Can you Please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

General Discussion
1

Hi all,

Can you please debunk these 2 videos about Evolution?

  1. Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin? (Long Story Short, Ep. 2) - YouTube

  2. Is Homology Evidence for Evolution? (Long Story Short, Ep. 1) - YouTube

Thanks!

 

2

Sure. But first, what did it actually say? How does cytochrome B disprove evolutionary trees, for example?

3

Basically the first one claims that we have found many Fossils which are in the wrong order, the second video says that there are many DNA examples that Contradicts evolution.

The second video claims that if you try to build a Phylogenetic tree base on Cytochrome B you get different tree than when you try to build a tree base on Cytochrome C.

He says that if evolution was true you should have got the same tree for every Genes.

 

4

WTF??? The video starts with a tone of utter ridicule. Then it goes on to misrepresent the facts, with a deft piece of rhetorical slight of hand.

Before I watch any more can @lovescience2020 explain why Discovery Science must resort to ridicule and deception to discuss science?

 

5

The Golden Law of a Scientific Debate is that you MUST honestly represent yourself, your data, and you must honestly represent your opponents. The goal of such an honest debate is constructive learning for the greater good of the entire community.

 

What do you have there ?

 

Seriously, when you get to make up all the facts of your story with absolute disregard for truth and known facts, it’s call . . . . . . . (i’ll try to be good Lausten :- ) really i can.)

6

I have nothing there, I’m really just looking for answers.

What is misrepresented here for example?

Or here?

 

7

I saw a program last night where the speaker said we share more DNA with a banana and a sea squirt than we do with a chimp. Shall I believe him or not?

8

So, I realize CitizensChallenge3 might be a little off-putting, but he did exactly what you asked. He took a fact and showed the source data that showed it was wrong. And yet, you say, “I’m just looking for answers”. How many of those do we need to do before you consider your questions answered? Does every line in the video have to be a lie? Half of them?

I realize some of these can be rather complex. But did you look up anything? Did you look up the thing about fossils not appearing in the right order? I’m not going to find a link for you right now, but my guess is, that one is a problem with not understanding how geology works, given that childish graphic of arrows pointing to layers of rock.

So, until you show me that you are willing to do some work here, don’t expect much from me.

9
saw a program last night
What was it a dream? Why can't you provide a source we can look at?

Early on during biological evolution key genes evolved that have been handed down to all subsequent generations. It’s one of the reasons I say that a serious appreciation for evolution is so important. Once that revelation viscerally hits you, it totally changes your perspective of life on Earth.

Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals. ...

Banana: more than 60 percent identical (though other source say "perhaps as high as 50%) - Chimp 98%

breakthroughs - com/foundations-science/how-genetically-related-are-we-bananas


 

... This is a common source of confusion, and no wonder. There are many different ways of comparing genetic similarity. The often quoted fact that people are genetically nearly identical to chimps, for example, comes from the analysis of amino acids coded for by just a couple of genes that we share with chimps. 98 per cent of those amino acids are the same.

The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren’t necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences.

The figures quoted for human populations are much more specific and are about gene variants. In this study, what is meant is that 50 per cent of the genes of all the people in Europe, on average, are specific types that have come directly from Middle Eastern populations. So no, the people of Baghdad are not bananas, and neither are we – Ed.

newscientist - com/letter/mg17523584-000-people-arent-bananas/


 

For a slightly more in depth understanding, here’s a good read.

https://sanogenetics.com/blog/are-we-genetically-similar-to-bananas-and-why-is-this-important-for-research-in-disease/

 

Yeah I’m off putting, that’s because I’m pissed off as hell. I’m strapped in watching us destroying our selves as fast as possible, thanks to bottomless gluttony driven delusional thinking and malicious misrepresentation of Physical Facts - and all liberals seem capable of is playing along with the Republican script of utter intellectual dishonesty and vandalism of the systems, economic and biologic, that we all depend for living. Why should I be upset? Well golly gee lets think about our situation. We see now where a significant (profoundly ignorant and hateful) portion of our country actually wants to make this COVID-19 pandemic as widespread as possible and still nothing, not when it come to intellectual confrontation, it’s farts in the wind.

