@GoblinXXX I dont know what these guys are going for. Religion always struck me as being more about the why not the how. Scorpions started out in the ocean and then showed up on land. Common sense says it adapted to live on the land or humped something that could.
@TheVinoThunderbird The whole idea of a "creation" that happened, and is over, belongs to prehistoric times, before we realized volcanoes and erosion were constantly still at work, reshaping the land, when we hadn't taken a hand in domesticating and changing animals and plants OURSELVES. Life and reality in general are part of an ongoing process of change, whether you believe some invisble man in the sky started it all or not.
What amazes me is not that there are uneducated cretards who believe this bollox but that the guys peddling it are clearly in possession of the facts and choose to lie. I just don't understand why they would even make the effort.
@shanedk OK, this is getting weird. I think someone's using a bot to mark your new comments as spam, Shane. This isn't the first of your recent comments that have shown up marked as spam.
@chrisofnottingham Because there is a lot of money to be made for anyone morally bankrupt enough to pass themselves off as a "love me, love thy neighbour, follow me, do as I say, give me your money preacher.
I'm sure people have commented, and I actually wonder if you didn't do this on purpose, but it was only 8:43, not 9:43. If you did this on purpose, tell me, and I'll remove this post.
Well, if you consider that the word "species" is Latin for "kind," I think it's fair to apply the biological definition of species to the creationist "kind." In which case (as all others) they fall on their faces.
@shanedk No doubt about that, but I'm just referring to the word "kind" and the pressure that I've seen people apply for creationists to provide a rigid definition for "kind."
I find it amusing that all of the creationist propaganda comes from the late 70's to early 80's. Anyone with a tiny bit of scientific knowledge could tell them that the last 20 years of science has come further than the 500 years preceding it.
@shanedk And sorry, I wasn't trying to make that comment sound like it was aimed at you, I was just speaking in general the crap I see on YouTube about how believing in logic or the Theory of Evolution means you have no morals, so I hope you didn't think I was talking about you.
I just re-read my comment and realized it sounded somewhat argumental to what you were saying which wasn't what I was attempting to go for.
@BlackenedThorn Wow, it looks like you made an honest mistake then instead of just admitting it you go into denial and try to lie your way out of it. That comment wasn't directed at the person you responded to (shanedk)? You said: "so your implying ..." Who is implying? People in general? It's obvious you thought shanedk was talking about atheist having no morality. Your sentences are not structured at all to look like you're making a general statement about people on youtube. Stop lying dude.
But the fact is, I was posing it more in a way to counter a stereotype I commonly hear.
I came off a bit pissed off due to a series of videos I had just come across that all ragged on Atheisism.
I am already subscribed to Shane, why would I get pissed at him? More over, why would I subscribe to him if I was against his policies when nearly all his videos have to due with subjects similar to this?
@Khyrid I understand what my comment came off like sounding like, the fact is I was pissed at the time and didn't structure the comment the way I should have.
So if you could please drop the subject, I'd be very appreciative.
@BlackenedThorn No it didn't just sound that way, it WAS that way. How stupid do you think I am? I'll tell you what though, I'll drop it if you delete all your comments from this page.
@Khyrid OH WOW, now who the fuck do you think YOU are?
You have no control over me, and if you honestly think I care so much about someone I have never met before nor talked to to the point to form so much as even a social connection with, your really retarded.
You think I need to delete my comments to keep you from continueing this? Its called a "Block User" button dumbass.
Not only have you created a pointless argument and made wrong assumptions, but you have nothing to back it up with.
@BlackenedThorn I am somebody who is more intellectually honest than you. And actually, I do have evidence. Your comments. They prove me correct. I challenge anyone to go back and read the whole exchange from the beginning and then tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead block away. That won't stop me from replying idiot.
Who is "your" (you're)??
"So your implying I kill people because I don't think its wrong?"
Maybe I over-look the fact you can't tell that THROUGH TEXT.
Maybe I am speaking ina way that makes it appear I am talking to a non-existant spector like I would in any bull session I would be in in real life which I do all the time.
Seriously, even if what your saying was correct, why the fuck do you care?
You don't know me. What exactly do I have to prove to you? I don't even like you.
@BlackenedThorn It's not just your comment that tells me I'm right. It's the context of your comment relating to others comments. Because somebody mentioned having no morality in the comment you responded to, and then you went on about defending us atheist morality, not realizing he was talking about creationist. You expect me to believe you just happened to make a general statement when It's worded to sound like talking directly to one person and it fits the context of their comment?
And honestly, rather than get pissy and argue with some random jackass ON YOUTUBE, I would like to spend my time doing what I came here to do and actually WATCH SOME VIDEOS.
So if you feel like carrying this on, be my guest, but if I see a comment from you in my inbox I'm just going to delete it due to the fact that your just some random troll and whether or not I am right or wrong, you will most likely never impact my life in any crucial way.
@BlackenedThorn If you read this or not, I really don't care either. I am amazed at how much you are in denial about your guilt. How hard is it to just say: "Oops, I misread your comment". Then it would have been over, and nobody would have given a shit. Everyone makes mistakes. I don't think you even looked at who wrote the comment you responded to. You just thought somebody said that atheist are immoral and you wrote your comment directed at that person. You fucking replied to that comment.
There are ways of faking heart-attacks that cause no permanent damage except to your eternal soul. If it's your intention to unduly concern the police then good luck with that.
How old is this movie, because it looks old, and it could have been made prior to the discovery of numerous fossils such as Tiktaalik, which is a definite transitional form fish to amphibian.
Not only did they mention just one from of mutation, but natural... I guess you could call them copy errors that happen to every fetus regardless of the species.
Question 1)if we came from monkeys, then why are there still moneys on the earth. 2) You said "you don't have one species move from one Branch to another" SO How doe's a monkey Become a Man...BUZZZ MAJOR FAIL! 3) How did life start in order to evolve...you need Life to Create Life....Chicken and Egg...BuZZ Major FAIL.
@TheDrac3000 1) This is equivalent to asking, "If I came from my grandfather, why do I have cousins?" We didn't evolve from extant monkeys; we and monkeys came from a common ancestral population.
2) As I just said, it DOESN'T. Monkeys and humans have a COMMON ANCESTOR. At some point, that ancestral population split; their ancestors went one way, and we went another.
3) That's abiogenesis, not evolution, but see the work of Dr. Jack Szostak for your answer.
Sickle cell anemia and CCR5 are the only known mutations to provide any positives. Why no comment from evo's on the other 4000 + genetic mutations which are known to be harmful? Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information. And think about this. To have 25000 neutral mutations in a human like species would take 10 million years and represent just 0.0007% of the genome. You are clutching at straws as always with your onesided evobabble.
@GrantasaurusRex "Sickle cell anemia and CCR5 are the only known mutations to provide any positives."
WRONG. For another example, there is a mutation in a large family of Italians that allows them to break down cholesterol in their systems, and so they never have to worry about plaque building up in their arteries.
Can you drink milk? That's a mutation--lactose-intolerant people have the older allele, but since the mutation was so beneficial most people have it now.
@shanedk your low cholestrol italians was discovered when a man went to hospital with high blood triglyceride levels, a risk factor for heart disease. So while he had good HDL he was still very sick obviously. So no gain is there? But the best reason why Italians generally have low cholestrol is their diet. Type "italian cholestrol" in google, most of it relates to better diet & nothing to do with mutations.
@GrantasaurusRex I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's certainly NOT the mutation I've referred to. This has been known about for DECADES. It's the SER447-STOP mutation, and it's only in members of a certain family. It is NOT all Italians. They eat a diet high in saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol but don't have a problem with plaque buildup. It's well documented.
@GrantasaurusRex Then there's Gbeta3-s, which increases immune cell function. There's H7H7, which reduces the risk of heart attack. There's PAI-1, which protects against atherosclerosis. On and on and on. They HAPPEN. DEAL with it.
@shanedk you have not provided one thing that proves these mutations were the product of evolution. Do you not agree that many genes are present in an organism but may or may not be used? There is no way for new genes to occur and new information to be added to the genome is there? As I pointed out the mutation that protects against AIDS was there long before AIDS was. I could agree with you that it evolved provided it evolved in response to AIDS but it didnt did it. It was always there.
