PZ Myers Demolishes Discovery Institute Idiot Johnathan MacLatchie
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Clip from a 51 minute video of PZ Myers Q&A Session in Glasgow.
Link: • PZ Myers on the Pharyn...
This idiot is Johnathan M, his whining found on Evolution News here:
www.evolutionne...
It seems he is claiming that HOX genes are evidence of intelligent design, not evolution, shown in this excerpt:
Hox Genes
Myers then progressed into a discussion of Hox genes, and their role in the regulation of Drosophila development, pointing out that one can find homologous Hox genes ordered in the same way in the chromosome of the mouse and Drosophila fruit fly. I have always tended to view the argument for common ancestry as being quite weak here. Such instances of similarity can surely be explained with reference to common design. And, at any rate, the conservation of these Hox genes and their utilisation in different ways in different organisms perhaps ought to be taken as suggestive of teleology or some kind of front-loaded design.
The 2007 paper he references: Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa, makes no such claim of "some kind of front-loaded design".
God, my biology background is woefully out of date, but it's not hard to see this DI bullshit. Of course, after that excerpt, he blows out bullshit that wasn't aksed to PZ Myers.
![The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2CnZ3n8I5b8/mqdefault.jpg)
That's the thing about the Discovery Institute, they attract theists with absolutely no shame, and no interest at all in supporting their hypotheses. The name of their game is "you can't explain this" or "I don't understand that" therefore god.
Attack their arguments not the people
@@naturalLin No, attack the people who make the stupid arguments.
@@universecreator988 no that’s poor sportsmanship
@@naturalLin What sportmanship? It's neither a sport nor an equal discussion. It's a one sided hammering down of stupidity spouted by stupid people.
@@naturalLin It's impossible to sportsmanship with someone who refuses to even try to participate properly in that "sport."
Its one thing to attack the argument with someone that's being honest. It's entirely different with people who we know are lying like those from discovery institute.
Creationists are always wrong on every point, by definition they argue from an improper position.
Attack their argument don’t attack the people
They don't have a single valid argument.
@@speciesspeciate6429 don’t matter show some class
I stand by my statement.
@@speciesspeciate6429 sure just say it with respect
Jonathan M cites as his authority Sir Gavin de Beer, but Jonathan M does not tell us the date of the paper published by de Beer, even when he was directly asked, more than once, what the date of that paper was. Let's guess the year.
Sir Gavin de Beer was born in 1899 and died in 1972. If we guess that the research cited by Jonathan M was done when de Beer was in his 50's, that would be the late 1940's, before PZ Myers or Jonathan M were born.
While I do think the D.I. flunkey is mistaken on quite a few of the facts, I feel as though PZ should've handled the question(s) a little less abrasively.
I actually enjoyed it because I loath Creationists/ID stupidity.
Agreed. The “shameful creationist bullshit” rhetoric was not helpful.
"Maybe so", to quote the student :), but can you imagine a profs despair when they regularly have to face this level of "creationist dishonesty"?
Let's face it, when we remain polite and reserved, they see that as weakness and "proof" of science's inability ... therefore, ID is true.
Imo, we need "militant" scientists like these, especially to adress dishonest organizations like Discovery Institute.
I would have to disagree, people like him need to be embarrassed and ridiculed. Tolerance of this blatant BS give it validation.
Why _should_ this kid be given the benefit of the doubt?
He was not there seeking answers, nor for honest dialogue; he was there exclusively to discredit and befuddle Myers while he was in the public eye. Myers already answered the main thrust of JM's runaway question in his talk immediately prior to the Q and A, yet JM still barged ahead with the question again and his obviously scripted lines. Myers entertained one of his examples and the kid was hopelessly unable to convey any sort of detailed understanding of the papers he touted; indeed he even admitted that the structures in question "were homologous", nullifying his entire own point of contention. JM wasn't forthcoming with the date on the de Beer paper, either.
All of this is besides the fact that *none* of the papers he cited, or their authors, call evolution into question. If arguing against evolution is one's goal, shouldn't one cite papers that actually do this?
