it's survival of the cleanest in my house, and I want to know why my dog, probably the first domesticated animal, living in houses for well over 2000 years hasn't evolved to be able to use and flush the darn toilet?!
without mutations there is nothing to select. Natural selection does not cause evolution. Natural and artificial selection are observed and fact. Also fact is that selection has limits. New features cannot be created by selection.
Cecal valves most probably were created by genes already present in the wall lizards.
Mutations are completely random and as stated previously are the driving force of evolution. Without them there is no evolution.
There are already traits in populations that can be selected for without new mutations. That is one of the key parts of natural selection, there has to be variation in a population. So you are saying that natural selection cannot cause change in allelic frequencies over time? Correct, selection does not create new features, that is what mutations are for; natural selection would only allow the advantages and benign features to be passed on.
Probably? Sounds like someone has not done his research. The ceval valves have never been observed in this family of lizards before. This means it had to come about from a new mutation.
Mutations are completely random, but they are not the driving force of evolution, natural selection is. That is basic biology. A random mutation appears that cause harm to an organism, that mutation is selected against because that organism cannot pass that mutation on to its offspring.
If there are no new body plans or parts without mutation then mutation IS the driving force, not selection. Selection merely causes the imaginary new body plans or parts to survive over and above less efficient systems.
Natural selection is the driving force of evolution, as stated before, their could be variation in a population without mutations happening. Because mutations are random, they cannot be the driving force of evolution, because harmful mutations are weeded out by natural selection and advantageous mutations are passed on at higher rates by natural selection. Basic biology.
Have not been deemed? What do they have to go through a committee? Anyways, what source do you have for this claim? I mean if it was not in the parent population and it is in this population the only way for it to get there is through a mutation.
Read Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. This article talks about how original population of lizards and how they do not have the cecal valves.
they do not have cecal valves. no one disputes that. However, they may have had them in the past. The genes were most likely present to create the cecal valves, just switched off.
Rapid adaptation to environment fits better with the creation model than with gradualism. 36 years is to short of a time for a random mutation to occur, be beneficial, be refined, and permeate through an entire population. creation needs rapid adaptation and change.
You are a strange creationist, I will give you that.
Nevertheless, rapid evolution is not a problem for evolution (any change in allelic frequency over time is evolution, no matter what you want to call it), have you not heard of punctuated equilibrium. These lizards would be a great example of it.
Dr Gould invented the story of punctuated equilibrium because he realized that the evidence didn't support Gradualism.
Change in allelic frequency happens. No doubt, not disputed. Adaptation happens, no doubt. Natural Selection happens.
It is the gradual ascent from simple to complex organisms that is the lie. It has never been observed or duplicated and the fossil evidence doesn't support it.
The best lies always have some truth in them. That's what makes them believable.
Dr. Gould came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to explain the evidence that we see in the fossil record. You can read any of his books, which explains it far better than I could.
What lie? I talked about a few transitional fossils in this video. It seems that you agree that little changes can happen, so what is the mechanism that stops those little changes form adding up to equal a big change?
Never the less, let see what the whole quote looks like: "But so far, the basis of these various changes remains unknown: theres an outside possibility that they are induced by leaf eating, and are thus due to the environment rather than genetics. (This seems unlikely — even lizards that are just hatched, and havent had a chance to do much eating, have the valves. But without doing the genetics,...
...we cant be sure; until that has been looked at, the changes cannot definitely be attributed to natural selection.) For now, natural selection for efficient plant-eating is the main suspect for this whole suite of changes, but the case is not yet closed."
Well we have looked at the genetics and we have seen that it is a mutation (see the article I have already cited). I mean even from that quote it seems like Dr. Judson does not really know she is just writing a story about it for the news.
That's the point no one knows why animals adapt. However we observe them adapting all the time. We just don't see simple organisms changing into more complex organisms gradually over time. Evolutionism claims that it has happened billions of times.
Animals adapted because there are changes in their environments, which equal some individuals in the population to have a higher fitness. Because of that, they pass down more of their genes than the individuals that are not fit for that environment. This is simple biology again. I asked this in the other comment; you seem to agree that organism can change over time, why cannot those changes over longer periods equal bigger changes?
The reason small changes don't ad up to bigger changes is unknown. We don't know why there is a limit to how big organisms can grow, or why there is a limit to how long something can live, or why you can only go so high in sugar content of a plant. We do know however, that these limits exist and we reach them all the time in agriculture and husbandry.
So your creation hypothesis does not have a prediction for the mechanism that stops evolution? Sounds like a really weak hypothesis if it cannot predict something so fundamental to your argument.