@shanedk lactose tolerance / intolorance. Humans that traditionally did not consume milk products generally have the older gene. What about other mammals. A tiger cub has milk then is weaned onto meat. A blue whale calf has milk then plankton. A bovine calf has milk then grass. None apart from humans have milk products in adult life. We do only because we can. Consumption of dairy products is known to be linked to higher cholestrol and heart diesease. So is this mutation really beneficial?
@GrantasaurusRex First of all, it's "the other allele," not "the other gene." Second, if you go to parts of the world (like some Asian countries) where people traditionally have not drank milk, you'll find the older allele all over the place.
"We do only because we can."
Because long ago it was important to our survival.
You're being completely disingenuous. Those problems only occurred more recently when people started living longer. And it's STILL better than starving.
Milk has a LOT of nutrients. Stop thinking like a spoiled 21st-century brat; back then, people STARVED, and milk made the difference between a LOT of people starving or living.
@shanedk IIRC, the diet of the Irish poor (pre-blight, that is) was potatoes, some greens, and milk. With pre-mechanization farming, they got up to a quite astonishing population density with that. (It also helped that potatoes would grow in a lot of places in Ireland where you can't grow any other crops to speak of with that level of technology.)
@shanedk Anyway the point being is that harmful mutations far outstrip the number of so called beneficial ones dont they? do you deny that? The Human Genome project stated that only two could happen in any generation and that only 1% of mutations may be good. A third mutation is always fatal. As DNA error checks with an accuracy of one mistake per 10 billion genes this means about every third generation there may be an error or mutation. Not enough time for the grand fairy tale to happen.
@GrantasaurusRex "Anyway the point being is that harmful mutations far outstrip the number of so called beneficial ones dont they?"
Even if we accept that, so what? Natural selection eliminates them and selects the beneficial, so the relative occurrence of harmful to beneficial is pretty much irrelevant.
@shanedk Ever the optimist arent you. Dont go to Las Vegas and gamble as you dont understand odds. If one is beneficial at a rate of 1% per 100 this means there are many more that are harmful. In any case there has not been enough time to go from first life to man even if all mutations were good.
@GrantasaurusRex It's called natural selection, a term you should get acquainted with if you want to debate evolution. The harmful mutations have a much lower chance of being passed on, the beneficial mutations have a very good chance of being passed on.
And 500 million years of multicellular life is plenty of time for evolution to give rise to hominids like us. Evolution's not that slow.
@genericmember1 Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. It' s role is to keep species from extinction. Dna does it's best to stop errors as well. Mutation, variation, natural selection or any combination of the three will not drive evolution. Natural selection only selects what is available, variation is made up of only what genes are available and mutations are mostly harmful. There is no new genetic infomation from these processes.
@GrantasaurusRex Key word there "Mostly". There's a 70% chance of a mutation being harmful. Occasionally beneficial mutations do happen. Beneficial mutations will be "selected" as they are available when they do happen.
Your second comment said that there is not one peer reviewed paper that can demonstrate new features forming. There's a saying in biology.
"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
You say there's no papers, there are thousands. Open your eyes.
@genericmember1 "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
One word too many. The word is "except". There are no transitional forms. In fact there should be millions of them. All fossils supposed to be a missing link have since been disproven. Ardi , Ida , Lucy, Archaeopteryx , Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans to name a few.
Bullshit. There are thousands and thousands in museums all over the world.
"All fossils supposed to be a missing link have since been disproven. Ardi , Ida , Lucy, Archaeopteryx , Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans to name a few."
References to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
@shanedk ditto references to peer-reviewed scientific literature or they dont exist.
Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of
London's Natural History Museum:
"[Stephen Jay] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are
hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. "
Here's an evolutionist museum creator acknowledging what you can't. Quoting and evolutionist , paleontologist Stephen J Gould as well. Doesent get any better does it?
@shanedk reference please or it is true. Two can play the demand a reference game. But it's true anyway. The reason Gould came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory is because he realised there were no transitionals. He called the lack of transitionals the trade secret of paleontology.
@shanedk Shubin, N., et al., "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature 440:757-763, 6 April 2006"
Do you not understand this is one guys opinion in a pro evlution publication. It is not a reference any more than an article in a newspaper is. Nice try. No cigar.
@GrantasaurusRex "Do you not understand this is one guys opinion in a pro evlution publication."
First of all, the paper has three authors, not one. Second, the discovery was made by a team of a dozen or more. Third, it survived rigorous peer review. Fourth, your stylization of Nature--the most respected science magazine on the planet--as having and acting on preconceived biases smacks of conspiracy theory, and shows how desperate and pathetic you are to avoid the truth.
@shanedk There has been many times in history when a group of people have been wrong. I think you will find Tiktaalik is readed for the rubbish bin soon - same one Lucy's in.
@GrantasaurusRex Lucy (A. afarensis) has NEVER been disproven or discredited. It's another LIE. We have MANY specimens of A. afarensis, and they have ALL withstood scientific scrutiny. Once again, you're spreading LIES.
@shanedk You make out as tho Lucy was a complete skeleton. Only small bits were found and Donald Johansen (?) later admitted the leg bones were found over a mile away and 120 ft deeper in the strata. Also it was so badly powdered alot of it disintegrated when touched. They made the rest with clay on their own "impression" of what it may have been like. Dodgy science to base your rock solid belief on really. Science that fits your beliefs is not necessarily good science is it?
@GrantasaurusRex "Only small bits were found and Donald Johansen (?) later admitted the leg bones were found over a mile away"
This is another LIE. ALL of Lucy's bones are presented as found. In fact, now you're FALSELY accusing scientists of outright fraud, which is NOT allowed on this channel. First warning.
@shanedk Read what Wiki has to say about Lucy. The leg bone was found 1.6 miles away. Also look at the picture of what they actually found before commenting. And on calling people liars , threats etc. Anyone reading this will just think you are a spolit brat. Second warning coming up I guess. I'm scared. Or not.
notice: the AL 129 is a complete joint region between the right femur and Tibia: Lucy's official remains don't include this. thus the conclusion is clear: they did not fabricate the femur find-not from AL 129-1.
@GrantasaurusRex No, there was a leg bone of a DIFFERENT SPECIMEN but the same species found that distance away. That bone has NEVER, EVER, EVER been considered to be a part of Lucy.
You are LYING, and making false accusations of fraud, AGAIN. Second warning.
@shanedk How is Tiktaalik not a transitional, for example? Because it came 10+ million years after the tetrapod it was supposed to have evolved into. Do understand this concept? Also it could not support its weight on land as it had fins which are not connected to the main skeleton which would be essential. It will go the same way as the others like Lucy etc if it hasn't already. It was a fish just like Coelacanth. Another Darwinian fantasy. You got to laugh.
Let's say you go back in time to when the stratum Tiktaalik was discovered in was laid down. You see Tiktaaliks all over the place, and you see land tetrapods as well. Then you say, "If these land tetrapods came from Tiktaaliks, then why are there still Tiktaaliks?"
EXACTLY the same thing. Your refusal to acknowledge that shows not only your ignorance, but also how desperately you protect your pathetic bronze-age delusion.
@shanedk And what is your delusion? That somehow lifeless materials got together and started life? Abiogenisis? That despite knowing that there are far more harmful mutations than good ones you believe things are evolving to a higher state. Who is delusional? Run away and cry on mummys shoulder.
@shanedk So evolution is a theory without a basis then? Most school text books include chapters on abiogenis in the promotion of evolution. You know the nice warm little pond with just the right ingrediants , just the right temperature , bit of lightning. Mmm .....I remember a fairytale like this - Goldilocks. And it was just right.... Abiogenisis was disproven 120 yrs ago by Louis Pasteur. Nothing has changed. Without abiogenisis happening evolution is dead. The end, No connection then?
@GrantasaurusRex "So evolution is a theory without a basis then?"
Evolution is the best supported theory in all of science, better even than gravity. If we don't know evolution's true, then we don't know ANYTHING's true.
"You know the nice warm little pond"
No, hydrothermal vents in oceans.
"Abiogenisis was disproven 120 yrs ago by Louis Pasteur."
No, it wasn't, LIAR. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, which was a tenet of CREATIONISM.