There's also JM's affiliation with the Discovery Institute, an organization _whose express mandate is to oppose science wherever it contradicts old stories in the Bible,_ *irrespective of the actual merits of the science*.
There may have been more tactful ways to deal with JM, but Myers' rudeness was still called for.
just like what many internet atheists do then
They only exist in reddit and your mind
@@jayd4ever Cope that magic man in the sky isn't real
@@universecreator988 how you know religions are only belief systems we beiieve but we dont know for sure
@@jayd4ever Well, atleast you admit that much. Most muslims and christians always say they KNOW that their specific god exists.
He's trying to show that homological structures are not due to common ancestry.
Right, because putting student in scare quotes makes him a liar?
I understood.
And I understood that PZ understood it also, and I understood, that this question was a bullshit, just because this "student" made clearly false proposition, and he clearly made it intentionally - it's why he should be ashamed.
PZ tells it like it is. Thanks Rob.
I think kristen mayeaux makes some fantastic points. Often people of religion are the ones referred to as intolerant and discourteous. Speaking with many atheist I have found the opposite to be true.
It's difficult to be courteous when the religion of the dude who argue with you state that "infidels", especially atheists, should be put to death...
I had to renounce to my beliefs in college to be honest with myself as I could not anymore ignore the evidences that were piling on against them, but I never "for out of the closet" or made it public, as nobody was trying to shove their religion down my throat.
It was when I was living in a very fundamentalist area, the US Bible Belt, that I became vocal and militant because they tried to shove their 💩 down my throat and that of my family. Quid pro quo and I'm sure it would have been worse in some even more backward area like a Muslim theocracy than in the US Bible Belt...
So the dude just reaps what he sows. Quid pro quo. Stop bothering scientists with religious 💩 and they'll stop flinging it back at you. :-)
To treat an undergrad student like this is what is shameful. I hope more and more students and others will stand up to arrogant professors like PZ Myers and question Neo-Darwinism to its core. Although it is the primary theory for origin of life's diversification, it should not be beyond questioning. If many dogmatic professors such as PZ Myers have their way, not only will students be publicly shamed & ridiculed for asking questions, but laws will be passed so no one can even ask a question. The atheistic NCSE (atheist Eugenie Scott - past president) is busy working on the legal side to get laws passed to protect this theory that apparently cannot stand on its own evidences. It is very telling that P Z Myers NEVER DID ANSWER the questions and this is all documented here:
www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/colliding_with_the_pharyngula_047281.html
"I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science."
Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry
"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."
Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
Bully techniques displayed in full. Disgraceful.
At least afford the questioner some common courtesy and be polite.
PZ Meyers is calling bullshit, bullshit.
Bullshit deserves no respect.
Get used to it.
This researcher is patient and professional in the wake of name-calling and arguments from authority. Science progresses as competing accounts of the data are compared and contrasted as to their explanatory power for those data. PZ however seems to approach this discussion the way Cardinal Robert Bellarmine approached Giordono Bruno, like an inquisition of a heretic! These types of responses are more religious protection of orthodoxy than a rigorous examination of the best explanation.
Too bad explanatory power of competing theories does not seem to be driving PZ. Why would a genius have to resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical flourish, instead of calmly engaging in an alternative explanation of the facts? Hmm...
Wouldn't you call out a bullshitter when he blatantly lies and misrepresents science?
There are no competing theories. ID is not a theory.
@@lizd2943 ID isn't a theory. It explains none of the evidence and worse, predicts nothing. To call it a hypotheses would be generous, but as such, it's a still a weak hypothesis.
@@grouchomarxist666 Yes, I said it's not a theory.
@@lizd2943 Well bite my tongue! Apologies.
Gish meets gallop.
"alimentary canal" now that's a term I haven't heard since I was a small child.
Maclatchie gets his ass handed to him every ltime he opens his mouth you'd think he learn.
That explanation you gave you just took from what he said, that’s not explaining what Jonathan meant. So I think, clearly you didn’t understand it.
Secondly if you don’t think he was wrong or lying then why did you state it in your previous comment? And you don’t use scare quotes to illustrate that he’s not the student of the person he’s talking to. That has never been a use of scare quotes!
