Informative? Nope, only spewing creationist lies, scientific? Again, same thing, creationist crap. Is she intelligent and articulate? Yes, enough to deceive poorly educated people.
No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. It's a fairytale. They even FORCED mutations in fruit flies and got nothing but damaged and hideous flies. But still flies. Science has turned to bullshit and lies because they hate God, it means ''accountability''.
@@RicardoGarcia-mm3fo While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, bacteria remain bacteria. Mutations cannot transform one animal into another and certainly is not responsible for man's existence. Man has always been man.
Voice of TRUTH! “I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation”. So for you, what would count as TRULY beneficial? A mutation is beneficial if it helps an organism survive in a particular environment. The bacteria gained antibiotic resistance, which allowed them to outcompete the non resistant bacteria. Therefore its beneficial in the antibiotic filled environment. Why is it not TRULY beneficial?
The question is whether or not the bacteria had the antibiotic had the resistance trait before or did it develop a mutation. I’ve seen videos which said the different strain of bacteria was already there.
An example of frequent harmful mutations is cancer. Cancer always starts with a mutation or a series of them. That would be worth mentioning, when discussing the claim that mutations are the raw material factory of evolution. Evolutionists tend to minimize the occurence and role of dangerous mutations, while they blow up stories of beneficial ones.
@@concretesandals4501 "Evolution makes use of harmful, beneficial, and neutral mutations." That is contradictory to say the least. It requires a lot of faith to affirm that harmful mutations become somehow beneficial in the "hands" on evolution. The same for neutral mutations, neutral means per definition they don¨t do anything. And it is well known that harmful mutations are much more frequent than beneficial. If mutations would lead us to a better world, why don¨t we spend our vacations in Chernobyl or in the Bikini-atoll, where there is enough radiation to catch a good number of extra mutations? With which beneficial mutation in humans do you contrast the millions of harmful mutations every year that end up in cancer?
@@globalcoupledances LOL! Your comment isn't proof of anything except that you are a blowhard. She does know her stuff. You just make accusations. Prove her wrong. Refute what she says with actual evidence and documentation. Otherwise, shut up.
@@globalcoupledances You're still just babbling. You're just disagreeing. You have offered no substantive refutation. If you can't actually refute what she says, then shut up and go away.
Yes she's right, mutations is a disappointment, I experience it because I had ulcers from this bacteria, and the Doctor gave me pep-bis-mo and penicillin to kill bacteria, but they became super bugs Doctor said. One day by accident with out knowing it I took organic, raw propolis in my mouth and did this for awhile and ulcers were gone. I think what happen was the bacteria got weaker and weaker until they died by the changes in the environment. I remembered what the Doctor said about the bacteria became super bugs: I don't think the Doc was smart enough too know that bacteria gets weaker every-time the environment changes and they will die.
What's funny is that Dr. Purdom says exactly what happens in evolution at 5:00 minutes in: "...there are benficial outcomes of mutations, but it'ws only in specific environments...it might be benficial over here, but it's not beneficial over here..." Which is exactly how organisms end up as different species. A group of a species becomes separated from the other members of that species. That can happen in any number of ways, but once it happens, mutations that crop up in the original group may be detrimental, or neutral, while they may be beneficial in the breakaway group. If that happens enough times, voila!, you have a new species. I agree that most mutations are not beneficial. That explains why 99% of life on earth is extinct. As far as "new information", in any sexually reproducing organism, there's new information every generation. Dr. Purdom would know that. Which leads one to wonder why she doesn't mention it. She sticks with bacteria, which do not reproduce sexually. They clone themselves, which means there would be much less differentiation over time. But speaking of gaining or losing "information" (whatever that might mean), there's a lovely little mammal called a rock hyrax, roughly the size of a house cat, furred, with small ears and no tail. Hyrax's are very close relations to elephants, having a common ancestor with elephants, manatees and dugongs. So somewhere along the way, some information changed to a pretty large extent. Was it a gain, or a loss? Who knows. I do know that elephants have trunks capable of uprooting trees, and hyraxes have no trunk at all. Yet they share a common ancestor.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
@@martinmoffat5417 The theory of evolution doesn't "require" anything. It is just a way of explaining life on earth. I'm not sure what you mean by "top down model". Perhaps you could elucidate. As far as inbreeding, inbreeding is almost always bad. That is why there is something called "minimum viable population" (MVP). That is, the smallest population necessary to guarantee the survival of the species. For most terrestrial vertebrates it is 500-1000, not counting the effects of inbreeding or random mutations. When accouting for those, the number is much higher. Which kind of throws a wrench into the Noah's ark story. Two, or even seven pairs, are nowhere near enough to allow the species to survive. If the Noah's ark story were true as stated, there would be no life on earth, except that which may have arisen after the flood.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 Yet the flood is not even a religious story but rather a story that is shared by 270 different independent cultures that exist across every continent on the planet. This is what I mean by a, "Top Down Model". Population Geneticist Robert Carter has shown that if you extrapolate the speciation backward into their archetypes you can have the genetic diversity within the pairs. Secondly, this explains the "Out of Egypt" bottleneck thousands of years ago necessary to explain our current population. Thirdly this explains the phenomena of fossilized sea life found on all the mountain ranges. Fourthly this explains geneticist John Sanfords dilemma that gives the rates of genetic entropy we should be dead 100 times over given current evolutionary timescales.
