Seriously, this a gross misrepresentation of science and a lack of understanding of evolution. As but two examples: 1. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, these are two different fields. Even if we found out tomorrow that the first life was planted by aliens or Zeus or magicked in by fae, it wouldn't change what we know about evolution. 2. New genetic information can and HAS been added. (eg scientific paper, The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.)
And in the end he says that God created the heavens and the earth OUT OF NOTHING! What is the difference from God and Science then? Maybe God is a scientist?
Fact 1: If you can be bothered to check what the scientists you accuse of being unscientific have to say, please look up "point mutation", "insertion", "frame shift mutation", "genome duplication" and "polyploidy". Wikipedia will do.
Fact 2: "Abiogenesis" is what you ask for. No, we're not there yet, but once upon a time, nobody knew where rainbows came from either. So once again: "RNA World Hypothesis".
If you come across terms you don't understand, realize how little you know.
@SimpleSceptic Oh my... I am way ahead of you and "Fact One" as stated in the video is True, key words, "KNOWN OBSERVABLE PROCESS". Point mutations, including insertions (and deletions which you left out), cause 'frame shifts' which are overwhelmingly deleterious. If by "genome duplication" you mean "chromosomal duplications" then the problem for evolution gets Even Worse cause that causes sterility, birth defects, still births, etc. Polyploidity is not a random mutation.
@SimpleSceptic As to "Fact Two", you present RNA World as an argument to the future because you know that you have no actual observable evidence. Now what?
You were right when you said: no new genetic information could be obtained if we do not add new information. But why do you think there was nothing added? or changed? that's mean you don't really get the point of evolution's theory.
hahahaha !!! that video is crazy, it made me laugh.
So .... which process do Einstein observed to predict the effect of an atomic bombs ? there wasn't no atomic bombs atack before Hiroshima and Nagazaki ! Back to Kant, he somewhere mentioned the notion of "a priori" and "a posteriori".
On top of that you have also disregarded the fact that you believe things popped out of nowhere fully formed and failed to see that we aren't in an episode of I dream of Jeanie because you havnt done your research.
One more thing, the genetic code changes through breeding. A child has a new and unique genetic code, DNA that will be mixed and changed when they have children. That is evolution in the process and you have completely ignored it.
Excuuuuse me but scientists have created life from nothing in labs, and evolution is real. Once upon a time there were no redheads... Guess Whaaaaat???? Genetic changes created REDHEADS lol thus making you look stupid. Plus there is evolution in bacteria, viruses, and that's an example of observable evolution today. Now answer this... Some people are born with tails, some people get more hair. Like an ape right? Yep.
Thank you for crushing the G-Dless disbelief of the NeoDarwinophilists. Game over! Creation by the IntelligentDesigner totally winZ! Dear Evo-Delusionists, you cannot provide a shred of transitional fossil! Show us a Crocofant evolve into an Eledyle you will NOT. And how come there is still monkeyZ? (Particulartly on YouTube just sayin' ;)
The narrator barfs - "..molecules to man is not scientifically possible.."
Oh really?
You have foreknowledge of all emergent information on the matter? You have proof that there is no new data to be found? You are certain that present data can never be successfully understood and interpreted to demonstrate macro evolution?
Of course you don't. And all you can do is misrepresent the actual science to make your fake case against evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether "man came from molecules." Evolution only accounts for how man and other life forms diverged from a cell.
What you're arguing against, crazytobehere, is called "Abiogenesis," and science doesn't have an accepted theory which can explain that yet (and scientists are well aware of that). You don't have your scientific concepts straight.
(cont) development of life, these mutations are completely random but it's only the good ones that manage to continue reproducing. People say that the complexity of life is so unimaginable that it must of been created. What Early life developed from was completely random but on a large enough scale to sometimes become complex. Then going at random over such a long period makes it even more complex. When you consider the scale and amount of time, it's really not that improbable.