@shanedk All school text books have chapters on abiogenesis in relation to evolution. To believe in natralistic evolution abiogenesis MUST have occurred. To say I have moved the goal posts is not true is it? Same subject just different area. Hey I know - warm little pond - just the right ingrediants -throw in a bit of lightning and presto - just right for life to begin. There is a fairytale like this ....Goldilocks ... just right. Then again it could be bullshit.... suitable for the under fives.
@shanedk From the free online dictionary. Read it and weep. Do some research first before you look dumb. Whoops too late.
abiogenesis [ˌeɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Also called autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another name for spontaneous generation
@GrantasaurusRex The only thing about that which makes me weep is the fact that you're so stupid that you think the free online dictionary counts as a scientific reference.
actually, reading wikipedia, I have to say you have a serious lack of comprehension skills: the text is very clear: there was one set of remains (AL 129-1), composed of a lower femur, that was found 1.6 miles away from Lucy (Al 288-1), with the two being clearly stated as being from two different specimens.
further, since a picture of AL 129 is available on wikipedia, it can be compared to what was found of Lucy, and it is clearly evident that AL-129 was never used for Lucy.
no, it doesn't say that. what, do you want me to quote the entire paragraph on it's discovery? it clearly says that there were 2 different speciments, not one, and that they were never considered part of the same apecimen (since they were given two different numbers: Al 288-1 and Al 129-1).
BTW: I found evidence that the article had been adited recently, specifically the last section. (I have a wikipedia account), which oddly makes you claim, in contrdiction to the previous paragraph.
I'm not making THAT quick an assumption-as understandable as it is.
the edit was made a week ago, and there seems to have been an undo done just before that, regarding the same section (discovery).
it may have been done by a creationist, or by a poor writer, who had trouble describing the distribution of bones. either way, the section in question is where this fellow down there is getting off on.
doesn't change the fact that he lied, and ignored the evidence I gave him regarding the femur.
furthermore, while the skeleton was scattered, it was still found on a single slope (i.e a single sight), and there was no duplication of any of the bones (that is, they did not find two right femurs). the scattering is not surprising, as the animal died in a fluvial environment, and it's remains would have been scattered by water on decomposition.
oh, and
"goodnight moron"
Jesus would surely be proud of you.nothing like proving how Chrsitian you are, by contradicting him
@Albukhshi Trying to use religeon against me? You can't even get that right can you? The Bible clearly states those who deny God are fools. A moron is a fool. But just in case I am mistaken I will use absolutely correct terminology. Goodnight Fool.
@shanedk In your dreams. He referred to his hazy recollection. Or he would have put the reference in like this. :"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' Psalm 53:1 See how it's done? So I am right you are fools.
1-no: I'm not trying to use religion against you. I did point out the irony of a guy who supposedly reads the gospels and yet somehow forgets to listen to them. and that wasn't even my main point: why else did I make it my last remark?
2-I'm aware of psalms, and by it's logic, no, I'm no fool.
@Albukhshi And have a look at the bones of Lucy while you are there. Most of them - you know the nice pictures - are held together by wire. Where did they find the wire. lol. Means made up by interpretation. Whose? The devout evolutionist that found them. When are you going to face facts? Even if evolution was true Lucy is not an ancestor. The pelvic bones were reshaped to fit with a view not a fact.
I did (duh?); otherwise, I wouldn't be citing the pictures, and I wouldn't think you are full of it.
now, the pelvis: yes, it was distorted when found. no, it was not initially given a humanoid recontruction: it was given an ape reconstruction. problem with that was that the upper pubic ramus that resulted was totally wrong. this, and the fact that more of her species was discovered (yes, there are others), suppported a human pelvic shape.
@GrantasaurusRex No, you were too cowardly and dishonest to use an actual scientific dictionary:
"(Biology) the theory that life can arise from nonliving materials" Science-DictionaryDOTcom
That's IT. What you're doing is DISHONESTLY looking at the fact that it includes categorically the discredited concept of spontaneous generation, and LYING to say that it ONLY includes that.
@shanedk I think if you believe something then it is true to you. So if you believe in evolution it must be true - to you. So if we evolved from monkeys then this is true to you. All you have to do is find the missing link. Relax I have found it for you.
Chimp turns into Chump ( the new ex missing link - it is now found thanks to you ) Chump turns into Dumbass Human who thinks evolution is possible. Problem solved. In evolutionary terms you are still at the Chump stage. Goodnight Chump
@GrantasaurusRex "Stephen Jay Gould is the evolutionary theorist at Harvard University:"
That's interesting Grantasaurus. That means two things. Since you said the and not an evolutionary theorist that means Harvard only has one, and that arguably the most prestigious University on the planet has to fill this slot with a man who died in 2002.
I guess the crash of '08 did some damage to their endowment.
@GrantasaurusRex I'm not impressed by creationist quote mines (lies). I've heard them all before, and I've read Gould and know what he was REALLY talking about.
@GrantasaurusRex The guy was misquoted, how can you use one of his quotes unless you were blindly following what someone else said without checking? Google him, loads of links show up that show that he is misquoted by creationists.
Heck the very first result should put this to rest. Did you even fact check before you quote mined this?
@genericmember1 Yes , yes of course he was misquoted if you say so. Actually he could have said it. And actually he did. No need to throw your toys out because it doesen't suit you is there?
@GrantasaurusRex All of the Pakicetus fossils have been disproven? I missed that meeting, and here I was thinking fossils detailing cetacean evolution were pretty abundant. How silly of me.
Pretty much very fossil is a transitional fossil between one species and another. You say there's none, I say I have a few sitting on my shelf that I found myself.
I don't know who told you that they were all disproved, but they told a lie to you.
@genericmember1 As I stated in a previous post. There are 4000 + harmful mutations in humans and very few if any good ones. By your theory natural selection should have eliminated the harmful ones but it hasn't. Natural selection does not think. It works to eliminate all mutations to keep the genome clean. As for your 1000's of papers you mean 1000's of opinions. Not one peer reviewed paper has demonstrated how new features could occur randomly. Evolution is sinking. Bail out now.
@GrantasaurusRex I shld just stop now, because I know you're so brainwashed nothing will convince you.... Anyway.
Beneficial mutations do remain. Take for example this peer reviewed paper "Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli".
@GrantasaurusRex A beneficial mutation meant that the e-coli could digest citrates. This mutation remained and the strain of ecoli that could digest citrates flourished and was soon dominant, and the mutation remained. You can't just make sweeping statements like "It works to eliminate all mutations to keep the genome clean" when it flies in the face of the evidence, and you know it.
@GrantasaurusRex But I would like to lay down a challenge to you. You seem so keen on peer reviewed papers, well can you find me a peer reviewed paper that identifies genes that can only be explained by your God creating it?
Genes have an evolutionary explanation for their existence in pretty much every circumstance, if the genome was designed the evidence should be everywhere. So what gene was designed?
If you can't find one then ID has sunk (as if it ever set sail). Bail out now.
@genericmember1 I have gone and looked over my posts and to the best of my knowledge did not mention God or ID. You are welcome to recheck them. It is you that has brought this up by making an assumption. True? Looking forward to your reply.
@genericmember1 Why does anyone have to have an alternative hypothesis or any hypothesis for that matter. Sorry for not having one but I didnt realise it was compulsory. I would rather have none than believe in total BS.
@GrantasaurusRex Ok, so here's your interpretation of things. Genes didn't evolve, but they weren't designed either? Am I correct?
I'm sorry, but you're obviously against evolution for a reason. I reckon you do have an alternative hypothesis, but you're too ashamed to stick up for it.
I mean I've already shown you evolution with the e-coli whose genes mutated so they could use citrates as an extra form of energy. It's not BS.
Just out of interest, what's your view on selective breeding?
@genericmember1 On the subject of random mutations, there is not a single peer-reviewed paper, book or experiment that can demonstrate how they could produce new features. Not one. Easy to falsify. Most mutations will be cleared by natural selection. And nothing says that only the bad ones are eliminated either.
@GrantasaurusRex That has nothing to do with it. changes are evolution no matter what your opinion is on how helpful or harmful they are. People with things like lactose intolerance and mostly any other handicap exist because they can and do live long enough to reproduce. As our technology advances, we require fewer and fewer physical assets and it becomes easier and easier for physically inept humans to survive and reproduce. We adapt to our environment, not become superman.
