Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- In this University of Michigan program, Eugenie C. Scott, executive director at the National Center for Science Education, explores 'Intelligent Design' (ID), a new form of creationism that emerged after legal decisions in the 1980s hampered the inclusion of 'creation science' in the public school curriculum. In the 20 years since ID appeared, there has been no evidence of it being used to solve problems in biology. Although the scientific/scholarly part of ID has been a failure, the 'cultural renewal' part of ID has been a success, as supporters of ID seek 'restoration' of a theistic sensibility in American culture to replace what they consider an overemphasis on secularism.
The only shortcoming of Eugenie Scott’s speech is that I’m only finding it 16 years after it was made. The distinction between methodological materialism necessary to practice science, and philosophical materialism was illuminating for me.
materialism is crap.....
@@smithkarine9678 Says the person using material (pc, internet).
@@ergonomover heuuu....are you brain dead ? plug something and come back.......
@@smithkarine9678 You mean something material can help me, even if its "crap"?
@@ergonomover ah well , have you missed a few branches along the way of evolution ???????? you don t seems to have all the chips in the same bag.........
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.”
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”
― Albert Einstein
repeating what someone smart says never make the one repeating it smart...........ID exist ,everywhere in nature...evolutionists are just to dumb to understand evolution itself ,how it works ,to understand that evolution goes against science.....
"You better hope there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth."
- Monty Python
The problem for ID is that so far all the evidence so far supports science, and the ID proponents have yet to find any supporting their view. Scientists are constantly asking ID proponents for evidence, yet still nothing. In court they were asked for some and they had nothing to say.
I really appreciate this speaker’s intelligence, humour and undogmatic reasonableness.
Some of the old heroes of the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial.
These people helped hold the line against creationism in schools.
There is no controversy, creationism is bunkum.
well you just don t even understand evolution and science ,that s all...evolution stands against strict science,evolution is a story for dumb dumbs.......
@@smithkarine9678 Well then, publish your hypothesis, get it peer reviewed and await your Nobel prize, just think of all the accolades, wealth and world wide recognition, I’ll wait but not hold my breath.
@@jackthebassman1
She posts and says nothing.
One bassist to another: Nice bass jack!
@@dryfox11 Oh thank you, actually it’s an 1986 I believe, I’ve gifted it to my youngest son, he and i play some rock/blues together with a keyboard player and guitarist, he plays bass and drums in a couple of bands., I’ve got a few more basses and some vintage ones (it’s a bit of an illness!) lol. Thanks for your nice comment. ✌️👍😁
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
― Albert Einstein
When & where did he say this. Cite your source.
"Both use the same evidence and interrupt the results differently."
No. Creationists love to repeat this talking point, but it's not true. The truth is that Creationism's response to about 95% of the evidence is to simply ignore it. Their "interpretation" is "That evidence is wrong, so we'll ignore it." For instance, baraminology--the "science" of created kinds--starts with "Any evidence which says humans and apes are the same kind is wrong, ignore it."
We absolutely can observe evolution, as I do most days of the week in work.
If you're confusing terminology and what you're claiming is that we haven't observed speciation, then you're also incorrect.
We've observed the speciation of a wide range of species animals and plants, including gibbons, fish, fire weed and a whole host of other flora and fauna.
Don't pretend the evidence isn't there. Ignorance isn't an excuse when you're arguing from a position of self proclaimed authority.
I can't observe evolution in the USA.
😂😂😂
That is nonsense and it is a lie .
Either you don't know what evolution really is or you are just being dishonest about it.
Nobody has ever observed evolution.
Adaptation is must different from evolution. For the people who don't know a dog is still a dog wheater it's a Chihuahua or blood hound.
Evolution vs speciation 🙄
Evolution theory is that one species can change into another over generations of mutations not simply by "natural selection " the sooner people acknowledge the proper definition of evolution theory the better it will be for everyone.
Stop with all the double talk.
That what con artists do to deceive people.
No missing links have been found.
Pilt down man was a hoax just like all the other
" missing links " that they have found.
Evolution has never been observed and it is not evident in the fossil record either.
This is simply the best video I have ever seen on Creationism/ID and evolution. Eugenie Scott is thoughtful, respectful, and wise in her delivery. Absolutely loved it!!
Because you're a fool.
Scott knows nothing about subatomic particles.
She's like the Hillary Clinton of education law.
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
Actually we can reproduce that particular chemical process in a lab now that we know how. The paper is 'synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions' and it's published in nature.
I'm not in love with anything. I simply learn about everything that is science.
You know, that stuff that turn on the lights at night.
....but, but, but...where did all that stuff come from? Why does it exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?
If there was nothing trillions of billions of year sago - and I mean absolutely NOTHING, then surely there should also be absolutely, totally, completely NOTHING now? Is that not true? Surely from NOTHING, only NOTHING comes?
Now if you are sure that that STUFF exists, then it means that there MUST have existed something eternally!! Right? What other explanation can there be? After all, From NOTHING, NOTHING comes - that is logically correct, isn't it?
