Sadly, the typical things he could do to increase his profile would ruin what's great about the channel. If he were to go anti-feminism (or "third-wave feminism" or whatever it is all these guys are whining about) and take a "rationalist" approach to supporting the alt-right, his views would skyrocket. This, at least judging from what's worked for others. My bet is that he doesn't go this route, and I hope sure hope not.
+Glorified Truth I first spotted Pauls channel (and subscribed) when he was around 4K subs. This was not all that long back in the grand scheme of things and he's now at 12K. Aron Ra has 160K! I don't think we should underestimate how far this could reach just yet.
I'm a mutant from a line of mutants that developed the ability to digest dairy (lactose) into adulthood. Totally not beneficial since diary is a great source of calcium in colder climates and is good since I don't get sick when I eat diary products. Nah... totally not neutral at worst.
Did you "develope the ability"? Or were you born with the ability to digest lactose (as all babies are) and your regulator to turn of the production of the lactase protein failed, and that failure was beneficial in the way that Africans failure to produce the correct hemoglobin allowed them to escape malarial infection..... Sorry but your "developed ability" is actually a dysfunction which has been beneficial. It does not represent new knowledge.
But the X-Gene that causes the mutations in Marvel was a cause of genetic-tinkering by the Celestials (and later the Kree) in mankind's ancient past, not natural evolution. What a silly person Eric is for not knowing basic facts of science like that!
It is always entertaining to see you apply the arguments being made by YEC's in one area of discussion against an argument they make elsewhere which utterly contradicts whatever it is they just said.
Damn, I want a zero view video. I want to hit the dislike button right at that point. The only time Paul will get a 100% dislike ratio! (I actually like his videos!)
My Geology teacher in college pointed out that the blue eye gene was a mutation from the brown eye gene in the human genome. This mutation is beneficial for those who live in the northern latitudes (I know, it doesn't show up in all populations who live in latitudes where daylight is limited during certain times of the year). The lighter the color the eye, the faster it adjusts to lower light level. This is what we got instead of larger eyes. Excellent example of beneficial mutation.
I sure am glad that you got over the youtube policy change threshold. I wonder if when they were to review your channel if they would let you monetize. Well I'm still gonna try to get into that spot. I honestly don't know if my channel will be able to remonetize if I don't make it. But That's my problem and we still have you setting the bar for responding to bogus claims. Cheers my friend and keep on truckin.
Thanks, Johnny. Every one of my videos since October has had to undergo manual review. Fortunately, each has passed so far... though I'm not confident that will continue. Inconsistency is an understatement.
What i really like about your videos is, that with each new one i feel like i learn something new as well aside from the refutations of those laughable claims of the creationist fraction. Very good stuff and always a very fair and educated presentation.
It'd make a good subject for the old "polish that turd" "Daily Show" segment ... Do more "professional" morons come across better than less-professional morons? A great paradox. Polished stupidity can shine even more brightly.
+Simon Giles '09nickels impossible, everyone knows you can't polish a turd.' Actually, that's not entirely true. . . I saw an episode of mythbusters where they did this very feat! They found that animals on a high protein diet (like big cats) had turds that polished up the best! It was quite funny. . .
Humans are still very much subject to natural selection, what we have done is significantly change the sorts of natural selection that we are subject to.
qwertyuiop I saw a great explanation of this by Richard Dawkins. He observed that many people are born because their parents were "incompetent with contraception," so if there's a genetic component to using contraceptives, it would create a slight selective pressure for contraceptive incompetence 😄
+Davis Peck 'qwertyuiop I saw a great explanation of this by Richard Dawkins. He observed that many people are born because their parents were "incompetent with contraception," so if there's a genetic component to using contraceptives, it would create a slight selective pressure for contraceptive incompetence ' I've considered this too. Note how poorer families generate more offspring? I think we are all doomed, stupidity is just a few generations away . . .
Well, poor families reproduce at a much faster rate than wealthy families, but one : part of the reason is a higher chance that any given child would not produce grand-children because they die before they get to that stage, two : while poor people are going to be statistically uneducated, that does not mean all poor people are destined to be uneducated, and three : so long as rich and middle class families reproduce at replacement rate, we will not see a decrease in the reality size (presuming all else holds), they would only be lesser by percentages. The real worry is that the ever-increasing population could get out of control, causing the acceleration of the depletion of natural resources, and could lead to wide-spread famine and pestilence. Or we may simply run out of physical space to live.
That's how I run through "debates" with pseudoscience proponents if I think there's a chance I might hear something I haven't already dealt with a thousand times before. If it's, say, old video of Hovind telling us how many "definitions" there are for the word Evolution then I'll just skip his parts because at this point I can do the presentation better than he can.
hahah this lunatic is pretending her story of how her dad is a fish is difficult to grasp you are clearly delusional, your stories are rejected because they are understood, then it becomes clear that you are insane, and you are just a lying jerk who hates God. Only God can create life, and life will always reproduce after itself like the Bible says. None of your childish lies will change that fact you have no excuse you are going to burn in the lake of fire forever clown
Hoops590 *Yawn. Well I won't waste my time on this nonsense but it is hilarious how delusional theists such as yourself try to claim I hate something that does not exist. I most certainly won't concern myself with fictional lakes of fire and all that other nonsense. You sound quite bitter and twisted.
thats a lie you are the delusional idiot pretending your dad is a fish you are insane, you are just a lying jerk who hates the Bible, you are going too the lake of fire forever your opinions don't matter you are a lying idiot making up stories of your cousin the rabbit, you are insane
pretty weird how many times this idea about genetic entropy popping up, and how hard they have it to get why it wrong, it basically to take a trial and error prosess, and skiping the error part, if you do that nothing works. also pretty funny then someone gets it, then they include the error part, but skip the trial part.
Another extremely well researched and presented video. Over the years, I predict thousands of indoctrinated Christians questioning their "beliefs" will stumble across Paul's channel. When they do, I suspect a great many of them will not be able to honestly retain their religion. Futhermore, as Creationist arguments rarely change, Paul's videos will remain relevant for many decades into the future.
