also: random alignment of chromosomes at the metaphase plate after recombination has taken place in germ cells allows each haploid daughter cell to have a sister chromatid with distinct combination of alleles. .this is called independent assortment and is another factor influencing genetic variety not mentioned in the video
@b1gr1g Humans look VERY alike. Different groups weren't separated long enough to make any meaningful changes. And now that we all are integrated with one another... instead of just focusing on individual groups evolution will continue to work on our species as a whole.
"a woman cannot get pregnat by having sex with a woman."
Very good. At least you paid some attention in biology class. So, could there be any other way a lesbian woman could get pregnant? No, this is not a trick question.
@MomoTheBellyDancer i'm not sure what the law says about artificial insemination being done on lesbians, and idon't care. and if a lesbian has sex with a guy she really isn't lesbian anymore
"and if a lesbian has sex with a guy she really isn't lesbian anymore"
So, lesbians who get raped are not lesbian? And of course, a lesbian could simply grit her teeth to get it over with, for the sake of having a child. We're talking about human beings here, not programmed automatons.
@SuperFinGuy Generally if you wish to convince people that your standpoint is the right one you will have to build a bridge between theirs and yours. The problem for believers is that you put faith above logic which means that any argument will only end in a childish "because the bible says so" which is rather pointless if you thing the bible is only a collection of old superstitious stories. Granted that was the best they could do at that time to explain things but we can do a lot better now.
@karakzanreal What? Where did I mention religion?? I am talking about science and I am an atheist. It seems some ignorant atheists can't forget about religion and compare everything to religion, which is stupid, religions are just fairy tales and have no place in a scientific discussion. Ironically you're taking science as a religion based on faith and ignorance. Science instead is based on reason and facts of reality.
@SuperFinGuy I think we are misunderstanding each other. I am trying to figure out how to convince a theist of the absurdity of religion without pointing fingers and saying "ha ha" which doesn't work in any discussion. As I have never been anything but an atheist i am struggling with the whole concept of faith. Science is based on refining theories that fit observations and can make predictions. As such religion can be thought of as an extremely crude attempt at science. That was all I meant...
@karakzanreal You want help figuring out how to convince a theist of the absurdity of religion? Take it from a christian-born atheist like myself, Its impossible. trust me, I still go to a catholic highschool. People dont believe in god because they think science is wrong. They believe in god because god told them to in the bible. You cant falsify god. They see it as "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so therefore he does" while we see it as "you can't prove God exists, so therefore he doesn't"
@tomaz2007 I thought by now directed mutagenesis was more well known. The organism at the molecular level *reactively* (not intentionally) produces beneficial mutations. I'll gladly provide you with some references.
h t t p://w w w*biomedcentral*com/1471-2156/5/34
h t t p://jb.asm*org/cgi/content/abstract/JB.01706-06v1
h t t p://en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Directed_mutagenesis
Saying that beneficial mutations are caused by random and accidental genetic errors is a joke. It is pure speculation, beneficial mutations caused by radiation/viral genetic accidents have Never Been Observed., yet it is said here as a scientific fact.
On the other hand, molecular directed mutagenesis have been observed. Look it up.
@SuperFinGuy You're joking, right? Google "beneficial mutations" and click on the first link for 15 observed examples. Even if in 99.9% of the cases mutations would be harmful, evolution would still happen. In fact, when you have organisms reproducing + variety of offspring, evolution will *neccessarily* happen.
@tomaz2007 Mutations do happen (obviously), but no random accidental mutations have been seen turning into beneficial ones or been proven that beneficial mutations that make out our bodies are random/unsystematic ones.
The odds for random, beneficial and systematic mutation are astronomical if possible at all, even a lot more for negentropic development. Please show me the math and data to confirm your speculation. In my case I can readily show you directed mutagenesis in the lab.
@SuperFinGuy Random accidental m. don't "turn" into beneficial, they either ARE beneficial, neutral or harmful. Look, you can't have it both ways. You agree that random mutations do happen, but when it's beneficial, you say "no, that couldn't have been random". Take nylonase for example. The odds might be astronomical yes, but there's a lot of bacteria mutating out there. If the mutation is bad, the organism dies, if it's good, it stays. Google "beneficial mutations" again, you haven't read it.
@tomaz2007 By 'turn' I mean mutations that 'serve' as beneficial, that would be caused by a random accident. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that our genetic code was/is caused by random accidents. Scientific evidence actually tells us that beneficial mutations are systematic and are produced by the organism, while there is none that a beneficial mutation was produced by a sun burn or something of that sort.
@tomaz2007 It's been observed that an organism produces specific mutations in specific situations. Also from a mathematical standpoint the bad and destructive mutations would win out over the neutral and good ones since their chance of occurrence is in the magnitude of a trillion to one (to say the least). We'd have entropy, not negentropy.
@SuperFinGuy "destructive mutations would win..." You don't seem to understand evolution at all. Bad mutations can't "win" BY DEFINITON, because bad mutations cause individual organisms to die or they at least decrease their chances of reproduction. We wouldn't call them *bad* if they didn't! So only the benificial mutations can spread through the population. I hope you're not bringing up the "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument.
@tomaz2007 No no, you're putting the cart before the horses, because the bad mutations are a lot (a whole lot) more numerous the good mutations would be meaningless. The bad mutations *can* win by killing or neutralizing the good mutations and all the organisms, which wouldn't be even able to develop in the first place in such circumstances. Death can also spread through the population.
I am talking about of statistical entropy.
h t t p://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/STATIS_ENTRO.html
If you don't understand it, that's fine, but don't expect to debunk it after all the work that REAL biologists have done to try to debunk it.. (because that's how peer review works)
@SuperFinGuy What? Mutations are produced by the organism? So a bacteria was like "oh, there's this nylon lying around, I better start digesting it. Let's see.. I need the enzyme to digest it and it will be produced if I change this part of my DNA. Ta-da!" Are you serious? The bacteria INTENTIONALLY produced nylonase? Care to present any references for this scientific evidence?
This video is pretty awesome, but it makes it sound like all chromosome are the result of crossing over, when it's only usually 1/2 of them that are intermixed between parental (your grandparents) chromosomes, the other half are crossed over and pieces are intermixed; except for the sex related ones which will never cross over (with the exception of females I think). I wonder why all biology videos on youtube end up as a debate on origins?
Don't want to get too picky here, but if you're going to teach people about genomes, you should try to use the correct pronunciation: ('jee - nohm). This is the first time I've ever heard it pronounced: ('jih - nəm)
I read through some of the comments below and apparently ignorance applies to both sides of the spectrum. Although I do dislike religion and can almost be classified as an anti-theist... blurting out offensive and immature remarks like "FUKC RELLIGIONS, JUST CULTS SUCKING HOLY COCK!!" etc. is just arrogant and childish. Statements like those give mature and rational non-believers a horrible reputation.