But again, the fossil record shows that there is no limit to the amount of change life can go through. Like I stated earlier, I pointed out just a few transitional life forms. There are thousands more.
Even if you call it "transitional fossil" it's still fake. In this sense, taken together it's a "fake transitional fossil". Again, the key word is not "missing," "link," "transitional" or "fossil" but the word "FAKE". If the basis of your theory is fraudulent then its not reliable. If it's not reliable, then the only thing they are good for is deceiving people. Therefore, what you are peddling isn't a credible theory anymore but a fraud.
They are not fake simply because you say they are. These fossils represent past life that are best understood using the theory of evolution. Moreover, you have yet to show that the theory of evolution is wrong. If you would provide some evidence that any of these fossils are fake then you might have a leg to stand on. your are using circler logic that starts off with a lie.
You're not paying attention. I quoted an article saying that Dawson faked the Piltdown Man and Haeckel's University found that he faked the embryo drawings. It is also interesting that Johanson "found" "Lucy" just before his grant was about to run out. That didn't come from me. Lying under oath is perjury. And publishing materials that is based on fraud is misrepresentation.
You are not quoting anything special. Everyone knows that Piltdown man was a fake and everyone knows that Haeckels drawings were faked as well. Other scientists using the theory of evolution exposed both.
Johanson discovery is not made less creditable just because he did it right before his grant was about to run out. In addition, Johanson did not just found one specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, but he found about a dozen. Since than many anthropologists have found many specimens of A. afarensis, so if it were a fakes they would have been exposed by now, just as Piltdown man was.
There is bias and motive that he found specimens of a transitional life form. That has been verifiable by many different scientists. It seems like you are just paranoid. What would be theses biases and motives that all these different scientists would have?
Yes, I'm paranoid about fakes. Especially when it is purposely done to deceive people. But I guess you DON'T CARE about this. His motive comes from being able to continue to receive grant money because he was SPECIFICALLY given a grant to find the missing link. In most states and most countries that would be a crime. They call that "Embezzlement". In Civil Code countries they call that "Estafa."
He was not given a grant to find a missing link. There are already many transitional forms know before A. afarensis was found, including A. africanus, H. erectus, and H. habilis just to name a few. He was given a grant to find hominins and he found so. What I am saying is that they have verified that he has found a new species of hominin. They have also found many different specimen of this hominin, not just Lucy.
My sources are found on Google scholar (you should try using that some time) and the reason it still clings to evolution is that nothing has come up to disprove it. I have been to that website; it is a website of propaganda.
Your source is Google? Is Google an acceptable authoritative source? Hmmm. I still have yet to read a scientific or medical journal that cites "Google" as an authority.
I said Google scholar, have you ever used it. That is a place were you can find scientific and medical journals on line and down load the PDF of their articles. Are you that ignorant of how to use Google? I also like how you are trying to misinterpret what I said to try to make me look stupid.
I can foresee you'll have a hard time passing your thesis or writing requirement to get your degree. I don't think citing "Google" would fly before the panel of professors who'll judge your thesis.
As I said, I guess Google scholar to find source. Maybe you should try it some time. Just type in evolution into Google scholar and see what you come up with.
It is funny how willfully ignorant you are and how you try to make my position appear stupid. Nevertheless, by doing so you only show how foolish you truly are.
The sad thing is that few know about Satan's deception. The New World Order didn't start in this century. Satan has been working on it since the tower of babel. Deception is not only in the area of evolution but in government, economics and world events. People who still believe in theories that evolution is the origin of life, that the federal reserve is part of the federal gov't and has nothing to do with the current economic crisis, that 911 was carried out by Al Quaeda need to wake up fast.
Your ignorance is astonishing. If you truly believe that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life than you are the one that needs to wake up. Believing something that stupid explains a lot about you.
Calling people ignorant won't help you. Especially considering the fact that you are not done with college yet. The fact that one doesn't agree with your theory doesn't make one ignorant. When you are done with your college degree and have attained three or more professional or masters degrees will be the time you can call me ignorant.
I only call you ignorant because you have demonstrated that you are. With statements that show, you do not know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and states think that evolution is abiogenesis and the big bang theory. You have more than proven yourself ignorant of the subject of evolution. This would not be an insult if you were willing to learn. I myself am ignorant of a great many number of things, but I am willing to learn and found out about them.
No, I am willing to learn. That's why I am engaged in a debate which raises a lot of questions. I think this is akin to the "Socratic method" of learning.