Good show as usual, Paul. However, one nitpick. 18:52 - You say that there is one species that _may_ not be affected by natural selection, humans. While you did use the qualifier "may", it simply can't be the case that we aren't affected by natural selection. Unless you are doing *perfect* cloning or are manufacturing 100% of the DNA, natural selection will continue to work on whatever genes affect the survivability and ability to reproduce that still exist. So, while eyeglasses have made the genes that affect vision less important, other genes, perhaps ones that affect our ability to mentally cope with our increasingly complex environment or simply traits that make us more physically attractive, will continue be of value, and thus prone to evolve. That said, keep up the good work! :-)
Hope whatever issues you've had iron themselves out Paul. I guess gawd isn't there offering an olive branch - suppose you have to believe first though eh? Like Aron Ra said, just keep telling yourself he's real until you believe!!!
Human adults used to always be lactose intolerant and we could not tolerate milk once we stopped being children. Over a few thousand years most adults lost lactose intolerance. Meaning we could now drink milk or eat ice cream or have cream in coffee without getting diarrhea. This is clearly a positive mutation and blows the other guy's claim "there are no beneficial mutations" out of the water. This is just one of thousands of beneficial mutations in many species.
Every time cockroaches become immune to a pesticide it's definitely a beneficial mutation as it allows more roaches to survive. Remember, a 'beneficial' mutation to a species is one that makes it more likely to survive long enough to reproduce or to continue to do so,not whether that species is beneficial to others.
For me, two of the most beneficial mutations I can think of are the SDF1-3′A mutation and the CCR5-delta32 mutation which makes an individual immune to HIV infection. As it is only found, as of now, in people with European ancestry researchers hypothesize that it is a mutation that was carried by those that survived the black death.
I like the corner they have painted themselves into that you point out Paul. That there must be positive mutations for their adaptations to work, but there's no way it can extend into the long timescale of evolution.
I just taught my Chemistry students about the reactions that are driven by entropy that make up cellular respiration. Entropy keeps every cell in your body alive. I believe in God. But, I share more with the numinousness that Sagan experienced than whatever these people experience in worship. :-(
I really enjoyed your textbook to bible/ textbook to genetic analogy clarification and analyzation. I find myself arguing simular complexities with the "Faith is simple" crowd.
I just realized the problem with the book analogy. In the evolution model we don't start with all the words fully formed and ready. We start with but a single letter. Any additions or changes afterwards can make new words or change certain meanings. But point being that we're not changing vital points if we haven't started yet
Surely it hardly matters how many faulty genes we have, if they don’t do anything. Using his book analogy, copies of the text which are significantly incorrect would be discarded and there may be instances where the ‘error’ produces more accurate information than the original so might be adopted as the new standard. These people seem to talk about mutation and natural selection as if there is no connection between them. Deleterious changes are selected out, advantageous changes are selected in.
Again, why do all these creationists speak so quickly and clipped? I give Hovind a little credit here. He generally speaks moderately, though he usually says bullshit.
_"why do all these creationists speak so quickly and clipped"_ Paulogia speeds up the creationist's statements so as to shorten the length of his productions.
Hovind deserves no credit whatsoever. He sells cyanide under the guise of vitamin B17 to cancer victims disguising it as something its not in order to get past false claims. To the best of my knowledge this money making racket preying on the vulnerable continues to this day. He is no better than his disgusting jailbird daddy.
+John Wroght All Eric wants to do is fleece gullible brainwashed sheep into loading his bank account with filthy dollars, much like his father before him and any offspring he may (if he hasn't already) eventually unleash on this poor world!
21:53 You seem to be doing some cherrypicking, yourself. You have Sanford's rebuttal in your description, so I assume you read through it. It gives an argument for why other, more rapidly producing organisms aren't extinct. I haven't heard you mention it in your video so far, though.
11:39 I think you may be misunderstanding what Sanford meant. From this article: "He Said It: John Sanford Gene Gun Inventor, On The Rarity Of Beneficial Mutations" uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-john-sanford-gene-gun-inventor-on-the-rarity-of-beneficial-mutations/ is this quote, allegedly from Sanford's book: "Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense-but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” (pp.26-27)" Apparently, when Sanford uses the term 'beneficial mutation' he means one that is 'information creating.' He seems to be mixing the concepts of 'benefit to survival' with 'information creating.' So it seems he understands that loss-of-function (loss of genetic information) mutations can be beneficial to an organism's survival. But the point he's probably trying to make is that if all mutations involve loss of information, even the beneficial ones, then there's obviously genetic entropy. It doesn't help that Sanford is mixing up the 2 concepts, but I think you may be misrepresenting his position.
I am a mutant that can walk on my hind legs, can efficiently run on those same legs, efficiently cool down because I have less hair and more sweat glands than my cousins. I have full color vision and front facing eyes with depth perception. My brain is huge, and sure, that helps me to perceive and understand the world around me, as well as plan and shape things, such as tools, to benefit myself and others. My ancestors got so good at this that we engineered other species to our benefit just by selecting them without even understanding the mechanisms we were manipulating. My great toe is less flexible than in my closest cousins, but that helps me to balance and walk efficiently. But no beneficial mutations, no.
14:14 It's been proposed by Blount, in a 2016 paper, that what actually occurred in Lenski's long-term E. coli experiment was not the formation of novel gene functions, but rather duplication and rearrangement of pre-existing citrate metabolising and transport genes. This may suggest that this is merely an adaptive (epigenetic) response, rather than evolutionary, although it doesn't seem to be well studied enough to know for certain. So creationists are aware of that experiment and that there is some evidence that it may not necessarily demonstrate evolution. I'm not really certain that that experiment is really relevant to a debate on genetic entropy, though--maybe on adaption vs evolution, but not entropy.
What was Marianne's screen test for her co-host role? "Smile inanely. Good, Good. Now the person beside you has said something really stupid, but you have to react like it's the cleverest thing you've ever heard. And scene... Very good. We'll be in touch."
Paulogia I just watched the new Ham and Eggs Paulo and loved it! As promised, more H&E meant my becoming a Patron. I just signed up and hopefully I will be able to financially increase my support as time goes by. Meanwhile, keep up the good work with your cartoon’s smug countenance and its creepy blinking eyes and square-jawed ruggedness spitting hot fire at YE Breakfast Club!
