debate more, but I thought I'd at least provide a comment for people with intelligence to see and save their time by not watching this video that is at best, something that can be found in any biology text book. The information itself is the only thing worth knowing and it's common knowledge. The applcation is completely useless. I'm a straight A student taking 17 units this semester while working a 40 hr week job. Sorry I don't have time to play debate more.
My teacher posted this as a requirement for my class. It is supposed to aid in writing one of our papers. I fear however that the information I can glean from it does not help me in the slightest. You use round about logic and make points that can be linked, but offer no back directional flow. In short, all dogs have four legs. All four legged things are not dogs. Your logic flows in one direction, but you argue its multiple applications without sound logic. I honestly don't have time to
What a shame.. I actually was seeking some intelligent debate to destract me from my genetics homework and I find this discussion.. gamesbok, why is it that you keep demanding to hear an argument stated or made, but when it is stated or made, you refuse to answer and dance around the question? Is your only point to keep asking for questions just so you can ignore them? Don't bother replying, I wouldn't hold any ground for what you say. And at C0nc0rdance, is your only rebuttle a spelling errror?
What a shame.. I actually was seeking some intelligent debate to destract me from my genetics homework and I find this discussion.. gamesbok, why is it that you keep demanding to hear an argument stated or made, but when it is stated or made, you refuse to answer and dance around the question? Is your only point to keep asking for questions just so you can ignore them? Don't bother replying, I wouldn't hold any ground for what you say. And at C0nc0rdance, is your only rebuttle a spelling errror?
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
There's no evidence that humans evolved from some ape-like ancestor anymore than there's evidence that apes, along with lemurs and monkeys, evolved from some dog-like ancestor. All the bones used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both non-human and human. They can reconstruct these bones to look like whatever they want! Some of the bones were found miles apart. Read my Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
It's not the similarities that interest us, though, it's the trivial differences. Why do humans have a non-functional copy of GULOP, similar to some other apes, but not most mammals?
Do you believe the first humans were created by magic, whole and unrelated to any other animal?
Oh my god. Why are you not able to learn? It's not the implication or the of the theory. Evolution theory only works if there is no god. Not the other way around. In other words, common descent is the implication of atheism. Not atheism the implication of common descent. Either chaos brought order, or order brought chaos. Is disorder an original thing? Or a fault in order?
Atheists, as usual, lack basic reasoning skills. Your video proves you're a brainwashed peasant. Fucking learn.
You're retarded.. And that's not an insult i mean that sincerely. I just don't know what other words to use. I can't call you ignorant because i know you're not. You know full well the direction i was going but you'll never address it. The only possible word to use is retardation. You deliberately slow your own mind.
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
Your position, philosophically, as an atheist, is that chaos brought order into existence and not the other way around. This is what evolution is. Order out of chaos. Development from disorder. Logic from illogic, morality from immorality, rationality from irrationality. A-fortiori.
@knowwaie Let's see if you can describe a universe without logic. Let's see if you can convince me that you can even concieve of one. What is inconceivable is a society without moral mores. There are no moral absolutes, and morals evolve all the time, that's why we have a legislature. The second law of thermodynamics will tell you about 'order' in the past. Development from from disorder? ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research July 2000.
See what i mean? This is so far over your head that you don't even have the capacity to understand it. In fact i'm even taking it a step further. Not only am i saying that there are no moral absolutes but there is no morality, isn't that right? Then there is also no such thing as logic. What is logic but popular approval? There is no such thing as order is there? Just a chaotic illusion.
The development of biological evolution from fragments of particals?
Thanks. You'd be more useful proof reading for comments than making videos.
But you missed something. I meant to say "The development of biological 'life' from fragments of particles". You corrected my spelling for particles but missed the redundant repetition of words? You don't have the sharpest eye there chief.
Actually i miss spoke a few times. I'm not exactly competing in a spelling bee. "Development of biological life from fragmenting particles." In other words, chemical reaction. Which are chaotic. Just as all evolution requires disorder to function.
@gamesbok It's a wonder how he can even type a simple sentance. But then again, all you need to prove that he's a troll is just look at his channel. Clearly newly created and meant as an alt for some guy to troll.
Follow the will of GI Joe and mark his comments as spam, because action is the other half of the battle.
@crazyinsane500 I don't expect to make any progress with knowwaie. My comments are for third partie observers, to show that his claims are not valid. I presume there is a 'middle ground' to be won.
Strikes me that any system showing reproduction, variation and selection MUST show evolution. It's true because of the meaning of the words, a priori true, logically necessary, inescapable, unavoidable. Thast all emperical evidence supports it, as it does, is only to be expected.
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
@C0nc0rdance Mogley52 seems to be everywhere i go. He's a creationist whose communication skills for forwarding his points are so bad, he always ends his comments with " read my internet articles under......" I find these people rather comical since they believe everything poofed in by magic, but then the idea of slow and gradual change is impossible. The mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that, i just don't know how one can do that. Awesome video.
@Mogley52 Information can happen by chance. Ever heard of ghost coding in computers. So from here on, your point is void. And if all the different organisms had arisen on their own, then yes a similarity would indeed be very odd, but with common ancestry that isn't an issue. Now - how does your designer argument account for all the bad design and useless coding?
@Mogley52 DNA is not information. It's not a blueprint containing the sequence of all the instructions to create a human being. It's merely a three-dimensional molecule interacting with other three-dimensional objects within the cell and, by extension, with other cells and the external environment. It only becomes information to us when we sequence it and when we see it expressed in the phenotype of an organism. Molecules can generate spontaneously, hence rendering your point moot.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
I'm afraid your writings are a catalog of the worst mistakes made by creationists. It's not even consistently ID or YEC, switching between arguments freely.
Let's start with three simple points:
1. DNA determines what traits an animal has
2. The DNA "gene pool" for a species changes over time, in response to environment
I think he disagrees because he has set a system of confines for each "kind", wherein genetic change is possible, and any direct observation of genetic change is therefore within kinds, yet any indirect observation is "unknown" "unproven" et al. and therefore "not within kinds".
So that the Brown Cow can eat the green grass and give the white milk; so that we can make the yellow butter from the white milk and get our hair grow with our specific haircolor, that's why the designer used the same gene-"building blocks".
I think you misunderstand what the "same thing" means. You and a badger have the same need to detoxify nitrates in your blood serum. Why does the badger, the cat, the zebra and the three toed sloth each have a differently sequenced protein to do the same exact task (detoxify nitrate)?
We differ in the fact that those mutations will give rise to other species. Using your bacteria example, the 3 billion years that bacteria has being reproducing for we still see... bacteria, flies with white eyes and red eyes are still flies and Native Americans, Africans and white europeans are stil Human. Nitrate absorption with red-heads is an improvement on an existing process and not a new process. We don't doubt mutation but we find it unlikely that human and dung beetle are related.
1. DNA determines the organism that an embryo "becomes".
2. DNA changes over generations.
Do you see how enough heritable change can produce completely new DNA sequences, and hence new species with distinctive features from a common ancestor?
There are about a million distinct species of insect, and about a billion species of bacteria. They constantly differentiate, and they cover the Earth far better than humans.
@C0nc0rdance We can agree on lots of things, I am sure you are very knowledgable on the process of DNA, we can agree that DNA does change, that is how animals adapt to changing environments. We differ on the species, I see mutations allowing a species to adapt to changing environments (Shirpa's ability to live at altitude) but nobody would suggest that a shirpa is or even will become a new species of human. (although that was suggested back in the early 20th century)
@Jonathan2342 Well if the shirpa's were cut off from all human beings for the next few million years, it's highly likely that they would evolve into a different species. It's all about time and varying factors.
@boosie007666 Sounds like a statement of belief, not fact. We have many isolated human groups around and the one key for survival that even they know is genetic diversity, this is why you don't mate with your close relatives.
The suggestion is more like if a shirpa family inbreeds for a couple of thousand years we end up with a more evolved human form.
I guess I was wrong though, somebody would suggest that a shirpa will become a new species of human,
@Jonathan2342 Well, yeah. Predicting the future is a statement of belief, since it's the future and not happened.
Well if it was one shirpa family, yes it would have to be inbreeding. I was talking about a population of maybe 50 shirpas. But saying they would evolve into a 'more evolved human form' isn't what I was saying at all. I said they would evolve into another species. It wouldn't mean they'd be 'more evolved' they would just be a new species.
If your Sherpa group all developed the same mutation that prevented them from interbreeding with non-Sherpa, then, yes, they would be on a path that would lead to eventual divergence. How could they ever "rejoin" the rest of Homo sapien sapiens if none of their children could produce heirs in common with ours?
In practice, this doesn't happen because it takes only a very small number of individuals interbreeding to maintain gene flow. In other animal models, it happens often.