Or would you prefer to believe that mànkind and all the animals fit into a specified and complex single-celled replicàtor that gained conscioùsness without the aid of natural selection and then gained traits in an inc0gnito manner that allowed the m1ssing links to remain missing until we became dignifièd?
How can a mutation be beneficial or give value to the species where the 2 Law of thermodynamics / entropy specifies a decrease as a law? Also, how was the metaphysical entity of DNA (information and code to create proteins) created?
@@roberttombs3108 it’s got absolutely damn all to do with your book. It’s simply a fact. If you’ve never bothered your backside learning anything about thermodynamics- and clearly you haven’t- why prattle about it in public?
@@mcmanustony Wow. The devil captures people and perhaps one should step back and look at themselves objectively. The premise that life is random and arbitrary and is without a purpose is the opposite of good. God bless you.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
***GOD CREATES EVERYTHING, NO MATTER HOW. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH YOU GUYS IS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW TO READ THE BIBLE NOR TO READ ANY SCIENTIFIC BOOK. GOD ALSO CREATES SCIENCE TO TELL MEN HOW HE CREATES. THE BIBLE IS FOR FAITH SCIENCE IS FOR KNOWLEDGE, IT IS JUST ABOUT TIME YOU START TO STUDY THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE, TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL DISCUSSIONS.***
When she’s describing the “new environment of antibiotics” she is literally explaining how evolution works. Things don’t evolve for the benefit of other, although they can indirectly do this, the ones that survive are the ones best suited for their environment. If the bacteria survived the new environment of antibiotics, that’s just One example of how environments force evolutionary changes. Put this to bigger scales like geological separation of a single species. let’s say this species has colorful fur and lives in a grassy plains with colorful flowers everywhere. This color helps them blend in. Then a portion gets separated into a black, more barren looking wasteland. If a member of that species mutated and lost their colors, they would be more suited for the new environment they lived in, and thus, would pass on their genes. Eventually mutating enough to the new environment that it could become a completely different species. This is evolution. If losing a function allows one to better survive in the environment that it’s in, then it’s working. If you Force a bacteria to evolve in the lab, of course it is going to suffer if you change its environment. Everyone, if you made it this far, I hope you stay critical of all information you hear. Including this! Ask a biologist, or specialist in the field if you don’t believe me. Google for yourself. Stay skeptical
@@n_t6911 Nope, that's not what a service is about. Still cling to your atheism fantasy? You do realize reality cannot exist without God right? Reality is built on universal absolutes, even the laws that govern the universe are absolute. If they were not, reality could blink out of existence at any moment. Absolutes are how knowledge is even possible. If there truly was no creator, you could ever really know anything, knowledge would be impossible.
