Old Things
I am unworthy of His grace
- Local time
- Today 4:05 AM
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,980
Please watch the whole thing before commenting.
I will try to summarize...
The video first talks about how you have competing theories on the manifestation of life we see on Earth. One view is that we all descended from a single cell (tree of life). The other is that there have always been differences between life that cannot be reduced to a single-celled origin (forest of life).
Secondly, he talks about the criteria for high-confidence evidence. These criteria are:
1) Repeatable
2) Directly Measurable
3) Prospective Study
4) Avoid Bias
5) Avoid Assumptions
6) Make Reasonable Claims
He also says that confidence in a scientific finding is a sliding scale, and different scientific experiments will have more or less confidence based on those six criteria.
In support of the Tree of Life model, we have this evidence:
1) Fossile Records
2) Geographic Distribution
3) Vestigial Organs
4) Comparison of Life Forms
Richard Dawkins thinks the comparison of life forms is the best evidence we have. Unfortunately, comparison of life forms does not meet any of the criteria for a strong standard of evidence.
Then he goes on to talk about high-confidence evidence for evolution. He mentions a study done that caused E. Coli to eat citrate. However, this did not actually add any information to the E. coli. Rather, all it did was copy and paste a gene and get rid of another one. Then, another study was conducted with E. coli again, and this time, the hypothesis was, "If genes that produce this enzyme are damaged, can evolution repair them to produce tryptophan again?" In the experiment, they changed a letter of the DNA code, and the enzyme functioned poorly. After 100 million e. coli growth, the mutation was repaired. Then they changed another gene, and this caused the e. coli to not produce any tryptophan, but the result was the same after about 100 million e. coli growths the gene repaired. Thirdly, they damaged both genes, and the E. coli never was able to make tryptophan again. Conclusion: evolution is very limited in what it can do and how it can change genes. The enzyme was 99.9% complete, but it could not repair itself. The E. coli could not evolve to produce its own tryptophan.
Then he talks about how humans have been experimenting with rats for 95 years, and we know enough that you either have a rat or you have something dead. He also mentions a 10-year study done on Daphnia pulex, and the result was natural selection had an average effect of of about zero.
Then, he talks about humans and chimps having a common ancestor. The evidence shows through DNA that when people used to say that humans and chimps are 98% the same, this only took into account our genes and not all our DNA. The evidence shows that humans have over 6% of all genes that don't have orthologs in the chimp genome. And they further argue that there are more orphan genes than there are shared genes. It used to be thought that there was a ton of junk DNA, but now scientists know that junk DNA is actually a regulatory function that directs what will be turned on and off in the genome.
That should be fine for an overview.
I will try to summarize...
The video first talks about how you have competing theories on the manifestation of life we see on Earth. One view is that we all descended from a single cell (tree of life). The other is that there have always been differences between life that cannot be reduced to a single-celled origin (forest of life).
Secondly, he talks about the criteria for high-confidence evidence. These criteria are:
1) Repeatable
2) Directly Measurable
3) Prospective Study
4) Avoid Bias
5) Avoid Assumptions
6) Make Reasonable Claims
He also says that confidence in a scientific finding is a sliding scale, and different scientific experiments will have more or less confidence based on those six criteria.
In support of the Tree of Life model, we have this evidence:
1) Fossile Records
2) Geographic Distribution
3) Vestigial Organs
4) Comparison of Life Forms
Richard Dawkins thinks the comparison of life forms is the best evidence we have. Unfortunately, comparison of life forms does not meet any of the criteria for a strong standard of evidence.
Then he goes on to talk about high-confidence evidence for evolution. He mentions a study done that caused E. Coli to eat citrate. However, this did not actually add any information to the E. coli. Rather, all it did was copy and paste a gene and get rid of another one. Then, another study was conducted with E. coli again, and this time, the hypothesis was, "If genes that produce this enzyme are damaged, can evolution repair them to produce tryptophan again?" In the experiment, they changed a letter of the DNA code, and the enzyme functioned poorly. After 100 million e. coli growth, the mutation was repaired. Then they changed another gene, and this caused the e. coli to not produce any tryptophan, but the result was the same after about 100 million e. coli growths the gene repaired. Thirdly, they damaged both genes, and the E. coli never was able to make tryptophan again. Conclusion: evolution is very limited in what it can do and how it can change genes. The enzyme was 99.9% complete, but it could not repair itself. The E. coli could not evolve to produce its own tryptophan.
Then he talks about how humans have been experimenting with rats for 95 years, and we know enough that you either have a rat or you have something dead. He also mentions a 10-year study done on Daphnia pulex, and the result was natural selection had an average effect of of about zero.
Then, he talks about humans and chimps having a common ancestor. The evidence shows through DNA that when people used to say that humans and chimps are 98% the same, this only took into account our genes and not all our DNA. The evidence shows that humans have over 6% of all genes that don't have orthologs in the chimp genome. And they further argue that there are more orphan genes than there are shared genes. It used to be thought that there was a ton of junk DNA, but now scientists know that junk DNA is actually a regulatory function that directs what will be turned on and off in the genome.
That should be fine for an overview.