(cont) reproduces itself. It's this mutation that causes evolution. DNA contains information which is used by other complex molecules to make the most basic life forms. As the DNA mutates in strange ways, these life forms get more complex. This happens over long, long periods of time which eventually leads to the life we have at the moment. A common confusion about evolution is that these mutations are always for the better. This is not the case. As with everything else in the (cont)
(cont) because there are so many of them, the chances are that some of these are going to join together randomly, some of which make more and more complex molecules such as RNA and enzymes. Pretty much every possible combination will have been made our of molecules and only some are going to be the right ones but because there are so many, it's just enough for it to continue developing into the more complex structures. The great thing about DNA is that it mutates and changes as it (cont)
I'm literally dumbfounded. You're saying evolution is scientifically impossible? Who the hell told you that? Evolution is completely possible. Molecules combine together when they have a lot of energy and when there's billions and billions of them floating around, chances are that some of them are going to manage to form into more complex molecules such as Amino acids. When more and more become Amino acids, these eventually clump together into proteins which carries on and on and, (cont)
You have insertion, deletion, point mutations. You have crossing over, duplications, non-dysjunctions. This is the basic stuff taught in highschool biology classes!
Evolution has been proven again and again, that's why it's a theory. The theory status in science isn't just an idea that someone came up with you know, it's only granted the theory status after it has stood up to a huge amount of scrutiny and come out clean. We can simulate the conditions required to produce life from non life, it's scientifically observable.
Organisms LOSE genetic information? Sure, those organisms die. And there are many ways for new genetic information to come into the DNA!
Evolution does not say that life came from non life (although that is what theist also claim). evolution to include natural selection is supported by all the facts and there are no contradictory evidence. There is no sign of gods involvement in either the genetic or fossil record. Creationist believe in creation because they have to in order to keep the imaginary god. Saying evolution don't exist without providing any scientific evidence is not an argument against evolution, its a prayer.
Oh me! This is another painful video that parrots arguments that have been refuted goodness knows how many times. You know, parroting this jibberish over and over ain't going to suddenly make it real. But you keep repeating it over and over. I'm sure it makes you feel better.
Only 24 seconds in and the video already confuses evolution with abiogenesis. And we do know of mutations that add genetic information. Why creationist keep saying otherwise is beyond me as it's easy to look up examples of this happening. Those "convincing drawings" are based on transitional forms found. To observe "life coming from non-life," we firs have to find out the conditions in which it happened before.
@DarkEmergence well if they did look this stuff up then most would not be creationist. But this is what they pay on ignorance. In every conversation thus far with creationist I spend more time educating them on what evolution is then addressing any argument that actually is on evolution.
Seriously, this a gross misrepresentation of science and a lack of understanding of evolution. As but two examples: 1. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, these are two different fields. Even if we found out tomorrow that the first life was planted by aliens or Zeus or magicked in by fae, it wouldn't change what we know about evolution. 2. New genetic information can and HAS been added. (eg scientific paper, The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.)
Velox415 1 week ago
1:36 Just stories? You mean like the bible is just stories? :p By your own definition, the bible and creationism is not science.
Velox415 1 week ago
wooooowww...what a sad misunderstanding of science...The people who make these videos are like a lead weight tethered to society.
dominichurton 1 month ago
And in the end he says that God created the heavens and the earth OUT OF NOTHING! What is the difference from God and Science then? Maybe God is a scientist?
teadaze 2 months ago
Oh man I love these troll videos. You show just how little creationists understand about evolution. Keep it up!
blues999 3 months ago
Oh my..
Fact 1: If you can be bothered to check what the scientists you accuse of being unscientific have to say, please look up "point mutation", "insertion", "frame shift mutation", "genome duplication" and "polyploidy". Wikipedia will do.
Fact 2: "Abiogenesis" is what you ask for. No, we're not there yet, but once upon a time, nobody knew where rainbows came from either. So once again: "RNA World Hypothesis".
If you come across terms you don't understand, realize how little you know.