I’m no scientist, but I think what you said about the fur is true! Organisms with particular traits live while others die, because the traits the survivors have help them in some way. I think what she’s getting at, though, is that all of these changes are alterations of EXISTING genetic code. The ability for an animal to have, say, gray fur instead of black fur, is a variation of the existing genetic code for fur. In the process, the animal actually loses variation in the genetic code, because they may have cc dd instead of Cc Dd or CC DD, and can no longer produce the “uppercase letter organisms” (sorry for my lack of jargon 😂) More importantly, though, I think she’s getting at the fact that mutations do not create NEW genetic information that actually produces a new trait. They only alter existing code or add nonsensical genetic code to the existing code. They don’t ACCIDENTALLY add clear, coherent code that can create something like a new body part or some extra legs. I could be wrong, but that’s how I understand it.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
@@kyleboffa793 This is appealing to intelligence. Mutations are random, they cannot ''think''. They don't go, ''hey, this animal needs to blend in for protection, I think I'll do something about that''. ROFL! Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory. There is still no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened, to bolster their underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to answer to. Testable repeatable science shows very, very different results than evolution teaches. Mutations are almost always harmful or (if not fatal) get reabsorbed into successive generations in any event. They work themselves out in other words. The DNA code provides a special mechanism for dealing with them, because unknown to most laymen we go through many small mutations and most are unaware of it because this mechanism takes care of most of them. Ones that do happen to arise, create errors within the existing code and that's all they are...ERRORS. Create a bunch of errors in your PC operating system and tell me if it evolves into a better PC with new and improved features LMAO!!! Be specific, what animal are you referring to when you mention this ''observable mutation'' that changed skin color. Article, date, who witnessed it, what animal was it etc. I'll wait.
There is information that is already there before hand to fit into the environment like the birds that changes their beaks from big too small and back again. There are cases where if two white people get married and if a color baby comes out of the mother it can be from an ancestor who was black, but over time that information will die out if the kids keep marring white people. White people will not get darker over time too blend to the environment from generation to generation, because if that pigmentation information is lost from mutation it is gone, but black people will get lighter, because that is lost information through mutation to blend to the environment. Adam and Eve had all the information to make us all..
Genetics functions as a science, so whatever genetics is based on must be sound. What is in the genetics textbooks? Is it "Mutations sometimes being beneficial and can cause new mutant mass populations"? Or is it "Mutations can never be beneficial and can never bring about new mutant populations"? You asserted what's in the video, so how come you can't answer such a simple question with a simple 0ne-or-the-0ther answer?
@@Thomas-kj1fk , Many people who argue against Christianity, make these types of statements, but can offer no answer to my simple question. Often these blanket statements are parroted by people who have never given the matter any serious consideration. They simply heard someone else say it, and repeat it themselves.
I dont know why these people feel the need to lie for Jesus. I guess their faith is pretty weak. Anyone who has ever studied any of these issues knows she is intentionally saying things in a way to sound correct when she knows she isn't. Unlike others, she has no excuse for not knowing which makes what she says intentional. So an intentional misleading statement? Another word for that is lie.
As someone who has spent a lot of time with the special needs community, often these individuals have a genetic mutation. Cancer cells have 60 genetic mutations, on average. What statement she made was misleading?
@@planetdog1641 Its been 4 years since I posted this.... If you are up for having an honest conversation, I'm on board for it. Lets start at the beginning, with something simple. :03 seconds in, they say "MAJOR MECHANISM FOR DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS MUTATION. Why do you think they said Darwinian Evolution instead of Evolution?
@@planetdog1641 Charles Darwin's idea of evolution, which we call Darwinian Evolution, was amazing for it time. It was a break through; but as you stated above, at that time, our knowledge in related fields were lacking. He had a lot less of the puzzle pieces to work with. Today, we understand that Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection is only a part of how evolution works, in what we call the Modern Synthesis. I recommend looking it up on wikipedia, they have a good description of it. By putting the focus on Darwin, and not the Modern Synthesis, the opposing argument to evolution can ignore the last 180 years of knowledge that we gained. This is common for Creationist to do. You can see it in books like Darwins Doubt by Stephen Meyer, and Darwins Black Box by Behe to name a few. Its misleading. This is a pattern that I see when it comes to creationist. Georgia Purdom argument is really bad too, if you want I can go into that.
I love this woman. Intelligent, informative articulate and scientific. You rock Georgia!