When are we going to throw the spot light on their tactics of deception? Never?

Most seem to find comfort in an attitude of stoic normalization of every tactical atrocity of the Murdoch/Kochs TeaPartiers and Alt-Right’s campaigns of brainwashing and stupefaction of the American people. I’d love to not let it bother me either, but guess I’ve been paying attention way too long to pretend it’s going to be okay.

 

Why not be utterly offended by the transparent deliberate deception displayed in those videos???

10
@lovescience2020Participant I have nothing there, I’m really just looking for answers.

What is misrepresented here for example?

Or here?


What about it???

When you get to misrepresent the facts you get to say whatever you want.

When you frame it within nonstop ridicule - it means they have nothing of substance to argue with.

So what of it?

Why not engage in what I’m saying, rather than simply point to another section of a horrendously dishonest video intent on feeding ignorance.

Ask some real questions. I don’t pretend to know all the answer and I’m certainly known of make mistakes, but I understand the outlines, and what’s key is: I know how to seek out substantive information that can actually help teach us, based on the work of a huge community of serious competitive very smart scientists.

All those videos are is a con artist best efforts to misrepresent and ignore what scientists are explain.

11
Why not engage in what I’m saying, rather than simply point to another section of a horrendously dishonest video intent on feeding ignorance.
Who are you asking this? If you are asking lovescience2020, you’ll never really know. There is no way to get inside someone’s head and find out if they are lying purposefully, or if they are honestly confused by a video like this. We can do all the analyzing we want, and we could even be right, but when you go to the individual, you can’t know, and often, they can’t accurately report what is going on in their own head. Sorry lovescience2020, that’s the way I see it. It’s human nature, not just you.
When are we going to throw the spot light on their tactics of deception? Never?
Actually, we do this all the time. It’s called school, PBS, debates, marching for science, spiking trees, a whole range of reactions to the destruction caused by idiocy that supports corporate level evil. But we lose the fights because of what I said above. It’s how our minds work. They are extremely imperfect little calculators.
Why not engage in what I’m saying, rather than simply point to another section of a horrendously dishonest video intent on feeding ignorance.
Lovescience2020 probably can’t. They watch videos, they don’t look up passages in the book that is the definitive one on evolution. Whoever makes the videos is in basically the same boat, except there has to be some of them that know what they’re doing but found they can have a job making money by lying. That sounds like something illegal, but you would have to pass laws that say scientific theories are facts that can’t be questioned. I don’t want that. It doesn’t even make sense.

So, given what we know about human nature, I find it ironic when you say:

When you frame it within nonstop ridicule – it means they have nothing of substance to argue with.
And then
All those videos are is a con artist best efforts to misrepresent and ignore what scientists are explain.
You’re responding to ridicule with ridicule. When has that worked?
12

637×776 45.6 KB

Here you see that the Ambulocetus took 3 MILLION years to evolve from Pakicetus. (That doesn’t mean Pakicetus were gone and completely replaced by the new species. IOW, some were likely still around and probably left some bones, after Ambulocetus was here.)

Now here’s what the evolution deniers never get. A MILLION years is a LONG TIME. 3 MILLION years is 3 times longer than that.

Just a measly 200K years ago, had modern homo sapiens evolved? Can you fathom how much time a measly 200k years is? I doubt it. But if you could, take 15 times that amount of time.

That is a LOT of time for the Pakicetus to have offspring that evolve into the more amphibious Ambulocetus.

Another 2 MILLION years and the Rhodocetus has evolved. (A slightly more aquatic version of the Ambulocetus.)

Then another SIX MILLION years and there is the Dorudon. (Starting to look more and more like a whale.)

