The Big Bang is a model as no tests, no experiments and no reproducible data has been performed. or gathered. I have not come across any cosmogonist who termed it a theory.
@StopSpamming1 "The Big Bang is a model as no tests, no experiments and no reproducible data has been performed."
COMPLETE bullshit! The predictions of the CMB radiation have not only been confirmed, they've been used to definitively date the universe. We even have a picture of it!
Are you seriously suggesting that a scientific model, e.g. the Big Bang, is the same as a scientific theory?
AFAIK a scientific theory requires observation, testing, experimenting, etc. of facts, such as music, gravity or evolution. A model is based more on abstract or conceptual investigation, such as the Big Bang. Hence the terms.
@StopSpamming1 The Big Bang is ABSOLUTELY a scientific theory. It meets EVERY requirement and it's withstood extensive testing--and, yes, OBSERVATION.
Then please answer one question for me: if scientists or papers refer to the Big Bang, the colloquial terms are theory OR model - but when it gets to cosmologists and cosmogony, the papers and people call it a model. Why?
I agree that there can be a chronological and factual development, but not an equality between the two.
As it so happens I was in a research facility of ESA today and posed the question to a group of researchers and found they also had a problem initially. after some clarification 3 thought that a model differs substantially and one followed your line, saying that a model can lead to a theory. But none of them had sufficient reason to equate them.
Hey, you're wrong. A model and a theory ARE the same. they explain how something works. Allscientific models are based on the theories they represent. Some models, like some evolutionary models, go beyond expectations. A model/theory best explains how things work. A new discovery just adds more to the piece of the puzzle to improve our understanding.
Thanks for making me really laugh. Not at but with you.
I know I'm stubborn. And difficult. But I can't get myself to accept it as a theory until the basic questions are answered. There are simply not enough facts or substantiated hypotheses. And if I look for the differences or common factors this shows me that I am right. So until I find the unifying definition or the common acceptance as a theory I will not call it one.
No, just excerpts. But you see, that's my problem with accepting it as a theory: we are still doctoring around with the concepts. It's not that it's just some open ends in the details, but real basics. I can't get myself to accept that evolution and Big Bang are at a comparable level of evidence.
Unless I call theories a scale encompassing anything from evolution, which I consider to be as factual as it gets, up to the Big Bang, where everything is still in threads.
The Big Bang theory certainly has more ground than the bible. Besides a big bang-like event was observed through the Hydron Collider in france. Something the USA would have done if Bush anti-science.
@NUTCASE71733 Michio Kaku said it happened due to the scientists not giving the committee the right answers. They were asked, "Will the supercollider find God?" They answered no. Kaku said he would have answered, "No matter what your concept of God is, the supercollider will bring you closer to him."
Erm, not quite. An LHC is used to analyse particles when reproducing conditions as could have been just after the Big Bang. The CERN LHC is the largest but not the only one in the world. Even the US still has its own programme, even though the Texas Super LHC was stopped. Bush had no scientific education but would rely on his science advisors on something like this - so for once, I need to protect him :)
@StopSpamming1 So basically, instead of trying to understand a complicated subject you'd rather just accept something else entirely that has little to no factual evidence supporting it?
We are having a creationism vs. evolution debate in our College Republicans meeting today. And I kid you not, one of the creationist kids actually said that fossils are put here to test our faith. Now, even though I'm a Christian, I could literally feel my brain fly after hearing that.
My friend, I really took the time to prepare for that discussion. I really did. I did my research and armed myself with no BS cold hard facts. But the creationists talked for five minutes for every one minute that our side talked. I certainly did not expect the discussion to end up that way.
@ManOfDeath567 - I think, it is a rather common creationists stratagem to just spew as many talking points as you are allowed with the knowledge that the other side could never hope to refute all of them in the time frame they would be provided.
Keep in mind..oops that won't work with the mindless lol..But anyhow...what has man made that could have made itself.show me a lump of dirt that has no seed that can grow a tree..show me a pond that can produce its own fist.show me Dirt that can produce its own water,show me a rock that can produce its own dirt,show me the earths core that can form itself..Man has created what we have by thought,and God has created us and all live cause he thought it..and you think its possible without thought ?
@BudPeters44 "show me a lump of dirt that has no seed that can grow a tree."
Since no scientist says it would, this is an irrelevant strawman. It also shows how pathetically ignorant you are of both evolution and abiogenesis. You need to research the subject using something OTHER than creationist propaganda.
The same is true of your other comments. Start off with the research of Dr. Jack Szostak, for example, on the formation of proto-cells.
@shanedk lmao thats all you have ??? Lmao Hahahahahahahah thats a good one..what an idiot...like i said i do not even have to believe in God to know we started with a father ..to know DNA is not made from earths soup..it has not created a human or animal since man has walked on earth and its not going to.The only way man can make man is by already created beings..Please tell me your kidding,nobody can be this braindead so i hope you actually are just being sarcastic/funny whatever ..geeze !!
