3 Academic Professors get Evolution Completely Wrong.

Read this article first.

Researchers witness the emergence of a new gene in the lab

How do new genes appear? For more than a century, researchers have thought that, from time to time, new gene functions evolved after cells accidentally made a copy of one of their existing genes. According to this theory, the 'extra' gene copy could then evolve freely. In this way, it could acquire a new function, while the original gene ensured that the original function was retained. No direct observation supporting this theory has been reported so far. Now, however, researchers at TU Delft have observed this evolutionary mechanism in action for the first time in yeast cells. https://m.phys.org/news/2019-04-witness-...e-lab.html

Start this vid 2 minutes in.
SciManDan YT channel

When I have time, I shall look into this but my first thought is that even with this in mind, science still has a long way to go before it will come close to proving that materialist evolution is viable when all factors are considered together.  I saw the scimandan video - I'm quite a fan of both his tinfoil hat tuesday shows and his flat earth  friday shows but his level of certainty about things is often difficult to swallow.  On this occasion he points out on a few occasions that the experts' expertises are not in the field of evolutionary biology - but neither is his!  He is a science teacher, not a scientist and to the best of my knowledge has no doctorate in any specific scientific field.

When I have time, I shall look into this but my first thought is that even with this in mind, science still has a long way to go before it will come close to proving that materialist evolution is viable when all factors are considered together.  I saw the scimandan video - I'm quite a fan of both his tinfoil hat tuesday shows and his flat earth  friday shows but his level of certainty about things is often difficult to swallow.  On this occasion he points out on a few occasions that the experts' expertises are not in the field of evolutionary biology - but neither is his!  He is a science teacher, not a scientist and to the best of my knowledge has no doctorate in any specific scientific field.

By the way, how long is the way for creationists to directly demonstrate via multiple lines of evidence that immaterial evolution is viable?

By the way, how long is the way for creationists to directly demonstrate via multiple lines of evidence that immaterial evolution is viable?

Much evidence is interpretable according to the interpreter's reality tunnel but with no guiding factor we have to rely upon random mutation which is highly improbable.  It doesn't prove conclusively that there is  a guiding factor but something somewhere between creationism and evolution seems to me to be the type of theory that involves the least speculation and therefore is the most likely.  The guiding factor doesn't have to be a "god" in the religious sense of course.  This argument, however is old and it bores me.  Maybe we should stick to discussing the ins and outs of gene functions in this thread instead of speculating on the wider picture.  We can each join the dots for ourselves in our own time.  Science will never either prove or disprove any supernatural element to creation or life.

Much evidence is interpretable according to the interpreter's reality tunnel but with no guiding factor we have to rely upon random mutation which is highly improbable.  It doesn't prove conclusively that there is  a guiding factor but something somewhere between creationism and evolution seems to me to be the type of theory that involves the least speculation and therefore is the most likely.  The guiding factor doesn't have to be a "god" in the religious sense of course.  This argument, however is old and it bores me.  Maybe we should stick to discussing the ins and outs of gene functions in this thread instead of speculating on the wider picture.  We can each join the dots for ourselves in our own time. Science will never either prove or disprove any supernatural element to creation or life.

Your position is nothing but existential interpretation. Actually existential retro interpretation. You start with a belief and work backwards to validate the belief. For example, your casual dismissal of SciMaDan. You said you like his "tinfoil Fridays" and his "flat Earth" vids and yet he's just a teacher when it comes to the evolution vids meaning, "what does he know", nothing.

What science shows us it there no reason to appeal to inscrutable explanations.

Your position is nothing but existential interpretation. Actually existential retro interpretation. You start with a belief and work backwards to validate the belief. For example, your casual dismissal of SciMaDan. You said you like his "tinfoil Fridays" and his "flat Earth" vids and yet he's just a teacher when it comes to the evolution vids meaning, "what does he know", nothing.

What science shows us it there no reason to appeal to inscrutable explanations.

Your position in this post is utterly without evidence.  If you are referring to my Christian beliefs, they didn't kick in until my 30s whereas my "position" as stated in my post (and I'm not sure it can be called a position - more like a strong suspicion) is a result of personal thinking, finding evidence and asking questions that began to occur during my teens - long before I became a christian or developed any "spiritual" beliefs at all.  All through my life I have found myself at odds with the consensus in everything I have been into because of my constant questioning and asking in vain for proof of the consensus position on things.  I have been denied full membership of churches because I do not believe in hell - when I was a new-ager, I debated many things with people who refused to see truth because they had an emotional preference for "paranormal" explanations - I was kicked out of art college because I couldn't see the point of the arty tripe they were trying to brainwash me with etc, etc, etc.  I arrive at my beliefs and suspicions because of thinking, unlike evolutionists who in their eagerness to do away with an inconvenient God, happily join the dots of evidence with much speculation and wishful thinking and the internet skeptics among them, like yourself, cannot tell the difference between what science can prove and what people, who also happen to be scientists, speculate among themselves.  

Scimandan is proof of how objective I try to be.  Somebody who I respect very highly and enjoy his shows has some flaws, one of which I have pointed out only because he defeats his own position with his own argument in this particular case.

What science shows us is that material stuff behaves largely in the way material stuff can be expected to behave. What the history of science teaches us is that science can and very often does draw wrong conclusions about even the physical stuff it can analyse.  What an intelligent mind teaches us is that there is more to life than physical stuff.

... You start with a belief and work backwards to validate the belief. ...

There is indeed a common human tendency to do this.

But while people on both sides of the argument often suspect this is happening, it's not something that can be known without evidence of what's going on in people's minds, and therefore not an accusation that should be made lightly.

Can't we try to argue from the evidence, rather than from speculation about the motives of our opponents?

There is indeed a common human tendency to do this.

But while people on both sides of the argument often suspect this is happening, it's not something that can be known without evidence of what's going on in people's minds, and therefore not an accusation that should be made lightly.

Can't we try to argue from the evidence, rather than from speculation about the motives of our opponents?

That is a tendency we have, yet it seems to be most pronounced among those that do not like reductive existentialism. Brian I think is one example. He dismisses a demonstrated fact.  Brian's response should have been: that interesting and left it at that. Motives are part of the equation for why we hold the ideas we have.

That is a tendency we have, yet it seems to be most pronounced among those that do not like reductive existentialism. Brian I think is one example. He dismisses a demonstrated fact.  Brian's response should have been: that interesting and left it at that. Motives are part of the equation for why we hold the ideas we have.

The only thing I can see that Brian dismisses in this thread, which could conceivably be considered to be a "demonstrated fact," is the existence of hell. But somehow I don't think that's what you have in mind.

Please could you quote what you're referring to?

[Ninshub]

Motives are part of the equation for why we hold the ideas we have.

I agree a lot with this, but I also agree with what Chris has said that the spirit of the forum is more to discuss and debate the ideas themselves, and not trying to psychoanalyze the forum members.