First of all, theories in science are not proven, but supported. In addition, I'm not seeing any real scientists in your videos. They are misquoting many famous scientists. Gould, Pasteur, Darwin etc... all have brillient theories, but you can't pull out little sentinces and remove the sentinces that follow them and show it in full

Video one rebuttel (the youtube one)

Premise #1: We have found a ton of skulls and evolutionary fossils, they are the "missing links" that this video convays we "haven't found". We have many different transitional forms from our ancestoral humans to us and in addition between many other species and we continue to find more every day. The major issue of not having "more" is that biological material is well, biodegradable. You need incredably specific conditions in order for bone or other matter to fossilize, otherwise it will be broken down and degraded by neighbouring microorganisms.

Premise #2. Can't even call the theory correct, its called Abiogenesis, spontanious generation was an older theory and isn't the same thing (its been disproven for years). Read my post above for Bada's paper. Pasteurs papers don't actually mention supernatural creations at all.

Premise #3. Mutations do play an important role in the development and advancement. There are several documented cases on benficial mutations that increase genetic material. Ever heard of an expansion or an unequal crossover for heaven sake? A duplication, an inversion? Bacterial species ADD material to their genomes all the time through a variety of methods (plasmids, viral vectors, uptaking enviromental DNA) consistantly, we can actually watch it in the lab. These mutations are highly beneficial, as they produce resistance mechanisms and new metabolic abilities. We have been able to see this in several more evolved organisms as well.

Lets try Video #2 shall we? (Titled: Mutations prove creation)

First of all note that Jerry Bergman, the guest, attained his "PhD in biology" at a non-acreditted college. We also call these "diploma mills" as people are seen completing a PhD in something like 6 months when real PhD. research takes about 4 years minimum. In addition, prior to that he didn't even have a degree in biology. The "university" he got it from has been ordered to close perminatly by the state. The documentary says he has several PhDs, but the only "PhD" he has is this one.

Anyway, I'll now take the time to actually watch what bergman says. He has some basic ideas about biology, but his overall theory is shakey.

1) First of all, he suggests that DNA only changes by crossing over. Crossing over doesn't just cause an exchange. It can cause an expansion, reduction, duplication, inversion, delection etc... just to name a few things it does. In addition, ~1 in every 1000 DNA base pairs tend to mutate during the development of egg and sperm. Seeing we have ~3 billion base pairs total, that adds up to 1,000,000 new mutations per person (if we are talking in human terms), thats pretty significant and can explain a lot of things, such as the human beings diversity all the way to why isolated species can split off into different species over time. In addition, organisms with smaller genomes tend to reproduce quickley, such as bacteria that can multiply once ever 30 minutes, the speed of reproduction allows for mutations to build up.

2) Dawkins computer program, a rather simply way to show simple mutations to young learners. Note that it is random, and we do have an "influx of new letters so to speak" note that DNA works in a 3 letter code, not only the 4 bas pairs (ATCG), these code 26 amino acids, stops and starts. To produce a protein we need the right order, but mutations don't always affect an animo acid code (because there are 64 3-letter codes, some code for an amino acid more than once). In addition, not all amino acids will affect the overall protein function (some do no change at all, because some amino acids have similar proteins), and the other changes can either make a protein lose its function, function better, or even provide a different function. Those who lose the function tend to die off and not reproduce, but those that have good function will pass the gene on, this is the key to evolution. We also have to note that we don't shuffle ALL letters, there are only point mutations (in one letter), and most combinations for the same amino acid are similar. His theory about us producing a lot of serine and a lack of tryptophan is actually false. If we get a "bad" mutation, lots of which will produce serine, it will get knocked out of the population quickley.