And science is not anti-religious. It's pro-logic, experiments, evidence and reason.
@Krumbz2003 The thing is that some people who are athiest are only athiest because they dont like religion not because they have any proper scientific understanding or are intrested in rational discussion.i myself never labeled myself as an athiest i was just more intrested in science and was labels an athiest by my relgious mates
@Aresftfun Well I would argue that "holy teachings" go against science. Science has no biases... just evidence. Religion has no evidence... just biases.
@rkyeun I never said that science was anti-religious. In fact I said just the opposite. Science has NOTHING to say about belief or faith. It simply points to definite direction and supports itself over decades of evidence.
Religion on the other hand is absolutely anti-science. Most religions REQUIRE people to take enormous leaps of faith and discourage them from "thinking about it" by punishment of eternally burning in a fictitious lake of fire.
@xoxILoveCatsxox Ah, but my religion is the true one. I forget, just for the moment, exactly which one it is. Statistically it's probably one of the Abrahamic ones. I have it written down somewhere. I'll ask my sister, she remembers that sort of stuff. The point is, I know it's the one true faith.
I made it clear that humans reproduce sexually, as opposed to asexually.. you have to have sex to reproduce.. i am not talking about what goes with meiosis.. but the fact that a male provides sperm to fertilize an egg in a female's womb... that's sexual reproduction.
@otaibinm but here's the thing that you guys don't have a clue about, how did nature come about with the invention of the penis to penetrate through a vigina and fertilize an egg. Isn't evolution works by randomization?! i.e. assume an ancestor didn't have any way of reporoducing sexually, how could a random process decide to make a penis and a vigina?! one guy mentioned that the womb evolved to hold the eggs, but how for God's sake! how could random tinkering generates such complex systems..
Besides, one thing that i have always wondered about, biologists don't tell me how intelligence increase over time? when I ask them, OK how did humans supposedly become the smartest over time?? how does random tinkering increase intelligence.. again, no clue!
@JesterAzazel I did ask him but he gave me the very same answer you gave me!! which doesn't answer the question... I want to know how the good mutation (which are rare,,, most mutations are destructive) increase intelligence.. think of it as how can an organism with an IQ of 10, overtime has an IQ of 120?? i am interested in translation here,, ie how is that reflected on intelligence...
@otaibinm Mutation doesn't directly cause an organism to be more intelligent, Natural Selection does that.
Something that's slightly more intelligent survives better and more often than the others of it's group or species. As time goes on, we get lions that know not to move when gazelles look at them hiding in tall grass or ticks that climb to the top of grass stalks to get picked up.
Our sentience, that is one of the greatest mysteries of all and one that we have yet to solve.
"Our sentience, that is one of the greatest mysteries of all and one that we have yet to solve."
I think studies in sexual selection and female cooperation studies have the best interesting theories in how intelligence in humans came to be atm, Geoffrey Miller is the first that comes to mind me.
@magua73 His many of his ideas are quite a bit 'out there'. I'll concede that attracting a mate is why our penises are so much bigger in relation to the rest of the great apes and that it contributed to the evolution of upright walking to help us showcase our increase in prowess, but our sentience, I just can't buy.
I don't doubt that some of our intelligence comes from that area, but what sets us apart from beavers and lions, I doubt came out of that specific area of our development.
Dicksizes is not what I'm talking here, at least not consciously, ah no pun intended. Anyways what I was referring to were studies about female cooperation, mainly large groups cohesions strategies, like in the bonobos studies. So what are the implications for and on the brain when confronted with complex social relationships? Robin Dunbar's studies comes to mind here. And the question, do female's mate choice select towards "social" males?... and not enough space.
@otaibinm ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000. It's open access available online.
Also available are Dembsky's objections and Scheider's replies.
Again, not all organisms need sex organs to reproduce.. Reproduction started as a way to exchange genetic material and create a genetically diverse offspring..
Then incompatibility started to produce sterile offsprings, then only certain organisms could reproduce with certain other organisms.. Then the sex organs started to develop..
You should go back and find the source that I cited..
that was my question all along, how do they start to develop?! for example, the eye started with light-sensitive cells....to the near perfect eye.. with organisms with bad eyes dying out...
how could evolution come with sex organs? how could it decide that a penis should go into a female's vagina to fertilize an egg? randomization doesn't seem to apply here at all.
Fish have sperm and eggs, but they don't penetrate each other..
The penis and vagina formed after the sperm and eggs as a more efficient means of delivering the sperm to the eggs.. Since it's more efficient, that's where natural selection makes animals with sex organisms breed more..
Sex organs wouldn't even take as long to develop as an eye because they are a lot more simple..
@otaibinm Also, I'd like to direct you to the 'Origins' series of videos by CDK007: /user/cdk007#grid/user/0696457CAFD6D7C9
I keep these on my iPod to play for people when my brain has a failing of vocabulary; it happens sometime when trying to explain to someone something that they don't want to understand.
I agree.. That guy that told you that cells dividing in your body is reproduction doesn't know what he's talking about.. I think that's where some of your confusion lies..
On the genetic level, humans and chimps are 98% similar.. 2 human chromosomes are essentially 2 pairs of chimp chromosomes fused together..
It wouldn't be so difficult to have a child with a different number of chromosomes.. Humans do it sometimes.. It just doesn't end well when humans do it..
@Venividibatna The chances now of someone being born with Chromosomal abnormalities is about 1 in 150. Not that uncommon. People (or primates, since we're talking about them) with those abnormalities breed. It gets passed on. A few hundred thousand years of that will have made quite a change in the population. It's not that hard to imagine.
how can religious folk watch this and not be at least interested in questioning their beliefs or maybe doing some more research. Science is fascinating and the holy texts are so goddamn boring. At least the Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc myths had cool stories. Abrahamic myths are dull and boring as hell.
Question: If one man gets 2 twin women pregnant, and each of these women give birth to boys, would these boys be identical twins yet from different mothers? Hmmm....
@esiosan Is your question serious? They explained that in the fricken video.... It's only a couple mins long. I suggest you watch it again and pay more attention.
To answer your question, no. They would not be identical twins. They will likely look similar to if a man and woman had two males, but likely more different, as there is greater room for variations in DNA and genome, as the voice from the video would say.
@esiosan As explained in the video, each parent has two sets of chromosomes, and these recombine in different ways to create a single set which is given to the offspring. This recombination is different each time it occurs.
If one man gets one woman pregnant twice in succession, and if the woman gives birth to boys both times, would the boys be identical, except for the difference in age? That is, would non-twin brothers be identical? Your question is similar, and the answer is No for both.