@KevinLounsberry "People with things like lactose intolerance and mostly any other handicap exist because they can and do live long enough to reproduce."
Actually, lactose-intolerant people have the historical gene. The rest of us are mutants. The mutation arose when people began drinking milk; this gave them less of a chance of starvation. In places like Asia, where historically milk was not drunk, they are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant for this very reason.
1. you didn't just argue against evolution, but also against abiogenesis, big bang
2. atheist don't think they have everything figured out. they just realise that "god-dun-it" is a non-answer. It explains nothing and is completely worthless, void and useless. In fact, it raises even more questions instead...
3. we have a method to seperate fact from fiction. it's called science. And science works cause my pc boots, robots drive around on mars and atom bombs explode.
@Tripockets Why do you keep saying that there is no proof when the number of evidence is overwhelming? What's so bad about being an ape descnedant? You're evolved now. I think you're just lacking the basic knowlledge about evolution, please sir read science books, watch documentaries, get informed because wether you think it's pretty or not evolution is a scinetific fact, it happened.
@Tripockets There you go with calling me a monkey brain again, what a childish being. ''but trying to deceive me in to believing we come from monkeys'' We did not come from monkeys, we came from apes. See? You don't know what you're talking about.
@Tripockets Say whatever you want about evolution, it's a worldwide accepted fact and not accepting it makes you willfully ignorant. The only ones who discredit evolution are religious nutcases who believe this planet to be 6000 years old, sadly this hypothesis was destroyed long ago due to overwhelming evidence of the contrary. Now stop calling me ''monkey brain'', you aren't a five year old, let's talk like adults. You should get informed on a subject before bashing it.
@Tripockets Yeah... I have scientific facts and decades of observations and evidences while you have NOTHING. Evolution is a scientific fact, accept it and move on. The bible is just religion, you can believe and god and still accept evolution. You wanna talk about fairy tales? Talk about a man being made out of dust, a world wide flood (that never happened), talking animals, a jewish zombie (jesus), a man who survived in a fish's belly for 3 days, unicorns and giants! All this is in the bible
@Tripockets I find it kinda funny that you discredit theories your little cannot comprehend or does not even want to comprehend out of fear of a god. I am not the money brain, you are sir. You do not answer the questions about the universe and life by simply ''God'' this is the coward way out. People from the bronze age answered everything with ''god'' because they had no education and no real knowledge, now that science has progressed we answer questions with reason and scientific facts.
@Tripockets You show a great lack of misunderstanding of the big bang theory and abiogenesis. The big bang does not state that there was an explosion, but rather an expansion of space and time, we do not know yet what caused this expansion but science will surely discover it someday, and for abiogenesis it doesn't state that life came out from only rocks, water and electricity, it came from the Amino acids formed in the conditions of the early earth.
@Tripockets Yeah they are idiots, every body with a brain knows that man was magically formed out of dust and woman MAGICALLY formed out of a man's limb! Wait...
creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very-beneficial-mutation don't forget to check the end.
/watch?v=8agE1HXN9y8 here a friend clearly expains about CCR5.I hope you wath open-mindedly.As you can see if you do little research,CCR5 experiment only gains cell a little HIV resistance with disabling ccr5 receptor.but then the cell becomes more open and defenseless to other deseases for example hepatitis-c. You can't see the whole picture
@condemnedf0rlife Ah, yes, creation.com--there's a reliable source. NOT!!!
If someone has the allele from both parents, they are ALMOST COMPLETELY IMMUNE TO AIDS. I wouldn't call that "a little HIV resistance"!
Lots of other stuff there: the receptor isn't "damaged," it's just closed. I don't know where you're getting the Hep-C stuff from, but it's just WRONG: there is no difference with the general population, and even a slight amount of PROTECTION among hemophiliacs.
More exclamation points = truer. I thought everyone knew that!!!!!!!!
GoblinXXX 1 month ago
@GoblinXXX I dont know what these guys are going for. Religion always struck me as being more about the why not the how. Scorpions started out in the ocean and then showed up on land. Common sense says it adapted to live on the land or humped something that could.
TheVinoThunderbird 1 month ago
@TheVinoThunderbird The whole idea of a "creation" that happened, and is over, belongs to prehistoric times, before we realized volcanoes and erosion were constantly still at work, reshaping the land, when we hadn't taken a hand in domesticating and changing animals and plants OURSELVES. Life and reality in general are part of an ongoing process of change, whether you believe some invisble man in the sky started it all or not.
GoblinXXX 1 month ago
ARRGGGHHH! That wretched horrible siren noise. After a while the novelty of it wore off and I couldn't bear to hear any more.
mandolinic 2 months ago
I couldn't stop laughing hahaha!
Boss5414 2 months ago
Lol, the fail rate should become a standardised tool.
biggingeryeti 4 months ago
The creationists make some pretty good troll videos.
Optimusprimemc1 5 months ago
What amazes me is not that there are uneducated cretards who believe this bollox but that the guys peddling it are clearly in possession of the facts and choose to lie. I just don't understand why they would even make the effort.
chrisofnottingham 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrisofnottingham They have an agenda, and it makes them LOADS of money by milking the gullible.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk OK, this is getting weird. I think someone's using a bot to mark your new comments as spam, Shane. This isn't the first of your recent comments that have shown up marked as spam.
evensgrey 6 months ago
@evensgrey Wouldn't surprise me.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Any way we could figure out if that has been happening?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Not that I know of.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Well, s***. :-|
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@chrisofnottingham Have you heard of "money?" How much do tevelangelists make?
tjhombs 5 months ago
@chrisofnottingham Because there is a lot of money to be made for anyone morally bankrupt enough to pass themselves off as a "love me, love thy neighbour, follow me, do as I say, give me your money preacher.
AgCCannonFodder 4 months ago
I'm sure people have commented, and I actually wonder if you didn't do this on purpose, but it was only 8:43, not 9:43. If you did this on purpose, tell me, and I'll remove this post.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu The original video I was debunking was 9:43. The fact that mine was exactly one minute shorter is a coincidence.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Nice coincidence.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu It has caused some confusion.
shanedk 6 months ago
atheist brainwashing at its best. lol
whiteliketar 7 months ago
I can't believe the sheer amount of bullshit creationist spew out.
Khyrid 8 months ago
Even if Darwin never lived and we never found a single fossil, evolution is still the best scientific theory we have because of DNA.
cchris000043 9 months ago
Well, if you consider that the word "species" is Latin for "kind," I think it's fair to apply the biological definition of species to the creationist "kind." In which case (as all others) they fall on their faces.
Gorillathehun 9 months ago
@Gorillathehun Yes, but then they shift the goalposts and start making it genus or something.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk No doubt about that, but I'm just referring to the word "kind" and the pressure that I've seen people apply for creationists to provide a rigid definition for "kind."
We already have a good rigorous definition.
Gorillathehun 9 months ago
@shanedk
Not to mention a kind of Argument from etymology.
vspqbd 9 months ago
I find it amusing that all of the creationist propaganda comes from the late 70's to early 80's. Anyone with a tiny bit of scientific knowledge could tell them that the last 20 years of science has come further than the 500 years preceding it.
sacrament182 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek It helps to have absolutely no morals whatsoever.
shanedk 10 months ago 5
@shanedk Me being atheist makes me immoral?
So your implying I kill people because I don't think its wrong?
That I rob and mug innocent people because only I matter?
Seriously, if you think that just because we don't believe in a god we are immoral, your ignorant.
BlackenedThorn 9 months ago
@BlackenedThorn I was talking about creationists. I'm an atheist.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Read my other comment. I wasn't aiming the statement at you.
BlackenedThorn 9 months ago
@shanedk And sorry, I wasn't trying to make that comment sound like it was aimed at you, I was just speaking in general the crap I see on YouTube about how believing in logic or the Theory of Evolution means you have no morals, so I hope you didn't think I was talking about you.
I just re-read my comment and realized it sounded somewhat argumental to what you were saying which wasn't what I was attempting to go for.