Then another MILLION years there are what look a lot like our modern day whales.

13

Thanks everyone for the responses,

1. About the claim (in the second video) regarding to Cytochrome B I found this:

2. And here, in the middle of the page:

But it’s a little complicate, can someone please summarize it in a simpler words?

I want to understand this.

 

14

So, you don’t know what this means, so you come to a skeptic forum for help. Why? Why not a science forum? Or a science class?

15

“Center for Inquiry” sounds like a place to present queries, to me.

16
All those videos are is a con artist best efforts to misrepresent and ignore what scientists are explain.
What do you mean by calling that sentence is ridicule??? SERIOUSLY! That is a description of the tactic that video relies on - w t f not highlight that tactic and learn how to counter it? L, that is precisely the kind of normalization I'm screaming against.

Who am I talking to. Or if you prefer screaming at? Okay in truth it’s not the phonies with their phony “innocent questions” nah, I’m really doing what I can to attempt sleepy rationalists and liberals who know better, but have decided to shut up and normalize one intellectual, governmental, ethical atrocity after another - because, hell if I know why…s.

17

I’ll bet you lovescience2020 will never explain why it’s okay for the Creation side of this discuss to be constantly lying.

YES LYING! Misrepresenting the finds of serious scientists.

Why is that okay???

18
@lovescience2020 Thanks everyone for the responses,
  1. About the claim (in the second video) regarding to Cytochrome B I found this: …

 

Another tactic of the contrarian crowd is to, focus on aspects that are clearly the province of experts, and presents it to a lay audience as though any of us was in a position of serious critic. Does love understand any of details, has he taken an serious courses and done some real research. Here we see a perfect example at #328390 - read through that. It doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t even tell a story.

 

 

I did a search for: “does cytochrome-B disprove evolution” and found the above blogpost the only mention.

I did find some interesting things on cytochrome-B

https:// bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral - com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-54

https:/ /www -ncbi.nlm.nih - gov/pubmed/1901092

 

But there’s nothing else. Well there’s an interesting rebuttal, Reddit - Dive into anything

 

Posted byu/Aceofspades25 6 years ago

Have ARJ taken to lying now?

I was astounded to read this “paper” by Jeffrey Tomkins (posted to Reddit from ARJ). At first I was astounded because I couldn’t believe that GULO had lost 6 exons independently in Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutan. Then after checking up on the data I was astounded that this author would lie so blatantly (especially when the data is available to the public for verification).

Right in the abstract the author makes the astounding claim that:

The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively
So the first thing I did was fetch the 28,800 base region that he was talking about from UCSC. I then blasted this sequence against two other human genomes, a chimpanzee, a bonobo, a gorilla and an orangutan using the NCBI blast tool. It is here that I found his first two lies. …

 

Here is the aligned sequence for 3 humans, a chimpanzee, a bonobo, a gorilla and an orangutan for the region the author was refering to. No need to take my claims at face value, browse this and verify them for yourself. Here is a link to a tool I wrote for doing this.

Other things to note:

4 base pairs deleted in the common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and the three humans at position 10781
4 base pairs deleted in the common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and the three humans at position 10716
4 base pairs deleted in the common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and the three humans at position 8499
A point mutation in the common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and the three humans at position 3676
There are many more features like this which is what leads the algorithm to deduce the expected phylogenetic tree.

Things the author got wrong:

Humans are more similar to chimps than gorillas in this 28,800 bp region
Humans and Chimps are 97.5% identical in this region (not 84%)
Humans and gorillas are 96.6% identical in this region (not 87%)

Now onto the next lie:

…

Given that there is plenty of data available on Cytochrome-B, I decided to take my own stab at reproducing this tree and seeing what happens with the cats and tarsiers.