She is actually none of those things but thanks for playing.....
Thank you for your post. Blessings
Informative? Nope, only spewing creationist lies, scientific? Again, same thing, creationist crap.
Is she intelligent and articulate? Yes, enough to deceive poorly educated people.
at 5:12, beneficial effects in specific environments is the DEFINITION of a beneficial mutation, since there is no one type fits everywhere.
No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. It's a fairytale. They even FORCED mutations in fruit flies and got nothing but damaged and hideous flies. But still flies. Science has turned to bullshit and lies because they hate God, it means ''accountability''.
bruh wtf they literally have a beneficial mutation in the video
bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a beneficial mutation for that specific environment
@@RicardoGarcia-mm3fo While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, bacteria remain bacteria. Mutations cannot transform one animal into another and certainly is not responsible for man's existence. Man has always been man.
Voice of TRUTH! “I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation”. So for you, what would count as TRULY beneficial? A mutation is beneficial if it helps an organism survive in a particular environment. The bacteria gained antibiotic resistance, which allowed them to outcompete the non resistant bacteria. Therefore its beneficial in the antibiotic filled environment. Why is it not TRULY beneficial?
Precise, well-supported and charming Dr. Geogia. Thank you both!
The question is whether or not the bacteria had the antibiotic had the resistance trait before or did it develop a mutation.
I’ve seen videos which said the different strain of bacteria was already there.
An example of frequent harmful mutations is cancer. Cancer always starts with a mutation or a series of them. That would be worth mentioning, when discussing the claim that mutations are the raw material factory of evolution. Evolutionists tend to minimize the occurence and role of dangerous mutations, while they blow up stories of beneficial ones.
thats not something your born with that is an environmental effect
@@evansims2816 Mutational changes that lead to cancer can be inherited, an example of that is breast cancer.
@@concretesandals4501 "Evolution makes use of harmful, beneficial, and neutral mutations." That is contradictory to say the least. It requires a lot of faith to affirm that harmful mutations become somehow beneficial in the "hands" on evolution. The same for neutral mutations, neutral means per definition they don¨t do anything. And it is well known that harmful mutations are much more frequent than beneficial. If mutations would lead us to a better world, why don¨t we spend our vacations in Chernobyl or in the Bikini-atoll, where there is enough radiation to catch a good number of extra mutations? With which beneficial mutation in humans do you contrast the millions of harmful mutations every year that end up in cancer?
@@KARAIsaku have you ever tried reading books?
A good presentation.
no it isn't. It utter rubbish....usual creationist tripe.
Great video. I really like listening to Dr. Purdom. This issue is one of the biggest problems for evolutionists.
@@globalcoupledances Obviously, you did not watch the video. Troll.
@@globalcoupledances LOL! Your comment isn't proof of anything except that you are a blowhard. She does know her stuff. You just make accusations. Prove her wrong. Refute what she says with actual evidence and documentation. Otherwise, shut up.
@@globalcoupledances You're still just babbling. You're just disagreeing. You have offered no substantive refutation. If you can't actually refute what she says, then shut up and go away.
Yes she's right, mutations is a disappointment, I experience it because I had ulcers from this bacteria, and the Doctor gave me pep-bis-mo and penicillin to kill bacteria, but they became super bugs Doctor said. One day by accident with out knowing it I took organic, raw propolis in my mouth and did this for awhile and ulcers were gone. I think what happen was the bacteria got weaker and weaker until they died by the changes in the environment. I remembered what the Doctor said about the bacteria became super bugs: I don't think the Doc was smart enough too know that bacteria gets weaker every-time the environment changes and they will die.
Contradiction - statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something.
I love Georgia! She's awesome! You rock!
Pudue just can't stop lying, like the rest of the AiG gang.
You must be another ignorant fundie bible humper. Snort.