@BudPeters44 Have you looked into Szostak's work or not? Have you not seen how he has demonstrated the spontaneous formation of proto-cells from chemicals that would have been in Earth's oceans at the time?
were you born this stupid ?? creation is all we are..we did not come from a machine nor are we man made..This video shows how stupid a person can get lol..fascinating..i have ran into a few idiots but you are king idiot..Even if i did not believe in God i would still know something created us..Rocks,dirt,water,air, have nothing that can creat DNA,or think of life forms..If so we would still have people popping up from nowhere being born out of thin air ..but we don't everything has a maker
@WanderingDayDreamer It's not just natural selection: there's mutation, genetic drift, and many other things; all of them together make up the theory of evolution.
Ha Ha Ha! 'evolution is not even a theory'! - that is such a stupid statement - Evolution is 100% a theory - it is a good theory that most people believe answers why such diversity exists between animals. Also, to be fair, gravity (as we generally use the term) is not like evolution - gravity can be proven to exist (you can witness it) so it is regarded as a fact - diversity is a fact, but evolution is a theory! evolution and creationism - both theory, both might be wrong, and both may be right
@TREACLE97 Actually, Creationism isn't a theory. Its an idea. One that has been disproved many times. Theory is a scientific term meaning the explaination of facts. The explaination can be altered, but the facts remain. Hense Evolution is both a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the explaination of how it works - and yes, it can and has been proven many times over.
@andromidius - the theory of evolution contains some apparent facts but you need to be careful about describing it as fact - it is an idea as you say which is a good fit or explanation for diversity in different species but many scientific theories get disproved once more evidence is examined - it is believed to be a fact at this time with the limited knowledge and information we have. Disproving creationism today is like people proving a witch in 1700 - it 'appeared' to be fact at the time!
@shanedk racist? ok maybe i went to far but im just trying to say AIDS affects the black community more than anyone else. over 50% of cases come from 11% of the american population. this will be my last post and i will stand by my belief that aids came from a lab. i recommend you at least look into it. you dont have to believe if you dont want to.
I haven't been following the conversation, but this seems like conspiracy theory bullshit. It's most dangerous to drug addicts and those who are too stupid to use protection. Drug addicts pose no threat to any political group, and promiscuous idiots are the ones politicians love, the sheep masses. Why would they want to kill them?
@shanedk SCO had registered copyrights on the UNIX source code, too. That doesn't mean they actually OWNED the copyrights, though. (For those that missed the biggest mess in software law in the last decade, look at groklaw . net for articles covering the whole length of this 7 year voyage through idiotic state-supported greed.)
I have to say, you scientifically-minded folks on Youtube have the best voices. AronRa is deep and calm, Thunderf00t is stern and sharp, and you, shane, have a very professional, yet jolly sort of voice with a nerdy charm. Creationists, however, all have really annoying, whiny, or really, really creepy voices that make me want to twist my own nipples off.
I seriously wish you could just teach me stuff you know about anything like everyday.
I'm an accredited teacher in Michigan, and seriously took this video as a method!
I love it Shane, you are so tactful and funny, and THIS is the way to deliver information. I do the same in the classroom, WITH ENTHUSIASM!! Way to go, man. Haha, bogosity levels, I LOVE THIS!
Seriously, that's what I love about it: the ENTHUSIASM! Too many of my own teachers sounded so bored with their own subject I soon got bored too. I love a passionate teacher, one who's a good speaker. They aught to have speaking classes for teachers so they can really engage kids.
There's got to be something wrong with my sence on humor, since I just don't understand the coffee joke. Is it referring that they just picked up some random person to appear on the video? I don't get it, and I'm really ashamed.
Propably before. coming from the realm of fundamentalists, I know they have a good ability to just deny all embarassing events, like conviction of Kent Hovind. He not really that important, since there are alots of more "prophets" to give the same message, and chanches are that some of them aren't crooks
That talk about growing back body parts gets me wondering, how come over the course of the evolutionary chain, we lost some traits that probably would have been useful? Like, all the higher species including ourselves can't regenerate limbs but lower life forms can. Did we just become too complex for it to work?
Somewhere along the line, a mutation destroyed it. For some reason, genetic drift favored the non-working allele in our line. Maybe it wasn't enough of a survival advantage to matter. Maybe the costs of sustaining it outweighed the benefits.
I think it's the last one. I think mostly small animals have that ability, bigger creatures mean bigger limbs meaning more mass has to be regrown. A small lizard probably has less trouble finding the food needed to power that than a fully grown human.
@lordthawkeye We're pretty much equal in complexity to any other largish animal. However, regrowing a limb might be too physiologically draining for a mammal to sustain, or it might take too long to be a survival advantage for an animal that has to eat as frequently as a mammal (and thus has to stay mobile, which means if being without a limb stops the animal moving, it dies before the limb can regenerate).
Why don't creationists try to "debunk" Einstein theory? Is it too complicated for them, according to what they know, evolution has to do with the universe, therefore, it also has to do with relativity.
@PoliomanGamer Actually, Malcolm Bowden has (falsely) claimed to have found a mathematical problem with Special Relativity (he's a;sp a geocentrist). I say his claim is false, because you first have to find a problem in Group Theory, which is a branch of mathematics which can be used to, among other things, find internal inconsistencies in theories of physics. Group Theory says Special Relativity cannot contain inconsistencies.
Micro evolution can be tested and proven but macro is far from it, if it ever could be scientifically proven? If you say that the theory of evolution starts with organisms and they evolve from there,
Bullshit. We've observed speciation with primroses and maize in nature as well as multiple examples in the lab with fruit flies, flounders, and multiple bacteria. Claiming that macro-evolution is false is like saying water creates stalactites, just not 3 foot long stalactites. It's the same process as micro-evolution.