Tetrachromacy is an oddball among that list, and is not caused _solely_ by simple mutation. It is, in fact, a bizarre form of color blindness. The simple starting point is that the genes that control the formation of your red or green retinal cone cells sometimes mutate, and in some cases force those cones to have a sensitivity that peaks at a different wavelength from normal. i.e. the sensitivity of the red cones will be slightly shifted towards green (protanomaly), or the green cone sensitivity shifted a bit toward red (deuteranomaly). The usual result is therefore some form of red-green color blindness, where the perception of many of the colors we see is altered. For example, a purple object (a mix of red and blue) might look almost identical to a pure blue object to the afflicted, because the sensitivity to red is weakened. The twist is that the genes controlling these cones are located on the X chromosome. This means that males, with only one X chromosome, suffer such color blindness much more frequently (about 1 in 12) than females (about 1 in 200), who have a second copy of the gene that can compensate for a defect in one. Both copies must have the same defect before she will suffer that form of blindness. The twist to the twist is that this is also how tetrachromacy can arise in women, and only in women. If a female has one copy of the red gene (for example) that is normal, and one copy that is defective, then she may develop one set of red cones that function normally, and another set that has an offset sensitivity. Add these to the normally functioning green and blue cones, and bam, she has a retina that is sensitive to four peak wavelengths. It is even conceivable for pentachromacy to exist (possessing normal and altered versions of both red and green cones), but this has of yet never been observed. Your poor male, on the other hand, will never ever get that kind of opportunity. the same defect that gives her extra color vision necessarily robs him of his.
The way I interpreted (maybe incorrectly) the Kimura paper regarding beneficial mutations is that [it would take relatively few to account for evolution. ] So there may be many more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones, but since the beneficial ones get passed on much more frequently, this ratio corresponds to the Theory of Evolution. The damage to genes that Sanford refers to happens to individuals, but he argues as if it happens to everyone at once. If the Bible indicates anything about evolution , it is that it works rapidly (e.g. the changes since the supposed Flood until now that the YEC model implies) ... no, wait, that isn’t what the Bible indicates. For example, Genesis, written in the 6th C BCE, describes the created animals in terms familiar to the audience. There is no “in those days, animal X had features Y and Z”.
I've noticed that the faster they talk, the more likely it is that they are lying or they don't know what they are talking about. This fast-speaking seems to be common with these creationists, particularly Eric, he's a used-car salesman.
Another example of beneficial mutations is somatic hypermutation. It's the process by which B cells create better antibodies. After encountering a bacteria that it can respond to, the B cells go to lymph nodes and enter a state of hypermutation where they reproduce and allow and increased mutation rate. There is a selection process that weeds out the inferior antibody producing b cells and voila, enhanced antibody production
17:15 I would argue with that. While it is correct that most positive mutations are either limited to certain environments or come with a cost/benefit equasion, there are certainly purely negative ones: loss of function mutations in so called housekeeping genes - responsible for cell integrity, division, diversification, metabolism, etc. - cause the offspring to just die. That is not good for either the individual or the species. Similarly if a gene responsible for reproduction suffers a loss of function, the affected individual can never have offspring of their own. Fortunately, most purely negative mutations are so harshly selected against, that they can never get affixed in the genome.
Interestingly, I was told when I was a kid that I have some kind of mutation that causes my upper set of wisdom teeth should never appear, and the lower half may actually have enough space to not need to be removed. Simultaneously the dentist told me that my tooth enamel is softer than average, and I will be at higher risk of cavities. Not sure how accurate all of that is, but I am around the age that wisdom teeth need removal and have seen no evidence of their formation.
One more comment. I once read an article on Sanford's book Genetic Entropy that I should have bookmarked. It explained how he tried to get a "peer reviewed" stamp on it, which seems weird for a book, when the publishing house realized that he had submitted a biology book to the information science branch of that house. As a result his book was refuted before it was even published. Does anyone have a source for that blog?
Quick question, wanna support ya, but on Pateron its $1 per video. Don't make much each paycheck (struggle paycheck to paycheck) but would love to throw a dollar or two your way each month. Anyway or anywhere I can do that? Like just a flat rate per month? Not per video, just a flat rate???
I like to keep it per video to make sure that I have incentive to make sure I'm producing. That said, you can "cap" the monthly charges at $2 on Patreon, if that works for you.
I'll add a note on the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal. I track over 1700 technical journals in which over 23,000 technical works have appeared that are presently in my #TIP www.tortucan.wordpress.com dataset. I have only 5 papers other than the Carter & Sanford one from that journal in my bibliography. 2 of them are by creationists: Chase W. Nelson & John C. Sanford. 2011. “The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms.” 8 (April): 9., & John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, & John Baumgardner. 2015. “The waiting time problem in a model hominin population.” 12 (September): 18. 2 more are by Intelligent Design advocates: David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors. 2005. “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information.” 2 (August): 29, & Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, & Jack T. Trevors. 2007. “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins.” 4 (December): 47. The last is in my references only because an ID advocate cited it: David J. D’Onofrio & Gary An. 2010. “A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA.” 7 (January): 3. Thus based on the content of the journal, its functionally irrelevant to the cutting edge of genetics, at least as it relates to how evolution does or does not do its thing.
I would say that mutations that always kill before reproductive maturity are objectively bad in terms of natural selection. That is the only such catagory, as far as I know, though.
They're saying He created us perfect, then a snake poisoned us with mutagenic food and screwed us up. Never mind that the same God later went back to us and _purposely_ sabotaged us.
😡 Nonsense ❎. Wooden spoon to creationists! 😀 Intelligence ✅ Gold medal to you for your diligence and clarity of presentation! I particularly enjoyed your use of a personal example to knock down the idiotic piffle on that channel. The blatant dishonesty of the so called ‘experts’ is reprehensible and must be revealed as such to the widest audience. This is what you have achieved in all of your work. Just a passing thought, though . . . what if only the wilfully deluded were to decline and disappear?
8:20 I love Marianne's reaction here, it's just a face of pure joy and incredulity that we are going to have math and science XD I am not sure she believes they exist judging by her face
Actually, a better analogy for mitosis is that, if you had two books, one written by a male, one by a female. You took half of each book and spliced them together to make a new book. Its not just copying a book by hand. its combining half of two books together. But anyway.....
+Paulogia 'Even if you're on in a million, in New York there are eight of you. . .' Oh the destruction of the Hovinds, how poetic, how just, how . . . erm . . . moral! 12K - and another thousand is surpassed! Keep up the battle against ignorance! ;)
The problem with saying there are no objectively negative mutations, is that while, that is generally true, the statement isn't accurate. Negative traits can become positive, etc, etc. But mutations which are either immediately lethal, or make procreation impossible, are as far as I can see, objectively negative, as there are no circumstances where it will prove beneficial to their ability to procreate their genes. Although theoretically the latter could enhance personal survival in some situations, perhaps even extremely just for argument's sake, there would be no way to pass on this apparent fitness and so it would die with the bearer like all currently maladaptive variations. Actually... more than the other currently maladaptive variations, since the common ones at least have random chance and other more beneficial genes to allow them survival.