SimpleSceptic 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
hugenex2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SimpleSceptic Oh my... I am way ahead of you and "Fact One" as stated in the video is True, key words, "KNOWN OBSERVABLE PROCESS". Point mutations, including insertions (and deletions which you left out), cause 'frame shifts' which are overwhelmingly deleterious. If by "genome duplication" you mean "chromosomal duplications" then the problem for evolution gets Even Worse cause that causes sterility, birth defects, still births, etc. Polyploidity is not a random mutation.
hugenex2000 1 month ago
@SimpleSceptic As to "Fact Two", you present RNA World as an argument to the future because you know that you have no actual observable evidence. Now what?
hugenex2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you may be should check it out : watch?v=-h9XntsSEro
gr4yh4t 4 months ago
You were right when you said: no new genetic information could be obtained if we do not add new information. But why do you think there was nothing added? or changed? that's mean you don't really get the point of evolution's theory.
gr4yh4t 4 months ago
hahahaha !!! that video is crazy, it made me laugh.
So .... which process do Einstein observed to predict the effect of an atomic bombs ? there wasn't no atomic bombs atack before Hiroshima and Nagazaki ! Back to Kant, he somewhere mentioned the notion of "a priori" and "a posteriori".
gr4yh4t 4 months ago
On top of that you have also disregarded the fact that you believe things popped out of nowhere fully formed and failed to see that we aren't in an episode of I dream of Jeanie because you havnt done your research.
Naxer84 4 months ago
One more thing, the genetic code changes through breeding. A child has a new and unique genetic code, DNA that will be mixed and changed when they have children. That is evolution in the process and you have completely ignored it.
Naxer84 4 months ago
Excuuuuse me but scientists have created life from nothing in labs, and evolution is real. Once upon a time there were no redheads... Guess Whaaaaat???? Genetic changes created REDHEADS lol thus making you look stupid. Plus there is evolution in bacteria, viruses, and that's an example of observable evolution today. Now answer this... Some people are born with tails, some people get more hair. Like an ape right? Yep.
Naxer84 4 months ago
Even if science was absolutely wrong about everything...
that would not make belief in unicorns or astrology or even a God correct.
It is not a choice between current science or religion.
It is a search for the truth...at least science keeps searching.
DontPanic6X7 4 months ago
Thank you for crushing the G-Dless disbelief of the NeoDarwinophilists. Game over! Creation by the IntelligentDesigner totally winZ! Dear Evo-Delusionists, you cannot provide a shred of transitional fossil! Show us a Crocofant evolve into an Eledyle you will NOT. And how come there is still monkeyZ? (Particulartly on YouTube just sayin' ;)
kleenex3000 5 months ago
The narrator barfs - "..molecules to man is not scientifically possible.."
Oh really?
You have foreknowledge of all emergent information on the matter? You have proof that there is no new data to be found? You are certain that present data can never be successfully understood and interpreted to demonstrate macro evolution?
Of course you don't. And all you can do is misrepresent the actual science to make your fake case against evolution.
Pathetic.
Terncote 5 months ago
OK, this video is really, really incorrect.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether "man came from molecules." Evolution only accounts for how man and other life forms diverged from a cell.
What you're arguing against, crazytobehere, is called "Abiogenesis," and science doesn't have an accepted theory which can explain that yet (and scientists are well aware of that). You don't have your scientific concepts straight.
instereovideos 5 months ago
(cont) development of life, these mutations are completely random but it's only the good ones that manage to continue reproducing. People say that the complexity of life is so unimaginable that it must of been created. What Early life developed from was completely random but on a large enough scale to sometimes become complex. Then going at random over such a long period makes it even more complex. When you consider the scale and amount of time, it's really not that improbable.