Um, no, although a lot of species can. The wall lizards evolved a new body part--cecal valves. None of their genus has EVER been observed to have cecal valves before. Yet, after ten specimens were moved to a new island, they evolved in less than 30 years.
where is the starting point? (Id like to hear your version). You shouldnt go bashing something if you cant come up with an alternative to it because you are then proving nothing. Creationism has a beginning wheres evolutions? By excepting (macro) evolution you may (show some proof if youre not) be believing in something you cant even see. I highly doubt any one can or ever will actually observe MACRO evolution; its basically impossible to do that, wouldnt you say?
really? just the other day I read an article about wall lizards in Croatia that evolved into a new species, by evolving, among other things, cecal valves.
and what about the fossils, the features in the fossils, the DNA, atavisms, ring species, etc?
besides, all "macro evolution" is is "microevolution"ary changes piled up over a long time. its like the journey of 1000 miles; it starts with 1 step.
Just my opinion, but you should show some others. I understand and mostly agree with what you seem to be saying in this video, but it just came across to me as weakly founded by only showing two obvious head-buried-in-the-sand people. I'm a creationist and I can tell you that these people are closed-minded morons. But then, I am a creationist who believes in evolution. In short, I don't believe that God created humans, instead created life. That's the ultra short character limit version.
7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
I guess Paul himself has a bone to pick with creationists.
It's healthy to turn the volume down whenever a creationist begins talking, but sometimes it makes Shane's response a little confusing, but it is all in the name of preserving brain cells
and your assuming that Hovind is believing in all matter having intelligence on their own.
man you seriously dont take this stuff serious do you? lol
and the last few challenges are evolution not creation. Its self its self its self...... this is what Hovind is against in the eyes of most evolution nuts that nature didnt have a creator or intelligence anywhere.
that man created nothing but helped his offspring via the coaxing of god.
@Surhotchaperchlorome I just added a new piece to the challenge. Hovind also has to prove this happened without Zeus, and his prison experience is great criteria. He has to prove that soap taught itself how to drop.
I am going to disprove creationism hovind style: You do not know that this mud is the ancestor of anybody, and you do not know that this snake or donkey said anything. Have in mind that mud cannot turn into people, and donkeys or snakes are capable of talking today. That is voodoo science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You haven't proven anything dogs were made this way. Where did docile dogs come from? Coyotes are strictly north american, wolves are xenophobic and dingoes would never steal a baby would they, Quigley? LOL
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Then why would a starving man ignore the meat of the cow for non essential milk??? We are so closely tied with dogs that are used for meat in third world countries. this is cruelty, we constantly ignore instinct for benifit do you think other natural animals think of genocide, ponder suicide, have a name for deicide???
you can obtain your bhd in every third box of crackerjack, you must go to school to obtain what hovind has, a phd. 0_o
Dogs have meat, to use them for such is not cruel (this does not stop people being cruel to them though). There are instances of animals commiting suicide following the death of a partner, just google it.
And Hovind bought his Bhd from a diploma mill (unaccredited obviously). It is in christian education, not one of the natural sciences. And quit it with the milk pish. You got owned on that by shanedk above.
We were produced by nature. Therefore we can be no crueler than nature because we are a part of nature.
Though we are certainly capable of immense cruelty, this is not our only trait. We are capable of great compassion even outside our own species (look at our close ties with dogs for example).
IT IS greed and selfishness that is what WE DO BEST as human beings. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE epecially extreme torture we will only think only OF OURSELVES cancelling out the needs of another FOR PERSONAL EXISTANCE. WE STRIVE TO BREATH.
As long as we are in this state of un-wholeness and denial. We will be nothing more than the sum of the machine, merely imitating life rather than living it. Incessantly struggling in our own self manifested Hell that we mistake for Heaven. We must face that which we choose to forget, otherwise we may succeed in our failure. Consciousness is key. Consciousness of that which IS Life, that which endows You with the power to breathe--ANY FOOL would eat the cow under LIFE THREATENING CONDITIONS
The machine does not sustain life, only the immitation of life.= This was intened to communicate an old mystic proverb, where in it states that in order to be Whole, one must bring the sum of your parts into accord, as opposed to seprate, working against each other, dependant upon external influences for support and momentary comfort.
But it DOES to the ones who have the mutated gene. Since there's a big avenue of nutrition open to them that others can't take advantage of, they have a survival advantage.
I ABSOLUTELY said NO SUCH THING!!! I said that HEART ATTACKS have nothing to do with them! A heart attack is NOT a stroke! A heart attack is NOT diabetes!
So, like all creationists, you're just going to LIE about what I said because YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH.
The difference between a stroke and a heart attack is where the broken off piece of arterial clogging goes, if it reaches the brain- stroke. if it reaches the heart -- heart attack. THIS IS DUE TO POOR DIET AND CHOLESTEROL keep calling me a liar. lol
Strokes are caused by all sorts of other things, including blood clots. If an artery has been injured, for example, the site where it heals may leave a scab. That scab may dislodge later and go to the brain. NOTHING to do with plaque.