So are you going to learn about the science of science itself? That is are you willing to study meta-physics? Philosophy and Logic; Ontology?
a trick : watch movies on InstaFlixxer. Been using them for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Onyx Tanner definitely, been using instaflixxer for since december myself :D
@Onyx Tanner Yup, I have been using InstaFlixxer for years myself :D
@@kevinrtres Hey Kevin, I have been studying physics a long time. Looks like what is called metaphysics is actually the physics/behavior of subatomic particles. I say the cartels of the world don't want us to know how fast subatomic particles spin and pulsate, which is so super-fast that nothing is physical or solid anywhere. This is literally a constantly created universe because of this speed. This speed is where the word magic comes from. This means WE ARE MAGIC.
We are the best machines ever built because we heal, or go back to our perfect forms which are those electrical energy fields called atoms. In the book HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan I have seen many pictures/diagrams of what we look like as eternal holograms and eternal electrical energy fields. My take on looking at these pictures is that these atoms ARE the forms that our souls are. Souls literally exist. First there are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons and then there are the atoms these quarks create.
These quarks/atoms take form looking like us, and THEN these souls project us from themselves. We are THEIR images. We have to be images, holographic images because subatomic particles spin so fast. This idea also comes from the Seth books written by Jane Roberts. After all, many call us spirits, but these spirits are actually electrical energy fields.
I had a NDE as a child where I felt and heard energy and light beings around me. I knew there was no death then. I began reading these books in my 20s earth time because the soul creating me pointed out books to me. Eternity has been found in the behavior of subatomic particles. Isn't that great?
From my 40 years of research I have found there are many cartels on this earth full of people wanting us to stay their slaves. They tell all kinds of lies consistently like hitler did. Death and covid are ponzi schemes that they tell. Look at all the people that believe them. There are NO germs/viruses because this is an electrical existence. We can hurt ourselves with our own withheld emotions and microwaves and 5G, etc.
We are in the middle of a reality where joy has been taken over by those that take the most money from others. The federal reserve cartel, the prison cartel, the medical cartel, the kill animals for food cartel, let's put toxic fluoride in the drinking water cartel and the military cartel are all about making themselves huge amounts of money at our expense.
I didn't forget the chemical cartels that ruin the rivers and oceans. I have read that the Fukushima catastrophe was done on purpose. The mountains in the ocean outside of Fukushima were bombed to make that tsunami. Plus G.E. must have built those generators low down in their plans to ruin the Japanese economy. Every read the book HIDDEN HISTORY?
Intelligence and creationism do not belong in the same sentence.
Red Rock yet you are not "intelligent" enough to know how the universe was made, why it was made and you cannot even produce one cell of life from non-life.
Grandpa KJV
You are correct. But I have lots of company. No one on the earth "KNOWS' how and why our Universe was made.
There is a BIG difference between believing and knowing.
+Grandpa KJV And you're probably not intelligent enough to produce a cellphone from raw materials...
... yet your impotence in this endeavour would hardly place them in the realm of divine miracle.
Similarly, the very likely mechanisms of Abiogenisis (the creation of life from non-life) are actually fairly well understood. So is the formation of stars (yet we cant do that in a lab either) ... your argument is rather irrational.
Are you somehow surprised that things that happen on the timescale of millions or billions of years cannot be demonstrated over lunch to your satisfaction. Oh well, Sorry about that.
Please feel free to continue on in ignorance, surviving as religion always has, devolving to fit in the ever-shrinking gaps found at the very frontier of mans understanding.
+Red Rock so what do you think happens when you die you ignorant faithless fools
When *I* die? Nothing much. But when *you* die? ...
... well, then our species evolves : )
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
well ;good try ,but its the exact opposite..evolution is a story for dumbs.......evolution doesn t stand the scrutiny of real science...ohhh by the way ,repeating the stupid mistakes as a smart claim of a dumb Weitzenhoffer will make you look as stupid......
People who quote others cannot put forth their own thoughts -me
Evolution does explain the existence of many complex molecular machines (e.g., bacterial flagella). That evolution cannot (as yet) explain the evolution of some complex machines does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer - it just means that the proper experiments have not been done yet. E.g., your example of the Cambrian explosion - fossils of single-celled organisms are harder to find, although such fossils have been found recently, so an explanation of this should be forthcoming.
Thank you. You are right. I am not trying to convince Angela or anyone else like her. My goal is to expose how dangerous this nonsense is by making them talk about their beliefs.
As a warning and to the benefit of all who are inclined to fall for this insanity.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
you just claimed insanity by yourself by that stupid statement....you just don t understand the matter ,period.
Eugenie Scot is amazing! So is the NCSE. They are essential in a country riddled with, not religion, but religious fundamentalism.
She is amazing only to those more intelectually impotent than she is. Religious fundamentalism?!! Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world? Stop being a idiot.
@@pappycool Dr Eugenie Scott is a real scientist unlike your fraud heros of Stephen Meyer and the other liars at the Discovery Institute.
"Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world?"
Another lie. Your biblical morality forbids all other religions. That is a fundemental freedom in all western democracy.
There is NO trace of any democracy in your bloody bible, nor do women have human rights in your bible.
Your bible condones slavery, something gone from our democracies.