Does anyone know of a free online source for Sanford's Genetic Entropy book? I'm often asked to refute the argument by YECs and my usual approach is to ask them to please give me the difference in Entropy, in the SI units of Entropy (i.e. in JK^-1, or the base units kg m^2 s^−2 K^−1) between 2 DNA molecules, one with a beneficial mutation and the other and identical molecule except for that mutation. I then warn them than once they have calculated that I am going to ask them to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the amount of Entropy they have come up with *cannot* cross the boundary of the system during the process in question. The process in question being reproduction. So far every YECs I have had the discussion with has given me an answer which can be paraphrased as "no fair!". But in my view it is. If you are going to insist that "entropy" makes anything impossible then you have to be able to show 1) that Entropy would have been lost, 2) either that the system is isolated entropically from the rest of the universe, or 3) that the amount of entropy lost is more than the amount that could have crossed the boundary. No YEC has shown me even 1) let alone 2) or 3) But they all say that I have to read Sanford's book and then I will understand. And I'd love to be able to say "I've read it and I am still not convinced" but I *refuse* to give him any money. I may be pre-judging him, but given the fact that we are alive, and it takes far more J K^-1 to be conceived, gestated, born, and grow up than it could possibly take for a beneficial SNP to occur I don't see how his book could be anything more than a disingenuous pile of horse manure which has poisoned the minds of countless people, thus I consider giving him any amount of money, however small, which he might put towards writing another heinous tract to be a crime. If I find a free copy and it turns out that I am wrong and he can actually produce evidence for his argument I will buy a copy by way of apology. But somehow I don't see that happening.
I don't quite understand what the creationist purpose is with this genetic entropy? Is it to say that the science of evolution must therefore be wrong? Or is it to say "we're all doomed!"
Humans are fairly well adapted to their current evolutionary niche. Barring some catastrophic environmental change, I don't think there'll be a crapload of biological advancements. In fact, with our medical tech increasing the way it is, people are less likely to die in general, which may have some deletrious effects on the average strength/stamina/intelligence. (That's not a bad thing; it just means humans are growing in variety and number.)
Paulogia distinguishes himself with this video... anyone can be snarky and ridicule, but damn, this fellow puts in the work.
Don't he just do a fine job in exposing these ignorant money stealing charlatans? Go Paul!
Sadly, the typical things he could do to increase his profile would ruin what's great about the channel. If he were to go anti-feminism (or "third-wave feminism" or whatever it is all these guys are whining about) and take a "rationalist" approach to supporting the alt-right, his views would skyrocket. This, at least judging from what's worked for others. My bet is that he doesn't go this route, and I hope sure hope not.
+Glorified Truth
I first spotted Pauls channel (and subscribed) when he was around 4K subs. This was not all that long back in the grand scheme of things and he's now at 12K. Aron Ra has 160K! I don't think we should underestimate how far this could reach just yet.
Dude is a hero for common sense science and his videos should be used as evolution science modules in schools
04:16 "So I'm wondering..." No Eric, no you're not, you have no interest in learning scientific facts that may challenge your preconceptions.
I'm a mutant from a line of mutants that developed the ability to digest dairy (lactose) into adulthood. Totally not beneficial since diary is a great source of calcium in colder climates and is good since I don't get sick when I eat diary products. Nah... totally not neutral at worst.
Here here, a toast to all of my fellow genetic freak lactose tolerant mutants!
Alexander Chrisander Yeah, but it's not a very exciting X-Men power.
You are obviously just extremely lucky. Nothing to do with evolution. Yeah. That's it. GO BIBLE AND CREATIONISTS!
Did you "develope the ability"? Or were you born with the ability to digest lactose (as all babies are) and your regulator to turn of the production of the lactase protein failed, and that failure was beneficial in the way that Africans failure to produce the correct hemoglobin allowed them to escape malarial infection..... Sorry but your "developed ability" is actually a dysfunction which has been beneficial. It does not represent new knowledge.
@@ludwigvonmiseswasright4380 thanks for demonstrating how mutations dont have to add information to be beneficial.
A creationist cherry picking data, quote mining, and being generally deceptive? Say it ain't so!
Tis so. . .
To (miss) quote Monty Python " It's their idiom" .
Right? Whoever heard of such a thing. I refuse to believe it.
Pay no attention to that man behind the Bible....
But the X-Gene that causes the mutations in Marvel was a cause of genetic-tinkering by the Celestials (and later the Kree) in mankind's ancient past, not natural evolution. What a silly person Eric is for not knowing basic facts of science like that!
It seems he was going by the movies; iirc, they were presenting it as natural evolution, at least at first.
Always happy to see you've made a new video.
thanks, KC
Creationists continue to get more and more creative in showing how ignorant they really are...guess they are getting bored doing it the regular ways.
Not really, this is an older argument.
I don't remember where, but I've seen Kimura being abused before
Yeah apparently faith isn't enough anymore. What, just believing without evidence isn't good enough?
Their arguments are degrading due to memetic entropy.
Thats a lie, You are a just a lying idiot who pretends they are related to fish
you are going to hell
Hoops590 Boring as ever I see.
It is always entertaining to see you apply the arguments being made by YEC's in one area of discussion against an argument they make elsewhere which utterly contradicts whatever it is they just said.
it's one of my favorites.
Does that actually say "Zero Views"? Did I find a virgin video? Wow! In under 2 minutes of posting! I'm so proud of me.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
good job, Guy!
Guy Fawkes you popped Paul’s cherry!
Damn, I want a zero view video. I want to hit the dislike button right at that point. The only time Paul will get a 100% dislike ratio! (I actually like his videos!)
@@blackfeathercrafts
So that is why Shannon has to be the first on every new video.
My Geology teacher in college pointed out that the blue eye gene was a mutation from the brown eye gene in the human genome. This mutation is beneficial for those who live in the northern latitudes (I know, it doesn't show up in all populations who live in latitudes where daylight is limited during certain times of the year). The lighter the color the eye, the faster it adjusts to lower light level. This is what we got instead of larger eyes. Excellent example of beneficial mutation.