This is not a debate, if anything this is a discussion but most likely it is just an argument. Furthermore, you have not raised any questions that are not already answer, which shows how little you have looked into this subject. If you were truly willing to learn that you would do some research on your own and not just on some creationists propaganda site. Like I said before, try switch Google to Google scholar and typing in evolution and see what you find.
"Missing link found...so how can we call them missing?" You're playing semantics. The key word isn't only "missing" it also includes the word "link." Where's the link? Is it conclusive and irrebuttable proof to be classified as science? Is it observable? Can the process be repeated?
The only reason I said missing links is because creationist as yourself like to call them that. If one has taken a comparative anatomy class it is quite easy to see how one species of has transited into another. Using the fossil that are found scientist can count the shared derived traits and ancestral traits to create a cladograms. Using statistical annuluses they create cladograms which show which creatures are sister taxa.
The original title of Charles Darwin's book is "On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Favored races? Charles Darwin wasn't only a deceiver (he plagiarized the evolution theory) he is a believer in favored races like Hitler and Occultist Madame Blavatsky.
First off, Darwin did not plagiarize his idea. He even co-authored it with Wallace, who came up with they theory of natural selection independently of Darwin. Ideas of evolution were around long before Darwin or Wallace, but they came up with the mechanism which drives evolution (natural selection).
You didn't personally witness it so whatever you say is merely hearsay. The theory of evolution has existed even b4 Darwin. Race means the same thing as it was meant during Darwin's time. That's why Hitler had 6 million Jews killed because he thought they weren't favored RACES. But hey, if you believe your granpa is an ape be my guest. As for my I know God created me. The human body has a spirit as oppose to animals. Unfortunately, evolution can't explain it.
Hearsay because I did not personally witness it? Sorry I am not 150 years old, but I guess that would make all of history hearsay, including your bible. Do you really think that is a good argument? No race did not mean the same, and Hitler did not know the first thing about evolution and used christian propaganda more than he ever used science to unite Germany.
Catholic propaganda yes. Christian propaganda no. Don't confuse Catholicism with Christianity. They are not the same. If you think they are then you are deceived for the same reason you got deceived by evolution. "In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:4.
I do not care if catholics are christian or whatever.
This argument is not a theists one, this argument it one about the natural world. As I said before one can accept a god and evolution. Only the truly ignorant believe that they cannot be accepted together. Moreover, from the look of things you are both truly and willfully.
Yes, I believe my grandfather is an ape, just as I believe that you are an ape and I am still an ape. The term ape is just nomenclature used to classify living organism. Humans happen to share all the traits with the other apes, which makes us an ape. In addition, one can accept a god an evolution they are not polar opposites.
I am already done with high school and I am about to graduate with a Bachelors in Science. I wonder what your highest degree is. I would not bet anything higher than middles school with your lack of understand how how science works.
It would be plain to anyone that would read this exchange, that you are the one that is in need of an education. You are having problems with basics here.
Did I pretend to be a science major? Did I mislead you to think that I was arguing science? The real issue here is whether evolution is truth or deception.
That is a scientific question. I do not know if you were pretending to be a science major, but you did fail if you were trying. If we were talking about gravity or the theory of lift, it would be an argument about science. That is why this is also an argument of science.
Second, when Darwin wrote his book race did not mean the same thing as we think of it today, you do know language and the words within language change. Darwin used the word race to mean species, much like many people of his time. But, even if Darwin was a horrible racist it still would mean nothing. Because within science, ideas stand on their own merit, not on the merit of the person proposing them. And evolution through natural selection has as much merit as any other theory in science today.
If the evolution theory is so reliable, it would not need to be faked to prove it. Haekel's drawings of the human embryo likened to an animal's was found to be fake by his own University. Any four year old knows that dogs do not come from rocks even with the passing of time. Any person claiming to be a scientist who believes in this delusion should sue their schools for misrepresenting the truth.
Haekels drawings were based on Lamarks ideas of evolution, so of course they were wrong. In addition, they were proven wrong by other science using evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, Haekels basic idea was right. You can look up real pictures for yourself that show how all embryos start off with the same traits but later change into what we see when they are born.
Of course, dogs do not come from rocks; no one is saying they do. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life it only deals with how after life got started it is still here on this ever-changing planet. It is not a delusion and from the claims you are making I can tell that you have never done your own research into this subject past reading a creationists propaganda website.
I am oversimplifying the argument but in the last analysis that's what evolutionists believe in. That all living things came from non-living elements though, e.g. the "big bang," "primordial soup." But hey if you believe your ancestors came from a can of Campbell's soup knock yourself out. :)
The theory of evolution, as I said before, does not deal with the origins of life. You are talking about abiogenesis, which is not the same as evolution. Right now abiogenesis is nothing more than a hand full of hypothesis, but it does not matter which one is true because it has nothing to do with evolution. That means a god could have created life and it still would not take anything away from the theory of evolution.