Homology is not valid evidence for evolution. All of the similarities could just simply be due to a common designer. It’s sad when you have to result to personal attacks
"All of the similarities could just simply be due to a common designer." Or due to a magical unicorn...just like your "designer" this unicorn has no demonstrable correaltion with reality either.
@@derhafi or it could be due to the magical process of macro evolution, which is unobservable, unrepeatable, and not science, but you believe real hard and I promise it will become true
@@ArchivesofCreation My point, dear scientificaslly illiterate fellow human, was that you make baseless assumtions or very particular things which, under no meaningful definition qualify as real.
@@ArchivesofCreation I just live how you believers in magical deities operate.
It is hilarious that you thing disproving the basis for biology and medicine is going to add credibility to your god fantasies.
As if magical beings are the default position.
It is adorable that you somehow got convinced that direct observation, istead of evidence is how we determine what happened. I mean, that's how we convict murderers, by evidence not observation.
I particulary liove the audacity of your attemt to define what is science and what is not. Just amazing!
But my favorite is this projection of "you believe real hard and I promise it will become true" Well buddy you apparently believe real hard and there still is no demonstrable correaltion with your fantasies and reality. Evolution is just what the emperical, observable, repeatable,evidence points to...a concept completely alien to your delusions.
@@derhafi hmm murders are wrongfully convicted all the time, so much for that comparison. Btw yes disproving naturalism does prove an intelligence, those are the only two possibilities. Way to go pretending to be smart. Fake it till you make it
Outrageous response from someone who is supposed to be civil enough to respect the student rather than actually be rude and try and degrade the questioner.
Bully techniques displayed in full. Disgraceful.
At least have some common courtesy.
They not only want to "rule out" God in all science, in life, in the universe, but they get highly insulted if we so much as ask any questions. It's outrageous!
Is propore of atheists
Oh please, the student couldn't even wipe the smirk of his face when he was asking the nonsense questions. He damn well knew what he was getting himself into
BlueBlue It wasn't a nonsense question at all. PZ Myers was stumped, couldn't answer, stalled, insulted the student and had no answers. The student was asking a very valid question. This is an excerpt from article about this issue:
"... it is especially relevant that vertebrae - a major component of the vertebrate skeleton - form embryologically in significantly different ways for different classes of vertebrate (such as mammals, birds, amphibians and fish), and even from different groups of early embryonic cells. (For example, see Vertebrates: Comparative anatomy, function, evolution by K. Kardong.) This clearly shows that the vertebrae of these different vertebrate classes are not, in fact, homologous - and hence that these different groups of vertebrate do not in fact share a common vertebrate ancestor, despite their superficial similar appearance and contrary to the commonly held view."
www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/colliding_with_the_pharyngula_047281.html
Therefore the student was giving compelling evidence that contradicted Common Descent. If all of these various classes of vertebrates have completely different developmental pathways for forming of vertebrae, it suggests they could not be descended from the same common ancestor.
He deserved no respect, wasn't he from the discovery institute? The biggest bunch of lying, disrespectful, willfully ignorant, bible thumping jackasses, who pretend to know what they are talking about to date? Why should anyone give these nut jobs any respect at all? They lie constantly, or they just don't know what they are talking about and claim to.
Wait....so how exactly was he demolished? I just saw shaming and a dodge. Easy to be a tough guy in an adoring crowd.
You missed the part where PZ got the moron to admit that the neuro tube was homologous when the dude was trying to say that it wasn't at first.
Only a discourteous power hungry cad would treat another human being to this. The fact that he did it to a student only lowers him to the level of vermin.
It doesn't matter how wrong Jonathan M is, it doesn't matter whether he's a staunch young earth creationist. A professor is not supposed to do that to a student., And I'm willing to bet my life, most (like 99%) of the people here do not understand the paper or what Jonathan was saying. PZ clearly didn't, what he offered was a cop-out. Public humiliation, make a science, not.
I don't think pz myers,richard dawkins are respected scientists but more atheist apologists
Typical bullying tactics. Very telling.
Nothing wrong with calling a moron a moron.
Respect is earned.