I sure am glad that you got over the youtube policy change threshold. I wonder if when they were to review your channel if they would let you monetize. Well I'm still gonna try to get into that spot. I honestly don't know if my channel will be able to remonetize if I don't make it. But That's my problem and we still have you setting the bar for responding to bogus claims. Cheers my friend and keep on truckin.
Thanks, Johnny. Every one of my videos since October has had to undergo manual review. Fortunately, each has passed so far... though I'm not confident that will continue. Inconsistency is an understatement.
What i really like about your videos is, that with each new one i feel like i learn something new as well aside from the refutations of those laughable claims of the creationist fraction. Very good stuff and always a very fair and educated presentation.
One of my new favorite RUclipsrs to donate to. Paul, you do excellent work. Thank you.
thank you so much for the support!
Quote mining appears to be a growth industry in creationist circles.
When it's all you got, you gotta make the most of it. . .
Nah, it's always been booming for creationists.
A solution for global warming ?
"I'm gonna sing the Doom-Song"
ruclips.net/video/s2jvANh2aEc/видео.html
The "Creation Today" and "Answers In Genesis" seem like less-polished versions of "Fox and Friends."
09nickels impossible, everyone knows you can't polish a turd.
It'd make a good subject for the old "polish that turd" "Daily Show" segment ... Do more "professional" morons come across better than less-professional morons? A great paradox. Polished stupidity can shine even more brightly.
Simon Giles false mythbusters did...
+Simon Giles
'09nickels impossible, everyone knows you can't polish a turd.'
Actually, that's not entirely true. . .
I saw an episode of mythbusters where they did this very feat! They found that animals on a high protein diet (like big cats) had turds that polished up the best! It was quite funny. . .
+PiratesOfDarkWater
Damn, just spotted, you beat me to the reference of polishing a turd. . . LMAO
Humans are still very much subject to natural selection, what we have done is significantly change the sorts of natural selection that we are subject to.
qwertyuiop I saw a great explanation of this by Richard Dawkins. He observed that many people are born because their parents were "incompetent with contraception," so if there's a genetic component to using contraceptives, it would create a slight selective pressure for contraceptive incompetence 😄
+Davis Peck
'qwertyuiop I saw a great explanation of this by Richard Dawkins. He observed that many people are born because their parents were "incompetent with contraception," so if there's a genetic component to using contraceptives, it would create a slight selective pressure for contraceptive incompetence '
I've considered this too. Note how poorer families generate more offspring? I think we are all doomed, stupidity is just a few generations away . . .
Glenn Carr True but asian populations are taking over the world so that may help make the general population more intelligent
Only if being incompetent with contraceptives increases the number of grandchildren you have.
Well, poor families reproduce at a much faster rate than wealthy families, but one : part of the reason is a higher chance that any given child would not produce grand-children because they die before they get to that stage, two : while poor people are going to be statistically uneducated, that does not mean all poor people are destined to be uneducated, and three : so long as rich and middle class families reproduce at replacement rate, we will not see a decrease in the reality size (presuming all else holds), they would only be lesser by percentages.
The real worry is that the ever-increasing population could get out of control, causing the acceleration of the depletion of natural resources, and could lead to wide-spread famine and pestilence. Or we may simply run out of physical space to live.
Paul, I really enjoy your webcast(?). The sound of reason is something that must be constantly played against the drum beat of nonsense.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you speeding up he Kent Hovind clips.
That's how I run through "debates" with pseudoscience proponents if I think there's a chance I might hear something I haven't already dealt with a thousand times before. If it's, say, old video of Hovind telling us how many "definitions" there are for the word Evolution then I'll just skip his parts because at this point I can do the presentation better than he can.
I should get an award for fastest click upon notification. Been waiting all weekend for a video! Great content!
Ouch... when a guy on RUclips completely owns your special guest 'expert'... oh dear...
thats a lie, no one was owned
you are a simple idiot that thinks fish turn into people you are going to hell
What lol? Don't project your complete lack of understanding of evolution on me. You didn't even watch the video consciously now did you? (rhetorical).
hahah this lunatic is pretending her story of how her dad is a fish is difficult to grasp you are clearly delusional, your stories are rejected because they are understood, then it becomes clear that you are insane, and you are just a lying jerk who hates God. Only God can create life, and life will always reproduce after itself like the Bible says.
None of your childish lies will change that fact you have no excuse
you are going to burn in the lake of fire forever clown
Hoops590 *Yawn. Well I won't waste my time on this nonsense but it is hilarious how delusional theists such as yourself try to claim I hate something that does not exist. I most certainly won't concern myself with fictional lakes of fire and all that other nonsense.
You sound quite bitter and twisted.
thats a lie you are the delusional idiot pretending your dad is a fish
you are insane, you are just a lying jerk who hates the Bible, you are going too the lake of fire forever
your opinions don't matter you are a lying idiot making up stories of your cousin the rabbit, you are insane
Sorry to hear about your brush with cancer. Hope your doing well.
pretty weird how many times this idea about genetic entropy popping up, and how hard they have it to get why it wrong, it basically to take a trial and error prosess, and skiping the error part, if you do that nothing works.
also pretty funny then someone gets it, then they include the error part, but skip the trial part.
Kudos @ Paulogia! Very neat and to the point.
I love your voice! Sooo soothing. Another great video! Thank you, Paula 😙😙
Came home from school, saw it in my notifications, clicked on it!
Glad your priorities seem in order.
Another extremely well researched and presented video. Over the years, I predict thousands of indoctrinated Christians questioning their "beliefs" will stumble across Paul's channel. When they do, I suspect a great many of them will not be able to honestly retain their religion. Futhermore, as Creationist arguments rarely change, Paul's videos will remain relevant for many decades into the future.
Good show as usual, Paul. However, one nitpick.
18:52 - You say that there is one species that _may_ not be affected by natural selection, humans. While you did use the qualifier "may", it simply can't be the case that we aren't affected by natural selection. Unless you are doing *perfect* cloning or are manufacturing 100% of the DNA, natural selection will continue to work on whatever genes affect the survivability and ability to reproduce that still exist.
So, while eyeglasses have made the genes that affect vision less important, other genes, perhaps ones that affect our ability to mentally cope with our increasingly complex environment or simply traits that make us more physically attractive, will continue be of value, and thus prone to evolve.