In fact, we can model the impact of gene flow on speciation events mathematically. I'd suggest a few good review papers on the topic:
1. BMC Evol Biol. 2011 May 24;11:138.
2. Hum Mutat. 2007 Feb;28(2):99-130.
3. Nature. 2006 Jun 29;441(7097):1103-8.
The last discusses the speciation events that led to Homo, and represents a major discovery in the speciation of Homo ancestors from other primate lines.
New species of hominid have often arisen from existing isolated populations.
@C0nc0rdance "Existing Isolated populations" since those populations are usually family or close relatve units, I believe the layperson term would be inbreeding. The problem is that we have these isolated populations all around us and we do not see evolution, rather we see increased genetic problems, that is why we don't screw our close relatives. Thats one reason why we differ. Anyway, my intent is not to debate you just to answer the question you posted - where do we differ between evo & ID
@Jonathan2342 Huuuh. That sherpa situation IS an example of microevolution. If you're asking for recorded or present macroevolution then you don't quite understand the time requirements of each. So you differ on the evolution theory on the point where it associates humans with the natural world? DNA, embryology, the fossil record and biochemistry all tie us to the primates. I don't see where you can differ without being irrational.
@Murdulo Embryology is BS, doesn't prove anything. DNA is far too complex to arise through chance or lightning striking a pile of goo, The fossil record doesn`t really show anything (No DNA, Soft Tissue, etc) and bio-chemestry - you assume a creator would not use the same material in the construction of different species. A Skyscraper and a bungalow use many of the same materials, it doesn`t mean that a skycraper evolved from a house.
@Jonathan2342 evolution has nothing to do with the beggining of life so the "goo to you" thing is utter bullshit, but i bet you already know this. the fossil evidence shows alot and yes, some fossils DO have DNA, and it fits exactly with the other evidence, which also points toward evolution. its not that we have similarities, its the pattern of similarities and differences that show us our relation to other living things, and yes, we are apes, just like pythons are snakes.
@Jonathan2342 yes, if the shirpas had no gene flow for long enough, they would most likely gain mutations which would stop them from having fertile offspring and they would become a new species a,d anyways. speciation, multicellular evolution, sexual evolution etc have been observed, they are facts that thinking people dont and cant denie
I'm not a biologist but I have often thought the same thing about the emphasis placed on one-off mutations. It seems far more likely that most evolution occurs by filtering natural variation present over the whole population. Many times a bit of variation may have no particular benefit but when circumstances change then one part of the variation scale may find itself conferring better survival.
Fundamentalists will never argue with you about well-tested theories like statistical mechanics, or special relativity; they won't dispute the standard model of particle physics, and they won't object to important theorems of mathematics or logic. They will only dispute what threatens their precious beliefs. Christians aren't even credible in a debate about evolution vs. creation, because, while scientists remain objective, Christians have their entire emotional life hanging in the balance.
..and understood "why" it equaled that number. Theists have not grown beyond their acceptance mode. They are safe in the concept that all the answers are there and there is no need for future endeavors of understanding. It's fear that tethers them to the idea of magic and the bending of reality. If they would not have this security blanket of afterlife bliss I'm quite sure most of them would curl in a corner encompassed in childlike horror of fear of the unknown. Yes, Opium for the masses.
I have a confession. I literally despise a person that cannot spell properly. Whilst using a computer that automatically tells them the word is wrong they consciously decide to retain the misspelled word instead. This is the same frame of mind as accepting sky-fairies as a gap-filler for what they do not know or understand. They cannot let go of such ridiculous claims because they would then be forced to learn instead of accept. When you were young you accepted that 1+1=2. then you grew up...
I have an idea. Don't steal every copy of Pandas you can find and not return it, otherwise other peoples children will miss out on an important source of pseudoscience propaganda and fundamentalist religious indoctrination, and you will own a piece of history that will be famously recounted in relation to the Dover trial. You'll have a keepsake of historical importance (like an original copy of Mein Kampf) to pass down to your grand children when they're old enough to understand. So don't DO IT!
This is off-topic, but I am curious. The big bang changes the size of the universe but does not say where it came from. Do you believe that matter (including "pre-big bang singularity" matter) is eternal? What came before the dot that contained the universe?
I'm a biologist, not a physicist. As I understand it, there was no "before" the Big Bang. This is hard to wrap one's brain around, but the idea of causality fails as we approach 0. "Eternal" also suggests a linear time frame that is not consistent with what we observe near singularities or at high velocities.
These are great mysteries. They should remain mysteries until we have more knowledge.
@FuzzyFilmltd As C0nc0rdance kind of says, "eternal" and "before" are ideas based on how we perceive time since the BB. We don't know if things like "before the BB" even have any meaning since many speculate that, along with our spatial dimensions, our time dimension began at the BB and there is literally no before. There is all sorts of speculation about the cause of the BB, much of it involving other dimensions but regardless of what anyone believes, nobody actually knows yet.
@chrisofnottingham Thus, the BB, like God, cannot be measured by instruments or even comprehended by the human brain. We both believe what we believe because of a mixture of evidence and faith.
@FuzzyFilmltd "Thus, the BB, like God, cannot be measured by instruments or even comprehended by the human brain."
Not exactly. You were asking about before the Big Bang and that's what I was relying about.
Even tho we can only only speculate about causes of the Big Bang one thing is for sure, it did happen. About 13.7 bn years ago the universe was in a hot dens state and since then space has expanded and continues to expand. All this, unlike God, is very measurable.
@chrisofnottingham I'm not trying to one-up your knowledge, I obviously looked at this on the internet like a normal youtuber.
For sure, the observable universe is expanding currently. However, there are measurable problems with our model of the BB. There is the baryon number problem, and the monopoles and population III stars that should have been created have never been detected, though many have tried.
I'm just saying I'm not antiscience, but everyone has faith to believe theories.
@FuzzyFilmltd "For sure, the observable universe is expanding currently. However, there are measurable problems with our model of the BB"
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Our model of the universe is incomplete, it has gaps we know about and no doubt a few surprises we won't be expecting. But being incomplete and needing tweaks is not the same as being completely wrong or saying the whole BB idea is an act of faith. Based on the evidence there still was a BB 13.7bn years ago
@FuzzyFilmltd As you know, Physics contains Laws. One Law is that Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, ever. It can only change in form. You most likely have also heard the concept of "E=MC^2" or Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Assuming this is true, then the only other possible thing that could have been before the Big Bang would be Energy (call it God if it makes you feel good). The Universe has always been here (i believe) as C0nc0rdance stated, the idea of Eternal
I am a creationist simply because the creator has revealed himself to me hundreds of times so evolution to me is pointless. Rejecting a creator is why you cannot know the creator.
It's NOT pointless to those of us who research cancer, diabetes, heart disease, childhood leukemia, animal conservation, paleobiology, and genetics. We need a model to understand the way that genetic markers change over time and how one gene relates to another. For that, even Evangelical Christian scientists like Francis Collins need evolutionary theory.
Working against the teaching of modern evolutionary theory is working against a scientifically competent America.
A 2009 assessment of Oklahoma students by the NAEP showed that only 24% were at least "proficient" in the sciences. The state has a reputation for low academic achievement, anti-science sentiment, and a religious fundamentalist legislature. Medical research and biotech companies looking for a low-tax state to relocate to will continue to pass Oklahoma over.
I see you have faced "Faith vs Science" and made an admirable choice. I could say the same.
However, I am a biology major. I can say that you do not need to abandon science; the debate is lively.
Evolution is only pointless from its own perspective: "universe is pointless, so is life, you, this conversation." Because you are a creationist, it is important because you should care about creation and people, which it concerns. If you have better things to do than e-chat, good. :)
@eyezshine No, we cannot know the creator because it is a fiction that exists only in your head. But it is good of you to grasp onto an hallucination where a lesser person might have sought medical attention. Good for you. Please stay the fuck away from anyone's kids. Thanks.
Evolution is not a change in the frequency of existing alleles. Evolution requires the creation of new alleles--new information. Changing the frequency of alleles has no effect towards driving the genome to higher complexity as per evolution. Consider the flies; after the speciation event (when the populations of flies become separated), in one population the previously unobserved (recessive) white eye allele became normal for the population because the dominant one was lost. Data was lost.
There's nothing in evolution about moving to higher complexity. That's a poorly defined term to begin with. The tiny Daphnia water-flea has 31,000 genes; humans have only 22,000. The genome of the marbled lungfish is 40 times longer than the human genome. Are you more complex than a water flea or a lungfish? On what basis?
New genes are created by gene duplication and divergence, pseudogene reactivation, retroviral activation and other processes. Would you like to know more?