He didn't answer to the boy's question, he just bullied him! Coming from an atheist is understandable!
This video should be titled PZ Myers destroys himself.
Meyers is at his most brilliant level. He first addresses the commenters statement
by trying to shame the individual as foolish , when in fact he fully realized and
understood the questions and in his latter reply noted there were several different
questions. We then get Meyers enlightened reply to the one question ( early
presumed non-question as claimed by Myers) which is one of the usual vague
claims of relating to homology .
Then the main argument by Myers ( other then completely avoiding any acknowledgement
of the cited research that the commenter had available ) was his statement it was all bull.
Whats just as amazing is how any supporters of these materialists can conclude
from these nonsensical statements by Meyers that he somehow won some type
of debate??? "Unbelievable"
Religion rots your brain, people like you drag down our species, you might as well throw out cell theory, gravity, heliocentric model, the standard model, electromagnetism, germ theory, nucleosynthesis, genetics and by the way, your world view should rightly claim the earth is flat if you’re simply gonna assume the scientific method is this badly flawed, educate yourself to save the embarrassment
@@quantumrobin4627 Just another evolutionary dupe that for a lack of argument first implores his own impiety as some kind of scientific argument and then thru nothing more then bias scientific ignorance presents this somehow fact-less critique of my belief of other well supported areas of science. There's 1000's of PHD , Professors , Top Researchers , Noble Laureates and member's of their said countries Academy of Science that don't believe the main claims of macro-evolution. A member of the Royal Society and the head of the Skeptics Group for over 30 years just finished a book criticizing the gross failure of the tenets of evolution to support it's main claims. Others are Christians ,Agnostics , Theists and Atheists , but they "All" conclude that the relevant part of the theory fails because of the overwhelming "Scientific Evidence " which doesn't support the libraries full of failed speculations which many excuse away as the advance of science when in reality it's the results of poor evaluations based on bias and not the
science.
>took from what he said
lol
I said - it's self explanatory :)
>not explaining what Jonathan meant
oh, nice
could you please explain what did he mean? :)
>if you don’t think
sorry, I was mislead by your "he" in first sentence and second - thought you were talking about Myers in both - read the last version of my comment :)
>to illustrate that he’s not the student of the person he’s talking to
I used it to illustrate his dishonesty
So often a darwinist's response to a question by a non-darwinist is to call names. Seldom do they give a calm, respectful, scientific answer to such a question without calling names.
There is no such thing -- as a "Darwinist"... There's no one who is a student / was a student of him--- during his time... You'd have to wrap your brain cells around that dilemma... We'll wait...
i agree with bandoheme....not an answer...
What's shameful it's to bring to an academic session, a scientific class or reunion, you religious beliefs. Religious do it all backwards they try to fit in, every other way, evidence into their beliefs. They completely disregard the scientific method and they lack basic honesty and intellectual truth. So yes, the professor is right it's a shame that in a scientific discussion you try to implement your religious agenda. How did you feel if in a medical conference with specialists in human reproduction a ugh asked a question about the stork theory and the validity of it. Or in a geology conference a guy stated that the earth it's 6000 years old because it says so in genesis. It's a shame that in the 21 century we still have to fight this superstitious and Bronze Age cults and the so called institutions like the discovery institute, that in the guise of scientific language, try to force their religious agenda. Shame on you for defending that guy and attacking an honest professor that should not allow religion into classrooms. ( sorry for my English, not my native language)
Doesn't the scientific method start with an observation? What observation does science present for its teaching of naturalistic abiogenesis - non-living matter to living cell? This has been taught as fact and the foundation of evolution for decades. Without naturalistic abiogenesis there would be no simple primordial cell for evolution to work with -- nothing to evolve.
When abiogenesis occurred scientists teach that it was nothing like today's life. It must have been really simple to self-assemble or self-create. The complex life we have today is far too complex to have been the first life. So they teach that a simple precursor cell self-created and from there evolution took off until it evolved into the highly sophisticated DNA based life we have today. Craig Venter modeled the simplest microbe in the world and it had so many programs, processes, functions that it required 128 computers all working simultaneously for 9-10 hours just to bring about one instance of cell division. So after you give me the observation for which abiogenesis is based, please give me the evidence that the many thousands to millions of years of evolution until the primordial cell became DNA based life. The Scientific Method demands observations.