That said, keep up the good work! :-)
Thank you, Paul, for still dissecting Eric and his performances!😎😎This and Ken Hamm are the best of your channel! Keep up the great work!😄
'Genetic Entropy'. I think I just found the name for synthwave throwback group.
I do so enjoy a video that is so on point and so well edited. Fantastic.
PPPPAAAULLLL WE MISSEED YOUUU
It's been a rough 2018, but hoping to make it up to you...
Paulogia hey, take your time my man. Hows the family?
Hope whatever issues you've had iron themselves out Paul. I guess gawd isn't there offering an olive branch - suppose you have to believe first though eh? Like Aron Ra said, just keep telling yourself he's real until you believe!!!
You did a very good job making an actual analogy about textbooks for evolution. Well done.
Human adults used to always be lactose intolerant and we could not tolerate milk once we stopped being children. Over a few thousand years most adults lost lactose intolerance. Meaning we could now drink milk or eat ice cream or have cream in coffee without getting diarrhea. This is clearly a positive mutation and blows the other guy's claim "there are no beneficial mutations" out of the water. This is just one of thousands of beneficial mutations in many species.
Every time cockroaches become immune to a pesticide it's definitely a beneficial mutation as it allows more roaches to survive. Remember, a 'beneficial' mutation to a species is one that makes it more likely to survive long enough to reproduce or to continue to do so,not whether that species is beneficial to others.
Thank you, Paulogia, for another well done video!
Another fantastic video. Keep up the great work, Paul!
Great video as always Paul.
For me, two of the most beneficial mutations I can think of are the SDF1-3′A mutation and the CCR5-delta32 mutation which makes an individual immune to HIV infection. As it is only found, as of now, in people with European ancestry researchers hypothesize that it is a mutation that was carried by those that survived the black death.
Awesome stuff big guy ... see another 'thousand' there ; go man go. ;D
Flame on:
I hate the term "evolutionism"!
Flame off.
Great video!
I like the corner they have painted themselves into that you point out Paul. That there must be positive mutations for their adaptations to work, but there's no way it can extend into the long timescale of evolution.
I just taught my Chemistry students about the reactions that are driven by entropy that make up cellular respiration. Entropy keeps every cell in your body alive. I believe in God. But, I share more with the numinousness that Sagan experienced than whatever these people experience in worship. :-(
I really enjoyed your textbook to bible/ textbook to genetic analogy clarification and analyzation. I find myself arguing simular complexities with the "Faith is simple" crowd.
I just realized the problem with the book analogy. In the evolution model we don't start with all the words fully formed and ready. We start with but a single letter. Any additions or changes afterwards can make new words or change certain meanings. But point being that we're not changing vital points if we haven't started yet
Another good video Paul.
Very well done, Paul.
Surely it hardly matters how many faulty genes we have, if they don’t do anything.
Using his book analogy, copies of the text which are significantly incorrect would be discarded and there may be instances where the ‘error’ produces more accurate information than the original so might be adopted as the new standard.
These people seem to talk about mutation and natural selection as if there is no connection between them. Deleterious changes are selected out, advantageous changes are selected in.
Oh, never mind, you said it anyway!
Great video, Paul.
Again, why do all these creationists speak so quickly and clipped? I give Hovind a little credit here. He generally speaks moderately, though he usually says bullshit.
jmtnvalley because the best way to pitch BS is to talk fast and be charismatic.
_"why do all these creationists speak so quickly and clipped"_
Paulogia speeds up the creationist's statements so as to shorten the length of his productions.
Because if they talk fast enough, they think you won't be able to refute the bullshit before they have moved on to a new piece of bull.
Hovind deserves no credit whatsoever. He sells cyanide under the guise of vitamin B17 to cancer victims disguising it as something its not in order to get past false claims. To the best of my knowledge this money making racket preying on the vulnerable continues to this day. He is no better than his disgusting jailbird daddy.
+John Wroght
All Eric wants to do is fleece gullible brainwashed sheep into loading his bank account with filthy dollars, much like his father before him and any offspring he may (if he hasn't already) eventually unleash on this poor world!
Great video. Keep them coming
Nice one, Paul!
21:53 You seem to be doing some cherrypicking, yourself. You have Sanford's rebuttal in your description, so I assume you read through it. It gives an argument for why other, more rapidly producing organisms aren't extinct. I haven't heard you mention it in your video so far, though.
@Marilyn Newman What? Could you use some better grammar, please? I don't understand what you're talking about.
23:17 This is the most homoerotic thing I'll see all week, I'm sure.
This is such a fantastic video. Amazing work!
+1 subscriber
thanks and welcome!
11:39 I think you may be misunderstanding what Sanford meant. From this article:
"He Said It: John Sanford Gene Gun Inventor, On The Rarity Of Beneficial Mutations"
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-john-sanford-gene-gun-inventor-on-the-rarity-of-beneficial-mutations/
is this quote, allegedly from Sanford's book:
"Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense-but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.
While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” (pp.26-27)"
Apparently, when Sanford uses the term 'beneficial mutation' he means one that is 'information creating.' He seems to be mixing the concepts of 'benefit to survival' with 'information creating.'
So it seems he understands that loss-of-function (loss of genetic information) mutations can be beneficial to an organism's survival. But the point he's probably trying to make is that if all mutations involve loss of information, even the beneficial ones, then there's obviously genetic entropy.
It doesn't help that Sanford is mixing up the 2 concepts, but I think you may be misrepresenting his position.
I am a mutant that can walk on my hind legs, can efficiently run on those same legs, efficiently cool down because I have less hair and more sweat glands than my cousins. I have full color vision and front facing eyes with depth perception. My brain is huge, and sure, that helps me to perceive and understand the world around me, as well as plan and shape things, such as tools, to benefit myself and others. My ancestors got so good at this that we engineered other species to our benefit just by selecting them without even understanding the mechanisms we were manipulating.
My great toe is less flexible than in my closest cousins, but that helps me to balance and walk efficiently. But no beneficial mutations, no.
Love the depth of research on this and your other videos. You fucking rock!
thanks, Tom
As scientific information moves from evolution to creationism, it definitely degrades...
Wasn't the milk drinking a gene mutation in a good way
I really didn't see the whole copying the bible comparison coming...that smacked me upside the head in the best possible way.
heh. smack-and-run.
14:14 It's been proposed by Blount, in a 2016 paper, that what actually occurred in Lenski's long-term E. coli experiment was not the formation of novel gene functions, but rather duplication and rearrangement of pre-existing citrate metabolising and transport genes.
