These scientific theories on sex are so contradictory... The advantages of sex don't even convincingly outweigh the disadvantages - such as the transmission of STDs. If evolution was to weed out the weak characteristics sex should have been eliminated all races should be asexual. But then you say sex can also prevent diseases and strengthen a species with the mixing of genes. Then I say if that was the ultimate case for evolution sticking with sex, why aren't there 3 genders for the humans?
@binyaminb You have to remember that this is a Theory on the origin of sexual reproduction. This means that this would have been happening billions of years ago when all the earth had was, it's theorized, the primal ooze and the environment.
I found the article cited regarding novel enzymes, and I found it interesting how the term "novel enzymes" is nowhere to be found in the article. I'm no biology expert, but the article appears to be about fitness landscape adaptation, not enzyme creation from completely random processes.
Who wants to place bets that hooseydaddy (whatever) is also an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denier and a Holocaust denier? No how much proof you shove down their throats, they will deny it.
actually RESEARCH it, and then decide. cdk007 has made a video on abiogenesis (it's called "the origin of life - abiogenesis - Dr Jack Szostak", and during it you will learn what abiogenesis really is, not what you think it is.
@hooseyadaddy Every comment you've just said shows me you didn't even watch this video. And seriously, your first comment said that this hypothesis was ridiculous because multi-cellular animals don't fuse during sexual reproduction. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! And by the way, you're right about the fact that life couldn't have formed spontaneously, and that's why no scientist has suggested the possibility for about 150 years! Instead of ranting about how abiogenesis is nonsense, (continued)
Sexual reproduction is good for evolution, therefore primitiive eukaryotic cells evolved sexual reproduction and all plants and animals continued this legacy evolving complex strutures for sex, hormones, brain links, structures and everything else. Pure crap.
@luisolf Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is bullshit. I think that a reasoned discussion with someone who is educated on the topic would help you to recognize that it is actually a well supported theory.
ahh... fail.. lets look at multi cell complex organisms that dont join and split like that.. there are many super complex organisms that reproduce asexually ie whiptail lizard so this flys in the face of evolution as well, saying it was needed to evolve faster and to higher forms.. again at somepoint this meiosis garbage has to stop because the organism has become too complex to self replicate by just spliting or joining another. So here enters eggs and sexual reproduction. now figure that out.
@hooseyadaddy This comment is total nonsense and demonstrates a misunderstanding of parthenogenesis at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst. You have offered no evidence here that would disprove evolution. In fact, the example of parthenogenesis is well in line with the tenets of evolution and, indeed, only adds more weight to the theory.
@L571J youve given no evidence to prove sexual reproduction can randomly mutate.. and you and evos never will.. not to mention why would anything lose the ability to reproduce asexually and sexually? thats the best of both worlds! So how could losing asexual reproduction be a benefit?
@hooseyadaddy Asexual reproduction is less costly than sexual reproduction, but it results in clonal species that evolve very slowly and are prone to catastrophic death from disease and other factors. Sexual reproduction offers a huge advantage in terms of diversity via recombination during prophase I of meiosis I. The gain in variation easily offsets the energy penalties as it allows for more rapid evolution and thus exploitation of novel resources/niches.
@hooseyadaddy It isn't sexual reproduction that is mutating, it is the genes that govern the cell cycle (at least initially). There is a great deal of molecular evidence to support this. Of course, you could do us all a favor and just say that you believe in god and no amount of evidence or logic is going to convince you to change your mind.
@L571J lol where?... wheres the hard evidence and not some crazy theory..? there is none.. and God and evolution can coexist.... but random mutation is not the answer in this case.. as with many cases in evolution...
@L571J i wont admit something is scientific fact when there is no evidence.. U have none.. And never will... for the origins of life, asexual to sexual reproduction, why we can see or hear, evolution of higher lifeforms, consciousness, metamorphosis, the list goes on and on.. cant happen randomly.. for little things evolution works, for other things.. not so much.. Evo's stories are grander than most you'll find in the bible! lol just fyi im not a literal creationists..
@L571J lmao i have.. and numerous other scientific sites.. Im very well read on the subjucts of evolution and abiogenesis.. but u know how i know scientists dont have the answer to the creation of life or sexual reproduction?.. all u have to do is google it.. not one major story in the news ever.. theres a bunch of competing theories but they dont know.. they are guessing... they will never know.. Y? because life didnt randomly and spontaneously form.. its impossible...
@gargantacortador lmao.. im the idiot? THere is no proof. 75% of evo is all guess work and story telling.. Which is exactly what this was.. but laid out in a way that people will believe it. Not one major article that sceintists have figured it out for sure. But evo is still presumed as the answer, nevermind that you cant prove it..
Yes. You're absolutely right. There's not one major article about scientists proving evolution. There's certainly none cited in this very video. We definitely don't see the fruits of evolutionary theory in every issue of every biology periodical. We can't search PubMed and instantly find millions of evolutionary papers.
You must be so smart to have overturned evolution all on your own against the hundreds of thousands of experts and scientists. Hah, what do they know, anyways?
@rkyeun there isnt.. the papers cited dont prove anything.. yet u still beiieve whole heartedly.. thats foolish and non science.. BTW a "concensus" in the scientific community does not mean "fact" or proof of anything.. thats not science but a belief system.. ie "because this scientist believes so, so do i" if u watch the video its not saying anything for fact but "we think this is how it happened" "couldve happened"... not for fact "this is how it happened"
1) The theory of evolution is the more strongly backed by evidence across multiple fields of study than any other theory in modern science.
2) Evolution is not a belief system, but a scientific theory. It is not dogmatic nor does it have a set of guidelines that those in the belief system should adhere to.
3) Facts can be best defined as "evidence". Scientific theories are the explanation of a group of facts.
4) All scientific theories are required to be falsifiable.
@hooseyadaddy True by strict scientific definition, a theory can never be proven. However by most standards of proof the theory evolution already has been. The same can't be said of general relativity.
@hooseyadaddy Here is an even more interesting aspect of reproduction, temperature, birth order, and a variety of other factors can determine gender. In crocodiles, for instance, high temperature favors males and low temperature favors females. There are biologic mechanisms that explain this and it is just one of myriad variations of reproduction, all of which are the result of natural selection.
So in short, sex started out with cells fusing and dividing following that fusion? The evidence for basic sexual reproduction can be found in yeast and bacteria that are precusors to what we have today? I will read the papers when I print them out. That isn't too hard to understand, why can't creationists get it?
These cells would have been hermaphroditic along with many simpler organisms like snails. Any thoughts on the benefits of gender-specific sex? Does it just enable advantageous dimorphisms and better mate-seeking?
But, whom do you really feel the need to convince? All of us here know evolution is proven fact (and, I'm sure most of us - myself, too - are atheists). Are there any serious evolution-deniers left to fight?
Yeah - the occasional dumbass congressman may make a statement about it. There's just so many other battles to fight against the religionists (& much worse nowadays: the corporatists).