This is the very beginning of evolution from non-life to DNA based life and I just want to know what observations they are based upon, since it is taught as indisputable fact.
Kristen Mayeaux Wow, that was one of the most disingenuous post i've seen in years.
Mglosk Just an insult, but no answer? Although evolutionists attempt to distance themselves from abiogenesis, their theory *is* based on its having happened. Now if life had come about in a different way, such as many different separate creative events, you might say evolution is not based on abiogenesis. But Darwinian theory postulates that it began from a very simple precursor which was able to self-replicate. Then the self-replicator surrounded itself with a membrane and started to rise to higher complexity until it arrived at DNA based life. Does Darwinism teach DNA is the first life? No, neither does abiogenesis teach that. Abiogenesis teaches that a self-replicator is the first independent life -- so does Darwinism. Abiogenesis teaches that the first self-created life is our common ancestor. So does Darwinian theory. Is it a coincidence that evolution teaches that it starts out with a "common ancestor proto cell"? Absolutely. Darwinism is *based* on the very story of abiogenesis - a hypothetical event. Neo-darwinism takes up where the hypothetical version of abiogenesis leaves off! Then early evolution is also a complete blank evidence wise. It supposedly took 300 million years for the self-replicating molecule to become DNA based life -- and there is not one iota of evidence for this. It's a hypothetical story. So I don't know what you think is disingenuous, but please speak up with some details, not just insults and I will be happy to discuss. :)
Kristen Mayeaux
Dont worry. Evolutionists don't need to answer anything. Darwinism is a religion. Darwinists "know" that everything have evolved out of nothing. They simply know this and there is no need for a single proof! No matter if all scientific evidences are against their paradigm. They insult you because you have insulted their religion.
sirgalahad777
This has to be sarcasm.
Ahmmm...ahmmm...ahmmm
AtheismFreesMinds
Atheism is what?? HAHAHAHAHAH
Atheism is ignorance and cowardice. Nothing more than that.
As if this video proves something to your point? Open your eyes morom..
Subhuman creationists seething in the comments 😃
deep thinking
He didn’t demolish ID. He can’t answer the question and so he becomes abusive and evasive. Not impressive at all. The lecturer should be ashamed of himself. He is an ignoramus and a bully. That was his only means of evading the valid question.
He didn't evade at all. The students first adress was a barrage of questions built on false and untrue premisses. That doesn't qualify as a valid question.
Once the prof. honed in on the matter at hand (homology), he answerred it in a clear and consise manner.
It rebuked the student's claim as being false and thereby demonstrated that the student's argument/question was invalid.
And why do you think that scientists would NEED to demolish or disprove ID?
One would reasonably find that someone claiming ID, would start by demonstrating the existence of it first.
@@lizadowning4389 what was the false and untrue premise to his question?
@@BK-fv5mw The fact that homology came through different "pathways".
He even admitted to it when he said, "maybe so" ...
And questions don't have premisses, only arguments.
When you assert something factually untrue and use it in a question, we call that a loaded question. And that is the telltale sign of a dishonest discourse to follow.
The clumsy part is that one tries to hide it in a question.
As could be predicted, that doesn't work nor sit well with a prof who knows his field of science.
Nah…
No Mr. Myers ...YOU... SHOULD BE... ashamed. Your display of self-importance is repulsive, regardless of whether you're right and the kid is wrong. Quashing a young person's efforts who takes the time to think for himself while showing the courage to speak his mind publicly, is a very low blow.
+CriticalThinker02 idiot clown. laughably pathetic. this was a blatant attempt to disrupt the proceedings by a science denier with no evidence for his "theory". save your inept and patriarchal proselytizing for the pulpit. the comma in the last sentence is unnecessary and incorrect "critical thinker".
+CriticalThinker02 idiot clown. laughably pathetic. this was a blatant attempt to disrupt the proceedings by a science denier with no evidence for his "theory". save your inept and patriarchal proselytizing for the pulpit. the comma in the last sentence is unnecessary and incorrect "critical thinker".