BlackenedThorn 9 months ago
@BlackenedThorn Wow, it looks like you made an honest mistake then instead of just admitting it you go into denial and try to lie your way out of it. That comment wasn't directed at the person you responded to (shanedk)? You said: "so your implying ..." Who is implying? People in general? It's obvious you thought shanedk was talking about atheist having no morality. Your sentences are not structured at all to look like you're making a general statement about people on youtube. Stop lying dude.
Khyrid 8 months ago
@Khyrid I will admit, I structured it wrong.
But the fact is, I was posing it more in a way to counter a stereotype I commonly hear.
I came off a bit pissed off due to a series of videos I had just come across that all ragged on Atheisism.
I am already subscribed to Shane, why would I get pissed at him? More over, why would I subscribe to him if I was against his policies when nearly all his videos have to due with subjects similar to this?
BlackenedThorn 8 months ago
@Khyrid I understand what my comment came off like sounding like, the fact is I was pissed at the time and didn't structure the comment the way I should have.
So if you could please drop the subject, I'd be very appreciative.
BlackenedThorn 8 months ago
@BlackenedThorn No it didn't just sound that way, it WAS that way. How stupid do you think I am? I'll tell you what though, I'll drop it if you delete all your comments from this page.
Khyrid 8 months ago
@Khyrid OH WOW, now who the fuck do you think YOU are?
You have no control over me, and if you honestly think I care so much about someone I have never met before nor talked to to the point to form so much as even a social connection with, your really retarded.
You think I need to delete my comments to keep you from continueing this? Its called a "Block User" button dumbass.
Not only have you created a pointless argument and made wrong assumptions, but you have nothing to back it up with.
BlackenedThorn 8 months ago
@BlackenedThorn I am somebody who is more intellectually honest than you. And actually, I do have evidence. Your comments. They prove me correct. I challenge anyone to go back and read the whole exchange from the beginning and then tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead block away. That won't stop me from replying idiot.
Who is "your" (you're)??
"So your implying I kill people because I don't think its wrong?"
Khyrid 8 months ago
@Khyrid Or maybe your just over-looking things.
Such as the view and tone I carry in an argument.
Maybe I over-look the fact you can't tell that THROUGH TEXT.
Maybe I am speaking ina way that makes it appear I am talking to a non-existant spector like I would in any bull session I would be in in real life which I do all the time.
Seriously, even if what your saying was correct, why the fuck do you care?
You don't know me. What exactly do I have to prove to you? I don't even like you.
BlackenedThorn 8 months ago
@BlackenedThorn It's not just your comment that tells me I'm right. It's the context of your comment relating to others comments. Because somebody mentioned having no morality in the comment you responded to, and then you went on about defending us atheist morality, not realizing he was talking about creationist. You expect me to believe you just happened to make a general statement when It's worded to sound like talking directly to one person and it fits the context of their comment?
Khyrid 8 months ago
And honestly, rather than get pissy and argue with some random jackass ON YOUTUBE, I would like to spend my time doing what I came here to do and actually WATCH SOME VIDEOS.
So if you feel like carrying this on, be my guest, but if I see a comment from you in my inbox I'm just going to delete it due to the fact that your just some random troll and whether or not I am right or wrong, you will most likely never impact my life in any crucial way.
Good day, asshole.
BlackenedThorn 8 months ago
@BlackenedThorn If you read this or not, I really don't care either. I am amazed at how much you are in denial about your guilt. How hard is it to just say: "Oops, I misread your comment". Then it would have been over, and nobody would have given a shit. Everyone makes mistakes. I don't think you even looked at who wrote the comment you responded to. You just thought somebody said that atheist are immoral and you wrote your comment directed at that person. You fucking replied to that comment.
Khyrid 8 months ago
There are ways of faking heart-attacks that cause no permanent damage except to your eternal soul. If it's your intention to unduly concern the police then good luck with that.
TheWorldFarOff 10 months ago
How old is this movie, because it looks old, and it could have been made prior to the discovery of numerous fossils such as Tiktaalik, which is a definite transitional form fish to amphibian.
Jonstern1983 10 months ago
Not only did they mention just one from of mutation, but natural... I guess you could call them copy errors that happen to every fetus regardless of the species.
Jonstern1983 10 months ago
@Jonstern1983 Everyone has something like 50-150 mutations in their genome. All humans are mutants.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk Yes, and it's not just humans that have so many mutations, and that's what I was saying.
Jonstern1983 10 months ago
Oh man, I actually thought at first that you were going to do the whole video with that voice synthesizer!!
ManOfDeath567 11 months ago
Seriously, One of my policies on youtube is to, in general, avoid any video which has a title written in all caps.
RaustBD 1 year ago
8:10 - I gotta watch that on repeat :)
JuryDutySummons 1 year ago
Holy shit, the narrator is that gay guy from 30 rock.
4:28 is when he himself contradicts the findings of pseudo-science.
Millipedecult 1 year ago
Question 1)if we came from monkeys, then why are there still moneys on the earth. 2) You said "you don't have one species move from one Branch to another" SO How doe's a monkey Become a Man...BUZZZ MAJOR FAIL! 3) How did life start in order to evolve...you need Life to Create Life....Chicken and Egg...BuZZ Major FAIL.
TheDrac3000 1 year ago
@TheDrac3000 1) This is equivalent to asking, "If I came from my grandfather, why do I have cousins?" We didn't evolve from extant monkeys; we and monkeys came from a common ancestral population.
2) As I just said, it DOESN'T. Monkeys and humans have a COMMON ANCESTOR. At some point, that ancestral population split; their ancestors went one way, and we went another.
3) That's abiogenesis, not evolution, but see the work of Dr. Jack Szostak for your answer.
shanedk 1 year ago
@TheDrac3000 What's that you say, drac? "herp derp"?
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
Sickle cell anemia and CCR5 are the only known mutations to provide any positives. Why no comment from evo's on the other 4000 + genetic mutations which are known to be harmful? Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information. And think about this. To have 25000 neutral mutations in a human like species would take 10 million years and represent just 0.0007% of the genome. You are clutching at straws as always with your onesided evobabble.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Sickle cell anemia and CCR5 are the only known mutations to provide any positives."
WRONG. For another example, there is a mutation in a large family of Italians that allows them to break down cholesterol in their systems, and so they never have to worry about plaque building up in their arteries.
Can you drink milk? That's a mutation--lactose-intolerant people have the older allele, but since the mutation was so beneficial most people have it now.
TONS of examples.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk your low cholestrol italians was discovered when a man went to hospital with high blood triglyceride levels, a risk factor for heart disease. So while he had good HDL he was still very sick obviously. So no gain is there? But the best reason why Italians generally have low cholestrol is their diet. Type "italian cholestrol" in google, most of it relates to better diet & nothing to do with mutations.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's certainly NOT the mutation I've referred to. This has been known about for DECADES. It's the SER447-STOP mutation, and it's only in members of a certain family. It is NOT all Italians. They eat a diet high in saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol but don't have a problem with plaque buildup. It's well documented.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Then there's Gbeta3-s, which increases immune cell function. There's H7H7, which reduces the risk of heart attack. There's PAI-1, which protects against atherosclerosis. On and on and on. They HAPPEN. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk you have not provided one thing that proves these mutations were the product of evolution. Do you not agree that many genes are present in an organism but may or may not be used? There is no way for new genes to occur and new information to be added to the genome is there? As I pointed out the mutation that protects against AIDS was there long before AIDS was. I could agree with you that it evolved provided it evolved in response to AIDS but it didnt did it. It was always there.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Evolution is the product of mutation (and subsequent natural selection), not the other way around.
"There is no way for new genes to occur and new information to be added to the genome is there?"
I have a video showing a single mutation creating a new gene with over 2000 bits of new information.
"As I pointed out the mutation that protects against AIDS was there long before AIDS was."
Because HIV-1 isn't the only pathogen to attack cells in this way.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk lactose tolerance / intolorance. Humans that traditionally did not consume milk products generally have the older gene. What about other mammals. A tiger cub has milk then is weaned onto meat. A blue whale calf has milk then plankton. A bovine calf has milk then grass. None apart from humans have milk products in adult life. We do only because we can. Consumption of dairy products is known to be linked to higher cholestrol and heart diesease. So is this mutation really beneficial?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex First of all, it's "the other allele," not "the other gene." Second, if you go to parts of the world (like some Asian countries) where people traditionally have not drank milk, you'll find the older allele all over the place.