@krustofskie "No. Nonexistent beings have no ability to create anything"
Prove it. If not, stop making unsubstantiated claims. Science rules nothing out until we can prove it (or at least provide corroborating evidence). Besides, I liked the burrito joke. lol
Evolution is three fields of science that are undeniable facts: Genetics, Hereditar traits, and genetic drift. All facts of life, all science. To disprove evolution is to prove DNA does not exist, is to prove that you have no traits from your parents, is to prove there are no races with specific traits (such as the Tibetan people who survive in the mountains because of a modified gene).
@otaibinm Evolution does not explain how we have eyebrows. Already you fail. Further more you lack any explanation on how eyebrows formed. All you have to say is "God did it." Prove it; you can't, you fail, now go to church. The next time you are in the hospital you should maybe consult a faith healer, as a doctor probably isn't the best solution for a narrow minded fool like yourself.
@otaibinm I am not an evolutionary biologist. I've heard how sex forms but I do not recall how. Also you mention your "professor"; you do realize most professors just give knowledge out of a book? If you want a real answer research that answer or consult a real evolutionary biologist. Unlike you I can admit when I do not have an answer, you claim to know how sex formed but when asked you fail to prove otherwise. You should also be aware that most universities forbid instructors suggesting....
@otaibinm anything that may contradict a religious belief. My college or my instructors have to tread softly on big subjects such as Astronomy and Evolution because the crazy religious nuts like yourself don't want to hear something that opposes your belief w/ rationality.
@m00ste take it easy.. no need to be aggressive, let's have a civilized conversation. I researched the matter long ago, and guess what, no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved!! I even pulled a book of a very famous chemist... nobody really has any idea of why we cam to have penises and women have viginas,,, heck, they don't even know why a spem and an egg and each contribute half the genes...
Really how many textbooks did you read about the subject? ... as if I don´t know the answer.
"no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved" You could even find videos on youtube to explain you that. Only search "evolution of sex". But it´s quite obvious why you never did that.....
@otaibinm Do you even know what scientists call the reproduction method that human beings reproduce by? There is only two methods on planet Earth... A simple Google search found a ton of results, another scientific search found even more results. My results I should make clear are reputable; they aren't just some random website; they are government funded biology sites, etc.
If you tell me what the method of reproduction is that human beings conspire to; I'll take you more serious; what is it?
@m00ste please stop assuming that am a stupid kid who blabber about things he doesn't know.. I told you a researched it long ago... humans conspire to sexual reproduction... as opposed to "asexual"... and that was my question since the very beginning,,, how did the sexual method evolve and how did the sex organs evolve in the first place....
@otaibinm Wrong; I can no longer take you seriously. You learn this in high school; you also re-learn through college. So you've proven to me you are not even knowledgeable.
"Asexual reproduction is the process by which an organism creates a genetically similar or identical copy of itself without a contribution of genetic material from another individual. Bacteria divide asexually.."
whereas
"Sexual reproduction is a biological process by which organisms create descendants that have a combination of genetic material contributed from two (usually) different members of the species"
I guess you too don't have a clue about sex evolution..
@otaibinm So I am glad to know that cells have sex? I stated that all organisms reproduce by only two ways. I asked for the way that humans do it; I didn't ask for the methodology. Humans produce through meiosis, which has asexual and sexual reproduction under its hierarchy. As I stated, you are not knowledgeable which explains why you are anti evolution. All it takes is an introductory course; I would even go so far as to say you don't even know what evolution consists of.
@otaibinm FYI most bacteria can also sexually reproduce too, not just asexually reproduce (DNA swapping bridges have been observed in the lab, and marked radioactive DNA from two batches of bacteria was found to mingle in the offspring when the two batches were brought together - no they didn't eat eachother).
@otaibinm Human's do asexually reproduce cells - it's calling growing up (going from a single cell to trillions). We also have specialised sexual reproduction cells. Most bacteria sexually reproduce - sexual reproduction has major advantage; as such most organism have evolved to be able to sexually reproduce. The vagina evolved to hold sperm as we're land animals and can't just dump our 'seed' in the ocean like fish. The penis evolved to scrap out other men's semen from vaginas before a deposit.
@otaibinm "no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved!!"
Um, that's not correct. A two second google search can reveal quite a bit: en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
There are several competing theories, but then again there are competing theories for the origin of the moon. We are pretty sure none of these things was *poofed* into being.
The two genders didn't arise separately either, they developed very closely, parallel to eachother for it to work.
@otaibinm For example in Astronomy class my instructor was forced to stay away from solar system formation, and star formation. In my anthropology class my instructor was forced to not state that dinosaurs did NOT live with humans; she did once and the idiot that complained almost cost her her job.
@otaibinm For example in Astronomy class my instructor was forced to stay away from solar system formation, and star formation. In my anthropology class my instructor was forced to not state that dinosaurs did NOT live with humans; she did once and the idiot that complained almost cost her her job.
@otaibinm Well, we are not images of God since we are not invisible, but if you take your fantasy visual picture of your God, you should ask yourself why a God should have hands, legs, hair, eyes , ears and things. For evolution things do not need to be better or critical useful. Things like beauty features fit very well into the natural selection, thats why you must goto a bible school to get laid while others can find a partner on the street or anywhere, better selection.
@otaibinm I've lost track of all these religions. Is Islam the one with the fat guy on a sled pulled by reindeers who hands out presents to kids, or is it the one where that skinny guy rides a flying donkey and fucks a 9 year old kid?
@otaibinm Well, at least more realistic, and you have a prophet instead of a son that is his own father and died for the sins of non existing peoples and still is alive %-|
And that maybe explain why you don't think beauty features is useless :-)
Where are the heavens?
The King of the Gods Zeus was not so smart, he was living on the top of Mount Olympus , but when humans was able to climb there he became a fiction.
Now we can travel in heaven and above, but your God has moved away.
@otaibinm Another strange thing I don't understand is why Allah gave you skin on your penis that you must remove, was that a bad design? And why did he give females sexual feelings when they can be hanged for it ?
And why don't he punish all them who do evil things in the name of Islam only for their own gain or pleasure?
Pretty bold statement from someone who obviously hasn't studied it very thoroughly. I say obviously, because I have, and it DOES makes sense - now mind you, I didn't stop looking for answers the minute I hit either a unanswered question nor when I encountered a confirmation. My point is: a process of inquiry - if done correctly will produce a minimum of one more question for every one answered. Keep looking - you WILL find it does make sense.
@otaibinm "I wasn't given an answer, so god did it" is about as open minded as a sealed box. Heres what would have gone through your mind if it were open. "Evolution shows how various organs such as the eye evolved over time, so it can most likely show how sex organs evolved".
Besides, if we were designed, the designer is an idiot as we have so many flaws.
"how did males come to have penises and females come to have viginas?"
Sexual reproduction does not require penises, or those other appendages. For example many fish simply dump their eggs and the male just dumps sperm on them.