This may suggest that this is merely an adaptive (epigenetic) response, rather than evolutionary, although it doesn't seem to be well studied enough to know for certain.
So creationists are aware of that experiment and that there is some evidence that it may not necessarily demonstrate evolution. I'm not really certain that that experiment is really relevant to a debate on genetic entropy, though--maybe on adaption vs evolution, but not entropy.
What was Marianne's screen test for her co-host role? "Smile inanely. Good, Good. Now the person beside you has said something really stupid, but you have to react like it's the cleverest thing you've ever heard. And scene... Very good. We'll be in touch."
Hey Paul I just want to know are you really buff? Or if you just drew muscles on yourself ?
Viced Rhino's avatar is completely accurate to life.
Shit, forgot to switch accounts...
Well shit, now I definitely can't make that joke..
His drawings are a bit like the matrix, that is his residual self image, the mental projection of his digital self. Make of that what you wish.
yeah Shannon is hot, but her avatar is amazing.
I’ll sign up to become a Patron after this one Paul. Just promise me some good ol’ Ham and Eggs in the future. 🙏
I promise
Paulogia
I just watched the new Ham and Eggs Paulo and loved it! As promised, more H&E meant my becoming a Patron. I just signed up and hopefully I will be able to financially increase my support as time goes by. Meanwhile, keep up the good work with your cartoon’s smug countenance and its creepy blinking eyes and square-jawed ruggedness spitting hot fire at YE Breakfast Club!
Yeah! I was just wondering when a new Hovind video would come out from you. I'm glad it's not as short as most of the Hovind debunks.
Thanks BPD
Tetrachromacy is an oddball among that list, and is not caused _solely_ by simple mutation. It is, in fact, a bizarre form of color blindness.
The simple starting point is that the genes that control the formation of your red or green retinal cone cells sometimes mutate, and in some cases force those cones to have a sensitivity that peaks at a different wavelength from normal. i.e. the sensitivity of the red cones will be slightly shifted towards green (protanomaly), or the green cone sensitivity shifted a bit toward red (deuteranomaly). The usual result is therefore some form of red-green color blindness, where the perception of many of the colors we see is altered. For example, a purple object (a mix of red and blue) might look almost identical to a pure blue object to the afflicted, because the sensitivity to red is weakened.
The twist is that the genes controlling these cones are located on the X chromosome. This means that males, with only one X chromosome, suffer such color blindness much more frequently (about 1 in 12) than females (about 1 in 200), who have a second copy of the gene that can compensate for a defect in one. Both copies must have the same defect before she will suffer that form of blindness.
The twist to the twist is that this is also how tetrachromacy can arise in women, and only in women. If a female has one copy of the red gene (for example) that is normal, and one copy that is defective, then she may develop one set of red cones that function normally, and another set that has an offset sensitivity. Add these to the normally functioning green and blue cones, and bam, she has a retina that is sensitive to four peak wavelengths. It is even conceivable for pentachromacy to exist (possessing normal and altered versions of both red and green cones), but this has of yet never been observed.
Your poor male, on the other hand, will never ever get that kind of opportunity. the same defect that gives her extra color vision necessarily robs him of his.
The way I interpreted (maybe incorrectly) the Kimura paper regarding beneficial mutations is that [it would take relatively few to account for evolution. ]
So there may be many more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones, but since the beneficial ones get passed on much more frequently, this ratio corresponds to the Theory of Evolution.
The damage to genes that Sanford refers to happens to individuals, but he argues as if it happens to everyone at once.
If the Bible indicates anything about evolution , it is that it works rapidly (e.g. the changes since the supposed Flood until now that the YEC model implies)
... no, wait, that isn’t what the Bible indicates. For example, Genesis, written in the 6th C BCE, describes the created animals in terms familiar to the audience. There is no “in those days, animal X had features Y and Z”.
(19:08) We're becoming less superhuman? What?
If there is some kind of supreme being I bet it gets mighty pissed off whenever it watches Creation Today.
The real mystery is that no one else has been able to repeat the finding. Hmmm makes you wonder......
I envy paul's patience to crosscheck the Lunatics' false claim in original source materials.
I've noticed that the faster they talk, the more likely it is that they are lying or they don't know what they are talking about. This fast-speaking seems to be common with these creationists, particularly Eric, he's a used-car salesman.
Another example of beneficial mutations is somatic hypermutation. It's the process by which B cells create better antibodies. After encountering a bacteria that it can respond to, the B cells go to lymph nodes and enter a state of hypermutation where they reproduce and allow and increased mutation rate. There is a selection process that weeds out the inferior antibody producing b cells and voila, enhanced antibody production
17:15 I would argue with that. While it is correct that most positive mutations are either limited to certain environments or come with a cost/benefit equasion, there are certainly purely negative ones: loss of function mutations in so called housekeeping genes - responsible for cell integrity, division, diversification, metabolism, etc. - cause the offspring to just die. That is not good for either the individual or the species. Similarly if a gene responsible for reproduction suffers a loss of function, the affected individual can never have offspring of their own.
Fortunately, most purely negative mutations are so harshly selected against, that they can never get affixed in the genome.
Interestingly, I was told when I was a kid that I have some kind of mutation that causes my upper set of wisdom teeth should never appear, and the lower half may actually have enough space to not need to be removed. Simultaneously the dentist told me that my tooth enamel is softer than average, and I will be at higher risk of cavities. Not sure how accurate all of that is, but I am around the age that wisdom teeth need removal and have seen no evidence of their formation.
One more comment. I once read an article on Sanford's book Genetic Entropy that I should have bookmarked. It explained how he tried to get a "peer reviewed" stamp on it, which seems weird for a book, when the publishing house realized that he had submitted a biology book to the information science branch of that house. As a result his book was refuted before it was even published. Does anyone have a source for that blog?
I'd love to see that.
We are largely isolating ourselves from disease and predation so it's going to be interesting to see what happens to our species!
We’ve already seen what happened when we isolated ourselves from disease and predators. Our population exploded!
"Taller, stronger and living longer". I need that on a shirt.
Around 10:50... how did he say corollary? That was a weird pronunciation to me.
Quick question, wanna support ya, but on Pateron its $1 per video. Don't make much each paycheck (struggle paycheck to paycheck) but would love to throw a dollar or two your way each month. Anyway or anywhere I can do that? Like just a flat rate per month? Not per video, just a flat rate???