"We do only because we can."
Because long ago it was important to our survival.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "So is this mutation really beneficial?"
You're being completely disingenuous. Those problems only occurred more recently when people started living longer. And it's STILL better than starving.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk People can live with out milk cant they? So they are not going to starve are they? Nice touch or drama tho
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "People can live with out milk cant they?"
Milk has a LOT of nutrients. Stop thinking like a spoiled 21st-century brat; back then, people STARVED, and milk made the difference between a LOT of people starving or living.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk IIRC, the diet of the Irish poor (pre-blight, that is) was potatoes, some greens, and milk. With pre-mechanization farming, they got up to a quite astonishing population density with that. (It also helped that potatoes would grow in a lot of places in Ireland where you can't grow any other crops to speak of with that level of technology.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@shanedk Anyway the point being is that harmful mutations far outstrip the number of so called beneficial ones dont they? do you deny that? The Human Genome project stated that only two could happen in any generation and that only 1% of mutations may be good. A third mutation is always fatal. As DNA error checks with an accuracy of one mistake per 10 billion genes this means about every third generation there may be an error or mutation. Not enough time for the grand fairy tale to happen.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Anyway the point being is that harmful mutations far outstrip the number of so called beneficial ones dont they?"
Even if we accept that, so what? Natural selection eliminates them and selects the beneficial, so the relative occurrence of harmful to beneficial is pretty much irrelevant.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "The Human Genome project stated that only two could happen in any generation and that only 1% of mutations may be good."
You DO realize that you have about 100 mutations in your genes, right? So, at a rate of 1%, EVERYONE should have at least one beneficial mutation!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Ever the optimist arent you. Dont go to Las Vegas and gamble as you dont understand odds. If one is beneficial at a rate of 1% per 100 this means there are many more that are harmful. In any case there has not been enough time to go from first life to man even if all mutations were good.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex It's called natural selection, a term you should get acquainted with if you want to debate evolution. The harmful mutations have a much lower chance of being passed on, the beneficial mutations have a very good chance of being passed on.
And 500 million years of multicellular life is plenty of time for evolution to give rise to hominids like us. Evolution's not that slow.
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. It' s role is to keep species from extinction. Dna does it's best to stop errors as well. Mutation, variation, natural selection or any combination of the three will not drive evolution. Natural selection only selects what is available, variation is made up of only what genes are available and mutations are mostly harmful. There is no new genetic infomation from these processes.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Key word there "Mostly". There's a 70% chance of a mutation being harmful. Occasionally beneficial mutations do happen. Beneficial mutations will be "selected" as they are available when they do happen.
Your second comment said that there is not one peer reviewed paper that can demonstrate new features forming. There's a saying in biology.
"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
You say there's no papers, there are thousands. Open your eyes.
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
One word too many. The word is "except". There are no transitional forms. In fact there should be millions of them. All fossils supposed to be a missing link have since been disproven. Ardi , Ida , Lucy, Archaeopteryx , Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans to name a few.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "There are no transitional forms."
Bullshit. There are thousands and thousands in museums all over the world.
"All fossils supposed to be a missing link have since been disproven. Ardi , Ida , Lucy, Archaeopteryx , Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans to name a few."
References to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk ditto references to peer-reviewed scientific literature or they dont exist.
Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of
London's Natural History Museum:
"[Stephen Jay] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are
hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. "
Here's an evolutionist museum creator acknowledging what you can't. Quoting and evolutionist , paleontologist Stephen J Gould as well. Doesent get any better does it?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Gould never said that. That's a creationist quote mine--a blatant LIE.
How is Tiktaalik not a transitional, for example?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk reference please or it is true. Two can play the demand a reference game. But it's true anyway. The reason Gould came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory is because he realised there were no transitionals. He called the lack of transitionals the trade secret of paleontology.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "reference please or it is true. Two can play the demand a reference game."
But only one of us, it seems, can win it:
Shubin, N., et al., "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature 440:757-763, 6 April 2006
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shubin, N., et al., "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature 440:757-763, 6 April 2006"
Do you not understand this is one guys opinion in a pro evlution publication. It is not a reference any more than an article in a newspaper is. Nice try. No cigar.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Do you not understand this is one guys opinion in a pro evlution publication."
First of all, the paper has three authors, not one. Second, the discovery was made by a team of a dozen or more. Third, it survived rigorous peer review. Fourth, your stylization of Nature--the most respected science magazine on the planet--as having and acting on preconceived biases smacks of conspiracy theory, and shows how desperate and pathetic you are to avoid the truth.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk There has been many times in history when a group of people have been wrong. I think you will find Tiktaalik is readed for the rubbish bin soon - same one Lucy's in.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Lucy (A. afarensis) has NEVER been disproven or discredited. It's another LIE. We have MANY specimens of A. afarensis, and they have ALL withstood scientific scrutiny. Once again, you're spreading LIES.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You make out as tho Lucy was a complete skeleton. Only small bits were found and Donald Johansen (?) later admitted the leg bones were found over a mile away and 120 ft deeper in the strata. Also it was so badly powdered alot of it disintegrated when touched. They made the rest with clay on their own "impression" of what it may have been like. Dodgy science to base your rock solid belief on really. Science that fits your beliefs is not necessarily good science is it?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Only small bits were found and Donald Johansen (?) later admitted the leg bones were found over a mile away"
This is another LIE. ALL of Lucy's bones are presented as found. In fact, now you're FALSELY accusing scientists of outright fraud, which is NOT allowed on this channel. First warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Read what Wiki has to say about Lucy. The leg bone was found 1.6 miles away. Also look at the picture of what they actually found before commenting. And on calling people liars , threats etc. Anyone reading this will just think you are a spolit brat. Second warning coming up I guess. I'm scared. Or not.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex
cont:
the picture of AL 129-1:
upload(dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Al129knee(dot)jpg
picture of what was left of "Lucy":
upload(dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg(dot)jpg
notice: the AL 129 is a complete joint region between the right femur and Tibia: Lucy's official remains don't include this. thus the conclusion is clear: they did not fabricate the femur find-not from AL 129-1.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex No, there was a leg bone of a DIFFERENT SPECIMEN but the same species found that distance away. That bone has NEVER, EVER, EVER been considered to be a part of Lucy.
You are LYING, and making false accusations of fraud, AGAIN. Second warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk How is Tiktaalik not a transitional, for example? Because it came 10+ million years after the tetrapod it was supposed to have evolved into. Do understand this concept? Also it could not support its weight on land as it had fins which are not connected to the main skeleton which would be essential. It will go the same way as the others like Lucy etc if it hasn't already. It was a fish just like Coelacanth. Another Darwinian fantasy. You got to laugh.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Because it came 10+ million years after the tetrapod it was supposed to have evolved into. Do understand this concept?"
Yes, I do; you, apparently, don't. What you just said is the equivalent of, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
"Also it could not support its weight on land as it had fins which are not connected to the main skeleton which would be essential."
[citation needed]
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Two statements: Mine :Because it came 10+ million years after the tetrapod it was supposed to have evolved into. Do understand this concept?"
Yours :Yes, I do; you, apparently, don't. What you just said is the equivalent of, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
They are not even close to being the same let alone equivalent are they.?
Sorry but very faulty logic.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex They are ABSOLUTELY the same!
Let's say you go back in time to when the stratum Tiktaalik was discovered in was laid down. You see Tiktaaliks all over the place, and you see land tetrapods as well. Then you say, "If these land tetrapods came from Tiktaaliks, then why are there still Tiktaaliks?"
EXACTLY the same thing. Your refusal to acknowledge that shows not only your ignorance, but also how desperately you protect your pathetic bronze-age delusion.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk And what is your delusion? That somehow lifeless materials got together and started life? Abiogenisis? That despite knowing that there are far more harmful mutations than good ones you believe things are evolving to a higher state. Who is delusional? Run away and cry on mummys shoulder.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "That somehow lifeless materials got together and started life?"
1) Not what we're discussing; we're discussing evolution, now you move the goalposts to abiogenesis.
2) It's not "somehow," there are solid theories, some of them very well-supported. See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.