@otaibinm Yeah well... allah created sex so that he had something to fap to. How's that for an explanation the religious can accept? And hey, don't say I'm wrong because there's no way you can prove that I am wrong.
@otaibinm When your professor did not know the answert o a specific question about evolution, you concluded that evolution is nonsense? Did it occur to you to ask someone else who is more knowledgeable, or do research by yourself - plenty of material available. Instead you took the ignorance of one person as an excuse to reject a scientific theory? That doesn't look like an open mind.
As for eyebrows, I thought they protect the eyes from sweat running down your forehead - I could be wrong..
There for protect your eyes from sweat and other obstructions.
God is not great. I mean look at the Universe it is riddled with fault.
Look at the Asteroid belt. It makes the inner solar system a shooting gallery. I mean some planets such as Mercury are so prone to asteroid hits they have craters within craters.!!!
@JONNOG88 good questions, first God created everything by triggering the big bang, which eventually resulted in Planets, of which Earth with its plates and super hot core. You have to understand that God sometimes tests people faith in him and sometime punishes people for bad deeds and denying him.. so diseases, tragedies and so on are all part of that.. we muslims are in total agreement with science, in fact, we knew most of the things that science later discovered,
Thank you :D
and good luck for Best0fScience
NewKeepSharing31 1 week ago
Very nice
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
super video!
TheSanovita 1 month ago
love this
andreeaweed 1 month ago
Good Vishual Video, And Good And Good!!
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Amazing, Good Video!!..
directorygod 2 months ago
Good Video!!..
ngeliatduit 2 months ago
Admirable video
MyDavidsun 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS ADMITS TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
SEARCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
VIEW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
WATCH: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
KNOW: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
SHARE: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design.
Dawkins: Civilisation with high level of technology from elsewhere in universe seeded self replicating molecules on this planet?
mat2112moneychangers 2 months ago
2:40
Piece of shit >_>
1055boy 2 months ago
J'gnomes.
AnimeleePocket 4 months ago
THIS IS MY FAVORITE CHANNEL
MetalSpiral 9 months ago 5
lol the last pope gave evolution his blessing
suck it
wangzorman 1 year ago
also: random alignment of chromosomes at the metaphase plate after recombination has taken place in germ cells allows each haploid daughter cell to have a sister chromatid with distinct combination of alleles. .this is called independent assortment and is another factor influencing genetic variety not mentioned in the video
artistsandbox 1 year ago 6
Is this why Humans look so different from one another? Like all rats look the same, so does that mean they have less chances of a genetic mutation?
b1gr1g 1 year ago
@b1gr1g Humans look VERY alike. Different groups weren't separated long enough to make any meaningful changes. And now that we all are integrated with one another... instead of just focusing on individual groups evolution will continue to work on our species as a whole.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
He says genome funny. I always hear it as JEE-nome, while he says it like Jinum.
Anthonyk312 1 year ago
That man appears to have a rather huge penis.
fratboyfrat 1 year ago
i hate how he pronounces it gen-nomes and not gee-nomes. apart from that great video
TheLoconate 1 year ago
Evolution only happens with heterosexual relationships...
-
Religious faggots can never admit this.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
"Evolution only happens with heterosexual relationships"
What, lesbians can't get pregnant?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer a woman cannot get pregnat by having sex with a woman.
c0l4p4rty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c0l4p4rty
"a woman cannot get pregnat by having sex with a woman."
Very good. At least you paid some attention in biology class. So, could there be any other way a lesbian woman could get pregnant? No, this is not a trick question.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Comment removed
c0l4p4rty 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer i'm not sure what the law says about artificial insemination being done on lesbians, and idon't care. and if a lesbian has sex with a guy she really isn't lesbian anymore
c0l4p4rty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c0l4p4rty
"and if a lesbian has sex with a guy she really isn't lesbian anymore"
So, lesbians who get raped are not lesbian? And of course, a lesbian could simply grit her teeth to get it over with, for the sake of having a child. We're talking about human beings here, not programmed automatons.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@c0l4p4rty No shit?
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
It's like rolling several die on a table, and throwing out everything that isn't a 6..
Despite the fact that the odds of getting a 6 are 1 in 6, you still get all 6's because you've thrown everything that wasn't a 6 off the table..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
For some reason my directed mutagenesis references are not showing in the first page, click "view all comments" to see them.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy Generally if you wish to convince people that your standpoint is the right one you will have to build a bridge between theirs and yours. The problem for believers is that you put faith above logic which means that any argument will only end in a childish "because the bible says so" which is rather pointless if you thing the bible is only a collection of old superstitious stories. Granted that was the best they could do at that time to explain things but we can do a lot better now.
karakzanreal 1 year ago
@karakzanreal What? Where did I mention religion?? I am talking about science and I am an atheist. It seems some ignorant atheists can't forget about religion and compare everything to religion, which is stupid, religions are just fairy tales and have no place in a scientific discussion. Ironically you're taking science as a religion based on faith and ignorance. Science instead is based on reason and facts of reality.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy I think we are misunderstanding each other. I am trying to figure out how to convince a theist of the absurdity of religion without pointing fingers and saying "ha ha" which doesn't work in any discussion. As I have never been anything but an atheist i am struggling with the whole concept of faith. Science is based on refining theories that fit observations and can make predictions. As such religion can be thought of as an extremely crude attempt at science. That was all I meant...
karakzanreal 1 year ago
@karakzanreal You want help figuring out how to convince a theist of the absurdity of religion? Take it from a christian-born atheist like myself, Its impossible. trust me, I still go to a catholic highschool. People dont believe in god because they think science is wrong. They believe in god because god told them to in the bible. You cant falsify god. They see it as "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so therefore he does" while we see it as "you can't prove God exists, so therefore he doesn't"
Anthonyk312 1 year ago
Comment removed
epanek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomaz2007 I thought by now directed mutagenesis was more well known. The organism at the molecular level *reactively* (not intentionally) produces beneficial mutations. I'll gladly provide you with some references.
h t t p://w w w*biomedcentral*com/1471-2156/5/34
h t t p://jb.asm*org/cgi/content/abstract/JB.01706-06v1
h t t p://en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Directed_mutagenesis
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
Saying that beneficial mutations are caused by random and accidental genetic errors is a joke. It is pure speculation, beneficial mutations caused by radiation/viral genetic accidents have Never Been Observed., yet it is said here as a scientific fact.
On the other hand, molecular directed mutagenesis have been observed. Look it up.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy You're joking, right? Google "beneficial mutations" and click on the first link for 15 observed examples. Even if in 99.9% of the cases mutations would be harmful, evolution would still happen. In fact, when you have organisms reproducing + variety of offspring, evolution will *neccessarily* happen.
tomaz2007 1 year ago
@tomaz2007 Mutations do happen (obviously), but no random accidental mutations have been seen turning into beneficial ones or been proven that beneficial mutations that make out our bodies are random/unsystematic ones.