Not chance really. Molecules undergo chemical reactions when in conditions are introduced to another molecule. Well if by "chance" one of these molecules acts like a catalyst, reforming itself after a reaction only it creates double copies, you have a self replicating molecule.
In a pool of chemicals, the one that makes copies of itself will be more plentiful than those that do not. Nature is not perfect, mistakes/mutations happen. And so on, traits that are useful remain while others do not.
i'm studying this at skool watch this cuz i need to know more about meiosis guess it kind of help, but i need more about meiosis can somebody help me know more about meiosis
High school? Bro high school doesn't in go into shit for depth.
Mitosis - Body cells replicating, by making an exact double copy, and then seperating into two cells, the original, and a clone.
Meiosis- A cell seperates in a similar fashion, BUT the DNA/genes/chromosomes DO NOT replicate, or double in anyway. After splitting they become the Egg, or sperm cell.
Of course it didn't evolve by chance you idiot. NO evolutionary biologist in history has ever thought or said that. If you actually got off your ass and even glanced at the MOUNTAIN of evidence you would see it EVOLVED by simple chemistry. Deal with it.
I read this book on mitochondria called power sex suicide, and it suggests that it was likely the formation of mitochondria that helped trigger some of the earliest forms of sexual recombination. One of the articles you showed said cells would fuse in response to oxidative stress, which is a symptom of damaged mitochondria. A cell with damaged M. would be less fit than others, which would give a strong incentive to fuse with a neighbor; to get better mitochondria.
What hovind says is the truth? Do you even understand the principle of evolution? Why dont you try to explain evolution in 3 sentences or so, lets see how much you really know about it.
evolution is the process that from fundamental biological elements that morph and reproduce by natural selection to become complex living organisms...so..man would be the measure of the fruits of natural process?
but why would evolution..stop at man...what can man possibly evolve to...better sight...we have telescopes...better legs we have...planes...smarter brains we have computers...so there is now the soul of man that can be produced from a person...through a process like mitosis
can any two random cells fuse together?i did get bout unicellular organisms but wat bout multicellular(another video i am guessin :D).they cant fuse wid eachother that simply.they hv to develop complex n complimntary genitals n internal system for fertilization n the survival of zygote
Two random cells? probably not, surface glyco proteins are used as a species id to prevent just that. Although some plants seem to be able to handle triploid or quatraploid genomes and thus have "reproduced" with a completely different species. Look at sea anemones and other stationary sea animals, they simply release millions of single cells to fuse randomly in the water without complex complementary genitalia.
+1 To your sea anemone comment. It is called Broad cast reproduction.
They are also able to clone themselves in the absence of mates using several different methods. They aren`t actually entirely stationary though. However that is beside the point you made.
@whattheworldiscomin2 Dude. Single celled organisms do not, by definition, have genitals. Which it the point. Genitals, bikinis, lip gloss, eHarmony, are all just refinements on a theme simple cells had worked out 2 billion years ago.
I'm reading Matt Ridley's 'The Red Queen' and combining it with watching your videos on sex and life really help understand the whys.
I still have (possibly) silly questions which probably illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what life is. For example why life even reproduces in the first place. I'm sure this is covered in another video so I will look for it.
A point in the right direction would be appreciated though
@piecharthosen Why does life replicate? You are looking at it backwards. There is no why. We CALL it life BECAUSE it reproduces. Because if it did not, it would just be soup. As soon as the first proto-cell started replicating faster than the environment could destroy it, it started dominating the environment. It did not replicate for a reason, but because change and chemical forces caused it to. It still replicates not for a why, but because success breeds success.
I've heard and actually used that argument, but I do not really accept it. It sounds fallacious, in the manner of 'it is because we see it is'.
Anyway, 'there is no why' is a good enough answer for me as long as I remember that there were no 'whys' to begin with. We observe organisms that cannot reproduce even today, and yet they exist as life along with us.
tl;dr: I am okay with the answers provided above and with your answer. Now I wonder what I was thinking before ;D
@piecharthosen What organisms are you thinking of that "cannot reproduce today"? By definition, these cannot persist--they must be created by man or by sterile hybridizaiton (which of course is a perfect example of speciation caught in the act).
Humans look for reasons because it helps us model and anticipate each other. But it often gets in the way of understanding nature, the blind watchmaker. Crystals form because of chemistry. The earliest life was no different--feedback made it complex.
@nothingUnrealExists I was referring to simple examples such as donkeys (which I understand are sterile). Or was I thinking of a mule? In either case, the fact that organisms exist incapable of reproduction helps me understand my initial problem :P
@piecharthosen Although not good natural example because horses and donkeys are both domesticated, mules do illustrate speciation. With common ancestors, horses and donkeys are no longer genetically compatible--almost all mules are sterile--females can occasionally produce offspring w/horse or donkey.
@piecharthosen Species is a human concept. In nature, things are messy. Humans can NEVER breed with chimps—we are totally different species. Donkeys and horses are different species but can ALMOST breed. Polar bears and grizzlys are different species, but only because they don't live in common areas. Where they do, they can an do breed. Because of climate change, polar bears will likely vanish as a species for this reason.
@piecharthosen Once life started, evolution took over and is a positive feedback mechanism (it reproduces because it has machinery to make it so, the better the machinery, the more the organism can dominate the environment. We are the extreme—we can foresee and address limited resources instead of waiting for competition and famine to limit us as it does ALL OTHER SPECIES.
@piecharthosen But why the very first life got started?? Why does a crystal grow? What if, in growing, the crystal could randomly modify its ability to take up the substrate? ANY advantage would quickly dominate the competition. ANY disadvantage would quickly vanish. ANY positive feedback of this time reinforces in a way that appears purposeful. Simple life is like that, only with far more chemistry at its disposal than mere crystals. And is has TIME like no human can imagine—on its side.
@Lucsiferu Yes I know. I'm just drawing a comparison for the bible thumped who have a hard time imagining what is really pretty simple. I spent many an hour in the library reading Syndey Fox's paper back when he was still calling his microspheres "Proteinoids". If only the energy Americas churched waste denying reality could be focused on something productive....
This is really interesting, grate video! I was listening to a program on the radio the other day about this. They were saying that there is good evidence that one of the big advantages of sexual reproduction was as a defense against parasites.When cells reproduce without sex all there offspring are more or less identical which makes them all susceptible to a parasite that is successful against one of them. Sex mixes up the DNA enough to make them more resistant. Its a fascinating area of science
Ahh nice tidbit of info there...now its all coming into place...and it sounds so straight forward once it clicks in....i mean of course the mixing of dna would be a defense strategy! thx
to answer andea: i believe the benefit to having male AND female apose to being able to breed with anyone and possessing all things needed to breed also with yourself (being asexual with sexual capabilities) is that it streamlines the process. a person doesnt need all the parts, so there is less things to keep up, and less gametes need made (a man need only make sperm, a woman only eggs. if you had both you need to make sperms and eggs) plus less sexual organs need maintained.