3) It's bogus Argument from Incredulity.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk So evolution is a theory without a basis then? Most school text books include chapters on abiogenis in the promotion of evolution. You know the nice warm little pond with just the right ingrediants , just the right temperature , bit of lightning. Mmm .....I remember a fairytale like this - Goldilocks. And it was just right.... Abiogenisis was disproven 120 yrs ago by Louis Pasteur. Nothing has changed. Without abiogenisis happening evolution is dead. The end, No connection then?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "So evolution is a theory without a basis then?"
Evolution is the best supported theory in all of science, better even than gravity. If we don't know evolution's true, then we don't know ANYTHING's true.
"You know the nice warm little pond"
No, hydrothermal vents in oceans.
"Abiogenisis was disproven 120 yrs ago by Louis Pasteur."
No, it wasn't, LIAR. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, which was a tenet of CREATIONISM.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk All school text books have chapters on abiogenesis in relation to evolution. To believe in natralistic evolution abiogenesis MUST have occurred. To say I have moved the goal posts is not true is it? Same subject just different area. Hey I know - warm little pond - just the right ingrediants -throw in a bit of lightning and presto - just right for life to begin. There is a fairytale like this ....Goldilocks ... just right. Then again it could be bullshit.... suitable for the under fives.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "To believe in natralistic evolution abiogenesis MUST have occurred."
Another lie. There is NOTHING in evolution that mandates any specific way life must have began. NOTHING.
Once again, YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Abiogenesis was disproved over a century ago by Louis Pasteur. Get with the times. No abiogenesis equals no evolution. The End
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex No, LIAR, as I've already told you, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. Two completely different things.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk From the free online dictionary. Read it and weep. Do some research first before you look dumb. Whoops too late.
abiogenesis [ˌeɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Also called autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another name for spontaneous generation
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex The only thing about that which makes me weep is the fact that you're so stupid that you think the free online dictionary counts as a scientific reference.
You're pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk you were wrong. the end. Give yourself the buzzer now fool.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
actually, reading wikipedia, I have to say you have a serious lack of comprehension skills: the text is very clear: there was one set of remains (AL 129-1), composed of a lower femur, that was found 1.6 miles away from Lucy (Al 288-1), with the two being clearly stated as being from two different specimens.
further, since a picture of AL 129 is available on wikipedia, it can be compared to what was found of Lucy, and it is clearly evident that AL-129 was never used for Lucy.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi I'd have to say you have a serious lack of comphrehension. Read it again. Lucy is made up of TWO different sets of bones. Goodnight moron.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
no, it doesn't say that. what, do you want me to quote the entire paragraph on it's discovery? it clearly says that there were 2 different speciments, not one, and that they were never considered part of the same apecimen (since they were given two different numbers: Al 288-1 and Al 129-1).
BTW: I found evidence that the article had been adited recently, specifically the last section. (I have a wikipedia account), which oddly makes you claim, in contrdiction to the previous paragraph.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi Gee, wonder who did that?
All creationists are liars.
shanedk 1 year ago
I'm not making THAT quick an assumption-as understandable as it is.
the edit was made a week ago, and there seems to have been an undo done just before that, regarding the same section (discovery).
it may have been done by a creationist, or by a poor writer, who had trouble describing the distribution of bones. either way, the section in question is where this fellow down there is getting off on.
doesn't change the fact that he lied, and ignored the evidence I gave him regarding the femur.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@shanedk "evolution is better supported than gravity" do you have a quick link to info about this? i'm intrigued.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Just look at any source on theoretical physics and find out how much we DON'T know about gravity!
shanedk 1 year ago
furthermore, while the skeleton was scattered, it was still found on a single slope (i.e a single sight), and there was no duplication of any of the bones (that is, they did not find two right femurs). the scattering is not surprising, as the animal died in a fluvial environment, and it's remains would have been scattered by water on decomposition.
oh, and
"goodnight moron"
Jesus would surely be proud of you.nothing like proving how Chrsitian you are, by contradicting him
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi Trying to use religeon against me? You can't even get that right can you? The Bible clearly states those who deny God are fools. A moron is a fool. But just in case I am mistaken I will use absolutely correct terminology. Goodnight Fool.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex He's referring to Matthew 5:22.
What does it say when a couple of atheists know the Bible better than you do?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I'm not an Atheist, though I sure put up a good act XD
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@shanedk In your dreams. He referred to his hazy recollection. Or he would have put the reference in like this. :"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' Psalm 53:1 See how it's done? So I am right you are fools.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex
1-no: I'm not trying to use religion against you. I did point out the irony of a guy who supposedly reads the gospels and yet somehow forgets to listen to them. and that wasn't even my main point: why else did I make it my last remark?
2-I'm aware of psalms, and by it's logic, no, I'm no fool.
and as Shane said, I was referring to Matthew.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex A Dictator says that you are a fool for disobeying him. He put it in a book. You disobeyed him, so you are a fool. Q.E.D. Wat
theclinger 10 months ago
@Albukhshi And have a look at the bones of Lucy while you are there. Most of them - you know the nice pictures - are held together by wire. Where did they find the wire. lol. Means made up by interpretation. Whose? The devout evolutionist that found them. When are you going to face facts? Even if evolution was true Lucy is not an ancestor. The pelvic bones were reshaped to fit with a view not a fact.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Most of them - you know the nice pictures - are held together by wire."
And what would you EXPECT them to be held together by? Magic fairies?
It's NOT interpretation. It's in the EXACT SAME POSITION as the way they were found. That's the whole point.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
I did (duh?); otherwise, I wouldn't be citing the pictures, and I wouldn't think you are full of it.
now, the pelvis: yes, it was distorted when found. no, it was not initially given a humanoid recontruction: it was given an ape reconstruction. problem with that was that the upper pubic ramus that resulted was totally wrong. this, and the fact that more of her species was discovered (yes, there are others), suppported a human pelvic shape.
this was in, of all places, Wikipedia.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex No, you were too cowardly and dishonest to use an actual scientific dictionary:
"(Biology) the theory that life can arise from nonliving materials" Science-DictionaryDOTcom
That's IT. What you're doing is DISHONESTLY looking at the fact that it includes categorically the discredited concept of spontaneous generation, and LYING to say that it ONLY includes that.
YOU ARE A LIAR. Like ALL creationists.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I think if you believe something then it is true to you. So if you believe in evolution it must be true - to you. So if we evolved from monkeys then this is true to you. All you have to do is find the missing link. Relax I have found it for you.
Chimp turns into Chump ( the new ex missing link - it is now found thanks to you ) Chump turns into Dumbass Human who thinks evolution is possible. Problem solved. In evolutionary terms you are still at the Chump stage. Goodnight Chump
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "That despite knowing that there are far more harmful mutations than good ones"
You have NEVER established this. Only claimed it. You've just LIED about the positive ones.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Hey I like Gould quotes - heres some of my favorites:
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history,
yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection. We
view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess
to study."
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@shanedk
Stephen Jay Gould is the evolutionary
theorist at Harvard University:
"You don't make new species by mutating
the species... A mutation is not the
cause of evolutionary change"
Mmmm.... what was again you were saying about mutations?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "Stephen Jay Gould is the evolutionary theorist at Harvard University:"
That's interesting Grantasaurus. That means two things. Since you said the and not an evolutionary theorist that means Harvard only has one, and that arguably the most prestigious University on the planet has to fill this slot with a man who died in 2002.
I guess the crash of '08 did some damage to their endowment.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@shanedk
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in "Punctuated Equilibria:
The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered" published in Paleobiology:
See a reference too......
"From such scrappy data it is hard to see how anyone could derive with
confidence the gradualistic interpretation... unless one were predisposed
to gradualism from the start.. "
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex I'm not impressed by creationist quote mines (lies). I've heard them all before, and I've read Gould and know what he was REALLY talking about.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex The guy was misquoted, how can you use one of his quotes unless you were blindly following what someone else said without checking? Google him, loads of links show up that show that he is misquoted by creationists.
Heck the very first result should put this to rest. Did you even fact check before you quote mined this?
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 Yes , yes of course he was misquoted if you say so. Actually he could have said it. And actually he did. No need to throw your toys out because it doesen't suit you is there?