The odds for random, beneficial and systematic mutation are astronomical if possible at all, even a lot more for negentropic development. Please show me the math and data to confirm your speculation. In my case I can readily show you directed mutagenesis in the lab.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy Random accidental m. don't "turn" into beneficial, they either ARE beneficial, neutral or harmful. Look, you can't have it both ways. You agree that random mutations do happen, but when it's beneficial, you say "no, that couldn't have been random". Take nylonase for example. The odds might be astronomical yes, but there's a lot of bacteria mutating out there. If the mutation is bad, the organism dies, if it's good, it stays. Google "beneficial mutations" again, you haven't read it.
tomaz2007 1 year ago
@tomaz2007 By 'turn' I mean mutations that 'serve' as beneficial, that would be caused by a random accident. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that our genetic code was/is caused by random accidents. Scientific evidence actually tells us that beneficial mutations are systematic and are produced by the organism, while there is none that a beneficial mutation was produced by a sun burn or something of that sort.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@tomaz2007 It's been observed that an organism produces specific mutations in specific situations. Also from a mathematical standpoint the bad and destructive mutations would win out over the neutral and good ones since their chance of occurrence is in the magnitude of a trillion to one (to say the least). We'd have entropy, not negentropy.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy "destructive mutations would win..." You don't seem to understand evolution at all. Bad mutations can't "win" BY DEFINITON, because bad mutations cause individual organisms to die or they at least decrease their chances of reproduction. We wouldn't call them *bad* if they didn't! So only the benificial mutations can spread through the population. I hope you're not bringing up the "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument.
tomaz2007 1 year ago
@tomaz2007 No no, you're putting the cart before the horses, because the bad mutations are a lot (a whole lot) more numerous the good mutations would be meaningless. The bad mutations *can* win by killing or neutralizing the good mutations and all the organisms, which wouldn't be even able to develop in the first place in such circumstances. Death can also spread through the population.
I am talking about of statistical entropy.
h t t p://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/STATIS_ENTRO.html
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy
He already answered you on that..
Repeating yourself doesn't make you right..
If you don't understand it, that's fine, but don't expect to debunk it after all the work that REAL biologists have done to try to debunk it.. (because that's how peer review works)
BTW, natural selection trumps statistical entropy.. Which, again, tomaz already answered..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@tomaz2007 Actually most mutations don't do anything
Oddessuss 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy What? Mutations are produced by the organism? So a bacteria was like "oh, there's this nylon lying around, I better start digesting it. Let's see.. I need the enzyme to digest it and it will be produced if I change this part of my DNA. Ta-da!" Are you serious? The bacteria INTENTIONALLY produced nylonase? Care to present any references for this scientific evidence?
tomaz2007 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
This video is pretty awesome, but it makes it sound like all chromosome are the result of crossing over, when it's only usually 1/2 of them that are intermixed between parental (your grandparents) chromosomes, the other half are crossed over and pieces are intermixed; except for the sex related ones which will never cross over (with the exception of females I think). I wonder why all biology videos on youtube end up as a debate on origins?
BioGuelph 1 year ago
the voice of the narrator is just.. sooo awesome
easyben21 1 year ago
where is the video of the rise of new species?
gabshmabs 1 year ago
Don't want to get too picky here, but if you're going to teach people about genomes, you should try to use the correct pronunciation: ('jee - nohm). This is the first time I've ever heard it pronounced: ('jih - nəm)
mapmanic 1 year ago
hey people, wanna know more? If so, READ.!!!
TheBeyonder77 1 year ago
@TheBeyonder77 I would think using only one sensory technique to learn, would be disadvantageous. Don't you think?
Lucuskane 1 year ago
I read through some of the comments below and apparently ignorance applies to both sides of the spectrum. Although I do dislike religion and can almost be classified as an anti-theist... blurting out offensive and immature remarks like "FUKC RELLIGIONS, JUST CULTS SUCKING HOLY COCK!!" etc. is just arrogant and childish. Statements like those give mature and rational non-believers a horrible reputation.
And science is not anti-religious. It's pro-logic, experiments, evidence and reason.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago 53
@Krumbz2003 The thing is that some people who are athiest are only athiest because they dont like religion not because they have any proper scientific understanding or are intrested in rational discussion.i myself never labeled myself as an athiest i was just more intrested in science and was labels an athiest by my relgious mates
TheLastLogicalOne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krumbz2003 I agree! But logic is anti-religion!
EverEvolvingApe 1 year ago 5
@Krumbz2003
A vast majority of youtube are trolls. Do not take it seriously, as it won't give any effect.
Colaglass 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 I completely agree, but science does go against holy teachings many of the time.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
@Aresftfun Well I would argue that "holy teachings" go against science. Science has no biases... just evidence. Religion has no evidence... just biases.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 Both.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
@Aresftfun Both what?
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 Holy teachings go against science and religion has just biases.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003
Science isn't anti-religious any more than the moon landings are anti-Bronze-Age.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun I never said that science was anti-religious. In fact I said just the opposite. Science has NOTHING to say about belief or faith. It simply points to definite direction and supports itself over decades of evidence.
Religion on the other hand is absolutely anti-science. Most religions REQUIRE people to take enormous leaps of faith and discourage them from "thinking about it" by punishment of eternally burning in a fictitious lake of fire.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003
I was agreeing with you. The moon landings don't hate the bronze age.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 your right Religion is absolutely anti-science. you hit it on the head
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 I could have not said it better.
DelusionalJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krumbz2003
fuck you and your holier than thou attitude.
evanWith7 1 year ago
Comment removed
ohf27 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 logic is anti religion u fool
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
@FIGHTFANNERD3 Religion is anti-logic.
theperrenialsmartass 10 months ago
@FIGHTFANNERD3 Logic isn't anti-religion, per se, but religion is definitely anti-logic.
I don't like religion.
xoxILoveCatsxox 9 months ago
@xoxILoveCatsxox Ah, but my religion is the true one. I forget, just for the moment, exactly which one it is. Statistically it's probably one of the Abrahamic ones. I have it written down somewhere. I'll ask my sister, she remembers that sort of stuff. The point is, I know it's the one true faith.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok Lol, obvious sarcasm is obvious!
xoxILoveCatsxox 8 months ago
guys, loosen up please, I very much appreciate those who try to enlighten me about Evolution,but it just doesn't make sense to me.
@m00ste @JesterAzazel @steveb0503 @Shyhalu @ytmoog @XenogeneGray @Zensonar @rpk58 @JONNOG88
I made it clear that humans reproduce sexually, as opposed to asexually.. you have to have sex to reproduce.. i am not talking about what goes with meiosis.. but the fact that a male provides sperm to fertilize an egg in a female's womb... that's sexual reproduction.