Insults are sign of insecurity... Looks like you've shown yours right off the mark. Had I known or if you'd indicated in the 'more info' window (or maybe I missed it) that the kid was disrupting a speech and not taking part in Q&A, then I wouldn't have commented on your silly clip. If anyone should be accused patriarchal speak, it's Myers. Finally, if you want to be such a grammar nazi, , , , maybe try using some capitalization.
complete nonsense. the "question" was ridiculous and myer called him on it. insecurity? ad hominem foolishness. try offering valid arguments for your position. my refusal to capitalize is a statement about arrogance and hubris understandably beyond your grasp
Phil Gray Whatever mr. smarter than thou. It was a low blow in my book.
+CriticlThinker02
He wasn't thinking for himself.
He was drooling his unproven brainwashed delusions.
Meyer called bullshit on bullshit.
Similarity of form does not necessitate common ancestry it just illustrates form serving function. Evolution is idiotic, irrational and unscientific...but the questioner was very garbled, I could hardly work out what he was trying to say...
DNA analysis does not prove macro-evolution at all, but as seeing you just repeat mantras rather than think about actual causality and linkage then that flies above your head. You can repeat the standard falsehood all you want but it doesn't change reality. You are believing in fairy stories and imagination masquerading as science. Evolution is not only not observed, it is fundamentally irrational and you have to be particularly stupid to believe it, as certainly there is no seeing it. On top of that it has zero value to practical biology, telling stories about ancient past has no impact on genuine knowledge of EXISTING biological processes and organisms. Common ancestry of all species is fantasy only...imaginary trees and imaginary linkage and imaginary species plucked out of the imagination. Similarity of features does not necessitate common ancestry at all. Fossil record is certainly against evolution and fossils in any case will not prove any linkage. Again, pap-scientism cultists and atheist buffoons...just like to have their alternative religion, only they don't call it religion as indeed it would be the most weak and ridiculous of religions. Guess what youngster...science came from religion not atheism, and biology existed before your deluded and unintelligent prophet called Darwin, followed by his equally deluded priests...Myers, Dawkins et al. Evolution (macro) is not science....it is just story telling. All the pillars that evolution-fantasy rests upon are indeed in contradiction to it.
You are repeating your atheist, fake science mantras. There is no macro-evolution...only in your mind. You want to believe in nonsense and call it is science, it is up to you, but it only reveals you lack intellect and knowledge. You have zero evidence and simply making a list of typical slogans... DNA, fossils etc... Is not evidence. They are single words....and the reality of those subjects are against your fantasies. Science requires observation, measurement, experimentation, tangible reality, gathering of ACTUAL evidence.... Not listing a few slogans to which is attached individual fantasies and conjecture which add up to a wider fantasy and conjecture. No doubt you have idiotic social, psychological and emotional motives for both your half-brained (or no-brained rather) atheism and your evolution-dependency...but you can't admit that nor face up to it. So you have to shout 'science' etc as an invocation to save your false adoptions....but they don't save them. You are too stupid to realize that believing in evolution is intellectual self-humiliation. 'creationist' is not an insult, as indeed there is certainly a Creator...and that was the position of every civilization in history and every intelligent person in history as indeed it is a rational necessity whose patent reality does not justify any doubt at all in it...but again, your judgement and intellect are too dim to recognize that. You want to believe that complex, harmonious super-systems withing systems make themselves through disconnected random mutations without intent, then you are a fool. There is no manifest objective purpose without intent. I guess you think computers and cars come about by random blind forces too.... and you justify that idiocy by saying "yes...gradually...over a long time" Get a brain transplant youngster.
