6 replies to this topic

[JayShel]

http://www.youtube.c...=watch_response

I am posting this having watched about 3 minutes of it and already there is unsubstantiated story telling, logical fallacies, and overstatement of evidence. I just figured I would post it for discussions sake. Have fun but lets try to keep it serious.

[JayShel]

Doing a bit more with this today. Essentially this is 51 minutes and 25 seconds of uninterrupted propaganda for evolution. http://www.cassiopei...lution&big=tran is a transcript for easy refuting of what they are saying, so you can copy and paste instead of listening to the video and typing (which is a pain). In the first thirty seconds they have already made a false statement, leading people down the illusory path of evolution, and making it the only game in town. This continues later in the video but I will take a quote from it (around 14 seconds in):

"Along the way, many will applaud and many will object. But both reactions are inappropriate. Science as a discipline does not cheer for a given outcome of its experiments and investigations."

While applauding is inappropriate, objection is absolutely appropriate when experiments and evidence refutes the claims made. I think we can all agree on this.

Continuing (40 seconds):


"But we will touch on enough detail to give a solid underpinning for the following conclusions…
Common Descent is a fact…all life on earth is related through common
ancestry.
Changes within a single species occur – so-called microevolution.
Species themselves come and go – so called macroevolution.
The primary mechanism of change is genetic inheritance…with
variation…and natural selection."

Bolded the deceptive claims. They aim to prove common descent within the video, therefore, their claim that it is a fact at the beginning of the video is premature to the viewer, preloading the average viewers brain with a conclusion so as not to allow them to question the evidence presented. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -Oz

Species themselves come and go? Well if you loosely define species as birds giving rise to new species of birds that can no longer interbreed with their ancestors then yes, but they look exactly the same, and so calling that macro evolution is DECEPTION. Also, species disappearing is NOT evidence for evolution. These phrases roll off the tongue in such a languid voice so as to hypnotize the audience, lulling them into a peaceful mood which allows them to be indoctrinated easier.


"We will NOT discuss God or Intelligent Design. Worthy topics – but NOT for science.

If you examine all the pertinent data within the video, it also fits perfectly with Intelligent Design, but it is so much easier to convince people of evolution when it is the only game in town, so they discard it as irrelevant. What they really do not want you to know is that evolution itself is in the realm of philosophy, pulling its supporting data from science, much like the ID that they disparage in this video.


"[...] None of this changes the fact that every living thing on earth is related to every otherliving thing on earth."

Again, reinforcing their beliefs as fact. If you repeat the word "fact" enough, it must be true right?


"If it is to be called science, it must be testable. And for almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine Evolution and Common Descent. And for 150 years not a single test has EVER failed to validate that all life on earth comes from a common ancestor."

Notice the indication that ID is not testable.

Tests over 150 years have not resoundingly DISPROVEN common descent, but no one test would do that. It requires an analysis of data from experiments to disprove common descent. Such experiments certainly have not VALIDATED common descent either, yet If you take out their double negative "not" and "failed", then you see WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING: "every single test in the last 150 years has validated universal common descent."

REALLY???!!! Shameless lies...


"Here are just a few of the prestigious scientific organizations that accept this as a
proven fact…check it out…
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Academy of Sciences
National Center for Science Education
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Naturalists
Animal Behavior Society
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Paleontological Society
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Systematic Biologists
Geological Society of America"

So a shameless argument from authority. I am sure that the leading flat earthers had credibility for awhile in their heyday...but creationists have systematically shown that all this "evidence" is an illusion, that it does not exclusively point to common descent but also, conflictingly, points to a common designer.

To Be Continued...

[Bonedigger]

Only non-marsupial mammals have a placenta, birds and mollusks are never found with placenta.

Only mammals have hair and mammary glands

I just had to laugh when I read these two statements being presented as examples of nested hierarchies proving common descent. Hair and mammary glands are part of the diagnostic criteria used to define a mammal, and the presence of a placenta is used to define "placental" (non-marsupial and non-monotreme) mammals. Those criteria are used because they don't occur in any other groups (i.e. have been cherry-picked as diagnostic because of their exclusive distribution). It's like declaring that no one with blond hair has black hair-a self fulfilling definition. It's just retroactive "prediction".

Species are essentially never found that combine characteristics of different groupings.

One example that comes to mind is the presence of a cloaca (a common urogenital canal found in the platypus and echidna--from which the term monotreme is derived=single opening). Yet, for some mysterious reason, beavers, and tenrecs and golden moles, all placental mammals, also have a cloaca. Hmm. Maybe that's why the absence of a cloaca is not used in the definition of a non-monotreme mammals.

[gilbo12345]

I like this thread Its interesting, amusing and somewhat frustrating to see the propaganda evolutionists utilise to support their ideology.

[jason]

no they dont do that.

[MarkForbes]

....

Species are essentially never found that combine characteristics of different groupings.

One example that comes to mind is the presence of a cloaca (a common urogenital canal found in the platypus and echidna--from which the term monotreme is derived=single opening). Yet, for some mysterious reason, beavers, and tenrecs and golden moles, all placental mammals, also have a cloaca. Hmm. Maybe that's why the absence of a cloaca is not used in the definition of a non-monotreme mammals.

The Platypus is an interesting one. Found an article on that:

"While we've always been able to compare and consider all of these creatures on the basis of their physical characteristics, internal anatomy and behavior, it's truly amazing to be able to compare their genetic blueprints and begin to get a close-up look at how evolution brings about change," Wilson says.

As part of their analysis, the researchers compared the platypus genome with genomes of the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. They found that the platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with these animals. The chicken genome was chosen because it represents a group of egg-laying animals, including extinct reptiles, which passed on much of their DNA to the platypus and other mammals over the course of evolution.

The researchers also found genes that support egg laying - a feature of reptiles - as well as lactation - a characteristic of all mammals. Interestingly, the platypus lack nipples, so its young nurse through the abdominal skin.

The researchers also attempted to determine which characteristics of the platypus were linked to reptiles at the DNA level. When they analyzed the genetic sequences responsible for venom production in the male platypus, they found it arose from duplications in a group of genes that evolved from ancestral reptile genomes. Amazingly, duplications in the same genes appear to have evolved independently in venomous reptiles.

The platypus swims with its eyes, ears and nostrils closed, relying on electrosensory receptors in its bill to detect faint electric fields emitted by underwater prey. Surprisingly, the researchers found the genome contains an expansion of genes that code for a particular type of odor receptor. "We were expecting very few of these odor receptor genes because the animals spend the majority of their life in the water," Warren says.

Similar genes are found in animals that rely on a sense of smell, such as rodents and dogs, and the scientists suspect that their addition in the platypus allows the animals to detect odors while foraging underwater.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm

[gilbo12345]

The Platypus is an interesting one. Found an article on that:

I believe it also has sensors in it's bill similar to those used by fish.