Sorry but your biblical morality has little to do with the rights and freedoms we enjoy in modern society.
Again you show yourself to be an ignorant liar.
This woman is a wonderful example of what it is to be rational. Brilliant!
This woman is rational?!! Get real. Richard Dawkins himself admitted to the possibility of intelligent design. This woman is either intelectually impotent, either a liar, hypocrite, manipulatori and a Marxist. Possibly a combination of all the mentioned above.
@@keithboynton your ignorance is a bliss! Actually Dawkins DID EXACTLY THAT, in a 2004 interview with Ben Stein, contained in the documentary, " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I suggest you study more and put less nerve on display.
Please look up Miller-Urey Experiment from Princeton University or Wiki. It generated 22 organic compounds from inorganic origins. Many criticisms were made because of the "primitive atmosphere" that he assumed, but later studies, with other starting mixtures were tried,with various results. The original study did show that inorganic chemical reactions could lead to production of organic compounds. Not quite abiogenesis, but a very possible starting point, and definitely not a negative answer.
I found this clip very interesting and factual. Anyone, with half a brain, who listens carefully, will grasp the points and realize I.D. isn't just wrong, it is plain stupid and outrageous. It says much about the politicians who voted to add I.D. to high school and college/university curriculums, as an alternate theory.
+terry z When a "Creation Scientist" wins a Nobel prize and passes peer review, then maybe, it would be worth considering. Until then, it will remain fantasy and magic!
Jeffrey P Very true Jeff. I find it almost impossible to discuss anything with the Creationists. Ever listen to Ken Ham? What an idiot!
terry z We are dealing with very strong religious indoctrination, with many of these people. I am meeting a refreshing number of younger Christians, who do accept scientific origins so, there is hope.
Jeffrey P Yes, there is hope. Still, I do not believe in a god.
terry z Neither do I, but I find less to argue about with most of the moderates. The only problem I have with them is, they really have to go to extremes in cherry picking the Bible, to make it more palatable.
The funniest thing about ID is the use of the word 'intelligent'! Their proponents certainly seem to be lacking in that area!
what if we introduced life / dna to mars?
name a design that did not come from a mind. why do we have a branch of science/engineering that is called biomimicry? why copy a non design into a design?
@@ricoigor dna 3B bits of info per cell.....people think it came from mud
Obviously you don't know much about the evidence and the reasons that scientists have used to support their argument for intelligent design.
But that is okay if you don't comprehend the logic behind it and would rather go with the illogical presumption and presupposition that the atheists wanna be scientists use 😂
It just shows that you are not willing to give up your opinions for the objective truths which are found in scientific discoveries.
Sarcasm ( yeah sure just accept the statement of the atheist blindly about their " scientific discoveries " and that is not biased at all )
Cognitive dissonance is an atheists best friend.
Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
"Evolution" is not science. It is speculation and conjecture about what happened in the past. It requires belief and faith without proof . . . meaning it is a religion.
@@philroe2363 The fossil record provides more evidence and proof of evolution than has ever been dreamed up in favour of religion. - Which is why the religious obsessives try to deny that any of it even exists.
@@madgeordie4469 the fossil record shows stasis of species over time, not transition. In fact, there is no known transitional record in the fossils. Not one. The ONLY thing you evolutionists do is point at creatures that have similar features to two other creatures and say "transitional fossil." But this doesn't demonstrate "evolution;" absent a transitional record, it only demonstrates special creation.
Further, the vast majority of fossils in the world show catastrophic water burial - something we DON'T see happening today. This situation speaks loudly of a one time massive global flood, not "millions of years of slow burial."
The fossil record sustains Biblical creation . . . not Darwinistic "evolution." Sorry.
@@philroe2363 If species were static the plants and animals with their associated fossils from the Permian, Ordovician, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous eras plus every other era up to the present would all be the same - which they are not. So much for being static. As evolution is a constant process which never stops all fossils and even the species of organisms alive today are all transitional. There is no such thing as a completely developed species. Finally while some fossils show that their originators suffered violent deaths, often by natural causes such as floods this does not apply to all or even most. Hence, no planet wide flood. Hard to believe that one person could be so wrong about so many things in one post but there you go...
@@philroe2363 you are simply wrong, you know nothing of this subject other than what religious zealots told you. Evolution is a fact, so is common descent. DNA alone shows it beyond all doubt, just as well as it can tell you who your parents are. There is no evdience for any of the ludicrous claims in the bible, a book that describes a fl;at earth coveredc by a firmament with waters above and below... Being created before the sun, all of that is ludicrously wrong, and you would never think it matches science were you not indoctrinated into it.
Here is something that I want you to answer.
Do the Falgellum and the ttss share any protein? or are they all different proteins (meaning that they have no common protein)?
It's a shame this professor has to explain why ID is not science. It's also a shame that the people who need to hear this will never listen.
“The scripture worshipers put the writings ahead of God. Instead of interpreting God's actions in nature, for example, they interpret nature in the light of the Scripture. Nature says the rock is billions of years old, but the book says different, so even though men wrote the book, and God made the rock and God gave us minds that have found ways to tell how old it is, we still choose to believe the Scripture.” ~~ Sheri S. Tepper ~~ The Fresco
The mental gymnastics begin when they can't reconcile reality with with their book. Willfully deluded they are.
curiousgeorge1940
It's pretty messed up, because it means that the fundamentalist religion is a form of idolatry, where the book is worshiped more than the god it talks about.