I like to keep it per video to make sure that I have incentive to make sure I'm producing. That said, you can "cap" the monthly charges at $2 on Patreon, if that works for you.
I'll add a note on the Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling journal. I track over 1700 technical journals in which over 23,000 technical works have appeared that are presently in my #TIP www.tortucan.wordpress.com dataset.
I have only 5 papers other than the Carter & Sanford one from that journal in my bibliography. 2 of them are by creationists:
Chase W. Nelson & John C. Sanford. 2011. “The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms.” 8 (April): 9., & John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, & John Baumgardner. 2015. “The waiting time problem in a model hominin population.” 12 (September): 18.
2 more are by Intelligent Design advocates: David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors. 2005. “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information.” 2 (August): 29, & Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, & Jack T. Trevors. 2007. “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins.” 4 (December): 47.
The last is in my references only because an ID advocate cited it: David J. D’Onofrio & Gary An. 2010. “A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA.” 7 (January): 3.
Thus based on the content of the journal, its functionally irrelevant to the cutting edge of genetics, at least as it relates to how evolution does or does not do its thing.
I would say that mutations that always kill before reproductive maturity are objectively bad in terms of natural selection. That is the only such catagory, as far as I know, though.
Evolution through natural selection uses the minimum number of beneficial mutations for survival not the maximum. Sorry Eric, no X-Men.
Is that why the backstory of the Mutants was apparently changed in later comics?
8:34 Is that Rachel Riley?
So what 'ole Bob and Eric are saying is that God created flawed DNA? Man that poor guy in the sky can't get _anything_ right.
Yup, he's a dunning-Kruger poster boy. All knowing, but didn't know he was going to have drown all the animals he made Adam name.
To quote a famous Avenger: "Puny god".
They're saying He created us perfect, then a snake poisoned us with mutagenic food and screwed us up.
Never mind that the same God later went back to us and _purposely_ sabotaged us.
😡 Nonsense ❎. Wooden spoon to creationists! 😀 Intelligence ✅ Gold medal to you for your diligence and clarity of presentation! I particularly enjoyed your use of a personal example to knock down the idiotic piffle on that channel. The blatant dishonesty of the so called ‘experts’ is reprehensible and must be revealed as such to the widest audience. This is what you have achieved in all of your work. Just a passing thought, though . . . what if only the wilfully deluded were to decline and disappear?
I'm 5 mins in and we have nothing done because they pause it every 10 seconds to make fun of the creationists..can we get to the content please??
8:20 I love Marianne's reaction here, it's just a face of pure joy and incredulity that we are going to have math and science XD
I am not sure she believes they exist judging by her face
Actually, a better analogy for mitosis is that, if you had two books, one written by a male, one by a female. You took half of each book and spliced them together to make a new book. Its not just copying a book by hand. its combining half of two books together. But anyway.....
+Paulogia
'Even if you're on in a million, in New York there are eight of you. . .'
Oh the destruction of the Hovinds, how poetic, how just, how . . . erm . . . moral!
12K - and another thousand is surpassed! Keep up the battle against ignorance! ;)
There are eight million stories in the naked city; this has been eight of them.
@@YY4Me133 I love the reference!
we've protected ourselves from natural selection pretty well with modern life
The problem with saying there are no objectively negative mutations, is that while, that is generally true, the statement isn't accurate. Negative traits can become positive, etc, etc. But mutations which are either immediately lethal, or make procreation impossible, are as far as I can see, objectively negative, as there are no circumstances where it will prove beneficial to their ability to procreate their genes. Although theoretically the latter could enhance personal survival in some situations, perhaps even extremely just for argument's sake, there would be no way to pass on this apparent fitness and so it would die with the bearer like all currently maladaptive variations. Actually... more than the other currently maladaptive variations, since the common ones at least have random chance and other more beneficial genes to allow them survival.
Does anyone know of a free online source for Sanford's Genetic Entropy book? I'm often asked to refute the argument by YECs and my usual approach is to ask them to please give me the difference in Entropy, in the SI units of Entropy (i.e. in JK^-1, or the base units kg m^2 s^−2 K^−1) between 2 DNA molecules, one with a beneficial mutation and the other and identical molecule except for that mutation. I then warn them than once they have calculated that I am going to ask them to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the amount of Entropy they have come up with *cannot* cross the boundary of the system during the process in question. The process in question being reproduction.
So far every YECs I have had the discussion with has given me an answer which can be paraphrased as "no fair!".
But in my view it is. If you are going to insist that "entropy" makes anything impossible then you have to be able to show 1) that Entropy would have been lost, 2) either that the system is isolated entropically from the rest of the universe, or 3) that the amount of entropy lost is more than the amount that could have crossed the boundary.
No YEC has shown me even 1) let alone 2) or 3)
But they all say that I have to read Sanford's book and then I will understand. And I'd love to be able to say "I've read it and I am still not convinced" but I *refuse* to give him any money. I may be pre-judging him, but given the fact that we are alive, and it takes far more J K^-1 to be conceived, gestated, born, and grow up than it could possibly take for a beneficial SNP to occur I don't see how his book could be anything more than a disingenuous pile of horse manure which has poisoned the minds of countless people, thus I consider giving him any amount of money, however small, which he might put towards writing another heinous tract to be a crime.
If I find a free copy and it turns out that I am wrong and he can actually produce evidence for his argument I will buy a copy by way of apology. But somehow I don't see that happening.
If you had it so that the inaccurate copies spontaneously burst into flames this might be an adequate simile. Maybe.
Where did this guy get his doctorate? From Kent Hovind's university?
I don't quite understand what the creationist purpose is with this genetic entropy? Is it to say that the science of evolution must therefore be wrong? Or is it to say "we're all doomed!"
it saddens me that Ainulindale21 (who made the clip re: Lenski's E. coli experiments) is MIA. I do miss his googly-eyed poorly-drawn pwnage
Pulogia : Eric Hovind calls that Battleship ( ''theology''), or something like that, in that case we can call ourselves Stringbags.
Humans are fairly well adapted to their current evolutionary niche. Barring some catastrophic environmental change, I don't think there'll be a crapload of biological advancements. In fact, with our medical tech increasing the way it is, people are less likely to die in general, which may have some deletrious effects on the average strength/stamina/intelligence. (That's not a bad thing; it just means humans are growing in variety and number.)
I so would have loved to have seen Stan Lee as your guest here.