It does because the Bible says God created man. It doesn't say God created man by having him evolve from the apes who in turn evolved from other living forms originating from the primordial soup. Big difference. It's the difference between the truth and the lie. But I guess you DON'T CARE about this difference.
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
It is not conjecture, as I have said before evolution is defined as the change in allelic frequencies over time. That has been observed repeatedly. So that means it is a theory in a scientific context. I have made a video about this entitled Evolution: Good Science.
Humans are still apes; just like human are still mammals and vertebrates. This is simple nomenclature. Humans are in the order primate, and under that, we are in the family Hominidae that includes the great apes and ourselves. The same system that classes us that classes us as Mammalia and Chordata. Moreover, this classification system has been around long before Darwin was born.
An ape changing into a human would go against what evolution would predict simply because humans are apes. Please do some research into phylogenic systematic.
I see. You are saying theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life. But doesn't it discuss the origins of man, the apes and the development of lower LIFE forms? Again you missed the key word "LIFE." So in effect, it does deal with the origins of life because it discusses how life evolved. Evolving from something means originating from something. Therefore, it does deal with the origins of life no matter how you slice it.
It does not deal with the origin of life because by definition evolution is the change in allelic frequency in a population over time. So how could it deal with the origin of life if there were no allele for it to act on? That means evolution only deals with life after it started. So yes, it does deal with the humans and all other life on this planet, but after life was started.
You presented no evolutionary evidence. Only objective. Bacterial flagellum=irreducible complexity. I've actually looked into the quotes from George Wald and that one appears in a number of scientific journals including the Scientific American.
What are you talking about? The evidence for what I was talking about is in the discretion box. I have also gone over the evidence in many of my other videos. One of those source shows that the quote from Wald is a fake. I am sure many of the website you looked at were creationist ones.
Dr. Miller has already shown that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducible complex. There are many videos of his lecture here on youtube where he points out how the flagellum came about from earlier processes.
"It has been asserted over and over again, by writers ... that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion ... is certainly erroneous. Every species is a link between other allied forms. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations. ... But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views.
Damn, the secret is out. I hope not many people will see this video, because it would tell them of the evolution conspiracy we have tried to keep secret for so many years.
NO NOT THE DREADED NEBRASKA MAN! WHY CAN'T WE KEEP THAT A SECRET!?! As for piltdown man I wonder if anyone truly knows the amount of frauds that came about during that time also (mostly in archaeology)? Archaeology is false because the Etruscan terracotta warriors statues were frauds.
Are Creationists are this ignorance? But I guessed repeated lies long enough then hopefully it will became true. All of these claims has been debunked over and over already
it's survival of the cleanest in my house, and I want to know why my dog, probably the first domesticated animal, living in houses for well over 2000 years hasn't evolved to be able to use and flush the darn toilet?!
rbx01x 9 months ago
Comment removed
rbx01x 9 months ago
without mutations there is nothing to select. Natural selection does not cause evolution. Natural and artificial selection are observed and fact. Also fact is that selection has limits. New features cannot be created by selection.
Cecal valves most probably were created by genes already present in the wall lizards.
Mutations are completely random and as stated previously are the driving force of evolution. Without them there is no evolution.
Nature has no intent.
mejc2 2 years ago
There are already traits in populations that can be selected for without new mutations. That is one of the key parts of natural selection, there has to be variation in a population. So you are saying that natural selection cannot cause change in allelic frequencies over time? Correct, selection does not create new features, that is what mutations are for; natural selection would only allow the advantages and benign features to be passed on.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Probably? Sounds like someone has not done his research. The ceval valves have never been observed in this family of lizards before. This means it had to come about from a new mutation.
Mutations are completely random, but they are not the driving force of evolution, natural selection is. That is basic biology. A random mutation appears that cause harm to an organism, that mutation is selected against because that organism cannot pass that mutation on to its offspring.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
The cecal valves have not been deemed a mutation.