KalibreSteelblast Go research Bible History and you'll see the thousands of errors that as many hands have messed up in the copying and recopying of the "original texts". Go to the dozens of web sites that illustrate biblical contradictions to see how "The Word" says one thing, then a little later says the opposite.
- JWs ( that Jehovah crowd ) are told they can't read any of that : not even the history of their own religion, because all of that is the work of the devil. Nice touch to keep your sheep in line !
I think Eugenie C. Scott, as a professor is complete wrong about ID when talking about it and misrepresenting it and confusing it with creationism. Its better to say that ID is a challenge to Darwinism evolution natural selection theory. Its open enough space to creativity and exploration in science. It’s not creationism. As Darwinist atheists have a hard time in accepting other theories and doctrines our kids in schools as the truth.
The claim of "Intelligent Design" is a common one amongst creationists of all ilk (I've had it thrown at me by Muslims as well as creationist Christians)
But anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy knows that so many things about the layout of the human body are completely and utterly dumb.
If a human engineer designed an eye with nerves criss-crossing light sensitive cells, BETWEEN the cells and the light source, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Huw Rees Music It is neither weird nor insignificant. If such a system is designed, it's designed VERY badly. What would that say about the designer?
Huw Rees Music in this scenario we explore two possibilities. 1. so called designer doesn't exist or 2. so called designer exists and sucks at his job.
Given these two scenarios then it reveals that even if we do accept the premise that a designer exists, the designer is hardly to be beheld since afterall, if people could design things than this supernatural designer, what good is the designer?
Huw Rees Music It's not just in my opinion. It's a fact (and one of many in nature)
If a system were created AS IS by an omnipotent being, WHY ISN'T IT PERFECT?
"I don't understand why you think it would have to be perfect". Why would a perfect being DELIBERATELY create something imperfect?
Or better, the playground in the same area as a sewage plant, or in the case of the male, directly sharing space with waste water disposal. Seriously? An intelligent designer couldn't do better than that?
Oh! One more! Giving most tetrapods a singe line from the various orifices in the face for intake of food, water, and air, with only a switch-select to prevent drowning?
There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact and creationism is a bunch of lies. ;-)
Absolutely 🤗
Of course saying doesn't make it so. Creationism is a fact evolution is a bunch of lies. Evidence please.
That’s putting it mildly 🤣🤣
What's 'controversial' in the Creationism v Evolution so-called debate? There is no controversy. One is a faith based surrender of reason while the other is based on observation, peer review and the demonstration of high quality evidence. The only 'controversy' is why the hell are we so polite to these superstitious apologists?
calling it a controversy does a disservice to the scientists who discovered/illuminated us upon the process of evolution.
Creationists had been unsuccessful in getting their brand of religious "Creation Science" taught in science class so they manufactured this "Intelligent Designer" facade. The "controversy" was manufactured by a collection of Creationists through what is called the Wedge Document and formed an organization called the Discovery Institute to distribute their nonsense. They do no discovery of any sort other than quote mine and seek donations. In return the gullible and scientifically illiterate get a pamphlet and videos so they can further distribute their propaganda.
Evolution could not exist because energy is constantly spinning/vibrating/pulsating/etc. Evolution is built on what is called the solid. Those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity. This is an electrical energy field world where we are electrical energy field beings because atoms spin as electrical energy fields.
It didn't take all that many words to show you up as a disservice to humanity.
@@pureenergy4578 talk to me after youve taken a collegiate lvl course in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.
It's not a controversy evolution is a fact, and the latter are just primitive religious beliefs
No one is debating mere evolution. It's when people say life and its diversity arose via blind and mindless processes that there is debate.
@@sombodysdad evolution has nothing to do with how life originated
@@sombodysdad origin of life is still a mystery to science and therefore everybody
@@sombodysdad There is no debate. You don't have any science.
@@logicalatheist1065 How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It's only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced its diversity. An Intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
There is no controversy, other than in some parts of the US
Because you must make a special case for a backward nation.
Allow them their hamless(?) little crazy beliefs.
There is not much controversy anywhere in the world about the validity of Darwinism. It is merely a Creationist claim made to give their irrational beliefs a veneer of respectability by fooling people into thinking that if such a controversy does exist there must be some scientific backing for those beliefs (of which there conspicuously is not). In other words, its a Creationist scam.
Eugenie has her head on a box, and Darwinism evolution has a monopoly on education to teach our kids only evolution right? What century this Amazon women is living?
@@bluejysm2007 This woman is evil and her fairytale of Evolutionism won't save her that's for sure..
"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD DAWKINS
WWW.EVOLUTIONFAIRYTALE.COM
@@jaydelgado1994
How dare she use science instead of your solid yet evidence free conjecture!