I'd encourage you to look up a few terms that might be of interest to you if you've been told that all genetic change results in "loss of information":
"Gene family"
"protein domains"
"Hox genes"
"non-reciprocal cross-overs"
I know these are very technical topics, but it's important to understand that you are being deliberately misinformed. No biologist argues that selection adds new genes or alleles. It's the other mechanisms that create new genes with novel functions.
Correct, no one is arguing that selection adds genes or alleles. I was confused that it was your argument because your fly example seemed to me to equate selection with evolution. I have rarely been deliberately misinformed; the vast majority of evolutionists and creationists entirely believe that their arguments are foolproof fact.
Thanks for the interesting topic cluster, cheers to your civility.
Complexity (albeit difficult to define) increases between abiogenesis and modern forms.
Gene families are usu represented by hemoglobin example. A and B hemoglobins were formed when ancestor protein was duplicated. But A and B hemoglobin work together--the ancestral protein would be non-functional. The most interesting thing you mentioned was protein domains, and while evolution by domain realignment is more plausible, all domains have to come from somewhere.
alpha and beta gene products are part of a protein complex in SOME, but not all forms of hemoglobin. beta4 is also fully functional, as are many variants to differing degrees.
"the ancestral protein would be non-functional" That's a bit silly. The globin superfamily is found in plants, bacteria and animals. There are millions of organisms that do not contain alpha and/or beta genes. I can recommend J Exp Bio 201, 1099–1117 (1998) "Hemoglobins from bacteria to man".
@FuzzyFilmltd I was talking about the duplication evolution example multiple sources gave me that was specific to human hemoglobin. As you pointed out, I don't know enough about all of hemoglobin to make any statement about it across species. I just meant that half of the hemoglobin complex, in the generations preceding duplication, would not be functional and therefore selected against.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There are millions of organisms with functional hemoglobins not like the human a2b2-globin, and even within humans, we have functional globins made of every combination (1, 2, 4 and 8 subunits of six genes).
The "ancestral" arrangement is still functional as is myoglobin in your muscles. Myoglobin is a monomeric, non-cooperative globin protein that binds oxygen.
Actually, I meant what I said when I used the word "Theory." A Theory by the scientific sense, is not the highest form of explaination one can have. A Law is the highest form of explaination science accepts. When I say the Theory of Evolution is only a theory, that means it remains unproven in science. If it were a law, then christians would have to attack the foundation of science itself in order to disprove Evolution. It is partially the unrigorous logic which keeps evolution a theory.
You do not understand the common misconception between the difference between a Scientific* Theory and the common leyman use of the word Theory. A Scientific Theory is the highest form of explanation you can have.
Please go look up the difference and stop parroting misinformation.
My main issue with this hypothesis, is that there is no rigorous logical precession that starts off with some basic assumptions and logically leads to the idea that creatures evolve. At least the theory of gravity has it's own logical precession. Even this video is reduced to saying that "genetic diversity leads to change in generations." That is such a fuzzy statement I can only conclude it to be sudo-science. Christianity is exempt from such logical rigor, so it doesnt need to fit as well.
The Scientific Theory of Gravitation is know to be false. If you actually do the research it is known to be false and is only valid between certain bounds.
The Scientific Theory Evolution on the other hand has never fail to resolve a inconsistency nor has a bound been found.
Please, go discover the basic scientific definitions before commenting upon scientific discussions, you are equivalently commenting that cars in Britain don't gave trunks because they can't wear boots.
Brilliant video from a somewhat unusual perspective!
The problem is the cretards are not interested in discussing, in learning nor in changing anything they thing they know. All they want is to keep their sky daddy hallucination intact and make the rest of the world obey even it it means going to war. They are brainwashed and on a mission from the thing that they believe flooded the world and they look forward to the apocalypse and the rapture.
I used to be a "cretard" until people pointed out flaws in my argument and showed me how I was deceived. It's not nice to paint people with such a broad brush, especially with the amount of deconversions going on nowadays.
"human DNA has evolved very little since our Paleolithic ancestors roamed the earth." From The New Evolution Diet [Kindle Edition] Arthur De Vany PhD.
Also, you should know that Arthur De Vany is a PhD economist, and professor of economics. His specialty is the economic models of Hollywood movie-making. I'm not sure why you would cite him on his diet book.
Dr. Ray Bohlin states: The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
Sorry, you're citing Ray Bohlin, head of Probe Ministries? He's a literalist, 6 day creationist, homophobe. He did a PhD at UT Dallas, but his work never concerned anything touching on evolution.
If he's interested in contacting me to discuss a debate or discussion, please feel free to forward my info to him or vice versa. I'm open to discussing whatever evidence he offers in support of a 6 day creation as described in Genesis.
@C0nc0rdance Stop using logical fallacies. Atheist PJDessyn on FirstFreedomFighter's channel gave a link to your video here and I was simply stating Dr. Bohlin's views on the matter. My own views are similiar to his. I suggest you debate someone like FirstFreedomFighter or TheHonestThiest. God bless ;)
It's a common misconception that questioning someone's motivation or qualifications is the ad hominem fallacy. I'm not saying that Ray Bohlin is wrong BECAUSE he's a biblical literalist, I'm saying he's wrong, AND he's a biblical literalist.
@C0nc0rdance No it's not that regarding Dr. Ray Bohlin being wrong. It's the fact that you asked me to contact him which I took to be a logical fallacy quite possibly. But yes the famous ad hominem. Good point
@4thcoming It is not a fallacy to say that someone who doesn't have the qualification the speak about science is wrong about the subject. The guy you talk about simply lack the knowledge in the matter.
Well, I think a creationist would disagree with your point that the Earth is really old. And thus because it's young (in their minds) evolution could not have produced the diversity of life you claim it can.
Since questioning their dogma on this is out of the question, can you provide the same video without something that would cause a YEC to dismiss everything you said out of hand because of a simple time difference? eg: this conordance guy is a nut b/c he thinks the earth is 5 billion yrs?
Interesting information on red haired individual being able to metabolize analgesics better. If these are truly correlative traits, then might I suggest an observable yet off colored mechanism in which the environment might select for these properties. It's well known that Irish people have a high percentage of red headed people. It just so happens that the Irish also engage in the culturally pervasive consumption of alcohol, an analgesic. Could this be related? I'll let you decide.
your 5 arguments do not make me think that my belief in evolution contradicts with my theistic perspective... i honestly don`t see where we disagree... i believe in these things that you mentioned and also in creationism and still no contradictions...
@bballer0304 How come creationists never reply to any of the points in the evolution videos they criticize? This really gets to me, someone goes to a lot of effort to explain many of the details behind the evidence for evolution, and the best response they get is "No! You're stupid and brainwashed!" Come on, do you religious nutjobs even watch these things?
It happens to me in the comments on YouTube (ok I'm guilty of arguing if I disagree on occasion). You try and explain to someone why what they are saying is wrong, and they don't respond to that point, they just move straight to a different argument.
Little bit like sticking you fingers in your ears and shouting "La, la, la" so evolution can't possibly hurt your fragile religious beliefs.
@bballer0304 evolution does NOT mean we came from nothing. For example, a Deist may be an evolutionist but he believes that it originated from a creator, at one point.
@seeqer66 Shouldnt be so quick to judge. I've taken 2 college biology courses both with major emphasis on evolution. The people who wrote the evolution sections of the book have just as much insight as you (not alot). Also, when someone had a question regarding evolution such as 'how did the brain and the eyes evolve then?" the teacher would ignore the quesiton or rephrase the question back at the student. Its pathetic how you guys try so hard to defend such a dumbass concept.
@bballer0304 I suggest you go to "talk origins" web site then. It sounds like you were either ignoring what your teachers were telling you, or you were being taught by morons. There are some great explanations on just those subjects. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.
"I've taken 2 college biology courses both with major emphasis on evolution."
I call bullshit on that. Why? Because in the comment before you claimed that people who accept good science "wanna believe we come from nothing". If you really had taken any courses and paid attention, you would not have said this.
The question that I would like you to attempt to answer please sir is... How did life begin? Please start at the beginning. I look forward to your response.
@danielabraham007 There are plenty of good videos that can shed light onto the origin of life. The first two chapters of Life Ascending do a great job at explaining abiogenisis and the origin of DNA too.
I am a Christian, a believer in Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah. I base my beliefs on historical evidence. I have studied the scriptures vigorously and I believe that the Creation story from "Let there be light" to the creation of man is an ALLEGORY (for lack of a better word), not literalist fact. God just runs through the list of things he made from light to microbes to mammals and then humans. Come ask me if you would like to know why I believe.
One point of disagreement is on the definition of science. Creationists have a different idea of what science is and how it should be conducted when compared to the science that, well, real scientists practice.
So are Christians communists? Social justice? Help the weak? As an atheist who is not a socialist I agree with Darwin. We should turn away those without means from the ER. I don't like hospitals I believe they extend life which is unnatural.
