a serious and humble request with all the fervor a Christian might have when trying to save someone from hell), please watch, with an open mind, one of the thousands of videos from biologists who aren't trying to convert people.
This atheist watched your video with an open mind and found it lacking. It's time for you to open yours.

Whooops!
...so easy to destroy this old argument about irreducible complexity.

>> ^westy:

I found this really hard to follow , it seems a shame as the person making it has put effort into making graphics to go with it.
non of the specific things in this video are hard to grasp , I just think he is a terrible communicator and given that i assume this video is aimed for people that don't get this stuff in the first place this video is a bit of a waist of time.
Maby its just me but I have no trouble understanding , carl sagon , findman, dawkins , martin reese , neal degrass tyson, and all the other popular scientists yet this guy makes my head bleed.


That's nonsense. He's an excellent communicator who uses clear English and graphics that reinforce key points. I wasn't familiar with the initial concept but it's well explained and there is the first video to consider before you get into this one.

Thanks. =)

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

For those interested, the original video can be found here:

http://videosift.com/video/Irreducible-complexity-cut-down-to-size