They CAN be caused by plaque, but they can also be caused by a LOT of other stuff, too--including stuff which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with diet.
Does it EVER occur to you to educate yourself about what you're talking about? You'd look a lot less stupid.
I'm not sure what brought on this question, but the DNA works as normal. In fact, the first generation of inbreeders experience no greater rate of genetic defects than anyone else.
With subsequent generations, the chances of being homozygous for recessive genes increases. This is where the birth defects come from.
okay show me a mutation that benefits mankind this isn't the xmen, chernobyl and hiroshima victims rejoice its okay you evolved! cool huh? when someone mutates it is a bad thing shane
Do you like milk? That's from the lactase mutation. It happened several times in many different cultures.
The AIDS resistance mutation has happened at least twice, once among Europeans and once in Africa.
An Italian family can eat all of the fat and cholesterol they want because of a mutation that allows their digestive system to break it all down properly.
those are tolerences built up by lifelong exposure, does a junkie evolve because they have a higher tolerance to opiates even after they stop?, no they've only changed their own chemistry, and as long as they're not using during procreation or while pregnant (which further backs up lifelong exposure) their children will have no tolerance to opiates.
Yeah, because anecdotes are always good evidence...
It's only the ones descended from a particular family with the mutated gene PCSK9. They have greatly reduced LDL cholesterol and a much lower chance of heart attack.
That has NOTHING to do with obesity, diabetes, or stroke.
do a search on google and you will find out that not all cats are lactose intolerant, notice the root word - tolerant(if anyone else reads this you try it too)do they have a mutant gene?no its a built up TOLERANCE.
poor you getting all flustered that you have to insult me
Oh? Do they end up producing lactase as a result of this tolerance? Do you have ANY scientific data WHATSOEVER to back you up on this?
Humans have a MUTATION--which HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED--which keeps the lactase gene going FOR LIFE. What's more, we DON'T see it in regions that haven't been dependent on milk for survival, EXACTLY AS EVOLUTION PREDICTS.
Do you get tired of looking like a fool after every post?
we have always been able to drink milk, why would generations and generations of people do something that made them sick untill they evolved themselves up a gene to make them not sick?
"the genes for making lactase are present in all mammals."
The normal mammalian gene for lactase GETS TURNED OFF when the mammal matures. The mutation we have keeps the gene going for life. That's NOT a tolerance; it's an ACTUAL ABILITY TO DIGEST IT.
This has been OBSERVED. This has been CONFIRMED. We KNOW what the mutation is. (It's on Chromosome 2, by the way.)
In cultures such as Japan where milk is being consumed increasingly, we're seeing more and more cases of lactose digestion there. We can also expect this to be the case in the third world when milk becomes more of a staple there.
They've discovered three separate mutations in East Africa. How long it will take to assert itself in the population depends directly on how dependent they are on milk for survival.
I disagree: a model is not equal to a theory.
The Big Bang is a model as no tests, no experiments and no reproducible data has been performed. or gathered. I have not come across any cosmogonist who termed it a theory.
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1 "The Big Bang is a model as no tests, no experiments and no reproducible data has been performed."
COMPLETE bullshit! The predictions of the CMB radiation have not only been confirmed, they've been used to definitively date the universe. We even have a picture of it!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Which is why I did not mention any prediction.
Are you seriously suggesting that a scientific model, e.g. the Big Bang, is the same as a scientific theory?
AFAIK a scientific theory requires observation, testing, experimenting, etc. of facts, such as music, gravity or evolution. A model is based more on abstract or conceptual investigation, such as the Big Bang. Hence the terms.
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1 The Big Bang is ABSOLUTELY a scientific theory. It meets EVERY requirement and it's withstood extensive testing--and, yes, OBSERVATION.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Then please answer one question for me: if scientists or papers refer to the Big Bang, the colloquial terms are theory OR model - but when it gets to cosmologists and cosmogony, the papers and people call it a model. Why?
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1 It can't be a theory without being a model!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
I agree that there can be a chronological and factual development, but not an equality between the two.
As it so happens I was in a research facility of ESA today and posed the question to a group of researchers and found they also had a problem initially. after some clarification 3 thought that a model differs substantially and one followed your line, saying that a model can lead to a theory. But none of them had sufficient reason to equate them.
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1
Hey, you're wrong. A model and a theory ARE the same. they explain how something works. Allscientific models are based on the theories they represent. Some models, like some evolutionary models, go beyond expectations. A model/theory best explains how things work. A new discovery just adds more to the piece of the puzzle to improve our understanding.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Oh not again. I agree that both explain something - just at different confirmation levels.
Has the Big Bang been tested and confirmed?
Models are the experiments and tests which can lead to a theory.
If a theory is based on a hypothesis, this is tested using models.
And yes, I could be wrong. But until I see the proof, I will stick to my understanding of the definitions.
StopSpamming1 6 months ago
@StopSpamming1 "Has the Big Bang been tested and confirmed?"
Well, considering that we have a PICTURE OF IT HAPPENING...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Thanks for making me really laugh. Not at but with you.
I know I'm stubborn. And difficult. But I can't get myself to accept it as a theory until the basic questions are answered. There are simply not enough facts or substantiated hypotheses. And if I look for the differences or common factors this shows me that I am right. So until I find the unifying definition or the common acceptance as a theory I will not call it one.