patrickbenjy1 5 months ago
(cont) reproduces itself. It's this mutation that causes evolution. DNA contains information which is used by other complex molecules to make the most basic life forms. As the DNA mutates in strange ways, these life forms get more complex. This happens over long, long periods of time which eventually leads to the life we have at the moment. A common confusion about evolution is that these mutations are always for the better. This is not the case. As with everything else in the (cont)
patrickbenjy1 5 months ago
(cont) because there are so many of them, the chances are that some of these are going to join together randomly, some of which make more and more complex molecules such as RNA and enzymes. Pretty much every possible combination will have been made our of molecules and only some are going to be the right ones but because there are so many, it's just enough for it to continue developing into the more complex structures. The great thing about DNA is that it mutates and changes as it (cont)
patrickbenjy1 5 months ago
I'm literally dumbfounded. You're saying evolution is scientifically impossible? Who the hell told you that? Evolution is completely possible. Molecules combine together when they have a lot of energy and when there's billions and billions of them floating around, chances are that some of them are going to manage to form into more complex molecules such as Amino acids. When more and more become Amino acids, these eventually clump together into proteins which carries on and on and, (cont)
patrickbenjy1 5 months ago
You have insertion, deletion, point mutations. You have crossing over, duplications, non-dysjunctions. This is the basic stuff taught in highschool biology classes!
boochainletters12 5 months ago
Evolution has been proven again and again, that's why it's a theory. The theory status in science isn't just an idea that someone came up with you know, it's only granted the theory status after it has stood up to a huge amount of scrutiny and come out clean. We can simulate the conditions required to produce life from non life, it's scientifically observable.
Organisms LOSE genetic information? Sure, those organisms die. And there are many ways for new genetic information to come into the DNA!
boochainletters12 5 months ago
MAN IS MADE OF MOLECULES. MAN CHANGES THE GENETIC CODES OF LIVING ORGANISMS ALL THE TIME.
Justwantahover 5 months ago
the ens sounded soooo stupid and made your points on science wrong and also you would talk so fast so that we could stop and think. nice try
IPlayGamesForFun 5 months ago
that whole beggining part was just ignorant
IPlayGamesForFun 5 months ago
There was a time when there was no known observable process by which volcanoes erupt. That pretty much refutes geology right away.
"Life has NEVER been observed to come from non-life." Science hasn't observed any god performing this either.
It's a question, not an answer.
robtbo 5 months ago
Down syndrome proves that genetic information can be added.
OWC2000 5 months ago
Since no one has ever seen a god create anything, it's impossible by your own method of reasoning
Chuck1863 5 months ago
Evolution refuted. I mean, really! Why don't you get a fuckin' life?
AtheistEutopia 5 months ago
Let me fix the text below the video:
"To all atheists and non believers, this is the simplest and least offensive way I can demonstrate that I don't understand evolution! God Bless"
MythicalManMoth 5 months ago
Evolution does not say that life came from non life (although that is what theist also claim). evolution to include natural selection is supported by all the facts and there are no contradictory evidence. There is no sign of gods involvement in either the genetic or fossil record. Creationist believe in creation because they have to in order to keep the imaginary god. Saying evolution don't exist without providing any scientific evidence is not an argument against evolution, its a prayer.
BigAtheist 5 months ago
Oh me! This is another painful video that parrots arguments that have been refuted goodness knows how many times. You know, parroting this jibberish over and over ain't going to suddenly make it real. But you keep repeating it over and over. I'm sure it makes you feel better.
Lucky7Wolfin 5 months ago
Only 24 seconds in and the video already confuses evolution with abiogenesis. And we do know of mutations that add genetic information. Why creationist keep saying otherwise is beyond me as it's easy to look up examples of this happening. Those "convincing drawings" are based on transitional forms found. To observe "life coming from non-life," we firs have to find out the conditions in which it happened before.
DarkEmergence 5 months ago
@DarkEmergence well if they did look this stuff up then most would not be creationist. But this is what they pay on ignorance. In every conversation thus far with creationist I spend more time educating them on what evolution is then addressing any argument that actually is on evolution.
DebateCreation 5 months ago