True, no obligation. But using that logic we do not have an obligation to help the strong either. What help do they need if they are fit evolutionally? If we do not have a need to help anyone medicine would not exist to begin with. Furthermore natural selection is survival of the fittest, not evolution as a whole. And NS is not just about survival of the fittest. It's adaptation to enviroment. Our adaptation is to "modify" nature.
@ToxicOdiousOne We have whatever obligation we choose. I choose to help my fellow human beings.If you are not a reverse Poe (which I suspect) you are confusing and is with an ought. Further, we are social animals. Our innate desire to help each other is as vital as our brains and opposable thumb.
Excellent presentation! I would however, suggest that you have frame te question wrong. Evolution is what you get after you have life, thus Creationist argue with Abiogenesis. Fundamentalist argue with evolutionist perhaps, but even that is becoming more rare.
I dislike that your tenets of evolution lack a component of DNA expression (which I feel is infinitely more important than DNA) i.e. we have the DNA to make tails, but we don't make them. So DNA cannot be the source of this divergence (well, perhaps the promoter or enhancer sequences were altered). But I can understand why you wouldn't want to overcomplicate an already idea already misunderstood in its simplicity.
The question I really want answered from creationists is: how did god think this all up? Why did god create all this diversity when it isn't necessary for him to enact his little obedience/morality play on this planet? Why aren't there glowing deep sea jellyfish in the bible? Would have been cooler if Jonah was swallowed by one of those.
2. By Darin, do you mean Charles Darwin? If Darwin never existed, would the theory exist now?
3. In museums, private and public collections, universities. How many would you need to be convinced?
4. Can you be more specific?
5. It's only a few small religious groups (Baptists and Muslims, especially) that oppose evolution, and they are mostly in the US and the Middle East. For most of the world, evolution is not politicized.
@C0nc0rdance If Charles Darwin never existed even if his theory never existed, there would still be a substitute for the biblical creation account. Possibly a more believable one. To say "Baptists and Muslims" are the only opposition, is being narrow minded. I'm neither of those. Also.. Muslims slaughter Christians, daily and you group them? What about Jews? Will they Dismiss the creation account, in the Torah? Not according to the gallup polls.
@litefogg The Cambrian Explosion is misleadingly named, and is therefore often called the Cambrian Radiation. It took place over a period of 70 to 80 million years. This is a blink of an eye in geologic terms, but plenty of time for evolution's sake. There were also creatures living before it.
Darwin in fact knew about it, and considered it as an objection to his theory. Lots has been learned about it since then, however.
@Naiant "Why, then, is this an objection to evolution?" Even with the lack of a transitional fossil, how can I object to something that so many well educated scholars fully trust. I was wrong, to trash talk, about evolution, as I was wrong, to speak negatively about Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists. It's actually a small percent. It's a waste of time and not very nice, for me to speak negatively about other religions. I hope, you all can forgive me; or at least, forget about me.
nothing could evolve before it exists, nothing exists that was not created, things cant create themselves because they dont exist until they are allready created.
I think what's important to get across is that evolution is not equal to atheism.
Every single time I see these arguments I notice that the Christians are arguing as if to "believe" in evolution means to believe that god did not create humanity (or life).
I think it's very important to point out that evolution doesn't say that god didn't do it.
(Quote): "This is called the problem of induction. Imagine that all you have ever seen is white swans. Does that mean that black swans do not exist?" (end quote)
That's not a scientific way to think since science deals with the observable and testable. Now, unless or until it is discovered that "black swans" exist, we must stick to what is known and base our science on the facts.
I know it's not a scientific way to think and it's why I don't believe in god(s) but it's a concession I make mostly because of my father who's a Physicist with a PHD and also a devout Catholic. The point is that if science is antagonistic to religion, all you'll do is create enemies who are even more determined to hang on to their beliefs. If you simply teach them how to think scientifically (as my Father did), they may eventually reach that conclusion on their own (as I did).
@Skydancer365 ur right it just means the literal translation of the bible is wrong and they cant handle that as if there god is good and they would something without it
Remember boys & girls ALWAYS get both sides of the issue & watch out for the con job ( which may not be readily or easily apparent....especially to the immature & inexperienced!)
The only intelligent thing about intelligent design, is the word intelligent.
dubbleplusgood 2 months ago
debate more, but I thought I'd at least provide a comment for people with intelligence to see and save their time by not watching this video that is at best, something that can be found in any biology text book. The information itself is the only thing worth knowing and it's common knowledge. The applcation is completely useless. I'm a straight A student taking 17 units this semester while working a 40 hr week job. Sorry I don't have time to play debate more.
TheAngryChinchilla 4 months ago
My teacher posted this as a requirement for my class. It is supposed to aid in writing one of our papers. I fear however that the information I can glean from it does not help me in the slightest. You use round about logic and make points that can be linked, but offer no back directional flow. In short, all dogs have four legs. All four legged things are not dogs. Your logic flows in one direction, but you argue its multiple applications without sound logic. I honestly don't have time to
TheAngryChinchilla 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a shame.. I actually was seeking some intelligent debate to destract me from my genetics homework and I find this discussion.. gamesbok, why is it that you keep demanding to hear an argument stated or made, but when it is stated or made, you refuse to answer and dance around the question? Is your only point to keep asking for questions just so you can ignore them? Don't bother replying, I wouldn't hold any ground for what you say. And at C0nc0rdance, is your only rebuttle a spelling errror?
TheAngryChinchilla 4 months ago
What a shame.. I actually was seeking some intelligent debate to destract me from my genetics homework and I find this discussion.. gamesbok, why is it that you keep demanding to hear an argument stated or made, but when it is stated or made, you refuse to answer and dance around the question? Is your only point to keep asking for questions just so you can ignore them? Don't bother replying, I wouldn't hold any ground for what you say. And at C0nc0rdance, is your only rebuttle a spelling errror?
TheAngryChinchilla 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Can you stop your brian washed spam on videos you've already been proven wrong on.
kokofan50 5 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's no evidence that humans evolved from some ape-like ancestor anymore than there's evidence that apes, along with lemurs and monkeys, evolved from some dog-like ancestor. All the bones used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both non-human and human. They can reconstruct these bones to look like whatever they want! Some of the bones were found miles apart. Read my Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
Ah. Fred Hoyle, 1951. Tornado in a Junkyard.
It's not the similarities that interest us, though, it's the trivial differences. Why do humans have a non-functional copy of GULOP, similar to some other apes, but not most mammals?
Do you believe the first humans were created by magic, whole and unrelated to any other animal?
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
Oh my god. Why are you not able to learn? It's not the implication or the of the theory. Evolution theory only works if there is no god. Not the other way around. In other words, common descent is the implication of atheism. Not atheism the implication of common descent. Either chaos brought order, or order brought chaos. Is disorder an original thing? Or a fault in order?
Atheists, as usual, lack basic reasoning skills. Your video proves you're a brainwashed peasant. Fucking learn.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
Read, mark and learn. It is possible for you to escape ignorance.
gamesbok 5 months ago
You're retarded.. And that's not an insult i mean that sincerely. I just don't know what other words to use. I can't call you ignorant because i know you're not. You know full well the direction i was going but you'll never address it. The only possible word to use is retardation. You deliberately slow your own mind.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie You seem to have a lot of insults. What a pity you don't have an arguement.
gamesbok 5 months ago
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
Of course, as usual, i'm talking over your head.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie Again insults, and no arguement.
gamesbok 5 months ago
Order preceded chaos. Is my claim. My argument for the fact is there is no chaos unless there is first, order.
Your rebuttal, retard?
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie You're going to have to define your terms, but if by chaos you mean a lack of physical rules or logic then I know of no such time.
gamesbok 5 months ago
Exactly my point.
Your position, philosophically, as an atheist, is that chaos brought order into existence and not the other way around. This is what evolution is. Order out of chaos. Development from disorder. Logic from illogic, morality from immorality, rationality from irrationality. A-fortiori.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie Let's see if you can describe a universe without logic. Let's see if you can convince me that you can even concieve of one. What is inconceivable is a society without moral mores. There are no moral absolutes, and morals evolve all the time, that's why we have a legislature. The second law of thermodynamics will tell you about 'order' in the past. Development from from disorder? ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research July 2000.
gamesbok 5 months ago
See what i mean? This is so far over your head that you don't even have the capacity to understand it. In fact i'm even taking it a step further. Not only am i saying that there are no moral absolutes but there is no morality, isn't that right? Then there is also no such thing as logic. What is logic but popular approval? There is no such thing as order is there? Just a chaotic illusion.
The development of biological evolution from fragments of particals?
You're retarded. Just go away.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie
"Particals" is properly spelled "particles".
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
Thanks. You'd be more useful proof reading for comments than making videos.