Where does it make a difference for you?
StopSpamming1 6 months ago
@StopSpamming1 Have you read Hawking's latest book The Grand Design? Seems pretty complete to me!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
No, just excerpts. But you see, that's my problem with accepting it as a theory: we are still doctoring around with the concepts. It's not that it's just some open ends in the details, but real basics. I can't get myself to accept that evolution and Big Bang are at a comparable level of evidence.
Unless I call theories a scale encompassing anything from evolution, which I consider to be as factual as it gets, up to the Big Bang, where everything is still in threads.
StopSpamming1 6 months ago
@StopSpamming1
The Big Bang theory certainly has more ground than the bible. Besides a big bang-like event was observed through the Hydron Collider in france. Something the USA would have done if Bush anti-science.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 It was actually Congress that killed the supercollider, not Bush.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
AH. Well, either way it was anti-science wackjobs who killed the plans for it. God forbid the USA actually be GOOD at something anymore.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Michio Kaku said it happened due to the scientists not giving the committee the right answers. They were asked, "Will the supercollider find God?" They answered no. Kaku said he would have answered, "No matter what your concept of God is, the supercollider will bring you closer to him."
It's all in how you sell it.
shanedk 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Erm, not quite. An LHC is used to analyse particles when reproducing conditions as could have been just after the Big Bang. The CERN LHC is the largest but not the only one in the world. Even the US still has its own programme, even though the Texas Super LHC was stopped. Bush had no scientific education but would rely on his science advisors on something like this - so for once, I need to protect him :)
StopSpamming1 5 months ago
@StopSpamming1 So basically, instead of trying to understand a complicated subject you'd rather just accept something else entirely that has little to no factual evidence supporting it?
Wow, you really are lazy.
andromidius 2 months ago
@andromidius
I admit to not understanding anything in your comment.
What is the complicated subject?
What do I accept?
What has no factual evidence?
What makes me lazy?
StopSpamming1 2 months ago
3:16
LOL
krakatoa0mikel 10 months ago
We are having a creationism vs. evolution debate in our College Republicans meeting today. And I kid you not, one of the creationist kids actually said that fossils are put here to test our faith. Now, even though I'm a Christian, I could literally feel my brain fly after hearing that.
I kid you not.
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
@ManOfDeath567 Yeah, lots of them say that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
My friend, I really took the time to prepare for that discussion. I really did. I did my research and armed myself with no BS cold hard facts. But the creationists talked for five minutes for every one minute that our side talked. I certainly did not expect the discussion to end up that way.
ManOfDeath567 1 year ago
@ManOfDeath567 - I think, it is a rather common creationists stratagem to just spew as many talking points as you are allowed with the knowledge that the other side could never hope to refute all of them in the time frame they would be provided.
lobothesacred3 7 months ago
@lobothesacred3 It's called the "Gish Gallop," after creationist Duane Gish.
shanedk 7 months ago
Keep in mind..oops that won't work with the mindless lol..But anyhow...what has man made that could have made itself.show me a lump of dirt that has no seed that can grow a tree..show me a pond that can produce its own fist.show me Dirt that can produce its own water,show me a rock that can produce its own dirt,show me the earths core that can form itself..Man has created what we have by thought,and God has created us and all live cause he thought it..and you think its possible without thought ?
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 "show me a lump of dirt that has no seed that can grow a tree."
Since no scientist says it would, this is an irrelevant strawman. It also shows how pathetically ignorant you are of both evolution and abiogenesis. You need to research the subject using something OTHER than creationist propaganda.
The same is true of your other comments. Start off with the research of Dr. Jack Szostak, for example, on the formation of proto-cells.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk lmao thats all you have ??? Lmao Hahahahahahahah thats a good one..what an idiot...like i said i do not even have to believe in God to know we started with a father ..to know DNA is not made from earths soup..it has not created a human or animal since man has walked on earth and its not going to.The only way man can make man is by already created beings..Please tell me your kidding,nobody can be this braindead so i hope you actually are just being sarcastic/funny whatever ..geeze !!
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 Have you looked into Szostak's work or not? Have you not seen how he has demonstrated the spontaneous formation of proto-cells from chemicals that would have been in Earth's oceans at the time?
shanedk 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 /facepalm
andromidius 10 months ago
were you born this stupid ?? creation is all we are..we did not come from a machine nor are we man made..This video shows how stupid a person can get lol..fascinating..i have ran into a few idiots but you are king idiot..Even if i did not believe in God i would still know something created us..Rocks,dirt,water,air, have nothing that can creat DNA,or think of life forms..If so we would still have people popping up from nowhere being born out of thin air ..but we don't everything has a maker
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 "creation is all we are..we did not come from a machine nor are we man made."
That's interesting; I don't think I've seen a false TRIchotomy before...
