THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS BEEN REFUTED!!! EVOLUTIONISTS MUST SEE!!!

[72dew]

lol, even if evolution is proved wrong (which is highly highly highly unlikely), it still wouldn't give proof to creationism.

plus, i wouldnt give a shit of a book written from a bias source with no credibility

[TheXman300]

HAHAHA this is a joke right evolution is a fact and if anyone took the proper time to study it without a religious agenda they would agree. It's funny how even muslims don't agree with each other some say they believe in evolution others dont and some say that the Quran mentions it. Although I guess that's what happens when you have imaginery friends you can get confused about reality.

[SteveTabernacle]

So if we don't go read a book from a biased source with no credibility whatsoever to speak on the subject our belief is dogmatic? LOL.

[zecle]

0:22 i read "harun yahya" so it's an automatic fail.

[synsei1]

@zecle Same thought, he's a joke. This douchebag doesn't even deserve an Ignobel Prize.

[Elvikowsky]

Adnan Oktar, that ugly wanker is satan himself! He's is the most fucked up moron ever to walk the earth, was certainly not created in the image of God and deliberately is trying to make people stupid, because he earns a lot of money from it. He is fucking Satan!

[kandtell]

Dear fellow evolutionists! LOL!

2 reasons you should *not* read this book!

1. Adnan Oktar (see wiki/Adnan_Oktar) has no publication record in scientific journals. In fact he is not a scientist at all. As far as I can tell his only further education was in "Interior Design" which he did not finish (perhaps signed up because he thought the initials stood for something else and gave up when he discovered his mistake!).

2. He is anti free speech.

cont...

[kandtell]

This is the same Adnan Oktar who has been working to get access to websites such as Richard Dawkins's official site banned in Turkey.

This guy has succeed in this evil quest many times according to his wikipedia page.

Because I am personally deeply offended by such attacks on free speech, something I, and many other people hold just as sacred as any religious text, I am willing to make a deal with Adnan if he ever reads this:

cont...

[kandtell]

Adnan, if you stop trying to get webistes banned in Turkey, apologize for having worked on getting sites banned in the past, and publicly announce that you now support free speech as a human right in Turkey then I will read your book.

At least as far as the 3rd major misunderstanding of science.

[MyPaperBleedsInk]

Well that was wonderful.

How about you take on the Theory of Gravity next?

[TheGoodColonel]

"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful" Implied bias right there. Stopped reading. But then I told myself "Well, the guy -could- have a point... Let's see what he studied in..." Arts and philosophy.... That's when I facepalmed and forgot about it. This guy has ZERO credibility in a scientific discussion in any shape or form. It's not even worth reading.

[DragonGreenFire]

First off this was not published in a sientific journal. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. When you say the scientific community now refutes evolution you are just lying.

Also it took me a who 5 seconds to find faluse information in this book. All I did was go to a random page and right there it said "...no

transitional forms have yet been uncovered." Odontochelys, Hynerpeton, Haikouichthys, Ichthyornis just to name a few. This book fails.

[FearedUnknown]

Nylonase = benefitial mutation = book refuted

... there are so many to choose from.



[highstakes136]

Creationists have the same mentality that pervaded religious thinking in the time of Galileo. Science must be wrong because our Bible says so. Never mind that we were wrong about the earth being flat, the earth as the center of the universe, and Noah's world-wide flood. Those don't count. We still should believe that God created the universe in 6 days--afterall, it makes so much sense.

[UninstallingWindows]

funny how ID supporters are spending their research and life to prove that there are things that we dont know yet, instead of trying to find out what we do now.

if u want to prove god, find things that prove god, not disprove some other claim.

its like if there is a formula "1 + x = 2" and there are 2 claims, one states that x = 1 and proves it with replacing x with 1 and doing the addition.

and the other side tries to prove that x = 4 and tries to solve it by proving the answer "1" wrong

[eahazell]

The incidence of wisdom teeth is showing a decline as this is a seemingly redundant condition. Agenesis of wisdom teeth in human populations ranges from practically zero in Tasmanians to nearly 100% in indigenous Mexicans. The difference is related to the PAX9 gene(and perhaps other genes). It's called fact checking

[eahazell]

@xxxxhussamxxxx sorry but the state of "six fingers" (known as polydactylism) I've seen many times live as a medical worker in OBGYN, it's usually corrected at birth. More severe examples (or two heads) is even rarer. Most damaging mutations result in spontaneous abortion or still birth. If they lived, it would be selected out as most would not breed with such a person. This is a false assertion that only shows your ignorance. Benign mutations occur frequently. The incidence of wisdom teeth is

[Azotadeth]

You know ? I think we could count the number of books supposedly "definivitely refuting and rebuking" evolution, or any other scientific theories which put stories stemming from "holy books" into question, by the hundreds.