Albert Einstein said it well: "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
There's no such thing as Darwinists or Darwinism. Only biologists and biologism. 😉
Biology would not exist if not for quarks that are bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. You can find these words in the book THE QUANTUM WORLD written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
In order to explain this world, we have to believe that a very clever person made it.
The designer is always smarter than the thing he designed.
So now we need an even smarter designer who designed the designer.
Yes folks, it's gods all the way up !
silly argument
@@ozowen5961
Don't you agree that a potter is cleverer than his pots ?
@@tedgrant2
Your argument presupposes a designer. It's not clear at all that is required.
I believe there is such, but the argument is not one I would use. It hopes the listener is poorly educated
@@ozowen5961
When you see a pot on sale in a shop, do you presuppose that someone made the pot ?
Or do you think it just popped into existence, all by itself ?
@@tedgrant2 I see you are a single argument kind of guy.
You must be proud.
That's a strange thing to say because the proposed lineage is based on the fact that these animals have both fish and tetrapod traits in varying proportions. Acanthostega has a fishy pectoral girdle and gill covers but has it's pelvis fused to a sacral rib in a very tetrapody manor. Tiktaalik is an even clearer mosaic. The spine would have to be modified as you point out. In Ichthyostega the spine resembles Eusthenopteron but has distinct zygapophyses to make it more rigid.
Evolution is a fact.
If you mean evolution as "in all life came from a common ancestor" that is not a fact. And I say that based on the definition she gives for what can be known: only those things that can be tested and examined.
There is no way to know, as an absolute fact, that we all came from a common ancestor.
@@TheAaronYost Evolution is descent with modification. Observed fact.
Evolution is both theory and fact at the same time.
Evolution is built on believing in solidity which those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER FIND. This is an energy existence where subatomic particles are constantly spinning/vibrating and pulsating this world into existence. Creation is constant.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” ~~ Richard Dawkins
I wonder if he has faith in his wife..
That is a caricature of Christian faith. The Bible says, Test everything, and hold on to that which is true. 1st Thessalonians 5.21. How is that blind? How is that not science?
@@femibabalola4057
Creationism is not science.
It fails the tests.
Science disproved its primary claims.
@@ozowen5961 So, what is the age of the oldest tree?
@@femibabalola4057 What is the orbital velocity of the Moon?
Gee, aren't irrelevant questions fun?
"everything in its present form" Proven wrong through genetics.
God idea creates ID plausibility. Self fulfilling.
Religious attracted to false dichotomies.
Incredulity sparks supernatural tendencies. "If I can't understand it, then god."
Religion puts cart before horse, conclusions first, then cherry picking research to fit narrative.
Yiu are intelevtually impotent my friend and ignorant as they get. If not, and you poses the knowledge than it is possible that you are also stupid, , incapable of rational reasoning, along with other possibilities such as: hypocrite, liar, manipulator, marxist, etc. Take your pick.
@@pappycool Now point all of those words at yourself because you don't read books of any kind.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
No. I've described why one would throw up their hands and say "I don't know what that means." If the "opponents" to her general message constantly abuse and misrepresent a specific term - Darwinism - she is actually forced to treat it as an ambiguous term for the purposes of her speech. If she were to hammer it down as the historical definition, she would be misrepresenting what her "opponents" are saying.
You're welcome to explain the fossils in any other way, let's hear it.
Not only that, but also what was the cause of time, space and matter, aka Universe, to come into existence. Also how about mathematical odds of life appearing by chance. Etc. Etc. Etc.
@@pappycool YOU ARE A LIAR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A HYPOCRITE.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MARXIST.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A LIAR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MANIPULATOR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU POSTED YOUR QUOTE MINE OF DARWIN'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE EYE.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
@@garywalker447 lol, it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement! Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not. Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation. No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first. You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
@@garywalker447 here is the challenge again: pick from biology astrophysics, or chemistry, as we already yiu were left speechless about the mathematical and paleontology evidence you were given. I dare you. This will be a copy paste whenever you attempt to take the conversation into ridiculousness. Your choice. So what's it going to be?
@@pappycool lol,
it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement!
Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not.
Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation.
No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first.
You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
Discovery Institute what a totally Orwellian use of the words
Why is evolution still a topic in a supposed “advanced” civilisation?
it has withstood the scrutiny of 150 years of critical testing and has been confirmed by predictions made.
@@IIrandhandleII except if someone’s crazy old book seems to say the opposite
@@IIrandhandleII ...in your dreams!!! You are so funny!
It is NOT logical to fill in gaps of missing information with hearsay. Imagine the implications of that in a murder trial. "Ladies of gentlemen of the court, we can't find the body, nor the weapon, nor any evidence to determine his guilt, so logically you must find him guilty because he can't prove he didn't do it either."
Evolution is everywhere
François D especially our wonderful schools. We really are doing so well as a country. Our kids are the smartest, most well behaved children on earth!
+François D So the argument is between the clear minded and the deluded? Do you come to that conclusion as the result of careful study, or is it a belief you hold? Seriously curious.
world peace I dont have to do it , Darwin did it all
François D So it is a belief you hold
world peace It is not a belief, it is a reality.