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex All of the Pakicetus fossils have been disproven? I missed that meeting, and here I was thinking fossils detailing cetacean evolution were pretty abundant. How silly of me.
Pretty much very fossil is a transitional fossil between one species and another. You say there's none, I say I have a few sitting on my shelf that I found myself.
I don't know who told you that they were all disproved, but they told a lie to you.
cont...
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 As I stated in a previous post. There are 4000 + harmful mutations in humans and very few if any good ones. By your theory natural selection should have eliminated the harmful ones but it hasn't. Natural selection does not think. It works to eliminate all mutations to keep the genome clean. As for your 1000's of papers you mean 1000's of opinions. Not one peer reviewed paper has demonstrated how new features could occur randomly. Evolution is sinking. Bail out now.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex "As I stated in a previous post. There are 4000 + harmful mutations in humans and very few if any good ones."
[citation needed]
"Not one peer reviewed paper has demonstrated how new features could occur randomly."
"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of
the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
81:2421-2425
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex And if you need another one:
Hardison, R., "Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns
of gene expression," Journal of Experimental Biology 201(8):1099‐1117
shanedk 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex I shld just stop now, because I know you're so brainwashed nothing will convince you.... Anyway.
Beneficial mutations do remain. Take for example this peer reviewed paper "Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli".
cont...
genericmember1 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex A beneficial mutation meant that the e-coli could digest citrates. This mutation remained and the strain of ecoli that could digest citrates flourished and was soon dominant, and the mutation remained. You can't just make sweeping statements like "It works to eliminate all mutations to keep the genome clean" when it flies in the face of the evidence, and you know it.
Cont...
genericmember1 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex But I would like to lay down a challenge to you. You seem so keen on peer reviewed papers, well can you find me a peer reviewed paper that identifies genes that can only be explained by your God creating it?
Genes have an evolutionary explanation for their existence in pretty much every circumstance, if the genome was designed the evidence should be everywhere. So what gene was designed?
If you can't find one then ID has sunk (as if it ever set sail). Bail out now.
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 I have gone and looked over my posts and to the best of my knowledge did not mention God or ID. You are welcome to recheck them. It is you that has brought this up by making an assumption. True? Looking forward to your reply.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Well what is your alternative hypothesis to evolution? You must have one. I'd be most interested to hear what it is.
genericmember1 1 year ago
@genericmember1 Why does anyone have to have an alternative hypothesis or any hypothesis for that matter. Sorry for not having one but I didnt realise it was compulsory. I would rather have none than believe in total BS.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Ok, so here's your interpretation of things. Genes didn't evolve, but they weren't designed either? Am I correct?
I'm sorry, but you're obviously against evolution for a reason. I reckon you do have an alternative hypothesis, but you're too ashamed to stick up for it.
I mean I've already shown you evolution with the e-coli whose genes mutated so they could use citrates as an extra form of energy. It's not BS.
Just out of interest, what's your view on selective breeding?
genericmember1 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex Yeah, it's a complete coincidence that your posts are almost word-for-word from creationist talking points. Riiiiight...
shanedk 1 year ago
@genericmember1 On the subject of random mutations, there is not a single peer-reviewed paper, book or experiment that can demonstrate how they could produce new features. Not one. Easy to falsify. Most mutations will be cleared by natural selection. And nothing says that only the bad ones are eliminated either.
GrantasaurusRex 1 year ago
@GrantasaurusRex That has nothing to do with it. changes are evolution no matter what your opinion is on how helpful or harmful they are. People with things like lactose intolerance and mostly any other handicap exist because they can and do live long enough to reproduce. As our technology advances, we require fewer and fewer physical assets and it becomes easier and easier for physically inept humans to survive and reproduce. We adapt to our environment, not become superman.
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
@KevinLounsberry "People with things like lactose intolerance and mostly any other handicap exist because they can and do live long enough to reproduce."
Actually, lactose-intolerant people have the historical gene. The rest of us are mutants. The mutation arose when people began drinking milk; this gave them less of a chance of starvation. In places like Asia, where historically milk was not drunk, they are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant for this very reason.
shanedk 1 year ago
I love your work but using a buzzer on a creationist video is a terrible idea. My ears hurt when they talk and when you buzz.
TheGreatFoxKing 1 year ago
@Tripockets
1. you didn't just argue against evolution, but also against abiogenesis, big bang
2. atheist don't think they have everything figured out. they just realise that "god-dun-it" is a non-answer. It explains nothing and is completely worthless, void and useless. In fact, it raises even more questions instead...
3. we have a method to seperate fact from fiction. it's called science. And science works cause my pc boots, robots drive around on mars and atom bombs explode.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@Tripockets Wow, logical fallacy of oversimplification, strawman, ad hominim...
And all that in only one sentence.
You should win a prize of some kind. I propose a golden crockoduck with the inscription "cdesign proponentist of the year".
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@Tripockets Monkeys are modern creatures. So are humans.
We share an ancestor wich was not a monkey and not a human.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@Tripockets Why do you keep saying that there is no proof when the number of evidence is overwhelming? What's so bad about being an ape descnedant? You're evolved now. I think you're just lacking the basic knowlledge about evolution, please sir read science books, watch documentaries, get informed because wether you think it's pretty or not evolution is a scinetific fact, it happened.
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets There you go with calling me a monkey brain again, what a childish being. ''but trying to deceive me in to believing we come from monkeys'' We did not come from monkeys, we came from apes. See? You don't know what you're talking about.
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets "there is not one transitional being alive"
ALL living beings are transitionals.
Explain the Ensatina salamanders of California's Central Valley.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Tripockets Say whatever you want about evolution, it's a worldwide accepted fact and not accepting it makes you willfully ignorant. The only ones who discredit evolution are religious nutcases who believe this planet to be 6000 years old, sadly this hypothesis was destroyed long ago due to overwhelming evidence of the contrary. Now stop calling me ''monkey brain'', you aren't a five year old, let's talk like adults. You should get informed on a subject before bashing it.
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets Yeah... I have scientific facts and decades of observations and evidences while you have NOTHING. Evolution is a scientific fact, accept it and move on. The bible is just religion, you can believe and god and still accept evolution. You wanna talk about fairy tales? Talk about a man being made out of dust, a world wide flood (that never happened), talking animals, a jewish zombie (jesus), a man who survived in a fish's belly for 3 days, unicorns and giants! All this is in the bible
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets I find it kinda funny that you discredit theories your little cannot comprehend or does not even want to comprehend out of fear of a god. I am not the money brain, you are sir. You do not answer the questions about the universe and life by simply ''God'' this is the coward way out. People from the bronze age answered everything with ''god'' because they had no education and no real knowledge, now that science has progressed we answer questions with reason and scientific facts.
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets You show a great lack of misunderstanding of the big bang theory and abiogenesis. The big bang does not state that there was an explosion, but rather an expansion of space and time, we do not know yet what caused this expansion but science will surely discover it someday, and for abiogenesis it doesn't state that life came out from only rocks, water and electricity, it came from the Amino acids formed in the conditions of the early earth.
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
@Tripockets Yeah they are idiots, every body with a brain knows that man was magically formed out of dust and woman MAGICALLY formed out of a man's limb! Wait...
TheAmazingstarman 1 year ago
creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very-beneficial-mutation don't forget to check the end.
/watch?v=8agE1HXN9y8 here a friend clearly expains about CCR5.I hope you wath open-mindedly.As you can see if you do little research,CCR5 experiment only gains cell a little HIV resistance with disabling ccr5 receptor.but then the cell becomes more open and defenseless to other deseases for example hepatitis-c. You can't see the whole picture
condemnedf0rlife 1 year ago
@condemnedf0rlife Ah, yes, creation.com--there's a reliable source. NOT!!!
If someone has the allele from both parents, they are ALMOST COMPLETELY IMMUNE TO AIDS. I wouldn't call that "a little HIV resistance"!
Lots of other stuff there: the receptor isn't "damaged," it's just closed. I don't know where you're getting the Hep-C stuff from, but it's just WRONG: there is no difference with the general population, and even a slight amount of PROTECTION among hemophiliacs.
shanedk 1 year ago
@condemnedf0rlife As for that oft-repeated (and oft-refuted) nonsense about mutations not increasing information, I have a video showing one that did