>But the deeper question is why is there sexual dimorphism at all?
I guess that it has to do with cost. Having both male and female parts in one body is more biologically expensive and complex than just flipping some bits to different functions in an all male vs all female body. Especially one of the organisms needs to provide special nurturing capabilities it frees the other individual to go do something else, it would be inefficient for them both to have to provide the same function.
Also you dont have to accpt what i say, cos i believe i am dumb, u are dumb, everyone is dumb, my view in life is that evolutionist are cock suckers like religious ppl, to be honest i jus hate ppl like this guy who made the video what a gay voice and way of talking, u get these type of ppl in religion also, but anyway life is meaningless so i cant sit here complaining about him when i believe everyone everything is meaningless im horny i might jerk of to a naked 2 year old girl
errr ummm the scientific theory was discovered by newton just like the scientific theory of evolution was discovered by Darwin, if someone who beleives in evolution is a darwinist, then anyone who beleives in gravity is a NEWTONIST. so ther efor you are a newtonist. since you believe gravity is what srtops you from flying.......stupid cocksucker
the guys voice is so nasty..some times evolution can be negative i mean the voice sounds retarded specially when u get angry calmd own u nerd. anyway this video is proof evolution is weird...cos it shows how we are like bacteria jus grow to populate our enviroment...but its a fact most humans dont give a shit...what is the explantion of this human behaviour ? evolution created a creature called humans who are suicidal in nature? human race is the only race that leads to self destuction
I actually think it's the other way around. Sure many of us don't want to have pooping, crying children, but there are 7 billion humans, that's a respectable number. We erected buildings and gates and crap so we do a better job of surviving against our natural enemies, and now we basically don't have any, which is why our numbers continue to raise to the point of yelling shit at each other because of traffic jams.
if thats true, why on ur profile do u have hatred towards muhammad, u jus gave a reason why ppl become evil and yelling shit at each other, so u cannot hate muhammad when we humans are leading to a decline in population
There are good arguments against being self-fertile. Or at least, being self-fertile by default, as opposed to during stressful environmental conditions. But the deeper question is why is there sexual dimorphism at all? For this argument, let us define "sex type" as a derivative concept. Sex-type is any n-type morphology, where not all members of the species possess simultaneously all features required for reproduction.
I am not trying to sound patronizing I am just up too late and I am trying to wrap my mind around you're string of comments/questions.
So I think what your getting at is why not just evolve to be self replicating hermaphrodites?
Or could we, even we need to.
And if not, then f**k it, I just asked the question.
It depends on if you consider biotechnology evolution. It is absolutely possible that sometime in the future we could engineer our offspring without losing genetic diversity.
In other words, sex-type is merely a combinatorial function upon the stages needed for reproduction. This can be seen as a generalisation of the trad F & M physiological scheme in humans, whereby F =(def) ovaries + XX chromosomal type + production of ova; and M =(def) testes + XY + production of sperm.
I emphasis the derivative nature of physiological sex-type, to make plain that scientific research in pursuit of the true essence of such sex-types, let alone psycho-social constructs such as gender identity and gender role, is essentially a metaphysical red-herring. At the risk of sounding paradoxical, there are no essential or natural types, merely scientific definitions currently agreed upon by convention.
As you say, the essence, so to speak, of sexual reproduction is not the X/Y sex-determination system, nor so-called primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but the two stage system of diplophase and haplophase, with meiosis and syngamy as linkages from one to the other (eg Kondrashov 1988).
Now, we lucky XX chromosomal types (assuming standard morphology rather than natal intersex or trans surgery) can do all five steps, but we require the supply of the other fraction of the genetic code at (b), traditionally obtained by f*cking some good looking XY person, though syringes and teaspoons are serviceable ;-)
If we were all self replicating hermaphrodites everyone's descendants would become horribly inbreed. Sure you would be able to reshuffle and mutate the DNA you had, but....
Where would new DNA come from?
Evolutionarily speaking the real sustained advantage to sexual reproduction would be the expanse of the gene pool. Self replicating would remove that organism from the gene pool.
There might be some increased costs in all persons carrying the complete physiology for reproduction, but whatever these costs might be, they seem (i) trivial, and lost in the noise of natural variation within a species, and (ii) outweighed by not having to search for members of a different sex-type in order to get fertilised. We would still have all the evolutionary joys of frequency of genetic recombination and mate choice.
Regards and ♥, andrea the Complete Sex and Gender Rebel, who wishes people would stop classifying themselves as women or men.
PS: I remark with the relish of my Feminazi side that since we happy XX people can now technologically extract the other haploid half of the code from each other and do IVF, XY is redundant. How beautiful the world will be, when the further step is taken and bio-chemistry and/or genetic modification leads to no more XY people ;-) .
"In case you want to make the argument, 'Where did the internal actin cytoskeleton in eukaryotes come from?'..."
It isn't an argument, it's a question. When people are allowed to think that it is an argument, they succumb to the appeal to ignorance strategy that creationists use.
But it would only be a matter of time befor you all would go into choas and kill eachother., But feel free. I have to die anyways, and this way, i dont go out like a bitch.
Why should we? Pretty bad survival/reproduction strategy you've got there.. Maybe we'd be doing us both a favor by killing you - you go to heaven, we get more resources.
The Earth is only important to us because we need it to survive. Killing ourselves to save Earth would be like selling your car to get money for petrol. Why conserve something if we're no longer going to need it?
Being religious and agreeing with evolution isn't impossible, I never said that. If you are a creationist christian, that DOES mean you cannot accept evolution, unless you change your belief - you cannot believe that a god created everything as it is now and believe that everything evolved to the way it is today simultaneously. I'm not saying you are a creationist, im agreeing with you, and stating that creationists cannot believe in both situations, it would be hypocritical.
Evolutionist is a british term? fuck off, british evolutionary biologists are called, um, evolutionary biologists. Only creationists use the term, evolutionist.
This seems to be one of the weaker videos in the series. It is hard to watch because of all the references to other videos and things already covered (including the exasperation of irreducible complexity). By the time you get to the conclusion, its hard to follow and I found myself saying (twice now) ... that I do not see how the conclusion is so obvious.
i do not see evolution in direct contrast to the bible. also evolution just makes sense. religion is all about faith and what makes you feel whole, but it should not be allowed to stand in the way of human progress and understanding of the universe that we live in.
i do not understand why atheists and theists have to fight constantly god damn just leave one another alone. as long as faith doesn't stand in the way of human progress everything is good. i am under constant PM attack from both atheists and theists i guess that's the problem of being in the middle.
"as long as faith doesn't stand in the way of human progress everything is good."
1) My channel is not about atheists v religion, though that's what it so often falls into. It is about education v ignorance.