A couple of points: I would agree with some your statement if you replace "cannot be" with "has not yet been". If you state that something "cannot be explained", it can be translated to mean "don't bother to look". That is the surest way of stifling science. It is possible that there is knowledge that you cannot get scientifically, but that would not be science. I have no issue with teaching ID - my issue is with teaching ID in a science class.
You don't research at all because you know nothing about the behavior of subatomic particles, those quarks and atoms that are creating us as they spin and vibrate billions of times a second as light BEFORE the word biology can even begin to exist.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
I’ve heard of Eugenie Scott before. She must be a heavy hitter because I’ve seen the creationist try to put her down.
The reason I remember this is because they care so much about sex they always have to point out the fact she is one of those women things they talk about so much.
Both theories are observable in nature and have predictive power. Tiktaalik was an excellent example. Evolutionary theory predicted that something that looked approximately like Tiktaalik should show up in rocks of a certain age. Paleontologists located some rocks of the right age and found exactly what they'd predicted they would. Evolutionary theory also predicts that you'll never see a rhinoceros, for instance, in the Cambrian. And so it is.
12:00. Young Earth creationists are not just rejected by scientists, but by most Christians as well.
I'm talking about the origin of the first self-replicating cell - and the vast majority of Origins researchers' still agree with this statement made a few decades ago by molecular biologist J. D. Bernal:
"The question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms, clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge that life is actually here,leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life."
The fossil record is discontinuous. About one in a million organisms get fossilized and only a very tiny portion of those fossils survive. Thus it's unsurprising that there are large morphological gaps in the record. The fact that we're able to piece together such a clear path is astounding. There are around 20 million years between Panderichthys and Ichthyostega, time enough for the drastic change that occurred.
"The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure - it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?"
The survey mentioned asked the question whether the participant believed in evolution and God had nothing to do with it (12%) and does the participant believe in evolution and God did have something to do with it (23%). So the number 12% is correct. It is splitting hairs to say the sentence is worded wrong when the answer was correct
The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. Scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection
Sixty coppies were not purchased by the education system, a singular school board member donated them.
That was disproven in court, the kitzmiller vs dover trial to be exact. The flagellum is a modified version of the needle mechanism that can be found in viruses. Haven't you updated your arguments for the like 10 years or something?
No, that's as much as I could paste into this awful youtube conversational space.
Not sure what page you're on, but on the wiki that I'm in there is no reference to Tacitus.
I've read much about him, but I will double check before getting back to you.
Thanks.
Nice quote mining. This was part of something Gould said to emphasize the completeness of Lucy. Plus he said it before the discovery of several more complete hominins.
I'm having trouble coming up with any specific problems. I assume you're familiar with a few of them or can point me in the right direction. And perhaps explain how the size of the animals is a problem?
The point is, as Roger White pointed out in his paper "Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake" to rule out "mere chance" as the causative agent in abiogenesis, and then to also rule out a rational agent, without knowing the cause of life, is a logical fallacy! Both should be allowed for discussion & critical evaluation. There are many in science who are skeptical of mutation/selection as having the ability to create novel function, body plans etc. So allow all scientific models.
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record....
What controversy? Like the people who continue to argue for a flat earth, so-called "creationists" are simply people who don't know what they're talking about.
Firstly Darwin NEVER based anything on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are completely separate things (no overlap).
Secondly when people talk about abiogenesis relative to the formation of life on earth the are speaking about a totally different set of circumstances than the beliefs held in the 18th century . when we test the primordial condition we in fact see the formation of biomolecules proving that it is at least plausible.
This lady said no famous scientist believed in God is strange, when Euler, Riemann, Gauss, etc...
"Dinosaurs have existed, are talked about in the bible..."
Creationists love to claim that Behemoth was a dinosaur--even though that means ignoring most of what the Bible actually SAYS about him, and ALL of the context. They claim that the Bible says his tail was as big as a cedar; it doesn't. They ignore the fact that it says he has a navel. They ignore the fact that it says he chews grass like an ox, which sauropods COULD NOT do--they don't have the teeth for it.
It also doesn't exclude Intelligent Design either. Therefore, until experimental/empirical evidence proves Darwinian evolution is adequate to create a ribosome or other complex molecular machine, we cannot eliminate intelligent design as having a role in abiogenesis and evolution. Many scientists are questioning the ability of natural selection/mutation as being creative enough for the origin of these complex organelles.
@echosyst I will support an honest debate as soon as creationism/ID get some evidence. As long as there is no evidence, there is no debate.
They didn't mention the Spaghetti Monster Creation belief! I am shocked!
Very good and how many years have you been studying for?
Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world-as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."[25]
He also said "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices."
I am super impressed by this presentation. All credit to you Eugenie. I am a Christian and a scientist and found your presentation factual, non-biased and respectful to theists (which is rarely seen). You actually explained a lot about why theists have been made to feel that science is the enemy of God and how wrong the scientists are who have pushed this agenda (notably Dawkins). You actually have opened the door for everyone to work together again and peacefully and respectfully keep science separate from theology, not because it can't co-exist but because we cannot test where God is involved or not and so it's not therefore relevant when describing what is seen and reproducible.