But you missed something. I meant to say "The development of biological 'life' from fragments of particles". You corrected my spelling for particles but missed the redundant repetition of words? You don't have the sharpest eye there chief.
knowwaie 5 months ago
Actually i miss spoke a few times. I'm not exactly competing in a spelling bee. "Development of biological life from fragmenting particles." In other words, chemical reaction. Which are chaotic. Just as all evolution requires disorder to function.
Never mind. Fuck yourself.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@knowwaie I am perfectly willing to accept that you are chaotic.
gamesbok 5 months ago
@gamesbok It's a wonder how he can even type a simple sentance. But then again, all you need to prove that he's a troll is just look at his channel. Clearly newly created and meant as an alt for some guy to troll.
Follow the will of GI Joe and mark his comments as spam, because action is the other half of the battle.
crazyinsane500 5 months ago
@crazyinsane500 I don't expect to make any progress with knowwaie. My comments are for third partie observers, to show that his claims are not valid. I presume there is a 'middle ground' to be won.
Strikes me that any system showing reproduction, variation and selection MUST show evolution. It's true because of the meaning of the words, a priori true, logically necessary, inescapable, unavoidable. Thast all emperical evidence supports it, as it does, is only to be expected.
gamesbok 5 months ago
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
I'm sure talking over your head.
knowwaie 5 months ago
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
I'm sure this is way over your head. Never mind.
knowwaie 5 months ago
I said it's not insult. Call it humility if you like, as many do. But you deliberately mentally handicap yourself. It's all the information that resides in a scientists quotation "we don't know"... We do know! It's called philosophy!
This case is different though. It's not a matter of what's known, but how we look at it. So your philosophy amounts to "we don't know how to look at it", which is, itself, part of an existing philosophical position.
Your retardation caused you to miss my argument.
knowwaie 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Mogley52 seems to be everywhere i go. He's a creationist whose communication skills for forwarding his points are so bad, he always ends his comments with " read my internet articles under......" I find these people rather comical since they believe everything poofed in by magic, but then the idea of slow and gradual change is impossible. The mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that, i just don't know how one can do that. Awesome video.
01101100d 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Information can happen by chance. Ever heard of ghost coding in computers. So from here on, your point is void. And if all the different organisms had arisen on their own, then yes a similarity would indeed be very odd, but with common ancestry that isn't an issue. Now - how does your designer argument account for all the bad design and useless coding?
tristbjorn 4 months ago
@Mogley52 DNA is not information. It's not a blueprint containing the sequence of all the instructions to create a human being. It's merely a three-dimensional molecule interacting with other three-dimensional objects within the cell and, by extension, with other cells and the external environment. It only becomes information to us when we sequence it and when we see it expressed in the phenotype of an organism. Molecules can generate spontaneously, hence rendering your point moot.
Kalevala87 4 months ago
Comment removed
ismaeel747 1 month ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
I'm afraid your writings are a catalog of the worst mistakes made by creationists. It's not even consistently ID or YEC, switching between arguments freely.
Let's start with three simple points:
1. DNA determines what traits an animal has
2. The DNA "gene pool" for a species changes over time, in response to environment
3. There are no limits to genetic change
Which do you disagree with and why?
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance He disagrees with point 3.
I think he disagrees because he has set a system of confines for each "kind", wherein genetic change is possible, and any direct observation of genetic change is therefore within kinds, yet any indirect observation is "unknown" "unproven" et al. and therefore "not within kinds".
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
6:10
So that the Brown Cow can eat the green grass and give the white milk; so that we can make the yellow butter from the white milk and get our hair grow with our specific haircolor, that's why the designer used the same gene-"building blocks".
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102
I think you misunderstand what the "same thing" means. You and a badger have the same need to detoxify nitrates in your blood serum. Why does the badger, the cat, the zebra and the three toed sloth each have a differently sequenced protein to do the same exact task (detoxify nitrate)?
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
We differ in the fact that those mutations will give rise to other species. Using your bacteria example, the 3 billion years that bacteria has being reproducing for we still see... bacteria, flies with white eyes and red eyes are still flies and Native Americans, Africans and white europeans are stil Human. Nitrate absorption with red-heads is an improvement on an existing process and not a new process. We don't doubt mutation but we find it unlikely that human and dung beetle are related.
Jonathan2342 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342
Can we agree on two things?
1. DNA determines the organism that an embryo "becomes".
2. DNA changes over generations.
Do you see how enough heritable change can produce completely new DNA sequences, and hence new species with distinctive features from a common ancestor?
There are about a million distinct species of insect, and about a billion species of bacteria. They constantly differentiate, and they cover the Earth far better than humans.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance We can agree on lots of things, I am sure you are very knowledgable on the process of DNA, we can agree that DNA does change, that is how animals adapt to changing environments. We differ on the species, I see mutations allowing a species to adapt to changing environments (Shirpa's ability to live at altitude) but nobody would suggest that a shirpa is or even will become a new species of human. (although that was suggested back in the early 20th century)
Jonathan2342 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 Well if the shirpa's were cut off from all human beings for the next few million years, it's highly likely that they would evolve into a different species. It's all about time and varying factors.
boosie007666 7 months ago
@boosie007666 Sounds like a statement of belief, not fact. We have many isolated human groups around and the one key for survival that even they know is genetic diversity, this is why you don't mate with your close relatives.
The suggestion is more like if a shirpa family inbreeds for a couple of thousand years we end up with a more evolved human form.
I guess I was wrong though, somebody would suggest that a shirpa will become a new species of human,
Jonathan2342 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 Well, yeah. Predicting the future is a statement of belief, since it's the future and not happened.
Well if it was one shirpa family, yes it would have to be inbreeding. I was talking about a population of maybe 50 shirpas. But saying they would evolve into a 'more evolved human form' isn't what I was saying at all. I said they would evolve into another species. It wouldn't mean they'd be 'more evolved' they would just be a new species.
boosie007666 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342
If your Sherpa group all developed the same mutation that prevented them from interbreeding with non-Sherpa, then, yes, they would be on a path that would lead to eventual divergence. How could they ever "rejoin" the rest of Homo sapien sapiens if none of their children could produce heirs in common with ours?
In practice, this doesn't happen because it takes only a very small number of individuals interbreeding to maintain gene flow. In other animal models, it happens often.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
In fact, we can model the impact of gene flow on speciation events mathematically. I'd suggest a few good review papers on the topic:
1. BMC Evol Biol. 2011 May 24;11:138.
2. Hum Mutat. 2007 Feb;28(2):99-130.
3. Nature. 2006 Jun 29;441(7097):1103-8.
The last discusses the speciation events that led to Homo, and represents a major discovery in the speciation of Homo ancestors from other primate lines.
New species of hominid have often arisen from existing isolated populations.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance "Existing Isolated populations" since those populations are usually family or close relatve units, I believe the layperson term would be inbreeding. The problem is that we have these isolated populations all around us and we do not see evolution, rather we see increased genetic problems, that is why we don't screw our close relatives. Thats one reason why we differ. Anyway, my intent is not to debate you just to answer the question you posted - where do we differ between evo & ID
Jonathan2342 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 Huuuh. That sherpa situation IS an example of microevolution. If you're asking for recorded or present macroevolution then you don't quite understand the time requirements of each. So you differ on the evolution theory on the point where it associates humans with the natural world? DNA, embryology, the fossil record and biochemistry all tie us to the primates. I don't see where you can differ without being irrational.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Murdulo Embryology is BS, doesn't prove anything. DNA is far too complex to arise through chance or lightning striking a pile of goo, The fossil record doesn`t really show anything (No DNA, Soft Tissue, etc) and bio-chemestry - you assume a creator would not use the same material in the construction of different species. A Skyscraper and a bungalow use many of the same materials, it doesn`t mean that a skycraper evolved from a house.
Jonathan2342 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 "Embryology is BS" Okay. Good argument! I've studied it enough to discover the striking resemblance between all mammal development.
"DNA is far too complex" Incredulity is not an argument, sorry. And btw, we've demonstrated ARN forms itself by natural means. So there goes that.
"Fossil doesn't..." Oh sure, whales having degenerated legs is completely normal. A joke from god, perhaps?
"Bio-chemistry" Oh sure. It's a coincidence.
You're in denial of reality. Grow up.