2) If you read the quote of many of the creationists on YT, you will see that their thinking, if allowed to go mainstream, would stand in the way of human progress. They are potholes on the intellectual super highway.
i know. they are inept in theology, and all sciences so they constantly embarrass me. I would usually chime in on religion but by the time i get to a video the other 16 year old christian kids have already effectively stirred up the hornets nest and made us all look like a joke.
anyway i also do not like this trend they have of fighting with documented scientific fact. they have become so active against science that now they are no longer a nuisance but a danger to our schools and nations.
"If you read the quote of many of the creationists on YT, you will see that their thinking, if allowed to go mainstream, would stand in the way of human progress. They are potholes on the intellectual super highway."
ill ditto that ...and im not an atheist
creationists are ignorant ...ignorance shouldnt spread, period ..and scientific ignorance is dangerous
Thank you so much for "The Origin" series. There are many atheist out there who think they are alone or few and its people like you who help unite us. Thank you again and keep the videos coming !!!
You know, I do miss the videos that were set purely to music.
dented42 1 month ago in playlist Origins the Series
Very good explanation about this topic congrats ☺
HOMININESAPIENS 1 month ago in playlist Damnant quod non intelligunt
This has been flagged as spam show
super animation dignes des studos pixar......pour une démonstration aussi mauvaise que son graphisme
sabsom 1 month ago in playlist Damnant quod non intelligunt
super animation dignes des studos pixar......pour une démonstration aussi mauvaise que son graphisme
sabsom 1 month ago in playlist Damnant quod non intelligunt
5:07 you might mean "DNA damage repair" instead of "mutation repair". Mutation is an effect of unrepaired damage.
r0galik 3 months ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
These scientific theories on sex are so contradictory... The advantages of sex don't even convincingly outweigh the disadvantages - such as the transmission of STDs. If evolution was to weed out the weak characteristics sex should have been eliminated all races should be asexual. But then you say sex can also prevent diseases and strengthen a species with the mixing of genes. Then I say if that was the ultimate case for evolution sticking with sex, why aren't there 3 genders for the humans?
binyaminb 3 months ago
@binyaminb
I don't think early simple-cell organisms and sea creatures were worried too much about STDs.
dookdawg214 2 months ago
@binyaminb You have to remember that this is a Theory on the origin of sexual reproduction. This means that this would have been happening billions of years ago when all the earth had was, it's theorized, the primal ooze and the environment.
CruelSculpture 2 months ago
this so fake. in any biology book say this is proved
pinadeiro 3 months ago
I found the article cited regarding novel enzymes, and I found it interesting how the term "novel enzymes" is nowhere to be found in the article. I'm no biology expert, but the article appears to be about fitness landscape adaptation, not enzyme creation from completely random processes.
ChristianPeart 3 months ago
i have a proiject on it
Keeshara143 4 months ago
Who wants to place bets that hooseydaddy (whatever) is also an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denier and a Holocaust denier? No how much proof you shove down their throats, they will deny it.
mphello 6 months ago
ouch my head! but i'm really interested
Subscribed and thumps up
Essa0601 9 months ago
this is the most boring shit i ever watched
Pigziggy 9 months ago
@Pigziggy
I'm very sorry you found it boring. I found it fascinating even though I did not understand it wholly.
June28July 7 months ago
actually RESEARCH it, and then decide. cdk007 has made a video on abiogenesis (it's called "the origin of life - abiogenesis - Dr Jack Szostak", and during it you will learn what abiogenesis really is, not what you think it is.
Mr12345EGGNOG 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Every comment you've just said shows me you didn't even watch this video. And seriously, your first comment said that this hypothesis was ridiculous because multi-cellular animals don't fuse during sexual reproduction. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! And by the way, you're right about the fact that life couldn't have formed spontaneously, and that's why no scientist has suggested the possibility for about 150 years! Instead of ranting about how abiogenesis is nonsense, (continued)
Mr12345EGGNOG 10 months ago
Sexual reproduction is good for evolution, therefore primitiive eukaryotic cells evolved sexual reproduction and all plants and animals continued this legacy evolving complex strutures for sex, hormones, brain links, structures and everything else. Pure crap.
luisolf 1 year ago
This is pure bullshit.
luisolf 1 year ago
@luisolf Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is bullshit. I think that a reasoned discussion with someone who is educated on the topic would help you to recognize that it is actually a well supported theory.
L571J 10 months ago
ahh... fail.. lets look at multi cell complex organisms that dont join and split like that.. there are many super complex organisms that reproduce asexually ie whiptail lizard so this flys in the face of evolution as well, saying it was needed to evolve faster and to higher forms.. again at somepoint this meiosis garbage has to stop because the organism has become too complex to self replicate by just spliting or joining another. So here enters eggs and sexual reproduction. now figure that out.
hooseyadaddy 1 year ago
@hooseyadaddy This comment is total nonsense and demonstrates a misunderstanding of parthenogenesis at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst. You have offered no evidence here that would disprove evolution. In fact, the example of parthenogenesis is well in line with the tenets of evolution and, indeed, only adds more weight to the theory.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J youve given no evidence to prove sexual reproduction can randomly mutate.. and you and evos never will.. not to mention why would anything lose the ability to reproduce asexually and sexually? thats the best of both worlds! So how could losing asexual reproduction be a benefit?
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Asexual reproduction is less costly than sexual reproduction, but it results in clonal species that evolve very slowly and are prone to catastrophic death from disease and other factors. Sexual reproduction offers a huge advantage in terms of diversity via recombination during prophase I of meiosis I. The gain in variation easily offsets the energy penalties as it allows for more rapid evolution and thus exploitation of novel resources/niches.
L571J 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy It isn't sexual reproduction that is mutating, it is the genes that govern the cell cycle (at least initially). There is a great deal of molecular evidence to support this. Of course, you could do us all a favor and just say that you believe in god and no amount of evidence or logic is going to convince you to change your mind.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J lol where?... wheres the hard evidence and not some crazy theory..? there is none.. and God and evolution can coexist.... but random mutation is not the answer in this case.. as with many cases in evolution...
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Like I said, just admit you'll never leave your beliefs behind no matter what the evidence.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J i wont admit something is scientific fact when there is no evidence.. U have none.. And never will... for the origins of life, asexual to sexual reproduction, why we can see or hear, evolution of higher lifeforms, consciousness, metamorphosis, the list goes on and on.. cant happen randomly.. for little things evolution works, for other things.. not so much.. Evo's stories are grander than most you'll find in the bible! lol just fyi im not a literal creationists..
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy There is plenty of evidence, you just don't want to accept it. That is your choice, but don't lie about it.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J lmao.. point me to it.. real scientific evidence not crazy stories...
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy talkorigins[dotorg]/faqs/comdesc/
That should get you started. Probably take you a good month of solid reading to get through, so talk to you in a while.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J um yeah.. that link is not working... IM it to me.. but ive read pretty much everything on talkorigins so im pretty sure ive already read it..
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Sure you have. Don't lie.