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldfarted 1 year ago
@WanderingDayDreamer It's not just natural selection: there's mutation, genetic drift, and many other things; all of them together make up the theory of evolution.
shanedk 1 year ago
@WanderingDayDreamer Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
shanedk 1 year ago
Ha Ha Ha! 'evolution is not even a theory'! - that is such a stupid statement - Evolution is 100% a theory - it is a good theory that most people believe answers why such diversity exists between animals. Also, to be fair, gravity (as we generally use the term) is not like evolution - gravity can be proven to exist (you can witness it) so it is regarded as a fact - diversity is a fact, but evolution is a theory! evolution and creationism - both theory, both might be wrong, and both may be right
TREACLE97 1 year ago
@TREACLE97 Actually, Creationism isn't a theory. Its an idea. One that has been disproved many times. Theory is a scientific term meaning the explaination of facts. The explaination can be altered, but the facts remain. Hense Evolution is both a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the explaination of how it works - and yes, it can and has been proven many times over.
andromidius 1 year ago
@andromidius - the theory of evolution contains some apparent facts but you need to be careful about describing it as fact - it is an idea as you say which is a good fit or explanation for diversity in different species but many scientific theories get disproved once more evidence is examined - it is believed to be a fact at this time with the limited knowledge and information we have. Disproving creationism today is like people proving a witch in 1700 - it 'appeared' to be fact at the time!
TREACLE97 1 year ago
I'm a Christian and I love evolution, it explains a lot of things
StaraptorEmpoleon 1 year ago
@StaraptorEmpoleon
Yeah, as a deist I know what you mean. Love the screen name, bw. Sad to say that pokemon kinda added fuel to the creationist mindset.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
I'd give you 250 dollars if you can prove Hovind doesn't suck dick in jail
nolobede 1 year ago
And I'll give you 10000 for proving that he does.
nolobede 1 year ago
Prove Gravity happens without God. I´ll give you $250k..
Korkzor 1 year ago
You're a major win!
PickelhauptOfWayne 1 year ago
hurray for shane killian! :)
TheDeistAngle 1 year ago
There is no more such a thing as creation science than there is christian rock, they are oxymorons.
interstate317 1 year ago
puronicoya, racist comments are not allowed on this channel. Your post was removed. First warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk racist? ok maybe i went to far but im just trying to say AIDS affects the black community more than anyone else. over 50% of cases come from 11% of the american population. this will be my last post and i will stand by my belief that aids came from a lab. i recommend you at least look into it. you dont have to believe if you dont want to.
puronicoya 1 year ago
@puronicoya That is NOT what you said in the comment I deleted and you know it, liar.
shanedk 1 year ago
@puronicoya
I haven't been following the conversation, but this seems like conspiracy theory bullshit. It's most dangerous to drug addicts and those who are too stupid to use protection. Drug addicts pose no threat to any political group, and promiscuous idiots are the ones politicians love, the sheep masses. Why would they want to kill them?
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
I can see and respect that you are intelligent and try to discover the truth in all things.
Therefore, I would love to see a bogosity on these
1. Paleontology, as much art and imagination as science
2. The theory of common descent, which is unproven and unlikely
3. The universally accepted by the "scientific community" theory of man-made global warming
okvideos5 1 year ago
aids is man made. the cure exists.
puronicoya 1 year ago
@puronicoya You're a liar, and you're telling a lie that kills people.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk look up us patent #5676977. it exists. aids is also patented. you don't believe it because your white and it does not affect your life.
puronicoya 1 year ago
@puronicoya I can show you all sorts of crazy patents. It proves nothing.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk SCO had registered copyrights on the UNIX source code, too. That doesn't mean they actually OWNED the copyrights, though. (For those that missed the biggest mess in software law in the last decade, look at groklaw . net for articles covering the whole length of this 7 year voyage through idiotic state-supported greed.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@puronicoya
/watch?v=IBdSl7yeIiw
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@puronicoya
"you don't believe it because your white and it does not affect your life."
Because only non-white people get it, right?
*rolls eyes*
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@puronicoya
Cool story, bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
I have to say, you scientifically-minded folks on Youtube have the best voices. AronRa is deep and calm, Thunderf00t is stern and sharp, and you, shane, have a very professional, yet jolly sort of voice with a nerdy charm. Creationists, however, all have really annoying, whiny, or really, really creepy voices that make me want to twist my own nipples off.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
hahahaha, I freakin' love it.
I seriously wish you could just teach me stuff you know about anything like everyday.
I'm an accredited teacher in Michigan, and seriously took this video as a method!
I love it Shane, you are so tactful and funny, and THIS is the way to deliver information. I do the same in the classroom, WITH ENTHUSIASM!! Way to go, man. Haha, bogosity levels, I LOVE THIS!
Soundscapest 2 years ago
Seriously, that's what I love about it: the ENTHUSIASM! Too many of my own teachers sounded so bored with their own subject I soon got bored too. I love a passionate teacher, one who's a good speaker. They aught to have speaking classes for teachers so they can really engage kids.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
There's got to be something wrong with my sence on humor, since I just don't understand the coffee joke. Is it referring that they just picked up some random person to appear on the video? I don't get it, and I'm really ashamed.
Retardretroguy 2 years ago
Folger is a brand of coffee.
shanedk 2 years ago
They label it as such but I remain sceptical.
OhmySKoD 2 years ago
Okay. It's not sold in Finland (at least in stores I shop in) so it wasn't that obvious to me.
It's funny, we're like world champions in coffee drinking, so I'm still quite ashamed :-)
Retardretroguy 2 years ago
What I just wonderd, was that Creationist video produced before or after Kent Hovind's conviction.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Propably before. coming from the realm of fundamentalists, I know they have a good ability to just deny all embarassing events, like conviction of Kent Hovind. He not really that important, since there are alots of more "prophets" to give the same message, and chanches are that some of them aren't crooks
Retardretroguy 2 years ago
LOL!