3) Right that there is not totally random changes in base pairs, however his issue is that he is focusing on single conversions. The fact is, there are regions more prone to mutation and regions more prone to being stable. The whole combination of amino acids in the region produce unequal mutation, not single bases. For example GC rich regions (G and C bind very tightly), he says cytosine is unlikely to be substuted, but what he forgets that it is also unlikely to be MUTATED. Thyamine is highly prone to mutation as it is a weak structure, but is also more likely to be inserted (for example, its what mutates when you get a sunburn and needs to be constantly replaced). The basis of his argument is that mutation in an evolutionary sense would get rid of certain base pairs, but when you add in those other facts, there is a chemical reason for this level of substitution. We have a lot of mechanisms replacing damaged thyamine. Realistically, Dawkin's simple model works.

4) Signalling the death of a cell at a certain point in time? The gene works selectively, not in fully, yes, if the gene was overexpressed, it would cause us to die out. But, if those that have the gene to die won't live to reproduce, which is why we have the balance. Apoptosis or "selected cell death" has great purpose, we have discovered when we knock this gene out we form tumors. In addition, we need cells to die to produce tubes in our body (they form as solid and then hollow out), our fingers and toes (they produce as one whole and the cells between them die), and cells getting infected need a death mechanism in order to kill cells that are infected with viruses etc... Thus it is evolutionary stable (it is helpful). Also not that apoptosis is a multi-step process, a simple signal can't just turn it on, rather it is a multi-step pathway working on threshold signals to turn on (Ie: A high level of signals from other surrounding cells is needed for it to work).

5) Hot spots --> oh geez, I mentioned this before, he's contradicting himself from my above argument about mutation areas and why random mutation doesn't produce a giant string of thyamine. He says GC rich regions are hot spots for mutation, and he's sort of right. These tend to be repeating regions and they do tend to undergo expansion and compression during crossing over. This doesn't mean full mutation however. Yes, there are many regions identified for major mutation, places of very needed genes don't tend to mutate (metabolic things etc...). The other hot spots are less important for overall function which can cause major species changes that might be beneficial, driving evolution. Again, your not going to get an accumulation of T's unless its useful, otherwise you get death and thus genetic code not being passed on. In addition, cold spots do "rarely change" but over billions of years and generations, you do get changes, and some of these are major turning points.

6) Polarity, oh god, he's running over again what I mentioned before. Random changes can either not change a protein, change it but not change its function, increase its function, or decrease its function. Once again, non-functional mutations will be quickley bred out. In addition, most do not make a difference. he makes a point that there are a lot of hydrophobic residues compared to others, but guess what? There primitive and thus overexpressed for good reason (the original gene was there, and they work).

7) Cancer is caused by mutations yes... "I've never seen a positive mutation in cancer research"... of course you havent, the genes you are looking at are causing cancer!! I've seen a ton of negative mutations too, but I'm studying night blindness and bipolar disorder right now! We only look at the portion of the gene causing the disease, not everything else going on in the body.

As well, REAL scientists don't look to prove if god is real or not, that is theology and it can't be proven or disproven. We look at the world around us, take down facts from what we see, and then form conclusions from that. Those supporting creationism as "science" say "Okay, this is the conclusion, what random facts can we find to back it up?". Please find actual scientific papers or at least articles that provide citations of other papers that give the FULL story. Randomly taking quotes from and manipulating them so they work for you is not science. (And to top that off, we don't talk for or against god in science, because it is a non-issue)

Videos like this make me want to bash my head against the wall, this pretend science gives me a headache. I can't believe I watched over 30 minutes of that.

Amy
Can. Ch. Kamann's Over the Rainbow "Bo" (Miniature Poodle)
Cindeross Silver Slippers "Gidget" (Miniature Poodle)

I have to agree with this, I may be far from raising my own children, but I know I won't be letting them get away with what kids these days are doing. My parents raised me to take care of myself and to know no one owes me anything. To this day the "tough love" has done nothing but open doors for me and push me to be my best.

I challenge all kids here to try to live a day without mom and dad around. Work a job, go to school, cook all your own meals, do your own laundry, clean the house, get to your own hobbies etc... I've been doing all that, minus the job, since I was 10.

Amy
Can. Ch. Kamann's Over the Rainbow "Bo" (Miniature Poodle)
Cindeross Silver Slippers "Gidget" (Miniature Poodle)