Im studying science in school...surrounded by irrationality like that. Its so hard to go everyday and hear the same circular reasoning from shallow minded people who just regurgitate superficial facts and do not know what deep meaning is. Its an everyday challenge just to sort through what is rational and what isnt and then reteach myself the courses. I wish I could just learn functions and not the damned theory, assumptions, presup's. BAHHHHHH!
Is there some genetic barrier that keeps individual mutations (microevolution) from accumulating resulting over time in macroevolution?
In other words, since you acknowledge that small changes happen, what keeps these small changes from adding up into big changes over time, so much so that the end result is no longer the same species as its ancestor?
@AgApE010 No point in dealing with speculation/hypotheticals. Let's deal with observation or "science." We have observed certain limits and to say it's been any thing different, within even the scopes of PLANNED/FORCED breeding (which has shown very narrow changes), let alone random "selection," is just pure ridiculousness. Adding more time just adds more variety in minute details that we have seen. Why the assumption of vast changes, even if we granted the possibility of vast time?
@1tmoch So, maybe the reason you haven't got an answer on that is because they all haven't realized that it is the question that is defective to begin with. And the person who argues this hasn't even assessed whether his presuppositions can even provide the platform in which to do so.
And it is precisely this variety that that adds up that results in the changes. Consider two hypothetical animals, A and B.
Their climate turns freezing. A's descendants survive by growing thicker fur; B's survive by growing shorter limbs.
Their food supply is scarce. A survives by growing a longer neck to reach leaves in trees; B survives by growing a snout and claws for digging up food.
@AgApE010 Great. This is just speculation and hypothetical, which is not an argument, and therefore needs no reply. Just to entertain this silliness, i'd ask how in the world in your given lifetime, a beast can grow a longer neck for food (and not die in the process from starvation). If food comes along on the ground, then no need for growing a neck. And how in the world would doing something in ones lifetime transfer on genetically? If i get my finger chopped off, my kid will not inherit that.
I didn't say this happens in one lifetime. It takes many, many genetic mutations which are passed down to offspring. And it's not just speculation. I gave you an example of a ring species.
@AgApE010 You are not answering my questions and no you did not give any evidence of what i challenged, even if i granted the evidence is being interpreted properly on your end, concerning the salamanders. Also (even if i granted that, AND you were right about the salamander, it is an assumption to say that applies to other entities). One more shot is all you get.
...they are no longer the same species (they cannot interbreed).
While this example may seem a bit too extreme to you, something similar has been observed in salamanders that formed a "species ring": they evolved independently enough to the point that when they were brought back together they couldn't interbreed.
Anyone who wants to believe the lie of evolution can lie to themselves about that just like they can lie to themselves about anything.When people hate God it makes no difference what God did or does,just look at Creation and that's enough proof to damn your hide for denying that God actually did it.
The evolutionists now teach that ALL FOSSILS are transitional.Ever since Steven Gould said that gradualism has never been observed in the fossil record,he proposed Punctuated Equilibrium,that claims species stay the same for a long time and then jump all at once,he also said we may never find any of these fossils.Now their argument is"All fossils are transitional whether we can see it of not,they reason,we are here therefore it happened this way,because we KNOW,there is no God".
I love your videos, may I suggest Answersingenesis as a source for you to use as well, alot of your material sounds like it's from Kent Hovind. I'm sure you know how much atheists love Kent Hovind.
@skihas1 Actually i use all sorts of resources including answers in Genesis. I'm not sure how this video made connections in your mind with Kent Hovind.
ok nevermind then, i guess he just uses similar arguments. There is one kent hovind seminar where he basically says exactly the same thing you do in the video, but I guess the answer is just universal.
Its amazing the number of presuppositional assumptions or conclusions that were made by that scientist. It was also interesting to see how he stumbled when challenged. It is very apparent that he was not use to being challenged with the substance Tom was presenting. By the way Tom, I think you especially will enjoy my chapter on Pro-active education. Jeff
@VeryImagesozo Sweet. I have an order in the books i am reading, but i will get to your book with the year. I know that sounds bad, but i have a lot of books. Ya, just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean they are sharp when it comes to critical thinking skills, and it doesn't mean they don't have their emotional and/or philosophical tugs active all the time.
You should study the repair process of the human DNA molecule. I get lost in the details, but one thing is fascinating about it. The code that defines the structure of the proteins and other molecules involved in the process are within the DNA itself...so how could the process evolve while the DNA itself is incompletely evolved? How Could DNA ,which is dependent upon this process, not degrade before it has the chance to evolve the process?
yeah thats pretty much a vicious circle for evolutionary theory. its counterintuitive to say enzymes evolved to get rid of mutations which are the very same thing that formed it.
@jeffblue101 I've never made a video before, but if i did, it would be about this very topic. I think it is an untouched subject (correct me if I'm wrong) in the melee of evolution vs creationism.
yeah i think its largely ignored since it involves a deeper understanding of genetics and is probably only effective against knowledgeable people in this field. but in my opinion this strikes at the core of evolutionary theory(mutations) and should be promoted more.
you should have made him define the word "species" its a very ambiguous word. he equivocates dogs can turn into dogs but never dogs turning into anything else!
Im studying science in school...surrounded by irrationality like that. Its so hard to go everyday and hear the same circular reasoning from shallow minded people who just regurgitate superficial facts and do not know what deep meaning is. Its an everyday challenge just to sort through what is rational and what isnt and then reteach myself the courses. I wish I could just learn functions and not the damned theory, assumptions, presup's. BAHHHHHH!
jessicadoubledizzy 3 weeks ago
I've yet to have a Creationist answer me on this:
Is there some genetic barrier that keeps individual mutations (microevolution) from accumulating resulting over time in macroevolution?