I was 7 when I suggested a “theistic evolution” argument based on something a Sunday school teacher said. He said “the days before man were time on God’s scale, which meant that a day could be a billion years.” I raised my hand and said, “If God can do anything, then why can’t he make humans out of amoebas (I was only 7 😅) through evolution?” He answered, “because it doesn’t say that.” I replied, “it doesn’t say a Day was a billion years either.” I stopped being Christian young……
Maybe you don't know where you are and you just made it clear to me with your answer.
Yes, you are a resident of this devine zoo. But you are one of these lucky people who don´t know that they are zoo residents He has created to bring some fun in his boring everyday life. I´m one of the unlucky people how know where they are.
But make some funny noices to please Him. I have a prayer for you.
"Almighty alien from hyperspace. Don't kill us with your laser cannons like you did before."
The Extraterrestrial has also created dinosaurs for His zoo. When they bored Him, He killed everyone with a laser. The burn marks can still be found in layers of earth.
Make Him happy. Act like a good resident of His zoo. But don't argue against why you exist or He will burn you up like dinosaurs.
@@marculatour6229 what in the world are you babbling about? Your comment suggests that you’ve some good herb…wanna pass it to the left hand side? 😂
speciation is considered microevolution. No one is in denial of mutation, gene duplication, or that organisms may experience a loss of genetic information. That is all occurring with already existent genetic information. This doesn't justify the "molecule to man" evolution.
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design. (from their site)
You may wish to read the paper by Alan Turing "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis'. It contains Turing's mathematical proof of abiogenesis.
The ruling keepers cannot cut their links with the traditional old ways even as they are no longer appropriate to resolve the contradictions and conflicts. Instead of identifying the true nature of the principal contradiction at this stage of our intellectual struggle to understand the universe the keepers identified themselves with either of the two so-called visions. And instead of plugging the hole they gave their opponents loop holes. In so doing, they got entangled with creation.
Tiktaalik is based on the well-preserved articulated skeleton I assume you're familiar with plus several other specimens. And you seem to think that the scientists are drawing a picture and basing their proposed lineage on that. Pictures capture the imagination, but the lineage is based on (as I mentioned) many shared features. The pattern of the many skull bones, the loss of cranial kinesis, the presence of choanae, homologous development of limbs/fins and so on and so on.
You do like your quote mining. You're using it to imply that Ahlberg and Clack were denigrating the idea of transitional fossils. They go on to say "Much of the importance of transitional fossils actually lies in how they resemble and differ from their nearest neighbours in the phylogenetic tree, and in the picture of change that emerges from this pattern," clearly supporting the validity of transitional fossils.
If the 32 quantum states are taken into consideration creationism should be put to rest. The real central issue on why science was invented is survival and not creation. The true nature of the principal contradiction at this critical juncture of the intellectual struggle is not about devising new scientific theories to uphold a time-dependent universe nor is it about inventing new math but one of framework. An entirely new way is imperative to resolve all the contradictions and conflicts.
wao professor says it so clearly that i want to applaud forever....
What is your source concerning positive evidence of design?
This mathematical argument also applies to the formation of proteins by chance, and enzymes, and evolution as a whole. Anyone who argues "well it only had to happen once, and here we are!" really doesn't grasp how in over their heads they are. Not when the initial conditions are already set.
Teacher: Alright students, how do you think life came to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: Correct. Now how do you think that the Earth came to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: Good job class! Okay, how did the universe come to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: You guys are amazing. You have passed my class.
Is that how you would rather school go? Is that even correct? You see, "god did it" is not the answer to everything. Thinking so is an extremely childish notion.
Well, you also need to take cognizance of that fact that there are unabridged explanations of creation in other great scriptures of the world. Take the ancient Vedic scriptures as an example. They go into great detail about how God created, not just that "He did it". The Vedic literatures spans many books, with hundreds of thousands of verses. Some of the prominent ones that deal with ultimate goal of life, don't go into the great details, because they are serving a different purpose. Look at Bhagavata Purana as an example (18k verses) of which canto's 3 and 5 discuss details about the process of creation of the universe. You don't have to accept any of this, but the point it, there are other scriptures in the world that give the details. Why do we ignore these?
Fetal mutations (fixed permanent inherited diseases) are caused by infectious diseases. We propagate so many types of infections now that we are rapidly degrading.
200% rise in autism and we are at pandemic levels now (1 in 54 boys have it). We are building a future of people who can't function well enough to continue.
So "creation science" claims there is a materialist bias in the research of science.
May I inquire then....... as to how you test for non materialist reality?
How would science test to confirm fairies or the tooth fairy?
What research can be conducted in the field and/or laboratory setting to discover, define and explain that methodology of an intelligent designer?
The fact remains that creation science is a theology.......not a science.
How many biological structures have been tested for irreducible complexity? Has the ribosome? In abiogenesis, why haven't they been able to simulate it since it is being taught currently? How can they teach a hypothesis of their choosing that is non-confirmed and full of holes, and doesn't work and hasn't worked for 150 years? Yet, science picks and chooses depending on the biases of whoever is in control. IC is very valid. The flagellum has recently been found to be even more complex.