Murdulo 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 evolution has nothing to do with the beggining of life so the "goo to you" thing is utter bullshit, but i bet you already know this. the fossil evidence shows alot and yes, some fossils DO have DNA, and it fits exactly with the other evidence, which also points toward evolution. its not that we have similarities, its the pattern of similarities and differences that show us our relation to other living things, and yes, we are apes, just like pythons are snakes.
wearestarstuffsagan 7 months ago
@Jonathan2342 yes, if the shirpas had no gene flow for long enough, they would most likely gain mutations which would stop them from having fertile offspring and they would become a new species a,d anyways. speciation, multicellular evolution, sexual evolution etc have been observed, they are facts that thinking people dont and cant denie
wearestarstuffsagan 7 months ago
I'm not a biologist but I have often thought the same thing about the emphasis placed on one-off mutations. It seems far more likely that most evolution occurs by filtering natural variation present over the whole population. Many times a bit of variation may have no particular benefit but when circumstances change then one part of the variation scale may find itself conferring better survival.
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
Fundamentalists will never argue with you about well-tested theories like statistical mechanics, or special relativity; they won't dispute the standard model of particle physics, and they won't object to important theorems of mathematics or logic. They will only dispute what threatens their precious beliefs. Christians aren't even credible in a debate about evolution vs. creation, because, while scientists remain objective, Christians have their entire emotional life hanging in the balance.
McTaggStar 9 months ago
TL;DW
URTemplar 9 months ago
..and understood "why" it equaled that number. Theists have not grown beyond their acceptance mode. They are safe in the concept that all the answers are there and there is no need for future endeavors of understanding. It's fear that tethers them to the idea of magic and the bending of reality. If they would not have this security blanket of afterlife bliss I'm quite sure most of them would curl in a corner encompassed in childlike horror of fear of the unknown. Yes, Opium for the masses.
kd5alc 10 months ago
I have a confession. I literally despise a person that cannot spell properly. Whilst using a computer that automatically tells them the word is wrong they consciously decide to retain the misspelled word instead. This is the same frame of mind as accepting sky-fairies as a gap-filler for what they do not know or understand. They cannot let go of such ridiculous claims because they would then be forced to learn instead of accept. When you were young you accepted that 1+1=2. then you grew up...
kd5alc 10 months ago
I have an idea. Don't steal every copy of Pandas you can find and not return it, otherwise other peoples children will miss out on an important source of pseudoscience propaganda and fundamentalist religious indoctrination, and you will own a piece of history that will be famously recounted in relation to the Dover trial. You'll have a keepsake of historical importance (like an original copy of Mein Kampf) to pass down to your grand children when they're old enough to understand. So don't DO IT!
skepticoz 11 months ago
Awesome video, C0nc0rdance! Keep up the great, informative work. I hope you win the battle taking place in the classrooms.
Canterwoodcore 11 months ago
This is off-topic, but I am curious. The big bang changes the size of the universe but does not say where it came from. Do you believe that matter (including "pre-big bang singularity" matter) is eternal? What came before the dot that contained the universe?
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@FuzzyFilmltd
I'm a biologist, not a physicist. As I understand it, there was no "before" the Big Bang. This is hard to wrap one's brain around, but the idea of causality fails as we approach 0. "Eternal" also suggests a linear time frame that is not consistent with what we observe near singularities or at high velocities.
These are great mysteries. They should remain mysteries until we have more knowledge.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Very well answered
TheRationalist76 8 months ago
@FuzzyFilmltd As C0nc0rdance kind of says, "eternal" and "before" are ideas based on how we perceive time since the BB. We don't know if things like "before the BB" even have any meaning since many speculate that, along with our spatial dimensions, our time dimension began at the BB and there is literally no before. There is all sorts of speculation about the cause of the BB, much of it involving other dimensions but regardless of what anyone believes, nobody actually knows yet.
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
@chrisofnottingham Thus, the BB, like God, cannot be measured by instruments or even comprehended by the human brain. We both believe what we believe because of a mixture of evidence and faith.
FuzzyFilmltd 8 months ago
@FuzzyFilmltd "Thus, the BB, like God, cannot be measured by instruments or even comprehended by the human brain."
Not exactly. You were asking about before the Big Bang and that's what I was relying about.
Even tho we can only only speculate about causes of the Big Bang one thing is for sure, it did happen. About 13.7 bn years ago the universe was in a hot dens state and since then space has expanded and continues to expand. All this, unlike God, is very measurable.
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
@chrisofnottingham I'm not trying to one-up your knowledge, I obviously looked at this on the internet like a normal youtuber.
For sure, the observable universe is expanding currently. However, there are measurable problems with our model of the BB. There is the baryon number problem, and the monopoles and population III stars that should have been created have never been detected, though many have tried.
I'm just saying I'm not antiscience, but everyone has faith to believe theories.
FuzzyFilmltd 8 months ago
@FuzzyFilmltd "For sure, the observable universe is expanding currently. However, there are measurable problems with our model of the BB"
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Our model of the universe is incomplete, it has gaps we know about and no doubt a few surprises we won't be expecting. But being incomplete and needing tweaks is not the same as being completely wrong or saying the whole BB idea is an act of faith. Based on the evidence there still was a BB 13.7bn years ago
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
@FuzzyFilmltd As you know, Physics contains Laws. One Law is that Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, ever. It can only change in form. You most likely have also heard the concept of "E=MC^2" or Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Assuming this is true, then the only other possible thing that could have been before the Big Bang would be Energy (call it God if it makes you feel good). The Universe has always been here (i believe) as C0nc0rdance stated, the idea of Eternal
TheRationalist76 8 months ago
I am a creationist simply because the creator has revealed himself to me hundreds of times so evolution to me is pointless. Rejecting a creator is why you cannot know the creator.
eyezshine 1 year ago
@eyezshine
It's NOT pointless to those of us who research cancer, diabetes, heart disease, childhood leukemia, animal conservation, paleobiology, and genetics. We need a model to understand the way that genetic markers change over time and how one gene relates to another. For that, even Evangelical Christian scientists like Francis Collins need evolutionary theory.
Working against the teaching of modern evolutionary theory is working against a scientifically competent America.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
A 2009 assessment of Oklahoma students by the NAEP showed that only 24% were at least "proficient" in the sciences. The state has a reputation for low academic achievement, anti-science sentiment, and a religious fundamentalist legislature. Medical research and biotech companies looking for a low-tax state to relocate to will continue to pass Oklahoma over.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@eyezshine
I see you have faced "Faith vs Science" and made an admirable choice. I could say the same.
However, I am a biology major. I can say that you do not need to abandon science; the debate is lively.
Evolution is only pointless from its own perspective: "universe is pointless, so is life, you, this conversation." Because you are a creationist, it is important because you should care about creation and people, which it concerns. If you have better things to do than e-chat, good. :)
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@eyezshine Confirmation bias is fun, eh?
TheMoriMaster 11 months ago
@eyezshine No, we cannot know the creator because it is a fiction that exists only in your head. But it is good of you to grasp onto an hallucination where a lesser person might have sought medical attention. Good for you. Please stay the fuck away from anyone's kids. Thanks.
no2religions 8 months ago
Evolution is not a change in the frequency of existing alleles. Evolution requires the creation of new alleles--new information. Changing the frequency of alleles has no effect towards driving the genome to higher complexity as per evolution. Consider the flies; after the speciation event (when the populations of flies become separated), in one population the previously unobserved (recessive) white eye allele became normal for the population because the dominant one was lost. Data was lost.
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@FuzzyFilmltd
There's nothing in evolution about moving to higher complexity. That's a poorly defined term to begin with. The tiny Daphnia water-flea has 31,000 genes; humans have only 22,000. The genome of the marbled lungfish is 40 times longer than the human genome. Are you more complex than a water flea or a lungfish? On what basis?
New genes are created by gene duplication and divergence, pseudogene reactivation, retroviral activation and other processes. Would you like to know more?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
I'd encourage you to look up a few terms that might be of interest to you if you've been told that all genetic change results in "loss of information":
"Gene family"
"protein domains"
"Hox genes"
"non-reciprocal cross-overs"
I know these are very technical topics, but it's important to understand that you are being deliberately misinformed. No biologist argues that selection adds new genes or alleles. It's the other mechanisms that create new genes with novel functions.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Correct, no one is arguing that selection adds genes or alleles. I was confused that it was your argument because your fly example seemed to me to equate selection with evolution. I have rarely been deliberately misinformed; the vast majority of evolutionists and creationists entirely believe that their arguments are foolproof fact.
Thanks for the interesting topic cluster, cheers to your civility.
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
Comment removed
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Complexity (albeit difficult to define) increases between abiogenesis and modern forms.
Gene families are usu represented by hemoglobin example. A and B hemoglobins were formed when ancestor protein was duplicated. But A and B hemoglobin work together--the ancestral protein would be non-functional. The most interesting thing you mentioned was protein domains, and while evolution by domain realignment is more plausible, all domains have to come from somewhere.
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@FuzzyFilmltd
alpha and beta gene products are part of a protein complex in SOME, but not all forms of hemoglobin. beta4 is also fully functional, as are many variants to differing degrees.