L571J 10 months ago
@L571J lmao i have.. and numerous other scientific sites.. Im very well read on the subjucts of evolution and abiogenesis.. but u know how i know scientists dont have the answer to the creation of life or sexual reproduction?.. all u have to do is google it.. not one major story in the news ever.. theres a bunch of competing theories but they dont know.. they are guessing... they will never know.. Y? because life didnt randomly and spontaneously form.. its impossible...
hooseyadaddy 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Okay
L571J 10 months ago
@hooseyadaddy you are an idiot.... obviously it will be impossible to reason with you
gargantacortador 6 months ago
@gargantacortador lmao.. im the idiot? THere is no proof. 75% of evo is all guess work and story telling.. Which is exactly what this was.. but laid out in a way that people will believe it. Not one major article that sceintists have figured it out for sure. But evo is still presumed as the answer, nevermind that you cant prove it..
hooseyadaddy 6 months ago
@hooseyadaddy
Yes. You're absolutely right. There's not one major article about scientists proving evolution. There's certainly none cited in this very video. We definitely don't see the fruits of evolutionary theory in every issue of every biology periodical. We can't search PubMed and instantly find millions of evolutionary papers.
You must be so smart to have overturned evolution all on your own against the hundreds of thousands of experts and scientists. Hah, what do they know, anyways?
rkyeun 6 months ago
@rkyeun there isnt.. the papers cited dont prove anything.. yet u still beiieve whole heartedly.. thats foolish and non science.. BTW a "concensus" in the scientific community does not mean "fact" or proof of anything.. thats not science but a belief system.. ie "because this scientist believes so, so do i" if u watch the video its not saying anything for fact but "we think this is how it happened" "couldve happened"... not for fact "this is how it happened"
hooseyadaddy 6 months ago
@hooseyadaddy False.
1) The theory of evolution is the more strongly backed by evidence across multiple fields of study than any other theory in modern science.
2) Evolution is not a belief system, but a scientific theory. It is not dogmatic nor does it have a set of guidelines that those in the belief system should adhere to.
3) Facts can be best defined as "evidence". Scientific theories are the explanation of a group of facts.
4) All scientific theories are required to be falsifiable.
Larkinized2010 4 months ago
@hooseyadaddy True by strict scientific definition, a theory can never be proven. However by most standards of proof the theory evolution already has been. The same can't be said of general relativity.
"75% of evo" Evidence please.
SuperMerlin100 5 months ago
@hooseyadaddy Here is an even more interesting aspect of reproduction, temperature, birth order, and a variety of other factors can determine gender. In crocodiles, for instance, high temperature favors males and low temperature favors females. There are biologic mechanisms that explain this and it is just one of myriad variations of reproduction, all of which are the result of natural selection.
L571J 10 months ago
cdk007, thank you for educating us and your time.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
So in short, sex started out with cells fusing and dividing following that fusion? The evidence for basic sexual reproduction can be found in yeast and bacteria that are precusors to what we have today? I will read the papers when I print them out. That isn't too hard to understand, why can't creationists get it?
HybridD91 1 year ago
These cells would have been hermaphroditic along with many simpler organisms like snails. Any thoughts on the benefits of gender-specific sex? Does it just enable advantageous dimorphisms and better mate-seeking?
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
so it was an accident? there once was a cell named quagmire...
echidnavampire 1 year ago
◕‿◕ Islam destroys atheism & evolution by Modern Scientific facts & Google Earth on my TV tube ◕‿◕
anashkhss 1 year ago
@anashkhss Lol..Those Smilies tare worthless...
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2 Yes it did.
See where baseless assertions get you?
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
Great video! Very informative!
But, whom do you really feel the need to convince? All of us here know evolution is proven fact (and, I'm sure most of us - myself, too - are atheists). Are there any serious evolution-deniers left to fight?
Yeah - the occasional dumbass congressman may make a statement about it. There's just so many other battles to fight against the religionists (& much worse nowadays: the corporatists).
duck24x 1 year ago
HAWT CELL PORN ~!!!11!11!
FakeIdolatry 1 year ago
Bow chicka wow wow.......
Sh0nin 2 years ago
It's them damn communist atheists who must show evidence of not creationism!
(joke)
justforflag2 2 years ago
But, but, but... it's still a worm! You didn't show us a worm giving birth to a kitten, therefore God did it. :) (Chill, this comment is a joke.)
FairCogent 2 years ago
Not chance really. Molecules undergo chemical reactions when in conditions are introduced to another molecule. Well if by "chance" one of these molecules acts like a catalyst, reforming itself after a reaction only it creates double copies, you have a self replicating molecule.
In a pool of chemicals, the one that makes copies of itself will be more plentiful than those that do not. Nature is not perfect, mistakes/mutations happen. And so on, traits that are useful remain while others do not.
DamienZshadow 2 years ago
i'm studying this at skool watch this cuz i need to know more about meiosis guess it kind of help, but i need more about meiosis can somebody help me know more about meiosis
miguel4840 2 years ago
High school? Bro high school doesn't in go into shit for depth.
Mitosis - Body cells replicating, by making an exact double copy, and then seperating into two cells, the original, and a clone.
Meiosis- A cell seperates in a similar fashion, BUT the DNA/genes/chromosomes DO NOT replicate, or double in anyway. After splitting they become the Egg, or sperm cell.
Mduenisch 2 years ago
uh,...dude, im in middle school, not high
miguel4840 2 years ago
man, thats some hot cell fusion.
TGGeko 2 years ago
epic winner, this vid
GretnaBlast 2 years ago
Of course it didn't evolve by chance you idiot. NO evolutionary biologist in history has ever thought or said that. If you actually got off your ass and even glanced at the MOUNTAIN of evidence you would see it EVOLVED by simple chemistry. Deal with it.
HWCWTD 2 years ago
I read this book on mitochondria called power sex suicide, and it suggests that it was likely the formation of mitochondria that helped trigger some of the earliest forms of sexual recombination. One of the articles you showed said cells would fuse in response to oxidative stress, which is a symptom of damaged mitochondria. A cell with damaged M. would be less fit than others, which would give a strong incentive to fuse with a neighbor; to get better mitochondria.
willtohave 2 years ago
What hovind says is the truth? Do you even understand the principle of evolution? Why dont you try to explain evolution in 3 sentences or so, lets see how much you really know about it.
uck1007 2 years ago
Thats the fucking worst vid in history, hovind is a fucking retard, you know that
uck1007 2 years ago
evolution is the process that from fundamental biological elements that morph and reproduce by natural selection to become complex living organisms...so..man would be the measure of the fruits of natural process?
but why would evolution..stop at man...what can man possibly evolve to...better sight...we have telescopes...better legs we have...planes...smarter brains we have computers...so there is now the soul of man that can be produced from a person...through a process like mitosis
yikeswood 2 years ago
what im trying to get across is that dna replication and mitosis...are a process that should be compared to the division of the soul and the body
yikeswood 2 years ago
2:50 how do cells divide?
yikeswood 2 years ago
If you don't know the answer to this question:
1) google mitosis
2) you don't understand enough biology to have any opinion about evolution.
cdk007 2 years ago
@cdk007 Thats kinda ignorant said...