If there are no new body plans or parts without mutation then mutation IS the driving force, not selection. Selection merely causes the imaginary new body plans or parts to survive over and above less efficient systems.
mejc2 2 years ago
Natural selection is the driving force of evolution, as stated before, their could be variation in a population without mutations happening. Because mutations are random, they cannot be the driving force of evolution, because harmful mutations are weeded out by natural selection and advantageous mutations are passed on at higher rates by natural selection. Basic biology.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Have not been deemed? What do they have to go through a committee? Anyways, what source do you have for this claim? I mean if it was not in the parent population and it is in this population the only way for it to get there is through a mutation.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
the genes are already present just not active.
mejc2 2 years ago
Read Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. This article talks about how original population of lizards and how they do not have the cecal valves.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
they do not have cecal valves. no one disputes that. However, they may have had them in the past. The genes were most likely present to create the cecal valves, just switched off.
mejc2 2 years ago
Cite a source for that claim.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
"But so far, the basis of these various changes remains unknown"
oliva judson
July 22, 2008, 7:44 pm
A Natural Selection
Rapid adaptation to environment fits better with the creation model than with gradualism. 36 years is to short of a time for a random mutation to occur, be beneficial, be refined, and permeate through an entire population. creation needs rapid adaptation and change.
mejc2 2 years ago
You are a strange creationist, I will give you that.
Nevertheless, rapid evolution is not a problem for evolution (any change in allelic frequency over time is evolution, no matter what you want to call it), have you not heard of punctuated equilibrium. These lizards would be a great example of it.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Dr Gould invented the story of punctuated equilibrium because he realized that the evidence didn't support Gradualism.
Change in allelic frequency happens. No doubt, not disputed. Adaptation happens, no doubt. Natural Selection happens.
It is the gradual ascent from simple to complex organisms that is the lie. It has never been observed or duplicated and the fossil evidence doesn't support it.
The best lies always have some truth in them. That's what makes them believable.
mejc2 2 years ago
Dr. Gould came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to explain the evidence that we see in the fossil record. You can read any of his books, which explains it far better than I could.
What lie? I talked about a few transitional fossils in this video. It seems that you agree that little changes can happen, so what is the mechanism that stops those little changes form adding up to equal a big change?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Never the less, let see what the whole quote looks like: "But so far, the basis of these various changes remains unknown: theres an outside possibility that they are induced by leaf eating, and are thus due to the environment rather than genetics. (This seems unlikely — even lizards that are just hatched, and havent had a chance to do much eating, have the valves. But without doing the genetics,...
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
...we cant be sure; until that has been looked at, the changes cannot definitely be attributed to natural selection.) For now, natural selection for efficient plant-eating is the main suspect for this whole suite of changes, but the case is not yet closed."
Well we have looked at the genetics and we have seen that it is a mutation (see the article I have already cited). I mean even from that quote it seems like Dr. Judson does not really know she is just writing a story about it for the news.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
That's the point no one knows why animals adapt. However we observe them adapting all the time. We just don't see simple organisms changing into more complex organisms gradually over time. Evolutionism claims that it has happened billions of times.
mejc2 2 years ago
Animals adapted because there are changes in their environments, which equal some individuals in the population to have a higher fitness. Because of that, they pass down more of their genes than the individuals that are not fit for that environment. This is simple biology again. I asked this in the other comment; you seem to agree that organism can change over time, why cannot those changes over longer periods equal bigger changes?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
The reason small changes don't ad up to bigger changes is unknown. We don't know why there is a limit to how big organisms can grow, or why there is a limit to how long something can live, or why you can only go so high in sugar content of a plant. We do know however, that these limits exist and we reach them all the time in agriculture and husbandry.
mejc2 2 years ago
So your creation hypothesis does not have a prediction for the mechanism that stops evolution? Sounds like a really weak hypothesis if it cannot predict something so fundamental to your argument.
But again, the fossil record shows that there is no limit to the amount of change life can go through. Like I stated earlier, I pointed out just a few transitional life forms. There are thousands more.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Even if you call it "transitional fossil" it's still fake. In this sense, taken together it's a "fake transitional fossil". Again, the key word is not "missing," "link," "transitional" or "fossil" but the word "FAKE". If the basis of your theory is fraudulent then its not reliable. If it's not reliable, then the only thing they are good for is deceiving people. Therefore, what you are peddling isn't a credible theory anymore but a fraud.
Jossher700 3 years ago
They are not fake simply because you say they are. These fossils represent past life that are best understood using the theory of evolution. Moreover, you have yet to show that the theory of evolution is wrong. If you would provide some evidence that any of these fossils are fake then you might have a leg to stand on. your are using circler logic that starts off with a lie.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You're not paying attention. I quoted an article saying that Dawson faked the Piltdown Man and Haeckel's University found that he faked the embryo drawings. It is also interesting that Johanson "found" "Lucy" just before his grant was about to run out. That didn't come from me. Lying under oath is perjury. And publishing materials that is based on fraud is misrepresentation.