"the ancestral protein would be non-functional" That's a bit silly. The globin superfamily is found in plants, bacteria and animals. There are millions of organisms that do not contain alpha and/or beta genes. I can recommend J Exp Bio 201, 1099–1117 (1998) "Hemoglobins from bacteria to man".
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@FuzzyFilmltd I was talking about the duplication evolution example multiple sources gave me that was specific to human hemoglobin. As you pointed out, I don't know enough about all of hemoglobin to make any statement about it across species. I just meant that half of the hemoglobin complex, in the generations preceding duplication, would not be functional and therefore selected against.
FuzzyFilmltd 1 year ago
@FuzzyFilmltd
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There are millions of organisms with functional hemoglobins not like the human a2b2-globin, and even within humans, we have functional globins made of every combination (1, 2, 4 and 8 subunits of six genes).
The "ancestral" arrangement is still functional as is myoglobin in your muscles. Myoglobin is a monomeric, non-cooperative globin protein that binds oxygen.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
Actually, I meant what I said when I used the word "Theory." A Theory by the scientific sense, is not the highest form of explaination one can have. A Law is the highest form of explaination science accepts. When I say the Theory of Evolution is only a theory, that means it remains unproven in science. If it were a law, then christians would have to attack the foundation of science itself in order to disprove Evolution. It is partially the unrigorous logic which keeps evolution a theory.
LimiconCardoid 1 year ago
@LimiconCardoid
You do not understand the common misconception between the difference between a Scientific* Theory and the common leyman use of the word Theory. A Scientific Theory is the highest form of explanation you can have.
Please go look up the difference and stop parroting misinformation.
Harizl 1 year ago
My main issue with this hypothesis, is that there is no rigorous logical precession that starts off with some basic assumptions and logically leads to the idea that creatures evolve. At least the theory of gravity has it's own logical precession. Even this video is reduced to saying that "genetic diversity leads to change in generations." That is such a fuzzy statement I can only conclude it to be sudo-science. Christianity is exempt from such logical rigor, so it doesnt need to fit as well.
LimiconCardoid 1 year ago
@LimiconCardoid
The Scientific Theory of Gravitation is know to be false. If you actually do the research it is known to be false and is only valid between certain bounds.
The Scientific Theory Evolution on the other hand has never fail to resolve a inconsistency nor has a bound been found.
Please, go discover the basic scientific definitions before commenting upon scientific discussions, you are equivalently commenting that cars in Britain don't gave trunks because they can't wear boots.
Harizl 1 year ago
Brilliant video from a somewhat unusual perspective!
The problem is the cretards are not interested in discussing, in learning nor in changing anything they thing they know. All they want is to keep their sky daddy hallucination intact and make the rest of the world obey even it it means going to war. They are brainwashed and on a mission from the thing that they believe flooded the world and they look forward to the apocalypse and the rapture.
I think they're scared and need a hug! : )
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
@aNdYmAtTeR
Don't do that.
I used to be a "cretard" until people pointed out flaws in my argument and showed me how I was deceived. It's not nice to paint people with such a broad brush, especially with the amount of deconversions going on nowadays.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
"human DNA has evolved very little since our Paleolithic ancestors roamed the earth." From The New Evolution Diet [Kindle Edition] Arthur De Vany PhD.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
What do you think he means by that?
Also, you should know that Arthur De Vany is a PhD economist, and professor of economics. His specialty is the economic models of Hollywood movie-making. I'm not sure why you would cite him on his diet book.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory by
Dr. Ray Bohlin states: The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
Sorry, you're citing Ray Bohlin, head of Probe Ministries? He's a literalist, 6 day creationist, homophobe. He did a PhD at UT Dallas, but his work never concerned anything touching on evolution.
If he's interested in contacting me to discuss a debate or discussion, please feel free to forward my info to him or vice versa. I'm open to discussing whatever evidence he offers in support of a 6 day creation as described in Genesis.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Stop using logical fallacies. Atheist PJDessyn on FirstFreedomFighter's channel gave a link to your video here and I was simply stating Dr. Bohlin's views on the matter. My own views are similiar to his. I suggest you debate someone like FirstFreedomFighter or TheHonestThiest. God bless ;)
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
It's a common misconception that questioning someone's motivation or qualifications is the ad hominem fallacy. I'm not saying that Ray Bohlin is wrong BECAUSE he's a biblical literalist, I'm saying he's wrong, AND he's a biblical literalist.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance No it's not that regarding Dr. Ray Bohlin being wrong. It's the fact that you asked me to contact him which I took to be a logical fallacy quite possibly. But yes the famous ad hominem. Good point
on that one.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming It is not a fallacy to say that someone who doesn't have the qualification the speak about science is wrong about the subject. The guy you talk about simply lack the knowledge in the matter.
oralyon 1 year ago
Well, I think a creationist would disagree with your point that the Earth is really old. And thus because it's young (in their minds) evolution could not have produced the diversity of life you claim it can.
Since questioning their dogma on this is out of the question, can you provide the same video without something that would cause a YEC to dismiss everything you said out of hand because of a simple time difference? eg: this conordance guy is a nut b/c he thinks the earth is 5 billion yrs?
WWJellyfish 1 year ago
Interesting information on red haired individual being able to metabolize analgesics better. If these are truly correlative traits, then might I suggest an observable yet off colored mechanism in which the environment might select for these properties. It's well known that Irish people have a high percentage of red headed people. It just so happens that the Irish also engage in the culturally pervasive consumption of alcohol, an analgesic. Could this be related? I'll let you decide.
eyeammi 1 year ago
your 5 arguments do not make me think that my belief in evolution contradicts with my theistic perspective... i honestly don`t see where we disagree... i believe in these things that you mentioned and also in creationism and still no contradictions...
dragonsword343 1 year ago
All you evolutionists are brainwashed.
Most u that believe in it are low self-esteem pricks who wanna believe we come from nothing.
Anyways those of u that believe in it MORE POWER TO YOU. Its pointless arguing with evolutionists cause they listen to nothing and twist the facts.
Those of u that believe in evolution give a big shout out to your APE grandparents for me LMAO.
bballer0304 1 year ago
Comment removed
pbtwentythree 1 year ago
@bballer0304 And you can give a shout out to your...Oh...Wait...you were made out of nothing weren't you.
corthew 1 year ago
@bballer0304 All you creationistss are brainwashed.
Most u that believe in it are low self-esteem pricks who wanna believe we come from dirt.
Anyways those of u that believe in it MORE POWER TO YOU. Its pointless arguing with creationists cause they listen to nothing and twist the facts.
Those of u that believe in evolution give a big shout out to your SINFULL grandparents for me LMAO.
phookadude 1 year ago
@bballer0304 How come creationists never reply to any of the points in the evolution videos they criticize? This really gets to me, someone goes to a lot of effort to explain many of the details behind the evidence for evolution, and the best response they get is "No! You're stupid and brainwashed!" Come on, do you religious nutjobs even watch these things?
compactdisk2 1 year ago
@compactdisk2
Yea that really gets my goat too.
It happens to me in the comments on YouTube (ok I'm guilty of arguing if I disagree on occasion). You try and explain to someone why what they are saying is wrong, and they don't respond to that point, they just move straight to a different argument.
Little bit like sticking you fingers in your ears and shouting "La, la, la" so evolution can't possibly hurt your fragile religious beliefs.
James92453 1 year ago
@bballer0304 evolution does NOT mean we came from nothing. For example, a Deist may be an evolutionist but he believes that it originated from a creator, at one point.
KDaugherty15 1 year ago
@bballer0304 I've read the Bible. Why don't you try reading a science book?
seeqer66 1 year ago
@seeqer66 Shouldnt be so quick to judge. I've taken 2 college biology courses both with major emphasis on evolution. The people who wrote the evolution sections of the book have just as much insight as you (not alot). Also, when someone had a question regarding evolution such as 'how did the brain and the eyes evolve then?" the teacher would ignore the quesiton or rephrase the question back at the student. Its pathetic how you guys try so hard to defend such a dumbass concept.
bballer0304 1 year ago
@bballer0304 I suggest you go to "talk origins" web site then. It sounds like you were either ignoring what your teachers were telling you, or you were being taught by morons. There are some great explanations on just those subjects. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.
seeqer66 1 year ago
@bballer0304 Well said!
4thcoming 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bballer0304
"I've taken 2 college biology courses both with major emphasis on evolution."
I call bullshit on that. Why? Because in the comment before you claimed that people who accept good science "wanna believe we come from nothing". If you really had taken any courses and paid attention, you would not have said this.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@bballer0304 Will do, and you can give a big shout out to your great great great great great great great great... pile of dust (Genesis2:7).
eyeammi 1 year ago
The question that I would like you to attempt to answer please sir is... How did life begin? Please start at the beginning. I look forward to your response.
danielabraham007 1 year ago
@danielabraham007 Evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life and not how life began.