Surprisingly never have they presented the evidence and counter-evidence to make the scientific community accept their point as a viable substitute.

Now, why do I have the impression this is another one of those...

[Futureplanet]

I have had enough talking to complete indoctrinated morons about science and evolution. If they want to believe one of the thousands of ancient myths that linger on, due to fear and false promise, then I am saddened by the mental shape of our public in the year 2010, but happy I am not darkened in mind, and lost in mental capacity.

[Futureplanet]

PLEASE tell me the "findings" that have lately been discovered to refute evolution. Please give me the scientists' names, and the SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS (peer reviewed articles) that I can read any of these "findings"

If you can't give a publication, then there are no findings, and you are writing complete bullshit in order to prop up religious propagana

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@Futureplanet

you want scientists name....well there many right now i remember one name..."Michael Denton"....but there are many more....those people who are molecular biologists dont believe in evolution cuz evolution at molecular level gets totally refuted.....so u talked about findings right?.....the findings of molecular biology refute evolution....there are many other findings which are discussed in this book apart from that as well so pls read the book.

[Futureplanet]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Michael Denton never wrote a single scientific paper to refute evolution, but he did write a book refuting evolution (which anyone can do). His arguements have been assolutely and postively proven wrong by the scientific community There is no evidence against evolution. NONE. Only religious speculation. (it's SO AMAZING...it MUST be god argument) (again, see the Dover trial).

The findings of DNA support evolution. The sequence variation between animals is evolution perfection

[Futureplanet]

@XxXxhussamxXxX How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

3. the geographic distribution of related species

4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

[Futureplanet]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction, especially when done using slowly-evolving protein sequences. These are used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even the recovered sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies.

Molecular Biology is swimming in evidence, to say otherwise is 100% lies.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@Futureplanet

can u explain to me how did the DNA came into existence containing so many perfect flawless instructions for the body to work just by chance through evolutionary process and how did the ribosomes, RNA and all the other highly complex cell organs to Read the information in DNA....Too correct it protect it replicate it...come about by chance through evolution....and how come this DNA keep getting more information through good mutations when 70% mutations are harmful? other neutral.

[Futureplanet]

@XxXxhussamxXxX DNA is not perfect and flawless. No-one has ever ever said or written that, more ignorant assumptions. DNA is what it is. It mutates, it makes errors during replication.

If you don't understand evolution, then you don't understand. Either you never learnt it or you ignored or denied the evidence. IF you don't know (because you have questions, you DO NOT know), then stop pretending you have an answer (god). Stop being so close-minded, lazy and uneducated. Read Biology.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@Futureplanet

yes DNA is perfect and flawless...even if a single tiny mistake is made than there could be serious problem...like a person can have 2 heads or six fingers on one hand.....lol DNA makes errors during replication but there are also enzymes there to correct the DNA back...again how was it known by evolution that DNA would make errors than again by coincidence the enzymes to correct them were formed?...looks like I.D....and btw you didn't answer my question!..iam waiting!

[Futureplanet]

@XxXxhussamxXxX So, if DNA is perfect, then why do we have mutations? Why do we have errors such as missing bases, extra bases, or substituted bases? Why do we have Spina Bifida, Huntington's disease, Cystic fibrosis and thousands of other's genetic diseases caused by DNA mutations?

The intricate workings of DNA, and biochemistry in general, may "look" like I.D. but it is perfectly explained by evolution.

Evolution can't be taught in youtube messages, especially to the religious ignorant.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet If your interested on a first hand account of this meeting and of what's being referred to as the Altenberg 16. I have posted video interview with Stuart Newman who was one of these men present in this meeting. The video is entitled

"Will the Real Theory of Evolution please stand up"

[Futureplanet]

@benthemiester Im as interested in your "first hand account" as I am in hearing a scientologist try and convince me we came from outer space trillions of years ago, or hear from a Mormon that blessed underpants will protect me.