Instead of hiding behind vague, nebulous concepts...labelled with terms that do not in any way prove a causal link between the claims of macro-evolutionists... Actually PROVE the link between SPECIFIC EVIDENCE and your claims about ancient past. You can not and no evolutionary dreamer (liar) ever has. Sequencing the DNA of any species does NOT prove that one thing came from another in any way...but again, you are too stupid to realize that. DNA contains the genetic code of functionality.... process and form. It is the same argument as saying "The monkey has five fingers and we do, so we came from the monkey" It is just on the genetic scale. You fail to realize that shared DNA only represents genetic-code function.... Not "All code-function...means they inherited from a parent code-function" Rather that is the idiotic circular reasoning of evolutionists. God is certainly able to create all species out of one ancestor if he wanted, but there is precisely no reason to believe that is the case rationally, scientifically or by any other means... But he in fact created different species with their functions and attributes...(as their irreconcilable diversity so blatantly necessitates)... and those SPECIES (giraffes, elephants, pigs, mice, worms, flies, apes, lizards, snakes, fish, birds etc) possess the capacity of variation and mutation etc... meaning...differences within those groups. NOT.... all of these things originally being one thing and over millions of years ending up as they are now.... a simply, ludicrous and idiotic concept....which can only be believed by people who are stupid enough to be atheist or stupid enough to be indoctrinated by a secular-materialist education system, which is full of patent falsehood in all directions. Please reflect upon your beliefs deeply, and if you have any intelligence you will realize how foolish and baseless they are...only serving the aim of atheist propaganda under the banner of 'science'.... And serving absolutely NO purpose other than that. Please tell me how my knowledge of ACTUAL EXISTING biological, function, process, organs and organisms is increased one iota by subscribing to some UNKNOWN, UNSEEN story about ancient past and this thing coming from that thing over millions of years of random mutations? That's right buddy....that stupid fantasy adds precisely ZERO to a knowledge of genuine biology. Please go and ask a practical biologist how this macro-evolutionary vomit... is benefitting his work.... Again zero. Genetic inheritance is a reality, mutation is a reality, variation is a reality, survival of the fittest is also a reality...but none of those things add up to the claims of macro-evolution....which is precisely why lying macro-evolutionists play with definitions of evolution...restricting the definition to what all would accept but then meaning by it in their propaganda something totally different...and what has become the dominant view in the public mind concerning the meaning of the term. Intelligent people see through that chicanery.
Let me try make it easy for you. Do you understand the meaning of the words macro and micro? Let us just say major and minor, big and small. If someone claims that all the five horned goats died out because they were hunted to extinction..... leaving only the non-five horned goats.... Is that the same as saying that cows became whales? Is that the same as saying all species came from one? It clearly isn't is it laddy boy... So please screw your brain on rather than repeating idiotic evolutionist slogans like "There is no such thing as macro-evolution" Who is in charge of the terminology you buffoon? Do you think terminology changes the reality of something? To reiterate for you... If a car left in the desert CHANGES....due to weathering... it doesn't mean that cars turn into helicopters. According to you, they do...because there is no such thing as macro-change and micro-change in the manual, just 'change'...which means all change can occur no matter what it is. Now please get a brain...
Of course micro and macro have a meaning in biology you clown...have you ever even studied biology? If you knew what the words meant you would know that they have an application to all human knowledge on many levels, including the ludicrous fake science of evolution. Or perhaps you think all things, processes
You are so stupid and robotic you can't even understand a point that has just been explained to you in highlighting the precise nature of the error. It is not a matter of extent of process...it is a matter of extending a concept to where it can't reach and whose foundation and nature doesn't justify the end claim.
And what I am criticizing is exactly the claims of evolution, but indeed they are so stupid and so manifestly false, that you and your guru Dawkins have to start throwing a tantrum and then saying "You don't understand evolution" etc etc... None of these ruses get you anywhere.
I had a mainstream education like everyone else and am exposed to the mainstream media onslaught like everyone else...but unlike everyone else, I possess rationality and a large detailed library of my own....hundreds of scientific books and hundreds of books that dismantle the likes of evolution, yet most of my dismantling of evolutionary idiocy is simply on the rational level, as most pan-scientism cult members lack it...which is why they are part of that brainless cult.
Your responses show you don't even know the dogma of your gurus...you need to go and listen to them more and read more of their books... but with your lack of reason and judgement, nothing will impact you. To recognize the idiocy of evolution you only need to read evolutionist books with a sane mind.