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
@cdk007 Forget what i said earlier, misread...
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
@cdk007 Mitosis reproduce the exact same thing..
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@yikeswood LMAO are you serious? One year old comment but funny as hell. No for real, did you take biology in high school?
HybridD91 1 year ago
can any two random cells fuse together?i did get bout unicellular organisms but wat bout multicellular(another video i am guessin :D).they cant fuse wid eachother that simply.they hv to develop complex n complimntary genitals n internal system for fertilization n the survival of zygote
whattheworldiscomin2 2 years ago
Two random cells? probably not, surface glyco proteins are used as a species id to prevent just that. Although some plants seem to be able to handle triploid or quatraploid genomes and thus have "reproduced" with a completely different species. Look at sea anemones and other stationary sea animals, they simply release millions of single cells to fuse randomly in the water without complex complementary genitalia.
willtohave 2 years ago
+1 To your sea anemone comment. It is called Broad cast reproduction.
They are also able to clone themselves in the absence of mates using several different methods. They aren`t actually entirely stationary though. However that is beside the point you made.
AcanLord 2 years ago
@whattheworldiscomin2 Dude. Single celled organisms do not, by definition, have genitals. Which it the point. Genitals, bikinis, lip gloss, eHarmony, are all just refinements on a theme simple cells had worked out 2 billion years ago.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
speculative BS!
torrinater 2 years ago
Damn! how do you know so much!?
you're so smart!!!
MetalicTriforce 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi im 7 years old and wut is this
originosity 2 years ago
Troll
Samsasrenjet 2 years ago
I'm reading Matt Ridley's 'The Red Queen' and combining it with watching your videos on sex and life really help understand the whys.
I still have (possibly) silly questions which probably illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what life is. For example why life even reproduces in the first place. I'm sure this is covered in another video so I will look for it.
A point in the right direction would be appreciated though
piecharthosen 2 years ago
Not all life did reproduce. Those died in the first generation. Life that reproduced inherits the earth.
rkyeun 2 years ago
@piecharthosen Why does life replicate? You are looking at it backwards. There is no why. We CALL it life BECAUSE it reproduces. Because if it did not, it would just be soup. As soon as the first proto-cell started replicating faster than the environment could destroy it, it started dominating the environment. It did not replicate for a reason, but because change and chemical forces caused it to. It still replicates not for a why, but because success breeds success.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
I've heard and actually used that argument, but I do not really accept it. It sounds fallacious, in the manner of 'it is because we see it is'.
Anyway, 'there is no why' is a good enough answer for me as long as I remember that there were no 'whys' to begin with. We observe organisms that cannot reproduce even today, and yet they exist as life along with us.
tl;dr: I am okay with the answers provided above and with your answer. Now I wonder what I was thinking before ;D
piecharthosen 1 year ago
@piecharthosen What organisms are you thinking of that "cannot reproduce today"? By definition, these cannot persist--they must be created by man or by sterile hybridizaiton (which of course is a perfect example of speciation caught in the act).
Humans look for reasons because it helps us model and anticipate each other. But it often gets in the way of understanding nature, the blind watchmaker. Crystals form because of chemistry. The earliest life was no different--feedback made it complex.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@nothingUnrealExists I was referring to simple examples such as donkeys (which I understand are sterile). Or was I thinking of a mule? In either case, the fact that organisms exist incapable of reproduction helps me understand my initial problem :P
piecharthosen 1 year ago
@piecharthosen Although not good natural example because horses and donkeys are both domesticated, mules do illustrate speciation. With common ancestors, horses and donkeys are no longer genetically compatible--almost all mules are sterile--females can occasionally produce offspring w/horse or donkey.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@piecharthosen Species is a human concept. In nature, things are messy. Humans can NEVER breed with chimps—we are totally different species. Donkeys and horses are different species but can ALMOST breed. Polar bears and grizzlys are different species, but only because they don't live in common areas. Where they do, they can an do breed. Because of climate change, polar bears will likely vanish as a species for this reason.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@piecharthosen Once life started, evolution took over and is a positive feedback mechanism (it reproduces because it has machinery to make it so, the better the machinery, the more the organism can dominate the environment. We are the extreme—we can foresee and address limited resources instead of waiting for competition and famine to limit us as it does ALL OTHER SPECIES.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
@piecharthosen But why the very first life got started?? Why does a crystal grow? What if, in growing, the crystal could randomly modify its ability to take up the substrate? ANY advantage would quickly dominate the competition. ANY disadvantage would quickly vanish. ANY positive feedback of this time reinforces in a way that appears purposeful. Simple life is like that, only with far more chemistry at its disposal than mere crystals. And is has TIME like no human can imagine—on its side.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
its not crystals. look up microspheres and ribozyme.....
Lucsiferu 1 year ago
@Lucsiferu Yes I know. I'm just drawing a comparison for the bible thumped who have a hard time imagining what is really pretty simple. I spent many an hour in the library reading Syndey Fox's paper back when he was still calling his microspheres "Proteinoids". If only the energy Americas churched waste denying reality could be focused on something productive....
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
This is really interesting, grate video! I was listening to a program on the radio the other day about this. They were saying that there is good evidence that one of the big advantages of sexual reproduction was as a defense against parasites.When cells reproduce without sex all there offspring are more or less identical which makes them all susceptible to a parasite that is successful against one of them. Sex mixes up the DNA enough to make them more resistant. Its a fascinating area of science
WhichDoctor1 2 years ago
Ahh nice tidbit of info there...now its all coming into place...and it sounds so straight forward once it clicks in....i mean of course the mixing of dna would be a defense strategy! thx
Chindro2828 2 years ago
I love your work CDK, very informative. Keep at it.
BiogodEntity 2 years ago
Thanks for the discussion. I love youtube. Thanks for linking us to the papers too.
adkinsjr 2 years ago
very well explained.
*****
MattChez 2 years ago
Anyone else get a little hot and bothered watching those cells go at it?
adraim69 2 years ago
to answer andea: i believe the benefit to having male AND female apose to being able to breed with anyone and possessing all things needed to breed also with yourself (being asexual with sexual capabilities) is that it streamlines the process. a person doesnt need all the parts, so there is less things to keep up, and less gametes need made (a man need only make sperm, a woman only eggs. if you had both you need to make sperms and eggs) plus less sexual organs need maintained.
tuseroni 2 years ago
so is the cell committing a sin when they fuse?
dirty, dirty, perverted, sinful little cells
robertwc82 2 years ago
>But the deeper question is why is there sexual dimorphism at all?
I guess that it has to do with cost. Having both male and female parts in one body is more biologically expensive and complex than just flipping some bits to different functions in an all male vs all female body. Especially one of the organisms needs to provide special nurturing capabilities it frees the other individual to go do something else, it would be inefficient for them both to have to provide the same function.