Folgers. XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
That talk about growing back body parts gets me wondering, how come over the course of the evolutionary chain, we lost some traits that probably would have been useful? Like, all the higher species including ourselves can't regenerate limbs but lower life forms can. Did we just become too complex for it to work?
lordthawkeye 2 years ago
Somewhere along the line, a mutation destroyed it. For some reason, genetic drift favored the non-working allele in our line. Maybe it wasn't enough of a survival advantage to matter. Maybe the costs of sustaining it outweighed the benefits.
shanedk 2 years ago
I think it's the last one. I think mostly small animals have that ability, bigger creatures mean bigger limbs meaning more mass has to be regrown. A small lizard probably has less trouble finding the food needed to power that than a fully grown human.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
@lordthawkeye We're pretty much equal in complexity to any other largish animal. However, regrowing a limb might be too physiologically draining for a mammal to sustain, or it might take too long to be a survival advantage for an animal that has to eat as frequently as a mammal (and thus has to stay mobile, which means if being without a limb stops the animal moving, it dies before the limb can regenerate).
evensgrey 1 year ago
shanedk your videos fuckin kick ass!!!
TrollN3m3s1s 2 years ago
awesomeness! :)
xBuscopanx 2 years ago
Why don't creationists try to "debunk" Einstein theory? Is it too complicated for them, according to what they know, evolution has to do with the universe, therefore, it also has to do with relativity.
PoliomanGamer 2 years ago
@PoliomanGamer Actually, Malcolm Bowden has (falsely) claimed to have found a mathematical problem with Special Relativity (he's a;sp a geocentrist). I say his claim is false, because you first have to find a problem in Group Theory, which is a branch of mathematics which can be used to, among other things, find internal inconsistencies in theories of physics. Group Theory says Special Relativity cannot contain inconsistencies.
evensgrey 1 year ago
This is Bogosity!
Micro evolution can be tested and proven but macro is far from it, if it ever could be scientifically proven? If you say that the theory of evolution starts with organisms and they evolve from there,
GuitarmandanXo 2 years ago
Bullshit. We've observed speciation with primroses and maize in nature as well as multiple examples in the lab with fruit flies, flounders, and multiple bacteria. Claiming that macro-evolution is false is like saying water creates stalactites, just not 3 foot long stalactites. It's the same process as micro-evolution.
AHPMB 2 years ago
Not to mention we've seen it with wall lizards who even grew a new body part, and we've caught cichlids in the act of speciating.
shanedk 2 years ago
Wall Lizards, a prosthetics manufacturer's nightmare.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Why's that?
shanedk 2 years ago
They can regrow limbs?
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Um, no, although a lot of species can. The wall lizards evolved a new body part--cecal valves. None of their genus has EVER been observed to have cecal valves before. Yet, after ten specimens were moved to a new island, they evolved in less than 30 years.
shanedk 2 years ago
Oh...I seem to have misread your post.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
The point is, they evolved a new body part--something creationists say cannot happen.
shanedk 2 years ago
I pledge divine intervention.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
Lots of Micro = Macro Evolution.
Nightmare060 2 years ago 2
where is the starting point? (Id like to hear your version). You shouldnt go bashing something if you cant come up with an alternative to it because you are then proving nothing. Creationism has a beginning wheres evolutions? By excepting (macro) evolution you may (show some proof if youre not) be believing in something you cant even see. I highly doubt any one can or ever will actually observe MACRO evolution; its basically impossible to do that, wouldnt you say?
GuitarmandanXo 2 years ago
"something you can't see"
really? just the other day I read an article about wall lizards in Croatia that evolved into a new species, by evolving, among other things, cecal valves.
and what about the fossils, the features in the fossils, the DNA, atavisms, ring species, etc?
besides, all "macro evolution" is is "microevolution"ary changes piled up over a long time. its like the journey of 1000 miles; it starts with 1 step.
thus, the two terms are meaningless.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
As shown in my video, "How Evolution Is Scientific," and detailed in my upcoming book of the same title.
shanedk 2 years ago
So this isn't really a video debunking creationism, but a video pointing out the obviousness of the idiocy of these two people.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
They make the same arguments all other creationists make. I swear, none of them have had an original thought in 20 years...
shanedk 2 years ago
Just my opinion, but you should show some others. I understand and mostly agree with what you seem to be saying in this video, but it just came across to me as weakly founded by only showing two obvious head-buried-in-the-sand people. I'm a creationist and I can tell you that these people are closed-minded morons. But then, I am a creationist who believes in evolution. In short, I don't believe that God created humans, instead created life. That's the ultra short character limit version.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
"In short, I don't believe that God created humans, instead created life."
That isn't really creationism, at least not the kind we're talking about.
robokill387 2 years ago 2
this is pretty awesome, i like episode 6 too,. KEEP IT UP; this is cool
xoblackout 2 years ago
Romans 3:7-8 (New International Version)
7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
I guess Paul himself has a bone to pick with creationists.