I can ask 1000 biologists is evolution is refuted, or if there is any evidence against it...all will laugh at me, like I was a fool.

Religion wants to hijack science because it proves your religion is false. I wish you could open your mind to the truth, and break free.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet I find it a little odd that you are supposed to be the rational naturalist but yet it is you who brought up a metaphysical argument, just in reverse. I responded to your theological statement because you brought theology up, but I was speaking of science. Your personal world views should have nothing to do with science, but your language indicates something different. I believe in cause & effect science, and that believing in a primary causation is not unreasonable. I am free.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet "Im as interested in your "first hand account" as I am in hearing a scientologist try and convince me we came from outer space trillions of years ago"

I'm not a Scientology & know little about Xenu but I have to remind u, many believe the SETI project is scientific and its in the literature. Francis Crick proposed the theory of Directed Pan Spermia. As I said before, I don't believe in little green men, but atheist scientist cite this all the time and they don't get called names.

[DragonGreenFire]

@XxXxhussamxXxX By admiting evolution makes mistakes you admit it's not perfect. Also evolution doesn't "know" anything. If an animal has something that helps it, it's geines will spreed.

[flight454]

@XxXxhussamxXxX And what if those extra fingers let him hold onto a branch better?

[chao2609]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Google Kamani Hubbard, you moron. DNA is far from perfect and flawless. You have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[TheXman300]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Im guessing you've read 1 or 2 books refuting evolution and now you think your an expert. DNA is not perfect mistakes do occur and sometimes those mistakes aren't corrected which is why people can be born with missing limbs. Please go and read books about evolution from credible scientists without an agenda because evolution is a fact. Also what about the people born with genetic diseases they weren't very intelligently designed where they or did your god just get too lazy?

[D4K0T4375]

@XxXxhussamxXxX evulution doesnt happen at the molecular level it happpens at the cellular level, dumbass

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment on Phylogenetic tree building which is a very useful tool in in comparing species & sub species, however when it comes to unrelated species it is very problematic. If u type in "Phylogenetic trees problematic" u will find tons of data. I would also remind you that there are peer review articles published in Science Journals disputing the current synth. No one disputes Darwinian evolution, only its limitations & assumptions.

[Futureplanet]

@benthemiester Thanks for your opinion. I agree phylogenetic positioning has dispute and debate between the experts, as there should be. Even 2 democrats, or 2 catholic priests, or 2 truck drivers can dispute between political solutions, premises of bible stories, or ways to tie loads. However, when talking to someone like xxhussamxx who is so ignorant on biological and evolutionary processes, there is no point to assume that can understand the delicate details of biological debate, when....

[Futureplanet]

@Futureplanet the basics are so mis-understood, and even worse, flat out denied and ignored. No one has ever seen an atom. So, what of the atomic theory? Yet, do you "believe" in atoms? This seems an absurd question, yet evolution which as much, if not more evidence, is ridiculously avoided and shunned, as much as the revolution of the earth around the sun was by the church only a few hundred years ago.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet No one has ever seen an atom. So, what of the atomic theory?.................

No one has ever seen air or gravity or radio waves either. This a strawman. Atomic theory is a quantum mathematical theory based on indirect observations, the same way we base gravity on the way objects respond in the physical world. This is not an adult argument. You seem to keep including theology into science. Let it be known that this is your MO not mine.

[Futureplanet]

@benthemiester Yes, but mutations are observed and many many beneficial mutations have a profound effect on animals and humans, including AIDs resistant humans, super resistant bacteria, etc. These genetic mutations effect the physical shape of the body (in a cellular level, in these examples, inside the body). But, we know by DNA and fossil evidence, that external small changes retain benefits that accumulate and give natural selection the evidence we need. You can't find a cambrian rabbit.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet CONT... I have never seen a rabbit in Cambrian rock but the Cambrian event presents more of a challenge to evolution. Darwin understood this. However we have discovered trilobites on the bottom of human sandals. We have also discovered soft tissue in fossils supposedly up to 80 million years old. This is in direct violation to the law of entropy, unless the fossils are much younger than we ever imagined.