Thank you for presenting these truths about science. Grace
What's funny is that Dr. Purdom says exactly what happens in evolution at 5:00 minutes in: "...there are benficial outcomes of mutations, but it'ws only in specific environments...it might be benficial over here, but it's not beneficial over here..." Which is exactly how organisms end up as different species. A group of a species becomes separated from the other members of that species. That can happen in any number of ways, but once it happens, mutations that crop up in the original group may be detrimental, or neutral, while they may be beneficial in the breakaway group. If that happens enough times, voila!, you have a new species. I agree that most mutations are not beneficial. That explains why 99% of life on earth is extinct. As far as "new information", in any sexually reproducing organism, there's new information every generation. Dr. Purdom would know that. Which leads one to wonder why she doesn't mention it. She sticks with bacteria, which do not reproduce sexually. They clone themselves, which means there would be much less differentiation over time. But speaking of gaining or losing "information" (whatever that might mean), there's a lovely little mammal called a rock hyrax, roughly the size of a house cat, furred, with small ears and no tail. Hyrax's are very close relations to elephants, having a common ancestor with elephants, manatees and dugongs. So somewhere along the way, some information changed to a pretty large extent. Was it a gain, or a loss? Who knows. I do know that elephants have trunks capable of uprooting trees, and hyraxes have no trunk at all. Yet they share a common ancestor.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
@@martinmoffat5417 The theory of evolution doesn't "require" anything. It is just a way of explaining life on earth. I'm not sure what you mean by "top down model". Perhaps you could elucidate. As far as inbreeding, inbreeding is almost always bad. That is why there is something called "minimum viable population" (MVP). That is, the smallest population necessary to guarantee the survival of the species. For most terrestrial vertebrates it is 500-1000, not counting the effects of inbreeding or random mutations. When accouting for those, the number is much higher. Which kind of throws a wrench into the Noah's ark story. Two, or even seven pairs, are nowhere near enough to allow the species to survive. If the Noah's ark story were true as stated, there would be no life on earth, except that which may have arisen after the flood.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 Yet the flood is not even a religious story but rather a story that is shared by 270 different independent cultures that exist across every continent on the planet. This is what I mean by a, "Top Down Model". Population Geneticist Robert Carter has shown that if you extrapolate the speciation backward into their archetypes you can have the genetic diversity within the pairs. Secondly, this explains the "Out of Egypt" bottleneck thousands of years ago necessary to explain our current population. Thirdly this explains the phenomena of fossilized sea life found on all the mountain ranges. Fourthly this explains geneticist John Sanfords dilemma that gives the rates of genetic entropy we should be dead 100 times over given current evolutionary timescales.
Or would you prefer to believe that mànkind and all the animals fit into a specified and complex single-celled replicàtor that gained conscioùsness without the aid of natural selection and then gained traits in an inc0gnito manner that allowed the m1ssing links to remain missing until we became dignifièd?
How can a mutation be beneficial or give value to the species where the 2 Law of thermodynamics / entropy specifies a decrease as a law?
Also, how was the metaphysical entity of DNA (information and code to create proteins) created?
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.
The earth is not a closed system.
@@mcmanustony
You must believe that is true.
Proverbs 18:2.
@@roberttombs3108 it’s got absolutely damn all to do with your book.
It’s simply a fact. If you’ve never bothered your backside learning anything about thermodynamics- and clearly you haven’t- why prattle about it in public?
@@mcmanustony Wow.
The devil captures people and perhaps one should step back and look at themselves objectively. The premise that life is random and arbitrary and is without a purpose is the opposite of good. God bless you.
I don't know why pp assume all mutations as deleterious. They are not. Blue eyes are a mutation, any problems with that?
Please, PLEASE, see a video on: what is a scientific theory. You obviously don't know the difference. You'll be doing the world and yourself a favor.
Yall Rock
Good content
no it isn't. It's utter drivel.
The fact Georgia is a woman makes no difference, she is just so intelegent, apart from my spelling I have learn't so much! Thankyou 🤗
This video should be retitled: Evo!ution, mutations vehicle to achieve genetic improvement and improved structural biogical
design.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
Dr. Georgia is one of the smartest female scientists in her area, sending all evolutionary scientists in the dust.