You missed the part where I made it clear that you have misunderstood the passage. I know you want him to be saying there's no evidence for evolution, but what he's saying is that Darwin's understanding of evolution was limited compared to what we know now. You need to accept this.
"...what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices"
This appears in both quotes because you're quoting the same passage.
One thing that is probable is that the traditional mechanics of evolution and the universe (like the law of entropi - that everything falls aparat eventionally given time) survival of the fittest would rather destroy instrinsic information in the DNA rather than contruct it as a "deletion of information "/and "errors" in the DNA is more likely when coincidence is the master. These "errors" are also as likeley to be benifitial momentaraly for a given creature, for instance to change the color of a butterfly when it has moved in to a are where that previous camouflage is hinder. That being said when/and if macro evolution has occurred like a legs on a fish that would being beneficial, it would never have any reason to go in that direction though, as it improbable that nature would create imensly complicated structures by it self without guidance.
Wow! Only two gross mistakes in that comment. Great example of not understanding the words you tried to use.
1) get a dictionary
2) Get a real science book instead of looking at Ken Ham's website for your facts.
The design of the human eye works. Human engineers have some experimental bionic eye designs, but none are as good as the natural eye.
Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown that the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. For more information, lookup the article "Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?"
Why does it have to employ that design? That is a very definitive statement that is full of shit, I can debunk it with just a single non inverted eye. Octipi have a superior eye that does not employ this design, showing it is possible, and that humans didn;t have to have it. The eye is perfectly explained through evolution, and in many ways inferior to cameras depending on your arbitrarily picked criteria. You are simply mistaken.
Since the eye is a variation of a coaxial cable with one end bulbed. The signal wire (nerve) is in the center so it has to fan out and go back to the light sensitive cells. If the blood supply came from the back then the blood vessels could tear off when the eye rotates. I can not think of a better way to make a camera out of biological materials.
What scientific observations have you observed and where and which mathematical probabilities? Are you a scientist and what field do you study?
THE QUESTION TODAY IS: WHERE DOES THE SCIENCIE POINT TODAY? AND IS VERY CLEAR: INTELIGENT DESIGN. THERE IS NO COHERENT INFORMATION AT ANY LEVEL, THAT CAN POP UP, RANDOMLY. THE REAL PROBLEM, IS THE INFORMATION. AND LIFE IS INFORMATION.
Nope. Life is chemistry. There is NO evidence for your "designer/god" so you have no basis to assert ID.
@@garywalker447 ...which tends to show that you most probably have no understanding of synthetic chemistry...have a look at James Tour - The origin of life - for a discussion of the actual SCIENCE involved.
@@kevinrtres Shut the fuck up. Tour is a SYNTHETIC chemist, not a Biochemist and as far as biology is concerned, he is a fraud.
Tour is full of shit.
ua-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/v-deo.html
@@garywalker447 *_"Shut the fuck up. Tour is a SYNTHETIC chemist, not a Biochemist"_*
Thereby, the intelligent atheist shuts down any further discussion involving reason and logic......anything contradicting the humanist-atheistic story is not to be dignified with any kind of reasonable response.
I think you got that completely backwards. Evolution is a FACT backed by reams of evidence. ID is just, god did it.
No, they say that there is no evidence that life was designed; all the evidence presented by ID for design can be explained by evolutionary theory.
It is interesting that the "fundamentally implausible" formation of replicating life and other systems of informative conveyance are sustained with negative entropy.
In this case the hypothesis is based on the depositional environment indicated by the rocks and various morphological features. So it's an evidence-based hypothesis. But here's the kicker: At no point is Daeschler discussing the evolutionary kinship of Tiktaalik; this is not in doubt. He's making an environmental interpretation which, while important, is not related to the question of whether or not tetrapods evolved from animals like Tiktaalik.
Here's what Shapiro said in response to that particular quote mine:
"...he DID use it out of context Questioning the adequacy of Darwinian theory is something quite different from challenging the evidence for evolution. Our best defense against Creationism is a vital scientific study of evolutionary processes using the most complete molecular and biological information we can obtain. "
Increase in CCR5 Δ32/Δ32 genotype in multiple sclerosis
K. Pulkkinen1,4, M. Luomala2, H. Kuusisto3,5, T. Lehtimäki2, M. Saarela1,2,3, T. O. Jalonen1,4,5, I. Elovaara1,3,5
Article first published online: 10 DEC 2003
On that note, how convenient that my question has ended up right below this comment. What a perfect opportunity for you to try to address them rather than obfuscating as usual.
Please give me the exact sentence/paragraph or tell where it is. Just reading the abstract it says this concerning the soft tissue: "..Moreover, the fibrils DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY in spectral signature FROM those of potential modern BACTERIAL CONTAMINANTS. Also, if there had been bacterial contamination 23000 years ago why wouldn't the soft tissue have decomposed? Did it say that results of C14 were conclusively bacterial, or possible? Also what's the explanation for ANY soft tissue preserving?
what a gibberish question
Samson et al. (1996) identified a heterozygous 32-bp deletion in the CMKBR5 gene ..... (2006) concluded that CCR5 delta-32 is a risk factor for symptomatic WNV infection.