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm but here's the thing that you guys don't have a clue about, how did nature come about with the invention of the penis to penetrate through a vigina and fertilize an egg. Isn't evolution works by randomization?! i.e. assume an ancestor didn't have any way of reporoducing sexually, how could a random process decide to make a penis and a vigina?! one guy mentioned that the womb evolved to hold the eggs, but how for God's sake! how could random tinkering generates such complex systems..
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm
Besides, one thing that i have always wondered about, biologists don't tell me how intelligence increase over time? when I ask them, OK how did humans supposedly become the smartest over time?? how does random tinkering increase intelligence.. again, no clue!
i am of peace, always..
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm
" how does random tinkering increase intelligence."
Natural selection.. Organisms with negative mutations die, organisms with positive or neutral mutations live on..
Did you really ask a biologist? Maybe he was lying about being a biologist, because he doesn't seem to know things that he should know..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I did ask him but he gave me the very same answer you gave me!! which doesn't answer the question... I want to know how the good mutation (which are rare,,, most mutations are destructive) increase intelligence.. think of it as how can an organism with an IQ of 10, overtime has an IQ of 120?? i am interested in translation here,, ie how is that reflected on intelligence...
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm
People are born with strange growths and with certain things bigger than they are supposed to be all the time..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
When I say bigger, I'm relating that to human brains getting bigger over time, making us smarter than other animals..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@otaibinm Mutation doesn't directly cause an organism to be more intelligent, Natural Selection does that.
Something that's slightly more intelligent survives better and more often than the others of it's group or species. As time goes on, we get lions that know not to move when gazelles look at them hiding in tall grass or ticks that climb to the top of grass stalks to get picked up.
Our sentience, that is one of the greatest mysteries of all and one that we have yet to solve.
Turbolinux999 1 year ago
@Turbolinux999 wrote:
"Our sentience, that is one of the greatest mysteries of all and one that we have yet to solve."
I think studies in sexual selection and female cooperation studies have the best interesting theories in how intelligence in humans came to be atm, Geoffrey Miller is the first that comes to mind me.
magua73 1 year ago
@magua73 His many of his ideas are quite a bit 'out there'. I'll concede that attracting a mate is why our penises are so much bigger in relation to the rest of the great apes and that it contributed to the evolution of upright walking to help us showcase our increase in prowess, but our sentience, I just can't buy.
I don't doubt that some of our intelligence comes from that area, but what sets us apart from beavers and lions, I doubt came out of that specific area of our development.
Turbolinux999 1 year ago
@Turbolinux999
Dicksizes is not what I'm talking here, at least not consciously, ah no pun intended. Anyways what I was referring to were studies about female cooperation, mainly large groups cohesions strategies, like in the bonobos studies. So what are the implications for and on the brain when confronted with complex social relationships? Robin Dunbar's studies comes to mind here. And the question, do female's mate choice select towards "social" males?... and not enough space.
magua73 1 year ago
@otaibinm ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000. It's open access available online.
Also available are Dembsky's objections and Scheider's replies.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@otaibinm
Again, not all organisms need sex organs to reproduce.. Reproduction started as a way to exchange genetic material and create a genetically diverse offspring..
Then incompatibility started to produce sterile offsprings, then only certain organisms could reproduce with certain other organisms.. Then the sex organs started to develop..
You should go back and find the source that I cited..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel thank you,
"Then the sex organs started to develop.."
that was my question all along, how do they start to develop?! for example, the eye started with light-sensitive cells....to the near perfect eye.. with organisms with bad eyes dying out...
how could evolution come with sex organs? how could it decide that a penis should go into a female's vagina to fertilize an egg? randomization doesn't seem to apply here at all.
i will check your sources.
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm
Fish have sperm and eggs, but they don't penetrate each other..
The penis and vagina formed after the sperm and eggs as a more efficient means of delivering the sperm to the eggs.. Since it's more efficient, that's where natural selection makes animals with sex organisms breed more..
Sex organs wouldn't even take as long to develop as an eye because they are a lot more simple..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@otaibinm For this I direct you here: /watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
CDK007 is amazing when it comes to explanations about evolution and it's mechanisms.
Turbolinux999 1 year ago
@otaibinm Also, I'd like to direct you to the 'Origins' series of videos by CDK007: /user/cdk007#grid/user/0696457CAFD6D7C9
I keep these on my iPod to play for people when my brain has a failing of vocabulary; it happens sometime when trying to explain to someone something that they don't want to understand.
Turbolinux999 1 year ago
@otaibinm
" that's sexual reproduction."
I agree.. That guy that told you that cells dividing in your body is reproduction doesn't know what he's talking about.. I think that's where some of your confusion lies..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
Why have humans now got 24 pairs of chromosomes, or did someone get the graphics wrong?
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" A bunch of moron losers evolutionist are." I never realized Yoda was a creationist troll...
julsHz 1 year ago
I you can explain how a specie gan give birth (graduatly) to another that have different number of chromosomes = WIN ;otherwise ...
Human 46 ,chimp 48 ,how many chromosome did the common ancestor had ,and how did he gave birth to species that have moar or less ,
Venividibatna 1 year ago
@Venividibatna
On the genetic level, humans and chimps are 98% similar.. 2 human chromosomes are essentially 2 pairs of chimp chromosomes fused together..
It wouldn't be so difficult to have a child with a different number of chromosomes.. Humans do it sometimes.. It just doesn't end well when humans do it..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel yes ,but today it's impossible to know how the 2 chromosomes did Fused .
other thing ,it's impossible to prove any "information additions" or "chromosome growth" ,we see only mutation
Venividibatna 1 year ago
@Venividibatna
It IS possible.. A human chromosome that looks like 2 chimp chromosomes fused together is a very good indicator..
I didn't say anything about chromosome growth.. 2 things fusing together isn't growth..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@Venividibatna The chances now of someone being born with Chromosomal abnormalities is about 1 in 150. Not that uncommon. People (or primates, since we're talking about them) with those abnormalities breed. It gets passed on. A few hundred thousand years of that will have made quite a change in the population. It's not that hard to imagine.
Bebopopotamus 1 year ago
@Bebopopotamus saying that "it's not hard to imagine" is pure speculation ,nowdays ,the chromosomal abnormalities are all malfunctionals .
Venividibatna 1 year ago
How ? ... I'm intrigued, where is another part
DragOzze 1 year ago
how can religious folk watch this and not be at least interested in questioning their beliefs or maybe doing some more research. Science is fascinating and the holy texts are so goddamn boring. At least the Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc myths had cool stories. Abrahamic myths are dull and boring as hell.