BlueAvantiGuy 1 year ago
@danielabraham007 There are plenty of good videos that can shed light onto the origin of life. The first two chapters of Life Ascending do a great job at explaining abiogenisis and the origin of DNA too.
123Atheist 1 year ago
I am a Christian, a believer in Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah. I base my beliefs on historical evidence. I have studied the scriptures vigorously and I believe that the Creation story from "Let there be light" to the creation of man is an ALLEGORY (for lack of a better word), not literalist fact. God just runs through the list of things he made from light to microbes to mammals and then humans. Come ask me if you would like to know why I believe.
Hyenashowl 1 year ago
One point of disagreement is on the definition of science. Creationists have a different idea of what science is and how it should be conducted when compared to the science that, well, real scientists practice.
whydie666 1 year ago
Yes but the weak are those who fail to adapt to their environment such as the elderly, the unemployed, the poor, and the disabled.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
So are Christians communists? Social justice? Help the weak? As an atheist who is not a socialist I agree with Darwin. We should turn away those without means from the ER. I don't like hospitals I believe they extend life which is unnatural.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Darwin did not endorse eugenics.
Savaril 1 year ago
Hospitals areagainst evolution. Survivial of the fittest. The weak shall perish the Earth. We have no obligation to help the weak.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne "We have no obligation to help the weak."
True, no obligation. But using that logic we do not have an obligation to help the strong either. What help do they need if they are fit evolutionally? If we do not have a need to help anyone medicine would not exist to begin with. Furthermore natural selection is survival of the fittest, not evolution as a whole. And NS is not just about survival of the fittest. It's adaptation to enviroment. Our adaptation is to "modify" nature.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne not even a moral obligation?
whydie666 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne We have whatever obligation we choose. I choose to help my fellow human beings.If you are not a reverse Poe (which I suspect) you are confusing and is with an ought. Further, we are social animals. Our innate desire to help each other is as vital as our brains and opposable thumb.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
Excellent presentation! I would however, suggest that you have frame te question wrong. Evolution is what you get after you have life, thus Creationist argue with Abiogenesis. Fundamentalist argue with evolutionist perhaps, but even that is becoming more rare.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
I dislike that your tenets of evolution lack a component of DNA expression (which I feel is infinitely more important than DNA) i.e. we have the DNA to make tails, but we don't make them. So DNA cannot be the source of this divergence (well, perhaps the promoter or enhancer sequences were altered). But I can understand why you wouldn't want to overcomplicate an already idea already misunderstood in its simplicity.
Keeban3 1 year ago
The question I really want answered from creationists is: how did god think this all up? Why did god create all this diversity when it isn't necessary for him to enact his little obedience/morality play on this planet? Why aren't there glowing deep sea jellyfish in the bible? Would have been cooler if Jonah was swallowed by one of those.
Excellent vid C0nc0rdance!
dwwolf2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll answer the question:"Where Do We Disagree?".
-God is real
-The Cambrian explosion would have made Darin drop the hilarious idea of Evlution.
-Where are the millions of transition fossils.
-Evolution makes a mockery of science
-As pathetic as American Education is, teaching this junk makes us look like monkeys.
litefogg 1 year ago
@litefogg
1. Not a concern of evolutionary theory.
2. By Darin, do you mean Charles Darwin? If Darwin never existed, would the theory exist now?
3. In museums, private and public collections, universities. How many would you need to be convinced?
4. Can you be more specific?
5. It's only a few small religious groups (Baptists and Muslims, especially) that oppose evolution, and they are mostly in the US and the Middle East. For most of the world, evolution is not politicized.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance If Charles Darwin never existed even if his theory never existed, there would still be a substitute for the biblical creation account. Possibly a more believable one. To say "Baptists and Muslims" are the only opposition, is being narrow minded. I'm neither of those. Also.. Muslims slaughter Christians, daily and you group them? What about Jews? Will they Dismiss the creation account, in the Torah? Not according to the gallup polls.
litefogg 1 year ago
@litefogg from wikipedia " He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea"
hanspshansen 1 year ago
@litefogg The Cambrian Explosion is misleadingly named, and is therefore often called the Cambrian Radiation. It took place over a period of 70 to 80 million years. This is a blink of an eye in geologic terms, but plenty of time for evolution's sake. There were also creatures living before it.
Darwin in fact knew about it, and considered it as an objection to his theory. Lots has been learned about it since then, however.
Why, then, is this an objection to evolution?
Naiant 1 year ago
@Naiant "Why, then, is this an objection to evolution?" Even with the lack of a transitional fossil, how can I object to something that so many well educated scholars fully trust. I was wrong, to trash talk, about evolution, as I was wrong, to speak negatively about Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists. It's actually a small percent. It's a waste of time and not very nice, for me to speak negatively about other religions. I hope, you all can forgive me; or at least, forget about me.
litefogg 1 year ago
@litefogg yeah funny thing is everything you said is retarded
orkasteez 1 year ago
@litefogg Cambrian explosion do you know anything about it lolz moron plz go die young ty
orkasteez 1 year ago
@orkasteez I wanna die young
SouthTexasHeadbanger 1 year ago
@SouthTexasHeadbanger who doesnt life is fucking stupid
orkasteez 1 year ago
@litefogg 1. blah blah
2. The cambrian explosion didn't happen overnight like creatonists like to think. It lasted millions of years.
3. Every species is a transitional form of something else.
4. Evolution has more evidence for its favor than some other scientific theories which even you take for granted.
5. We already are monkeys, or apes more specifically. We are the 5th modern ape.
byteresistor 1 year ago
nothing could evolve before it exists, nothing exists that was not created, things cant create themselves because they dont exist until they are allready created.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks omg retard babies please go to class next time then try again
orkasteez 1 year ago
@modernrocks
"things cant create themselves"
So what created god?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
man i loved how well you explained evolution on genetic levels.
Piersmaru 1 year ago
I thought Ken Miller gave a good explanation of why irreducibly complex systems really aren't irreducible. Behe fails.
dietsnapple89 2 years ago
I think what's important to get across is that evolution is not equal to atheism.
Every single time I see these arguments I notice that the Christians are arguing as if to "believe" in evolution means to believe that god did not create humanity (or life).
I think it's very important to point out that evolution doesn't say that god didn't do it.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
(Quote): "This is called the problem of induction. Imagine that all you have ever seen is white swans. Does that mean that black swans do not exist?" (end quote)
That's not a scientific way to think since science deals with the observable and testable. Now, unless or until it is discovered that "black swans" exist, we must stick to what is known and base our science on the facts.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
I know it's not a scientific way to think and it's why I don't believe in god(s) but it's a concession I make mostly because of my father who's a Physicist with a PHD and also a devout Catholic. The point is that if science is antagonistic to religion, all you'll do is create enemies who are even more determined to hang on to their beliefs. If you simply teach them how to think scientifically (as my Father did), they may eventually reach that conclusion on their own (as I did).
Skydancer365 2 years ago
@Skydancer365 ur right it just means the literal translation of the bible is wrong and they cant handle that as if there god is good and they would something without it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason Evolutionists/Naturalists attack Creationists is because it's too late to cry
Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
(2) Language originates in a mind.
(3) Information exists independent of its medium.
(4) Information and language are not matter or energy.
(5) Biological life forms are the creative and purposeful product of information and language.
Those are the scientific facts.
There are only two known languages to man:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
This is called the problem of induction. Imagine that all you have ever seen is white swans. Does that mean that black swans do not exist?
I could use the same logic to make the following assertion:
1. All codes are produced by HUMANS. ("intelligence" is intentionally vague so you can slip God in there, HUMANS are the only known "codemakers")
2. DNA is a code.
3. Therefore, DNA was made by humans.
I could repeat this process for the Bible. Only HUMANS write books.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
There are many features of DNA code that are not at all like human code. For one, the language of DNA is:
1. Ambiguous in meaning.
2. Nested in context.
3. Contains non-translated structural code.
4. Is dependent on time, and environment.
For example, take the following English sentence as an analogy for how DNA is structured:
"Go1STOPMILKGROCERY2STOPSHOPPINGJOHN
3STOPSHAKESPEAREMILTON--EGGS662198BREAD"
This is a grocery list written in DNA code. Look human to you?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
@C0nc0rdance I think someone has spent to much time listening to Perry Marshall...
Solensherre 1 year ago
Thanks for the video!
It is interesting the different look of evolution in fossils. In fact all is information, and this is what is changing and affect the organisms.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid anti-Christian haters & their propaganda!
Remember boys & girls ALWAYS get both sides of the issue & watch out for the con job ( which may not be readily or easily apparent....especially to the immature & inexperienced!)
Korona41 2 years ago