Jossher700 3 years ago
You are not quoting anything special. Everyone knows that Piltdown man was a fake and everyone knows that Haeckels drawings were faked as well. Other scientists using the theory of evolution exposed both.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Johanson discovery is not made less creditable just because he did it right before his grant was about to run out. In addition, Johanson did not just found one specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, but he found about a dozen. Since than many anthropologists have found many specimens of A. afarensis, so if it were a fakes they would have been exposed by now, just as Piltdown man was.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
It does make it less credible. There is bias and motive involved.
Jossher700 3 years ago
There is bias and motive that he found specimens of a transitional life form. That has been verifiable by many different scientists. It seems like you are just paranoid. What would be theses biases and motives that all these different scientists would have?
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Yes, I'm paranoid about fakes. Especially when it is purposely done to deceive people. But I guess you DON'T CARE about this. His motive comes from being able to continue to receive grant money because he was SPECIFICALLY given a grant to find the missing link. In most states and most countries that would be a crime. They call that "Embezzlement". In Civil Code countries they call that "Estafa."
Jossher700 3 years ago
He was not given a grant to find a missing link. There are already many transitional forms know before A. afarensis was found, including A. africanus, H. erectus, and H. habilis just to name a few. He was given a grant to find hominins and he found so. What I am saying is that they have verified that he has found a new species of hominin. They have also found many different specimen of this hominin, not just Lucy.
Get your facts straight.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Your sources might be a little old. That is why you still cling to evolution. Check out the website evolutiontale(dot)com.
Jossher700 3 years ago
My sources are found on Google scholar (you should try using that some time) and the reason it still clings to evolution is that nothing has come up to disprove it. I have been to that website; it is a website of propaganda.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Your source is Google? Is Google an acceptable authoritative source? Hmmm. I still have yet to read a scientific or medical journal that cites "Google" as an authority.
Jossher700 3 years ago
I said Google scholar, have you ever used it. That is a place were you can find scientific and medical journals on line and down load the PDF of their articles. Are you that ignorant of how to use Google? I also like how you are trying to misinterpret what I said to try to make me look stupid.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I can foresee you'll have a hard time passing your thesis or writing requirement to get your degree. I don't think citing "Google" would fly before the panel of professors who'll judge your thesis.
Jossher700 3 years ago
As I said, I guess Google scholar to find source. Maybe you should try it some time. Just type in evolution into Google scholar and see what you come up with.
It is funny how willfully ignorant you are and how you try to make my position appear stupid. Nevertheless, by doing so you only show how foolish you truly are.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
The sad thing is that few know about Satan's deception. The New World Order didn't start in this century. Satan has been working on it since the tower of babel. Deception is not only in the area of evolution but in government, economics and world events. People who still believe in theories that evolution is the origin of life, that the federal reserve is part of the federal gov't and has nothing to do with the current economic crisis, that 911 was carried out by Al Quaeda need to wake up fast.
Jossher700 3 years ago
Your ignorance is astonishing. If you truly believe that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life than you are the one that needs to wake up. Believing something that stupid explains a lot about you.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I guess you also believe that Oswald, the lone gunman, shot Pres. Kennedy. Are you awake yet?
Jossher700 3 years ago
No, it was the comedian on the grassy Nome.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Comment removed
Jossher700 3 years ago
Comment removed
Jossher700 3 years ago
Calling people ignorant won't help you. Especially considering the fact that you are not done with college yet. The fact that one doesn't agree with your theory doesn't make one ignorant. When you are done with your college degree and have attained three or more professional or masters degrees will be the time you can call me ignorant.
Jossher700 3 years ago
I only call you ignorant because you have demonstrated that you are. With statements that show, you do not know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and states think that evolution is abiogenesis and the big bang theory. You have more than proven yourself ignorant of the subject of evolution. This would not be an insult if you were willing to learn. I myself am ignorant of a great many number of things, but I am willing to learn and found out about them.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
No, I am willing to learn. That's why I am engaged in a debate which raises a lot of questions. I think this is akin to the "Socratic method" of learning.
Jossher700 3 years ago
This is not a debate, if anything this is a discussion but most likely it is just an argument. Furthermore, you have not raised any questions that are not already answer, which shows how little you have looked into this subject. If you were truly willing to learn that you would do some research on your own and not just on some creationists propaganda site. Like I said before, try switch Google to Google scholar and typing in evolution and see what you find.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"Missing link found...so how can we call them missing?" You're playing semantics. The key word isn't only "missing" it also includes the word "link." Where's the link? Is it conclusive and irrebuttable proof to be classified as science? Is it observable? Can the process be repeated?