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5
My best guess is that they are afraid.. It kind of goes with Pascal's Wager..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
So.... where the fuck is part 3? Fucking shit..... and no, I never saw part 1.
asdfgoogle 1 year ago
Question: If one man gets 2 twin women pregnant, and each of these women give birth to boys, would these boys be identical twins yet from different mothers? Hmmm....
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Is your question serious? They explained that in the fricken video.... It's only a couple mins long. I suggest you watch it again and pay more attention.
To answer your question, no. They would not be identical twins. They will likely look similar to if a man and woman had two males, but likely more different, as there is greater room for variations in DNA and genome, as the voice from the video would say.
asdfgoogle 1 year ago
@asdfgoogle
" as the voice from the video would say."
Though, the voice in the video wouldn't insult someone for asking a question..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@asdfgoogle Sorry I may have missed it. I'll watch it again thanks :)
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan Sorry for the rude response there. The weather just started getting hot the last couple days, so maybe it was messing with me.
asdfgoogle 1 year ago
@esiosan
No.. You wouldn't contribute the same chromosomes every time you bred.. And the women wouldn't contribute the same chromosomes either..
Just like how you can knock the same woman up several time and never have any two children look identical.. They could be close, but not identical..
On the other hand, there is a CHANCE that it could happen, but the odds are astronomical..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I get it thanks! :)
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan
lol, I think you should google "twin conception".
ulthea 1 year ago
@esiosan As explained in the video, each parent has two sets of chromosomes, and these recombine in different ways to create a single set which is given to the offspring. This recombination is different each time it occurs.
If one man gets one woman pregnant twice in succession, and if the woman gives birth to boys both times, would the boys be identical, except for the difference in age? That is, would non-twin brothers be identical? Your question is similar, and the answer is No for both.
rpk58 1 year ago
Could god make a borrito soo hot he couldn't eat it?
conman2317 1 year ago
@conman2317 yes.
commerceskate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@conman2317 yes
commerceskate 1 year ago
@conman2317 No. Nonexistent beings have no ability to create anything
krustofskie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krustofskie "No. Nonexistent beings have no ability to create anything"
Prove it. If not, stop making unsubstantiated claims. Science rules nothing out until we can prove it (or at least provide corroborating evidence). Besides, I liked the burrito joke. lol
AlphaNemesis 1 year ago
Evolution is three fields of science that are undeniable facts: Genetics, Hereditar traits, and genetic drift. All facts of life, all science. To disprove evolution is to prove DNA does not exist, is to prove that you have no traits from your parents, is to prove there are no races with specific traits (such as the Tibetan people who survive in the mountains because of a modified gene).
m00ste 1 year ago
Evolution is non sense!
when I ask a professor, how did sex evolve? how did males come to have penises and females come to have viginas? ... the answer is always, no idea!
what make humans have such nice features, e.g. eyebrows that are not that critical to survival but are more of beauty features..
Honestly, I approached Evolution with an open-mind.. but everything hints design to me!... God is great...
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm and you are stupid!
CigarStudLasVegas 1 year ago
@otaibinm Evolution does not explain how we have eyebrows. Already you fail. Further more you lack any explanation on how eyebrows formed. All you have to say is "God did it." Prove it; you can't, you fail, now go to church. The next time you are in the hospital you should maybe consult a faith healer, as a doctor probably isn't the best solution for a narrow minded fool like yourself.
m00ste 1 year ago
@m00ste why did you focus on the eyebrows statement which was a minor point and forgot the evolution of sex?
so please explain how the reproduction system and sex evolved?!
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm I am not an evolutionary biologist. I've heard how sex forms but I do not recall how. Also you mention your "professor"; you do realize most professors just give knowledge out of a book? If you want a real answer research that answer or consult a real evolutionary biologist. Unlike you I can admit when I do not have an answer, you claim to know how sex formed but when asked you fail to prove otherwise. You should also be aware that most universities forbid instructors suggesting....
m00ste 1 year ago
@otaibinm anything that may contradict a religious belief. My college or my instructors have to tread softly on big subjects such as Astronomy and Evolution because the crazy religious nuts like yourself don't want to hear something that opposes your belief w/ rationality.
m00ste 1 year ago
Comment removed
m00ste 1 year ago
@m00ste take it easy.. no need to be aggressive, let's have a civilized conversation. I researched the matter long ago, and guess what, no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved!! I even pulled a book of a very famous chemist... nobody really has any idea of why we cam to have penises and women have viginas,,, heck, they don't even know why a spem and an egg and each contribute half the genes...
otaibinm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otaibinm "I researched the matter long ago"
Really how many textbooks did you read about the subject? ... as if I don´t know the answer.
"no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved" You could even find videos on youtube to explain you that. Only search "evolution of sex". But it´s quite obvious why you never did that.....
Mafiaaffe 1 year ago
@otaibinm Do you even know what scientists call the reproduction method that human beings reproduce by? There is only two methods on planet Earth... A simple Google search found a ton of results, another scientific search found even more results. My results I should make clear are reputable; they aren't just some random website; they are government funded biology sites, etc.
If you tell me what the method of reproduction is that human beings conspire to; I'll take you more serious; what is it?
m00ste 1 year ago
@m00ste please stop assuming that am a stupid kid who blabber about things he doesn't know.. I told you a researched it long ago... humans conspire to sexual reproduction... as opposed to "asexual"... and that was my question since the very beginning,,, how did the sexual method evolve and how did the sex organs evolve in the first place....
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm Wrong; I can no longer take you seriously. You learn this in high school; you also re-learn through college. So you've proven to me you are not even knowledgeable.
m00ste 1 year ago
@m00ste no it's not wrong!!
"Asexual reproduction is the process by which an organism creates a genetically similar or identical copy of itself without a contribution of genetic material from another individual. Bacteria divide asexually.."
whereas
"Sexual reproduction is a biological process by which organisms create descendants that have a combination of genetic material contributed from two (usually) different members of the species"
I guess you too don't have a clue about sex evolution..
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm So I am glad to know that cells have sex? I stated that all organisms reproduce by only two ways. I asked for the way that humans do it; I didn't ask for the methodology. Humans produce through meiosis, which has asexual and sexual reproduction under its hierarchy. As I stated, you are not knowledgeable which explains why you are anti evolution. All it takes is an introductory course; I would even go so far as to say you don't even know what evolution consists of.
m00ste 1 year ago
@m00ste I suppose this is why he's watching videos from Best0fScience. :)
highskilledsibby 1 year ago
@otaibinm FYI most bacteria can also sexually reproduce too, not just asexually reproduce (DNA swapping bridges have been observed in the lab, and marked radioactive DNA from two batches of bacteria was found to mingle in the offspring when the two batches were brought together - no they didn't eat eachother).
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@otaibinm
"how did the sexual method evolve and how did the sex organs evolve in the first place"
Some organisms don't need a gender or genitalia to exchange genetic material and produce a genetically diverse offspring..