[Futureplanet]

@benthemiester Ok. You are wrong here. Evolution occurs when a mutation occurs that benefits a population. If an animal is perfectly suited for that environment, then a mutation is not be a benefit, so trilabites (although there hundreds of slight variations of them) don't need to change much. When animals have new opportunities in environment, food, reproduction, hunting, etc. then they are a prone to evolution. Thus we see it most evidently is separated species. ie Flightless cormorants.

[benthemiester]

@benthemiester Any mutation that gives an animal a functional advantage always comes with a cost. Insects that become resistant to pesticides give up a fitness cost and don't do well when integrated back into the wild to compete with their non exposed counter parts. Bacterial is now know to incorporate self engineering. This in itself is evidence of an intelligent causation. Last but not least, these are adaptations not macro events that are assumed by neo Darwinist.

[Futureplanet]

@benthemiester Yes, I agree, there can be a cost. And this is why you get evolution more in separated species. Like the flightless cormorant, than cannot fly!! So, it's cost is that is cannot fly from predators, but, since now, in it's new location where there is a lack of predators, this new environment allows this animal to change, accept benefical mutations, adapt, and hence evolve into this new species, that can swim better with this adapted wings.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet Flightless birds show degradation and entropy of wing function. Small changes have never been disputed. I don't think u understood my response to Cambrian event. The initial radiation event has been estimated at between 3-10 million years, a blink of an eye in geological time. We see Cambrian phyla appearing in orders of magnitude globally already in their categories with highly complex features with no known ancestry. This is a problem for the theory. Darwin understood this.

[benthemiester]

@benthemiester Everything is changing in evo devo. In 2008 some of the most hardcore and well known evolutionist in the world proposed a new extended synthesis & set up the in house networking to do it. It was supposed to be hush hush from the Media but S. Mazur broke the story. Their trying to get their colleagues to relax the assumptions of the current synth & to incorporate epigenetic models.The NAS does not support this non Darwinian model. The problem is, how do u break it to the public?

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet You gave good examples of adaptation but you used your imagination to fill in the molecule to man myth and called it evidence.

[xXxScarletBloodxXx]

You should stop reading the Qur'an for a minute and open a biology book. Srsly.

[Futureplanet]

@xXxScarletBloodxXx The Quran keeps people ignorant and under mind control. Sorry to say this, I know you find it offensive, however evidence is that science which has all the evidence contracts the Quran, and because of the nonsense spouted by relgious people in this thread, I have the strong indication that the fault lies with an ancient book that has no basis of truth whatsoever.

[benthemiester]

@Futureplanet I think you misunderstand my position. I have no problems theologically with evolution. If God wanted to use Evolution to create life or if we came from simple molecules billions of years ago unguided then so be it what he hell are you going to do. If anything in a world with many charlatans and few saints it is science that has helped nurture my faith not the 90% Sunday morning snake oil. There will always be those that try to distort scripture and God.

[xXxScarletBloodxXx]

@Futureplanet Why should I find it offensive? I'm not Islamic nor It's lie that a lot of religious people prefer to ignore the evidence when it contradicts them.

[Futureplanet]

@xXxScarletBloodxXx Hey...I warmly agree.

[xXxScarletBloodxXx]

One of the first paragraphs of the book: "The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design.The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes..."

No. Biological evolution doesn't talk about how organisms came into existence. It is about how their allele frequency change over time once they exist.

[JUANMO94]

I cannot accept "evidence" given by someone that looks for proofs based in his bias. The fact is that evolution has been proven right. Check these out: ERVs, vestigial organs and bones, sedimentary layers of rock and ape and humans chromosomes. And if evolution was wrong that wouldn't prove YOUR theory right, you have to provide positive evidence FOR your theory, not against other ones.

[HConstantine]

Not this Turkish pervert again?

What is it that refutes evolution again--the fishing lure he mistakes for a real insect?

[Lars0n]

Could've suplemented a few examples of this "evidence", at least.. It would have to be pretty groundbreaking to go against the massive amount of evidence that supports evolution.

[SETIat1420MHz]

That book "Darwinism Refuted" is a joke.

Creationist Crapiola!

A total waste of time!

In a word "Pseudoscience"!!!

[muromestari]

Oh look It's Harun. The "Lure" man who mixes different species together and implies they are the same specie. This book is intellectual garbage.