Cytochrome-B is interesting in that it contains no deletions or insertions and so doesn’t need to be aligned (Does anyone know why? Is this true of all mitochondrial DNA?). This means that we can only deduce relationships between species by looking at SNPs and SNPs can be misleading because single mutations can happen in the same place by pure coincidence. …

 

Now I’m not going to dwell on all the other nonsense, but rather I’m going to skip to the end where he gives the 6 phylogenetic trees based on just the 6 remaining exons.

The most obvious thing to say about these exons is that these sequences are incredibly short and each contain only one or two varied SNPs. In these cases the degree of confidence would be nowhere near enough to deduce phylogenetic relationships. …

 

…

Now that we’ve looked at the overall picture, I’d like to look at the sub-trees to see what they show us.

Primates - sequence, Primates - tree - These sequences all reproduce known phylogenetic relastionships.

Caniformia - sequence, Caniformia - tree - These sequences all reproduce known phylogenetic relastionships.

Feliformia - sequence, Feliformia - tree - These sequences all reproduce known phylogenetic relastionships.

Cetacea - sequence, Cetacea - tree - These sequences all reproduce known phylogenetic relastionships.

Here is a diagram somebody else produced. Notice how the Tasmanian Tiger (which at first glance might seem to group with the carnivora, groups convincingly with the other marsupials, distantly related from the placentals.

When putting it all together, …


So what does that tell us. Hell if I know.

 

Well I do know that if you want to learn about Evolution this is not the way love2020. :expressionless:

19
lovescience2020 said; 2. And here, in the middle of the page: https://ncse.ngo/do-different-genes-mean-different-phylogenetic-trees

But it’s a little complicate, can someone please summarize it in a simpler words? I want to understand this.


Why don’t you just quote the article?

September 29, 2008 Do Different Genes Mean Different Phylogenetic Trees?

Phylogenetic trees based on single genes (or small numbers of genes) can differ from one another, but Explore Evolution overstates both the extent of the inconsistencies and their implications for phylogenetic reconstruction. Inconsistencies are most common when analyzing phylogenetic events in the very deep past (such as separation of the main animal groups in the pre-Cambrian), and occur for reasons that are well characterized and indeed predicted based on statistical and evolutionary considerations (changes in evolutionary rates, convergent evolution, etc.).

In addition, the recent exponential increase in available sequence data has been shown successfully overcoming these artifacts, generating consistent trees with high confidence. Most importantly, the authors’ claim that these discrepancies mean that “molecular evidence cannot be reconciled with the theory of Universal Common Descent” (p. 57) is entirely unsupported. The authors of Explore Evolution reveal a major gap in their understanding of phylogeny and of much of modern biology when they state: “if Darwin’s single Tree of Life is accurate, then we should expect that different types of biological evidence would all point to that same tree. A “family history” of organisms based on their anatomy should match the “family history” based on their molecules (such as DNA and proteins).Explore Evolution, p. 57”


What needs to be explained?

20
What do you mean by calling that sentence is ridicule??? SERIOUSLY! That is a description of the tactic that video relies on – w t f not highlight that tactic and learn how to counter it? L, that is precisely the kind of normalization I’m screaming against.

Who am I talking to. Or if you prefer screaming at? Okay in truth it’s not the phonies with their phony “innocent questions” nah, I’m really doing what I can to attempt sleepy rationalists and liberals who know better, but have decided to shut up and normalize one intellectual, governmental, ethical atrocity after another – because, hell if I know why…s.


If you simply look at it from his perspective, of course it’s ridicule. Is this even a conversation? Someone asked “can you explain this” and the response was “it’s stupid, that’s what”. Whether or not it is actually stupid is not the point. How does saying that help learn how to counter it?

I’m not normalizing anything. That broken record is broken.

And yes, there is apathy in the world, but again, calling it stupid does not change it. I’m more concerned about the people who claim they are doing something but are actually just a collecting a paycheck while they exploit the already exploited. When people see things like the Clintons getting massive payments for simply speaking at a liberal event, that’s what leads them to being apathetic.