***GOD CREATES EVERYTHING, NO MATTER HOW. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH YOU GUYS IS THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW TO READ THE BIBLE NOR TO READ ANY SCIENTIFIC BOOK. GOD ALSO CREATES SCIENCE TO TELL MEN HOW HE CREATES. THE BIBLE IS FOR FAITH SCIENCE IS FOR KNOWLEDGE, IT IS JUST ABOUT TIME YOU START TO STUDY THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE, TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL DISCUSSIONS.***
Blessings
A poke in the eye of Jerry Coyne
nothing of the sort. Maybe you could do a bit more reading and bit less sneering.
See what Aaron Ra or CDK007 have to say about this
They have an answer for everything. Theory to explain another theory. Basically, one big fancy non answer.
I've met CDK007 at princeton and also a follower of Aaron Ra. As well as Richard D. And Craig Venter
When she’s describing the “new environment of antibiotics” she is literally explaining how evolution works. Things don’t evolve for the benefit of other, although they can indirectly do this, the ones that survive are the ones best suited for their environment. If the bacteria survived the new environment of antibiotics, that’s just One example of how environments force evolutionary changes. Put this to bigger scales like geological separation of a single species. let’s say this species has colorful fur and lives in a grassy plains with colorful flowers everywhere. This color helps them blend in. Then a portion gets separated into a black, more barren looking wasteland. If a member of that species mutated and lost their colors, they would be more suited for the new environment they lived in, and thus, would pass on their genes. Eventually mutating enough to the new environment that it could become a completely different species. This is evolution. If losing a function allows one to better survive in the environment that it’s in, then it’s working. If you Force a bacteria to evolve in the lab, of course it is going to suffer if you change its environment. Everyone, if you made it this far, I hope you stay critical of all information you hear. Including this! Ask a biologist, or specialist in the field if you don’t believe me. Google for yourself. Stay skeptical
Was all this babble to convince yourself of the religion of evilution? Or you like to hear yourself talk?
@@voiceoftruth2646 ain't that what preachers do? Babble till they convince themselves and others?
@@n_t6911 Nope, that's not what a service is about. Still cling to your atheism fantasy? You do realize reality cannot exist without God right? Reality is built on universal absolutes, even the laws that govern the universe are absolute. If they were not, reality could blink out of existence at any moment. Absolutes are how knowledge is even possible. If there truly was no creator, you could ever really know anything, knowledge would be impossible.
I’m no scientist, but I think what you said about the fur is true! Organisms with particular traits live while others die, because the traits the survivors have help them in some way. I think what she’s getting at, though, is that all of these changes are alterations of EXISTING genetic code. The ability for an animal to have, say, gray fur instead of black fur, is a variation of the existing genetic code for fur. In the process, the animal actually loses variation in the genetic code, because they may have cc dd instead of Cc Dd or CC DD, and can no longer produce the “uppercase letter organisms” (sorry for my lack of jargon 😂)
More importantly, though, I think she’s getting at the fact that mutations do not create NEW genetic information that actually produces a new trait. They only alter existing code or add nonsensical genetic code to the existing code. They don’t ACCIDENTALLY add clear, coherent code that can create something like a new body part or some extra legs. I could be wrong, but that’s how I understand it.
This explains the out of “Out of Egypt” Top down model of Natural Selection’s agency. The process of selection allows for preservation of environmentally favoured species within a given habitat. After these migrations inbreeding occurs that solidifies particular gene expressions like for example short fur on a dog in a hot environment. The inbreeding prohibits the reverse adaptation back to an arctic environment making the future litters monolithic and lacking the dynamics to speciate often leading to extinction as their environment changes. This is why the extinction rates exceed the rates of speciation and better support a top down model proposed in Creation models. It’s important to remember that what bottom up evolution requires is not new species but rather the development of new traits.
If an animal's skin color-gene mutates to blend in with its environment, is that new information?
''if'' don't count. ''IF''...my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle!
@@voiceoftruth2646 This kind of mutation has been observed.
@@kyleboffa793 This is appealing to intelligence. Mutations are random, they cannot ''think''. They don't go, ''hey, this animal needs to blend in for protection, I think I'll do something about that''. ROFL! Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory. There is still no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened, to bolster their underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to answer to. Testable repeatable science shows very, very different results than evolution teaches. Mutations are almost always harmful or (if not fatal) get reabsorbed into successive generations in any event.