You should look up "Barton and Charlesworth 1998" for more extensive information about it than I can fit in a comment..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Thanks for the reference, just one more reason science works. Try asking a bible believer for a dead sea scroll reference.
GeneticsGuy 1 year ago
@otaibinm Human's do asexually reproduce cells - it's calling growing up (going from a single cell to trillions). We also have specialised sexual reproduction cells. Most bacteria sexually reproduce - sexual reproduction has major advantage; as such most organism have evolved to be able to sexually reproduce. The vagina evolved to hold sperm as we're land animals and can't just dump our 'seed' in the ocean like fish. The penis evolved to scrap out other men's semen from vaginas before a deposit.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otaibinm "no biologist has a clue about how Sex evolved!!"
Um, that's not correct. A two second google search can reveal quite a bit: en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
There are several competing theories, but then again there are competing theories for the origin of the moon. We are pretty sure none of these things was *poofed* into being.
The two genders didn't arise separately either, they developed very closely, parallel to eachother for it to work.
Raptor302 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otaibinm For example in Astronomy class my instructor was forced to stay away from solar system formation, and star formation. In my anthropology class my instructor was forced to not state that dinosaurs did NOT live with humans; she did once and the idiot that complained almost cost her her job.
m00ste 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otaibinm For example in Astronomy class my instructor was forced to stay away from solar system formation, and star formation. In my anthropology class my instructor was forced to not state that dinosaurs did NOT live with humans; she did once and the idiot that complained almost cost her her job.
m00ste 1 year ago
@otaibinm Well, we are not images of God since we are not invisible, but if you take your fantasy visual picture of your God, you should ask yourself why a God should have hands, legs, hair, eyes , ears and things. For evolution things do not need to be better or critical useful. Things like beauty features fit very well into the natural selection, thats why you must goto a bible school to get laid while others can find a partner on the street or anywhere, better selection.
God has no penis.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@ytbabbler i am muslim :), we don't believe that God is a man :) god is a super being in the heavens... that's all there's to it.
otaibinm 1 year ago
@otaibinm
Is God stronger than Superman?
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Praise Superman!
paulopadopa 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot @paulopadopa
Yes :)
otaibinm 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Neither is stronger than the other as both are made up characters in a book
krustofskie 1 year ago
@otaibinm
nigga u gotta be trollin
mryumyums1234 1 year ago
@otaibinm I've lost track of all these religions. Is Islam the one with the fat guy on a sled pulled by reindeers who hands out presents to kids, or is it the one where that skinny guy rides a flying donkey and fucks a 9 year old kid?
Zensonar 1 year ago 22
@Zensonar don't see what that has to do with the video but it was hilarious
derrick713 1 year ago
@Zensonar
Islamic birth control - a bomb strapped to a ten year old...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@otaibinm Well, at least more realistic, and you have a prophet instead of a son that is his own father and died for the sins of non existing peoples and still is alive %-|
And that maybe explain why you don't think beauty features is useless :-)
Where are the heavens?
The King of the Gods Zeus was not so smart, he was living on the top of Mount Olympus , but when humans was able to climb there he became a fiction.
Now we can travel in heaven and above, but your God has moved away.
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@otaibinm Another strange thing I don't understand is why Allah gave you skin on your penis that you must remove, was that a bad design? And why did he give females sexual feelings when they can be hanged for it ?
And why don't he punish all them who do evil things in the name of Islam only for their own gain or pleasure?
ytbabbler 1 year ago
@otaibinm "Evolution is non sense!" - NONSENSE!
Pretty bold statement from someone who obviously hasn't studied it very thoroughly. I say obviously, because I have, and it DOES makes sense - now mind you, I didn't stop looking for answers the minute I hit either a unanswered question nor when I encountered a confirmation. My point is: a process of inquiry - if done correctly will produce a minimum of one more question for every one answered. Keep looking - you WILL find it does make sense.
steveb0503 1 year ago 2
@otaibinm "I wasn't given an answer, so god did it" is about as open minded as a sealed box. Heres what would have gone through your mind if it were open. "Evolution shows how various organs such as the eye evolved over time, so it can most likely show how sex organs evolved".
Besides, if we were designed, the designer is an idiot as we have so many flaws.
Shyhalu 1 year ago 9
@otaibinm
"when I ask a professor, how did sex evolve?"
Did you think to ask a Biology professor?
"how did males come to have penises and females come to have viginas?"
Sexual reproduction does not require penises, or those other appendages. For example many fish simply dump their eggs and the male just dumps sperm on them.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@otaibinm
"more of beauty features"
And you answered your own question there.
Sexual selection is just one of the driving forces of evolution.
Then there are other features which are simply hangovers from our ancient ancestors.
Like tails for example! You have lots of tail bones and many people are still born with external tails.
"Honestly, I approached Evolution with an open-mind."
Any you have been deceived by those who have deep set religious objections.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@otaibinm Yeah well... allah created sex so that he had something to fap to. How's that for an explanation the religious can accept? And hey, don't say I'm wrong because there's no way you can prove that I am wrong.
TheBenEEeee 1 year ago
@otaibinm When your professor did not know the answert o a specific question about evolution, you concluded that evolution is nonsense? Did it occur to you to ask someone else who is more knowledgeable, or do research by yourself - plenty of material available. Instead you took the ignorance of one person as an excuse to reject a scientific theory? That doesn't look like an open mind.
As for eyebrows, I thought they protect the eyes from sweat running down your forehead - I could be wrong..
rpk58 1 year ago
@otaibinm
Evolution is non-sense
Its the reason why you are here.
Design well there are design flaws like.
"Eyebrows not critical for survival"
There for protect your eyes from sweat and other obstructions.
God is not great. I mean look at the Universe it is riddled with fault.
Look at the Asteroid belt. It makes the inner solar system a shooting gallery. I mean some planets such as Mercury are so prone to asteroid hits they have craters within craters.!!!
JONNOG88 1 year ago
@otaibinm
Cont;
As for Earth. If the Earth was designed how come
We sit on a variety of techtonic plates which collide with each other causing.
Earthquakes, Tsunami's, Volcano's
Which kill 100,000's of people per annum??
Why has 99% of all life on Earth been wiped out??
As for the body. How come we get diseases like AIDS/HIV, Parkinsons. Sickle Cell Anema and Aggresive Childhood leukemia.??
And explain the fact that 70% of all still births (in the US) are due to unknown reasons.??
JONNOG88 1 year ago
@JONNOG88 good questions, first God created everything by triggering the big bang, which eventually resulted in Planets, of which Earth with its plates and super hot core. You have to understand that God sometimes tests people faith in him and sometime punishes people for bad deeds and denying him.. so diseases, tragedies and so on are all part of that.. we muslims are in total agreement with science, in fact, we knew most of the things that science later discovered,
otaibinm 1 year ago