DanDare2050 2 years ago
lmao the joy of sexual reproduction
mharris187 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also you dont have to accpt what i say, cos i believe i am dumb, u are dumb, everyone is dumb, my view in life is that evolutionist are cock suckers like religious ppl, to be honest i jus hate ppl like this guy who made the video what a gay voice and way of talking, u get these type of ppl in religion also, but anyway life is meaningless so i cant sit here complaining about him when i believe everyone everything is meaningless im horny i might jerk of to a naked 2 year old girl
aghahowa11 2 years ago
You hate someone because of the way they talk? what are you FIVE? Get a grip.
ScottTheAtheist 2 years ago
you must be a Newtonist if you are not a Newtonist what stops you from flying?
robertwc82 2 years ago
I donno what to say robert bro, gravity?
aghahowa11 2 years ago
errr ummm the scientific theory was discovered by newton just like the scientific theory of evolution was discovered by Darwin, if someone who beleives in evolution is a darwinist, then anyone who beleives in gravity is a NEWTONIST. so ther efor you are a newtonist. since you believe gravity is what srtops you from flying.......stupid cocksucker
robertwc82 2 years ago
the guys voice is so nasty..some times evolution can be negative i mean the voice sounds retarded specially when u get angry calmd own u nerd. anyway this video is proof evolution is weird...cos it shows how we are like bacteria jus grow to populate our enviroment...but its a fact most humans dont give a shit...what is the explantion of this human behaviour ? evolution created a creature called humans who are suicidal in nature? human race is the only race that leads to self destuction
aghahowa11 2 years ago
I actually think it's the other way around. Sure many of us don't want to have pooping, crying children, but there are 7 billion humans, that's a respectable number. We erected buildings and gates and crap so we do a better job of surviving against our natural enemies, and now we basically don't have any, which is why our numbers continue to raise to the point of yelling shit at each other because of traffic jams.
lunaticreanimator 2 years ago
if thats true, why on ur profile do u have hatred towards muhammad, u jus gave a reason why ppl become evil and yelling shit at each other, so u cannot hate muhammad when we humans are leading to a decline in population
aghahowa11 2 years ago
It's there cause I thought it was funny.
lunaticreanimator 2 years ago
What decline in population? The population is 67 billion and growing.
BiogodEntity 2 years ago
6.7
calvinhobbesliker2 2 years ago
oops, typo
BiogodEntity 2 years ago
It's because I love you too much D:
Damn, I am such a troll T_T
hitsugaya1001 2 years ago
Dear cdk007,
Great vid. I have a puzzle. Your wisdom welcome.
There are good arguments against being self-fertile. Or at least, being self-fertile by default, as opposed to during stressful environmental conditions. But the deeper question is why is there sexual dimorphism at all? For this argument, let us define "sex type" as a derivative concept. Sex-type is any n-type morphology, where not all members of the species possess simultaneously all features required for reproduction.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
I am not trying to sound patronizing I am just up too late and I am trying to wrap my mind around you're string of comments/questions.
So I think what your getting at is why not just evolve to be self replicating hermaphrodites?
Or could we, even we need to.
And if not, then f**k it, I just asked the question.
It depends on if you consider biotechnology evolution. It is absolutely possible that sometime in the future we could engineer our offspring without losing genetic diversity.
demiz2305 2 years ago
Let's say in humans there are five such features or stages (this is not a rigorous scheme):
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
(a)fractional reduction of the genetic code (ie meiosis)
(b)recombination of code with variation (ie syngamy or fertilisation)
(c)prenatal development of offspring (ie pregnancy)
(d)birth of offspring
(e)nurture during early infant stages (particularly breast feeding)
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
In other words, sex-type is merely a combinatorial function upon the stages needed for reproduction. This can be seen as a generalisation of the trad F & M physiological scheme in humans, whereby F =(def) ovaries + XX chromosomal type + production of ova; and M =(def) testes + XY + production of sperm.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
I emphasis the derivative nature of physiological sex-type, to make plain that scientific research in pursuit of the true essence of such sex-types, let alone psycho-social constructs such as gender identity and gender role, is essentially a metaphysical red-herring. At the risk of sounding paradoxical, there are no essential or natural types, merely scientific definitions currently agreed upon by convention.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
As you say, the essence, so to speak, of sexual reproduction is not the X/Y sex-determination system, nor so-called primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but the two stage system of diplophase and haplophase, with meiosis and syngamy as linkages from one to the other (eg Kondrashov 1988).
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Now, we lucky XX chromosomal types (assuming standard morphology rather than natal intersex or trans surgery) can do all five steps, but we require the supply of the other fraction of the genetic code at (b), traditionally obtained by f*cking some good looking XY person, though syringes and teaspoons are serviceable ;-)
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
I return to the deeper question above, which we may now reframe as follows:
- what is the evolutionary explanation as to why there are no examples of non-self-fertile "true simultaneous hermaphrodite higher mammals?
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Do you mean self-fertile hermaphrodites?..
because there certainly aren't any of those...
If we were all self replicating hermaphrodites everyone's descendants would become horribly inbreed. Sure you would be able to reshuffle and mutate the DNA you had, but....
Where would new DNA come from?
Evolutionarily speaking the real sustained advantage to sexual reproduction would be the expanse of the gene pool. Self replicating would remove that organism from the gene pool.
demiz2305 2 years ago
There might be some increased costs in all persons carrying the complete physiology for reproduction, but whatever these costs might be, they seem (i) trivial, and lost in the noise of natural variation within a species, and (ii) outweighed by not having to search for members of a different sex-type in order to get fertilised. We would still have all the evolutionary joys of frequency of genetic recombination and mate choice.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
Plus we retain the hypothesis that reproduction mechanisms that provide for DNA repair and complementation have a distinct advantage.
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
In short, a great question to which I can only respond, I don't know.
cdk007 2 years ago
Regards and ♥, andrea the Complete Sex and Gender Rebel, who wishes people would stop classifying themselves as women or men.
PS: I remark with the relish of my Feminazi side that since we happy XX people can now technologically extract the other haploid half of the code from each other and do IVF, XY is redundant. How beautiful the world will be, when the further step is taken and bio-chemistry and/or genetic modification leads to no more XY people ;-) .
andreaandrewmilne 2 years ago
so sex was evovled too...
vams25 2 years ago
"In case you want to make the argument, 'Where did the internal actin cytoskeleton in eukaryotes come from?'..."
It isn't an argument, it's a question. When people are allowed to think that it is an argument, they succumb to the appeal to ignorance strategy that creationists use.
JaredHutcheson1 2 years ago
this was hot
JamesCalico 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear no Evil See no Evil Feel no Evil.....