They work themselves out in other words. The DNA code provides a special mechanism for dealing with them, because unknown to most laymen we go through many small mutations and most are unaware of it because this mechanism takes care of most of them. Ones that do happen to arise, create errors within the existing code and that's all they are...ERRORS. Create a bunch of errors in your PC operating system and tell me if it evolves into a better PC with new and improved features LMAO!!!
Be specific, what animal are you referring to when you mention this ''observable mutation'' that changed skin color. Article, date, who witnessed it, what animal was it etc. I'll wait.
but information is what is derived from data, so does this new information require new data or a reinterpretation of existing data?
There is information that is already there before hand to fit into the environment like the birds that changes their beaks from big too small and back again. There are cases where if two white people get married and if a color baby comes out of the mother it can be from an ancestor who was black, but over time that information will die out if the kids keep marring white people. White people will not get darker over time too blend to the environment from generation to generation, because if that pigmentation information is lost from mutation it is gone, but black people will get lighter, because that is lost information through mutation to blend to the environment. Adam and Eve had all the information to make us all..
Genetics functions as a science, so whatever genetics is based on must be sound.
What is in the genetics textbooks?
Is it "Mutations sometimes being beneficial and can cause new mutant mass populations"?
Or is it "Mutations can never be beneficial and can never bring about new mutant populations"?
You asserted what's in the video, so how come you can't answer such a simple question with a simple 0ne-or-the-0ther answer?
If a specie continues to mutate {loss information} it will eventually go instinct.
Another know-it-all who wants to argue with a >PHD HOLDER< TRIPLE FACEPALM!!!
@Happy times kid’s videos so then are people with down syndrome more evolved?
@@iggyg1370that’s not what mutations do tho
Well there are things in science that actually discredit the biblical or creation worldview
Like what?
@@davidgraham2673 It amazes me when Atheists argue theism is based on assumptions. And then make assumptions like this.
@@Thomas-kj1fk , Many people who argue against Christianity, make these types of statements, but can offer no answer to my simple question.
Often these blanket statements are parroted by people who have never given the matter any serious consideration. They simply heard someone else say it, and repeat it themselves.
@@davidgraham2673 Explain how god created himself from nothing and why
@@professorneturman2249
We’ll explain that whenever you explain how the universe created itself from nothing and why.
Awesome
I dont know why these people feel the need to lie for Jesus. I guess their faith is pretty weak. Anyone who has ever studied any of these issues knows she is intentionally saying things in a way to sound correct when she knows she isn't. Unlike others, she has no excuse for not knowing which makes what she says intentional. So an intentional misleading statement? Another word for that is lie.
As someone who has spent a lot of time with the special needs community, often these individuals have a genetic mutation. Cancer cells have 60 genetic mutations, on average. What statement she made was misleading?
I don’t know why someone would maintain the right to accuse someone without even bothering to substantiate the claim
Not even a minute in, and the video is already irredeemably wrong.
non answer
Very disappointing. But predictably misleading, and wrong.
non answer
@@planetdog1641 Its been 4 years since I posted this.... If you are up for having an honest conversation, I'm on board for it.
Lets start at the beginning, with something simple.
:03 seconds in, they say "MAJOR MECHANISM FOR DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS MUTATION. Why do you think they said Darwinian Evolution instead of Evolution?
@@jeffp1289 I guess they were using his name as the root of the theory. We know he didn't know about cell complexity, genetics and fossil records.
@@planetdog1641 Charles Darwin's idea of evolution, which we call Darwinian Evolution, was amazing for it time. It was a break through; but as you stated above, at that time, our knowledge in related fields were lacking. He had a lot less of the puzzle pieces to work with.
Today, we understand that Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection is only a part of how evolution works, in what we call the Modern Synthesis. I recommend looking it up on wikipedia, they have a good description of it.
By putting the focus on Darwin, and not the Modern Synthesis, the opposing argument to evolution can ignore the last 180 years of knowledge that we gained. This is common for Creationist to do. You can see it in books like Darwins Doubt by Stephen Meyer, and Darwins Black Box by Behe to name a few.
Its misleading. This is a pattern that I see when it comes to creationist.
Georgia Purdom argument is really bad too, if you want I can go into that.