Like to hear what the scientists have to say about this: <div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script> <div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153237922499899" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153237922499899">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis">Answers in Genesis</a>.</div></div>
This seems to want to look at the scientific evidence as a scientist would. It's only 3 minutes or whatever but I'd like to hear what our resident atheists have to say!
I didn't watch the video, but your thread title is in all caps so I must assume what you are saying is correct.
"There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code.' What. What the hell do you think a cancer cell is?
This is what I want to know. Is it a totally illegitimate claim or a legitimate claim because cancer is a killer? Is a mutation technically additional genetic code? or just changed? or does it even matter?
Fact 1: Fact 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html "He is going toward the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally." RUH ROH. stop quoting Facebook pages
I swear to god, you have one of the most advanced collaborative systems known to man, millions of dollars of research, if not billions, and accumulated scientific evidence in journals easily accessible to the public if not through open science, than through media excerpts on such a controversial topic--- and then some dude with a Facebook page and a $200 video goes and smashes it all. :/
I'm not really on board with "fact" 1 because that seems foolish, but "fact" 2 is something I've always been curious about. Abiogenesis has always been the most tricky part about the theories of naturally occurring life in the universe since it's not something that has ever been replicated. You basically have to believe that life in some form has always existed or just go on blind faith that abiogenesis is possible.
But mutations are not species-wide. Aren't they very localized-- even individualized? They may have overstated that no new genetic material can be added but mutations are random not pandemic. I'll quote any damn thing I want, thank you!
did you just come up with a mechanism for evolutionary biology that involved individuals with advantageous mutations surviving---and breeding. something like the survival of the fittest cause if you had, that'd be a pretty big thing in the 1800s.
Why would it be illegitimate just because cancer kills people? It's not like mutations are inherently good. If anything, most of them are bad. Down's syndrome is a mutation, cystic fibrosis is a mutation, same with all those genetic diseases. Most of them kill people, but sometimes over the very long term you get ones that help and those are sometimes passed on.
Thanks for this video. Now whenever I see this video posted by one of my friends on Facebook I can immediately remove that person from my wall.