In other words, since you acknowledge that small changes happen, what keeps these small changes from adding up into big changes over time, so much so that the end result is no longer the same species as its ancestor?
God bless.
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
@AgApE010 No point in dealing with speculation/hypotheticals. Let's deal with observation or "science." We have observed certain limits and to say it's been any thing different, within even the scopes of PLANNED/FORCED breeding (which has shown very narrow changes), let alone random "selection," is just pure ridiculousness. Adding more time just adds more variety in minute details that we have seen. Why the assumption of vast changes, even if we granted the possibility of vast time?
1tmoch 3 weeks ago
@1tmoch So, maybe the reason you haven't got an answer on that is because they all haven't realized that it is the question that is defective to begin with. And the person who argues this hasn't even assessed whether his presuppositions can even provide the platform in which to do so.
1tmoch 3 weeks ago
@1tmoch
"more time adds more variety in minute details"
And it is precisely this variety that that adds up that results in the changes. Consider two hypothetical animals, A and B.
Their climate turns freezing. A's descendants survive by growing thicker fur; B's survive by growing shorter limbs.
Their food supply is scarce. A survives by growing a longer neck to reach leaves in trees; B survives by growing a snout and claws for digging up food.
This pattern continues over time until...
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Great. This is just speculation and hypothetical, which is not an argument, and therefore needs no reply. Just to entertain this silliness, i'd ask how in the world in your given lifetime, a beast can grow a longer neck for food (and not die in the process from starvation). If food comes along on the ground, then no need for growing a neck. And how in the world would doing something in ones lifetime transfer on genetically? If i get my finger chopped off, my kid will not inherit that.
1tmoch 3 weeks ago
@1tmoch
I didn't say this happens in one lifetime. It takes many, many genetic mutations which are passed down to offspring. And it's not just speculation. I gave you an example of a ring species.
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
@AgApE010 You are not answering my questions and no you did not give any evidence of what i challenged, even if i granted the evidence is being interpreted properly on your end, concerning the salamanders. Also (even if i granted that, AND you were right about the salamander, it is an assumption to say that applies to other entities). One more shot is all you get.
1tmoch 3 weeks ago
@1tmoch
...they are no longer the same species (they cannot interbreed).
While this example may seem a bit too extreme to you, something similar has been observed in salamanders that formed a "species ring": they evolved independently enough to the point that when they were brought back together they couldn't interbreed.
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
Anyone who wants to believe the lie of evolution can lie to themselves about that just like they can lie to themselves about anything.When people hate God it makes no difference what God did or does,just look at Creation and that's enough proof to damn your hide for denying that God actually did it.
CBALLEN 1 month ago
The evolutionists now teach that ALL FOSSILS are transitional.Ever since Steven Gould said that gradualism has never been observed in the fossil record,he proposed Punctuated Equilibrium,that claims species stay the same for a long time and then jump all at once,he also said we may never find any of these fossils.Now their argument is"All fossils are transitional whether we can see it of not,they reason,we are here therefore it happened this way,because we KNOW,there is no God".
CBALLEN 1 month ago
Hydrologic sorting disrupts the efoolutionist's geological argument everytime.
filoIII 4 months ago
I love your videos, may I suggest Answersingenesis as a source for you to use as well, alot of your material sounds like it's from Kent Hovind. I'm sure you know how much atheists love Kent Hovind.
skihas1 11 months ago
@skihas1 Actually i use all sorts of resources including answers in Genesis. I'm not sure how this video made connections in your mind with Kent Hovind.
1tmoch 11 months ago
@1tmoch
ok nevermind then, i guess he just uses similar arguments. There is one kent hovind seminar where he basically says exactly the same thing you do in the video, but I guess the answer is just universal.
skihas1 11 months ago
the end of the vid just proves evolution...those dudes cant be humans. hahahha
onlyonesuperdude 1 year ago
Its amazing the number of presuppositional assumptions or conclusions that were made by that scientist. It was also interesting to see how he stumbled when challenged. It is very apparent that he was not use to being challenged with the substance Tom was presenting. By the way Tom, I think you especially will enjoy my chapter on Pro-active education. Jeff
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
@VeryImagesozo Sweet. I have an order in the books i am reading, but i will get to your book with the year. I know that sounds bad, but i have a lot of books. Ya, just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean they are sharp when it comes to critical thinking skills, and it doesn't mean they don't have their emotional and/or philosophical tugs active all the time.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch I look forward to your thoughts on my book. I am always open to constructive criticism. That's one of the ways we improve.
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
You should study the repair process of the human DNA molecule. I get lost in the details, but one thing is fascinating about it. The code that defines the structure of the proteins and other molecules involved in the process are within the DNA itself...so how could the process evolve while the DNA itself is incompletely evolved? How Could DNA ,which is dependent upon this process, not degrade before it has the chance to evolve the process?
Challagar 1 year ago
@Challagar
yeah thats pretty much a vicious circle for evolutionary theory. its counterintuitive to say enzymes evolved to get rid of mutations which are the very same thing that formed it.
jeffblue101 1 year ago
@jeffblue101 I've never made a video before, but if i did, it would be about this very topic. I think it is an untouched subject (correct me if I'm wrong) in the melee of evolution vs creationism.
Challagar 1 year ago
@Challagar
yeah i think its largely ignored since it involves a deeper understanding of genetics and is probably only effective against knowledgeable people in this field. but in my opinion this strikes at the core of evolutionary theory(mutations) and should be promoted more.
jeffblue101 1 year ago
"Tell me how a fossil proves anything other than something died". Great line.
14dicken 1 year ago 2
you should have made him define the word "species" its a very ambiguous word. he equivocates dogs can turn into dogs but never dogs turning into anything else!
jeffblue101 1 year ago
@14dicken Agreed. LOL!
Soul4JC 1 year ago