Jossher700 3 years ago
The only reason I said missing links is because creationist as yourself like to call them that. If one has taken a comparative anatomy class it is quite easy to see how one species of has transited into another. Using the fossil that are found scientist can count the shared derived traits and ancestral traits to create a cladograms. Using statistical annuluses they create cladograms which show which creatures are sister taxa.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
The original title of Charles Darwin's book is "On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Favored races? Charles Darwin wasn't only a deceiver (he plagiarized the evolution theory) he is a believer in favored races like Hitler and Occultist Madame Blavatsky.
Jossher700 3 years ago
First off, Darwin did not plagiarize his idea. He even co-authored it with Wallace, who came up with they theory of natural selection independently of Darwin. Ideas of evolution were around long before Darwin or Wallace, but they came up with the mechanism which drives evolution (natural selection).
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You didn't personally witness it so whatever you say is merely hearsay. The theory of evolution has existed even b4 Darwin. Race means the same thing as it was meant during Darwin's time. That's why Hitler had 6 million Jews killed because he thought they weren't favored RACES. But hey, if you believe your granpa is an ape be my guest. As for my I know God created me. The human body has a spirit as oppose to animals. Unfortunately, evolution can't explain it.
Jossher700 3 years ago
Hearsay because I did not personally witness it? Sorry I am not 150 years old, but I guess that would make all of history hearsay, including your bible. Do you really think that is a good argument? No race did not mean the same, and Hitler did not know the first thing about evolution and used christian propaganda more than he ever used science to unite Germany.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Catholic propaganda yes. Christian propaganda no. Don't confuse Catholicism with Christianity. They are not the same. If you think they are then you are deceived for the same reason you got deceived by evolution. "In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Jossher700 3 years ago
I do not care if catholics are christian or whatever.
This argument is not a theists one, this argument it one about the natural world. As I said before one can accept a god and evolution. Only the truly ignorant believe that they cannot be accepted together. Moreover, from the look of things you are both truly and willfully.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
That's precisely it. You don't care.
Jossher700 3 years ago
Yes, I believe my grandfather is an ape, just as I believe that you are an ape and I am still an ape. The term ape is just nomenclature used to classify living organism. Humans happen to share all the traits with the other apes, which makes us an ape. In addition, one can accept a god an evolution they are not polar opposites.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
The fact I believe in Superman and Batman doesn't make them real.
Jossher700 3 years ago
You believe in Superman and Batman? That explains a lot.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I suggest you finish school first. You don't know how to argue intelligently.
Jossher700 3 years ago
I am already done with high school and I am about to graduate with a Bachelors in Science. I wonder what your highest degree is. I would not bet anything higher than middles school with your lack of understand how how science works.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I wasn't referring to high school. I specifically said you weren't done with college yet. Again, pay attention.
Jossher700 3 years ago
It would be plain to anyone that would read this exchange, that you are the one that is in need of an education. You are having problems with basics here.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Did I pretend to be a science major? Did I mislead you to think that I was arguing science? The real issue here is whether evolution is truth or deception.
Jossher700 3 years ago
That is a scientific question. I do not know if you were pretending to be a science major, but you did fail if you were trying. If we were talking about gravity or the theory of lift, it would be an argument about science. That is why this is also an argument of science.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
That was an example. You argue like a child. Oh sorry, are you a child?
Jossher700 3 years ago
Now you just though insults because you do not know how to rebuttal. This is funny.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Second, when Darwin wrote his book race did not mean the same thing as we think of it today, you do know language and the words within language change. Darwin used the word race to mean species, much like many people of his time. But, even if Darwin was a horrible racist it still would mean nothing. Because within science, ideas stand on their own merit, not on the merit of the person proposing them. And evolution through natural selection has as much merit as any other theory in science today.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
If the evolution theory is so reliable, it would not need to be faked to prove it. Haekel's drawings of the human embryo likened to an animal's was found to be fake by his own University. Any four year old knows that dogs do not come from rocks even with the passing of time. Any person claiming to be a scientist who believes in this delusion should sue their schools for misrepresenting the truth.