"Nothing about an extant animal turning into another extant animal"...Where the hell does that get you non-brain? Evolution is about all animals coming from one ancestor...and millions of intermediary animals... The same common ancestor ended up as a giraffe, a monkey, a human, a worm, a fly, a whale, a cow, a snake...etc etc So guess what Dawkinette...that means a whole load of animals transforming many times into different animals. You think talking about existing animals not turning into eachother lessens the idiocy of that fantasy at all? Again, get a brain...you miss everything, even if it is in front of your eyes and in your own mouth. Go and have a look at one your imaginary evolutionary trees....dreamed up by story tellers.
When someone is this ignorant they deserve no respect
It is a valid question and deserving of a respectful answer. Is every utterance of PZ Myers a proclamation of ultimate Truth? Can't aspects of neo-Darwinism be questioned and critiqued? Why is he so threatened here?
Typical Darwinian response to very good questions. Sarcasm, fear and ridicule. This is why I've been studying and have been a proponent of ID for many years now. When someone reacts in that arrogant fashion, it's a cover for the fact that they really don't have any valid response. Not only that, but it indicates a sad personality trait. Reminds me of the Left during political debates.
You have been studying ID for years, eh ... found any empirical evidence for it, or him/her?
The prof. answerred the question correctly. The homology is the same, it doesn't arrive there from "different pathways" as the student falsely claimed.
The student even admitted to that when he said, "maybe so", and therefore his "argument" was utterly destroyed even before it started.
There's nothing "sad" about someone pointing out that another is trying to make a BS argument based on invalid premisses.
The response was by all definitions, valid, contrary to the claims of that student.
@@lizadowning4389 You've just proved my point by the nature of your reply. If you were really that sure of yourself you wouldn't frase your argument this way.
@@LATAMbiker And what is your point ... calling out silly and disingenuous questions, aka creationist "gotcha arguments", is unrespectfull?
Maybe "you guys" could start by showing some respect to facts and real science before demanding respect from us.
Why don't you make your case (ID) as rational people do?
Prove your claim (ID), instead of arguing based on demonstrable falsehoods, trying to point to so called gaps in the other party's body of knowledge and understanding.
We never claimed we know all, we admit honestly when we don't know something, and state we're working on it.
That's how rational people go about and when confronted with pseudoscience and dishonesty, yes, we will and should call out that travesty.
That's not a sign of weakness nor feeling insecure.
@@lizadowning4389 You want proof? You obviously by your angry tone of voice hate having your ingrained indoctrinated outlooks challenged. You keep proving my point over and over again. You academic types always recoil when someone challenges your dyed in the wool outlook on life. (I have a Master's Degree BTW.). Instead of rattling off another sophomoric reply, why don't you actually look into this with an open mind. I've had Darwinism hammered into my head throughout my upbringing, but have also looked into the other side very deeply over many years, so I know both points of view. You don't. Initially I had the same reaction as you do now when I first heard about this, rolling my eyes etc. but after many years of studying and attending conferences, I've changed my mind.
So here's your proof. I'm challenging you to put down your angry pen and read even just one of these books, and read the articles from the Discovery Institute link that I'm including. Signature in the Cell, Darwin's Doubt, Human Nature, The Miracle of Man, Darwin Devolves, Heretic, Unbelievable, Foresight, The Mystery of Life's Origins, and there are many more. These authors are all Ph.Ds and very accomplished in their fields. You don't have to be a biologist or a physicist to understand these books, as long as you take your time and pay attention and read carefully. Here's the link also. If you refuse to take me up on my challenge, then you prove yourself unworthy of this conversation.
www.discovery.org/id/
www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?crid=343PQDWRFOK1H&keywords=signature+in+the+cell&qid=1655564395&sprefix=signature+in+the+cell%2Caps%2C139&sr=8-1
Have you even once researched this topic seriously? There’s tons of peer reviewed articles out there and many books as I detailed above. Bet you didn’t even look up one of them. Too complicated? I’ll bet you don’t know that the Royal Society in Cambridge has admitted fault with this Neo Darwinian nonsense . But you don’t because you’d rather hide in an elementary school mentality while hiding behind insults and arrogance which shows your obvious inferiority complex.