[pi3p142]

I am going to read the whole book, but it looks unpromising. Take this well worn fallacy: "It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned". I see this parroted in the weakest creationist material. SOME mutations are detrimental, most are neutral and a few are beneficial. On average a person will be carrying 120 mutations and will be unlikely to suffer significant harm from them.

[DuTriDu]

Harun Yahya - the man who tried to refute evolution by comparing long dead fossils with presently living... FISHING LURES! Need I say more?

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@DuTriDu

so what?...even scientists do that!

[rotcafarg]

@XxXxhussamxXxX  name one.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@rotcafarg

name what?

[rotcafarg]

@XxXxhussamxXxX A scientist that refutes evolution with a fishing lure. Or a remotely similar, like for example, a scientist who insists the earth is flat and presents photos of Denmark as evidence.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@rotcafarg

what fishing lures?.....somebody just commented this so than everybody started to repeat the same thing......u shud read the book before u comment..it refutes evolution in the light of Modern science.

[BohemianBlasphemy]

@XxXxhussamxXxX

Do what?

Photograph plastic fish and claim they're specimens?

Evolution is a fact, deal with it.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@BohemianBlasphemy

did u even bother 2 read the book?

[nekdolan]

I read the book, and it was an eye opening experience.

I don't agree with his viewpoint on creationism though...

[tepidd]

I've skimmed it, and promise to take a closer look later, but so far it seems to be a collection of the usual tripe about missing transitional fossils and whatnot that are successfully addressed even on youtube. And when the author's other publications include "The Moral Values of the Qur'an" (how young was she?) and which is literally dedicated to God, I am not too sure of how much real science I can expect to find in it.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@tepidd

pls do read the book...it talks about every single part of evolution....not just fossils and it is 100% scientific...i guarantee ;)

[tepidd]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Yeah, I read as much as I can bear, but it is a load of waffle. As a scientist I can tell you that it is 0% scientific. Unfortunately it will probably convince some stupid people, and your side already has too many of them. If it was 100% scientific I would have had no reason to give up on reading it, but after a few pages full of lies and misunderstanding I saw no point continuing. Please do read some introductory info on evolution. You obviously don't understand it yet.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@tepidd

I know about evolution...I have read Richard Dawkins, Greatest show on earth.

[Shaval93]

@topic: exactly! it has been already refuted...because it doesnt make a sense...

its only nonsense...good job!!!

[Kailoa36]

First, Harun Yahya's refutation of Darwin is a complete and pathetic failure. And, why did you offer this video in response to a video refuting the existence of God which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution? Do you, like many confuse the two ideas, or did you, like many, think that refuting evolution = proving the existence of God? You are wrong on both counts.

[noamees]

Sorry, but that isn't enough for me. I guess I'm a true-blooded Darwinist? Hehe, that's at least what you religious lot likes to call us.

Personally, I just believe I'm being sensful. I don't want to sound rude and I hope my previous messages didn't go across as too negative or aggressive.

[noamees]

I did, umm, read it sort of. I still think it's a whole load of bullshit.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@noamees

read the whole book to understand how is evolution refuted!

[pyro080691]

@XxXxhussamxXxX

Buddy I've read 3 books all supporting evolution and taken a college course on Evolutionary Biology. You should take a college course before claiming that one book is proof enough to dismiss evolution. Then again, you're probably not old enough for even high school courses.

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@pyro080691

Most of the people are commenting here are making there own assumptions even before reading the book. so pls just read the book at least and see what it says. it has statements from biologists themselves....and i clearly said in my video "DON'T JUDGE BEFORE YOU READ THE BOOK!"

[pyro080691]

@XxXxhussamxXxX Your rebuttal is pathetic, and I'm not going to waste my time reading a book written by someone that unqualified. Unless you can dismiss the theory of Evolution in 500 characters or less you're not going to sway anyone.

[noamees]

This is perhaps the most idiotic claim ever. So one guy, who claims to be all-knowing about the history of our species, makes a book and suddenly evolution has been refuted?

In fact, I'm pretty sure that creationism instead has been and will be refuted many times (see what I did there?).

[XxXxhussamxXxX]

@noamees

Did u read what i said in my video? I said "DON'T JUDGE BEFORE YOU READ THE BOOK!" so first download the book and then read it and then comment!