Jossher700 3 years ago
Haekels drawings were based on Lamarks ideas of evolution, so of course they were wrong. In addition, they were proven wrong by other science using evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, Haekels basic idea was right. You can look up real pictures for yourself that show how all embryos start off with the same traits but later change into what we see when they are born.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Of course, dogs do not come from rocks; no one is saying they do. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life it only deals with how after life got started it is still here on this ever-changing planet. It is not a delusion and from the claims you are making I can tell that you have never done your own research into this subject past reading a creationists propaganda website.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I am oversimplifying the argument but in the last analysis that's what evolutionists believe in. That all living things came from non-living elements though, e.g. the "big bang," "primordial soup." But hey if you believe your ancestors came from a can of Campbell's soup knock yourself out. :)
Jossher700 3 years ago
The theory of evolution, as I said before, does not deal with the origins of life. You are talking about abiogenesis, which is not the same as evolution. Right now abiogenesis is nothing more than a hand full of hypothesis, but it does not matter which one is true because it has nothing to do with evolution. That means a god could have created life and it still would not take anything away from the theory of evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
It does because the Bible says God created man. It doesn't say God created man by having him evolve from the apes who in turn evolved from other living forms originating from the primordial soup. Big difference. It's the difference between the truth and the lie. But I guess you DON'T CARE about this difference.
Jossher700 3 years ago
So evolution is not hypothesis? What does the word "theory" before the phrase "Theory of Evolution" mean?
Jossher700 3 years ago
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Thanks for clarifying that. So I guess "Theory of Evolution" should be known as "Hypothesis of Evolution" because it is mere conjecture.
Jossher700 3 years ago
It is not conjecture, as I have said before evolution is defined as the change in allelic frequencies over time. That has been observed repeatedly. So that means it is a theory in a scientific context. I have made a video about this entitled Evolution: Good Science.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Comment removed
Jossher700 3 years ago
So you are saying that someone actually observed repeatedly an ape become a human being before their very eyes?
Jossher700 3 years ago
Humans are still apes; just like human are still mammals and vertebrates. This is simple nomenclature. Humans are in the order primate, and under that, we are in the family Hominidae that includes the great apes and ourselves. The same system that classes us that classes us as Mammalia and Chordata. Moreover, this classification system has been around long before Darwin was born.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Your ignorance of evolution is mind numbing.
An ape changing into a human would go against what evolution would predict simply because humans are apes. Please do some research into phylogenic systematic.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I see. You are saying theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life. But doesn't it discuss the origins of man, the apes and the development of lower LIFE forms? Again you missed the key word "LIFE." So in effect, it does deal with the origins of life because it discusses how life evolved. Evolving from something means originating from something. Therefore, it does deal with the origins of life no matter how you slice it.
Jossher700 3 years ago
It does not deal with the origin of life because by definition evolution is the change in allelic frequency in a population over time. So how could it deal with the origin of life if there were no allele for it to act on? That means evolution only deals with life after it started. So yes, it does deal with the humans and all other life on this planet, but after life was started.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
In addition, big bang theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. That is another completely different science.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
You presented no evolutionary evidence. Only objective. Bacterial flagellum=irreducible complexity. I've actually looked into the quotes from George Wald and that one appears in a number of scientific journals including the Scientific American.
kamkodak 3 years ago
What are you talking about? The evidence for what I was talking about is in the discretion box. I have also gone over the evidence in many of my other videos. One of those source shows that the quote from Wald is a fake. I am sure many of the website you looked at were creationist ones.
Dr. Miller has already shown that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducible complex. There are many videos of his lecture here on youtube where he points out how the flagellum came about from earlier processes.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Evidence? Only evidence that is authenticated is admissible. Was your video authenticated?
Jossher700 3 years ago
kam-
Scientific American is NOT a scientific journal. Go back to school.
ManicEightBall 3 years ago
excellent video. The Creationist propaganda factory is in higher production than ever before!
ytben26 3 years ago
Darwin was pointing out possible objections.
From OTOoS 6th edition, page 280
"It has been asserted over and over again, by writers ... that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion ... is certainly erroneous. Every species is a link between other allied forms. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations. ... But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views.
Minttzz 3 years ago
Thank you for point that out.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I bet evolution can't explain Iron Man! Gotcha, fuckers!
hallelujaallahuakbar 3 years ago
Damn, the secret is out. I hope not many people will see this video, because it would tell them of the evolution conspiracy we have tried to keep secret for so many years.
Larty42 3 years ago 2
NO NOT THE DREADED NEBRASKA MAN! WHY CAN'T WE KEEP THAT A SECRET!?! As for piltdown man I wonder if anyone truly knows the amount of frauds that came about during that time also (mostly in archaeology)? Archaeology is false because the Etruscan terracotta warriors statues were frauds.
hanzo138 3 years ago
Are Creationists are this ignorance? But I guessed repeated lies long enough then hopefully it will became true. All of these claims has been debunked over and over already
alliancesigns 3 years ago
excellent vid :)
SurferRosa79 3 years ago