The truth will set you free.... =D
PaulWayneBarnett 2 years ago
But it would only be a matter of time befor you all would go into choas and kill eachother., But feel free. I have to die anyways, and this way, i dont go out like a bitch.
superviser3399 2 years ago
Even if humanity continues to consume resources and overpopulate beyond our means that wouldn't spell extinction, just massive die offs.
cynoptimist 2 years ago
Ok- Your a virus... evolved from bacteria. Do us a favor and kill your self. Stop sucking the life out of the Earth.
superviser3399 2 years ago
Why should we? Pretty bad survival/reproduction strategy you've got there.. Maybe we'd be doing us both a favor by killing you - you go to heaven, we get more resources.
airandfingers 2 years ago
The Earth is only important to us because we need it to survive. Killing ourselves to save Earth would be like selling your car to get money for petrol. Why conserve something if we're no longer going to need it?
Mitchillio 2 years ago
Being religious and agreeing with evolution isn't impossible, I never said that. If you are a creationist christian, that DOES mean you cannot accept evolution, unless you change your belief - you cannot believe that a god created everything as it is now and believe that everything evolved to the way it is today simultaneously. I'm not saying you are a creationist, im agreeing with you, and stating that creationists cannot believe in both situations, it would be hypocritical.
Abengoshis 2 years ago
Can we get these videos a bit more fleshed out and turned into the curriculum for Bio 101 for all schools in America? Please?
Very enticing stuff here.
petexii 2 years ago
Also 78% of all statistics are made up. xD
Anyway, are you or aren't you an atheist? If you aren't atheist (or buddhist of course) why have you posted videos about how ID is incorrect?
Also, good series. Very informative. I may show some 'anti-evolutionists' that I know these. Thanks.
:D
Abengoshis 2 years ago
Being an atheist and believing in ID do not have to correlate. My family is quite religious and they have no problem with evolution.
cdk007 2 years ago
A recent study shows that 76% of evolutionists are closet "homosexuals."
nonameneeded07 2 years ago
"A recent study shows that 76% of evolutionists are closet "homosexuals." "
A recent post on youtube proves the vast majority of creationists are ignorant fools.
cdk007 2 years ago
Who told you I was a creationists? FAggot
nonameneeded07 2 years ago
Fuck You cunt. God exists and the Bible is his word. Evolution has ZERO evidence to support it and is a fairy tail in crisis.
Watergun495 2 years ago
Watergun God is as real as the Lochness monster and a cure for Herpes
WhrsTheMoneyLabowski 2 years ago
Watergun you are saying god is real and the first thing in your sentence is Fuck You Cunt?..What kind of christian are you
TheSilentOtaku 2 years ago
He's a troll. Look at his channel.
cdk007 2 years ago
he's not just a troll, he's a pervert too
and why would such a DEVOUT christian have videos of lesbians kissing?
erkdoc5 2 years ago
why wouldnt he have a video of lesbiands
sexwithchickens 2 years ago
he's a fairly typical fundie
ignorant, arrogant, opinionated, and usually nasty
im a christian and im still saying that about my co-religionists ..to my everlasting shame
dancingnature 2 years ago
Comment removed
gonny0507 2 years ago
1 what's an evolutionist?
its a british term for an evolutionary biologist american evolutionary biologists call themselves evolutionary biologists
non biologist scientists call themselves physicists geologists chemists etc
the scientifically literate non-scientists just call themselves the scientifically literate
so who are you referring to?
2 since scientific literacy is a choice and homosexuality is not ...where is your correlation?
dancingnature 2 years ago
Evolutionist is a british term? fuck off, british evolutionary biologists are called, um, evolutionary biologists. Only creationists use the term, evolutionist.
unassumption 2 years ago
british evolutionary biologists call themselves evolutionists .....it's probably where creationists got the term from
dancingnature 2 years ago
This seems to be one of the weaker videos in the series. It is hard to watch because of all the references to other videos and things already covered (including the exasperation of irreducible complexity). By the time you get to the conclusion, its hard to follow and I found myself saying (twice now) ... that I do not see how the conclusion is so obvious.
DURound 2 years ago
great series
--from a theist
ps i can't help but notice i am being called athiest more and more by fellow christians. shame that a reverence for science can have you shunned.
cartier117 2 years ago
"ps i can't help but notice i am being called athiest more and more by fellow christians. shame that a reverence for science can have you shunned."
You are not alone. I've actually seen these evangelicals call the pope an atheist since the Roman Catholic position is to accept evolution.
cdk007 2 years ago
i do not see evolution in direct contrast to the bible. also evolution just makes sense. religion is all about faith and what makes you feel whole, but it should not be allowed to stand in the way of human progress and understanding of the universe that we live in.
cartier117 2 years ago
"shame that a reverence for science can have you shunned. "
ill say that's happened to me too
im a biologist my oldest is a biochemist
my youngest is an engineering student
creationists in the nabe wont talk to us
dancingnature 2 years ago
i do not understand why atheists and theists have to fight constantly god damn just leave one another alone. as long as faith doesn't stand in the way of human progress everything is good. i am under constant PM attack from both atheists and theists i guess that's the problem of being in the middle.
cartier117 2 years ago
"as long as faith doesn't stand in the way of human progress everything is good."
1) My channel is not about atheists v religion, though that's what it so often falls into. It is about education v ignorance.
2) If you read the quote of many of the creationists on YT, you will see that their thinking, if allowed to go mainstream, would stand in the way of human progress. They are potholes on the intellectual super highway.
cdk007 2 years ago
i know. they are inept in theology, and all sciences so they constantly embarrass me. I would usually chime in on religion but by the time i get to a video the other 16 year old christian kids have already effectively stirred up the hornets nest and made us all look like a joke.
anyway i also do not like this trend they have of fighting with documented scientific fact. they have become so active against science that now they are no longer a nuisance but a danger to our schools and nations.
cartier117 2 years ago
"If you read the quote of many of the creationists on YT, you will see that their thinking, if allowed to go mainstream, would stand in the way of human progress. They are potholes on the intellectual super highway."
ill ditto that ...and im not an atheist
creationists are ignorant ...ignorance shouldnt spread, period ..and scientific ignorance is dangerous
dancingnature 2 years ago
I really like this origin series.
satanicmoose 2 years ago
Totally agree, it is super!
ogogosi 2 years ago
I really, really prefer the verbal lecture style to the textual slideshow style. It's more entertaining and compelling.
Nice work, CDK!
loqiloqi 2 years ago
me too, and i can navigate away from the video and still get the audio.
pxxner 2 years ago
And I don't have to pause the video to read first, understand and continue again...
(I'm dutch so reading goes slower than listening somehow)
Crunch0r 2 years ago
sweet ur videos talk now :D
loyesj 2 years ago
Thank you so much for "The Origin" series. There are many atheist out there who think they are alone or few and its people like you who help unite us. Thank you again and keep the videos coming !!!
big fan, stay rational ....
RustyCyler
RustyCyler 2 years ago
ok bla bla bla is all of this true or did you just make it up.
mrsonemon22 2 years ago
Fascinating!
Nightmare060 2 years ago
Yea right on the money
CHASCHARLTON 2 years ago