DahStranger 2 years ago
It's healthy to turn the volume down whenever a creationist begins talking, but sometimes it makes Shane's response a little confusing, but it is all in the name of preserving brain cells
technologysucks 2 years ago
I have a 250,000 challenge for Kent Hovind, if he can prove the following happened without Zeus.
1.light and darkness separated themselves.
2.plants learned synthesis without the sun.
3.The moon learned how to get reflected light form the sun by itself
4.Animals learned to reproduce on their own
5.god created himself.
6.Mud created a man by itself
7. a rib taught itself how to turn into a woman.
If you manage to prove this, you can pray to god to materialize the money for you.
DahStranger 2 years ago 21
Haha, he would have no chance! There is no way those things could happen without the great Zeus.
CENSOREDFORSEX 2 years ago 5
and your assuming that Hovind is believing in all matter having intelligence on their own.
man you seriously dont take this stuff serious do you? lol
and the last few challenges are evolution not creation. Its self its self its self...... this is what Hovind is against in the eyes of most evolution nuts that nature didnt have a creator or intelligence anywhere.
that man created nothing but helped his offspring via the coaxing of god.
you a gold star for your being silly.
remieres 2 years ago
@DahStranger
Really?
I though the same thing, only instead of Zeus, I wanted him to prove it didn't happen without the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome I just added a new piece to the challenge. Hovind also has to prove this happened without Zeus, and his prison experience is great criteria. He has to prove that soap taught itself how to drop.
DahStranger 1 year ago
@DahStranger are you retarded or just kidding?
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@DahStranger You need to have rules for his evidence.
Such as that he cannot use the bible.
this is boss.
howerut 1 year ago
I am going to disprove creationism hovind style: You do not know that this mud is the ancestor of anybody, and you do not know that this snake or donkey said anything. Have in mind that mud cannot turn into people, and donkeys or snakes are capable of talking today. That is voodoo science.
If people came form mud, why is there still mud?
DahStranger 2 years ago
Excellent video, BDr. Shane Killian.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
"A scientist from Pensacola Florida, Dr. Kent Hovind..."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
quinn2469 2 years ago 14
"I heard she makes great coffee"
I wonder why people believe Kent Hovind, with this type of information out there.
Thestrangerishere 2 years ago
lol, viruses evolving to become more resistant to our drugs caused by the hands of God. Creationism makes me laugh....
civver3 2 years ago 3
Yep, God loves his viruses, made on the....I want to say 5th.....day, and he would never allow us to kill them!
atlant80 2 years ago 4
Keep up the good work.
gregrutz 2 years ago
LOL!
congress! XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
lol. hovind is such fuckface. as of his followers, i genuinely pity them.
DUPERMAN99 3 years ago
i don't just pity them, i weep for their children.
RaustBD 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You haven't proven anything dogs were made this way. Where did docile dogs come from? Coyotes are strictly north american, wolves are xenophobic and dingoes would never steal a baby would they, Quigley? LOL
subrecter 3 years ago
Where can I attain a Bhd? I would love to speak with the authority of Hovind. :)
Cowinspace 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Then why would a starving man ignore the meat of the cow for non essential milk??? We are so closely tied with dogs that are used for meat in third world countries. this is cruelty, we constantly ignore instinct for benifit do you think other natural animals think of genocide, ponder suicide, have a name for deicide???
you can obtain your bhd in every third box of crackerjack, you must go to school to obtain what hovind has, a phd. 0_o
subrecter 3 years ago
Dogs have meat, to use them for such is not cruel (this does not stop people being cruel to them though). There are instances of animals commiting suicide following the death of a partner, just google it.
And Hovind bought his Bhd from a diploma mill (unaccredited obviously). It is in christian education, not one of the natural sciences. And quit it with the milk pish. You got owned on that by shanedk above.
Cowinspace 3 years ago
i bought a PhD from the same place as his...
too bad the teachers union doesnt recognize it... ooooh wait... that means he couldnt be a teacher...
btw... the "university" me and hovind got our degrees from are attendance/grading/exam free... gotta love that.
tuition payed = graduated
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
The great thing is the splash he made how many people are capable of that? very few, you know who he is so does duper so does shane
subrecter 2 years ago
"Nature can be cruel, but this would be exactly what we call natural selection. "
HUMANS are 100X MORE CRUEL than anything NATURE could ever hope to produce. IS THIS NOT TRUE???
subrecter 3 years ago
We were produced by nature. Therefore we can be no crueler than nature because we are a part of nature.
Though we are certainly capable of immense cruelty, this is not our only trait. We are capable of great compassion even outside our own species (look at our close ties with dogs for example).
Cowinspace 3 years ago 3
DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? or will YOU call me STUPID AGAIN???
subrecter 3 years ago
You're stupid.
I do it for the laughs.
WitnessmyPerfectio 2 years ago
IT IS greed and selfishness that is what WE DO BEST as human beings. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE epecially extreme torture we will only think only OF OURSELVES cancelling out the needs of another FOR PERSONAL EXISTANCE. WE STRIVE TO BREATH.
subrecter 3 years ago
As long as we are in this state of un-wholeness and denial. We will be nothing more than the sum of the machine, merely imitating life rather than living it. Incessantly struggling in our own self manifested Hell that we mistake for Heaven. We must face that which we choose to forget, otherwise we may succeed in our failure. Consciousness is key. Consciousness of that which IS Life, that which endows You with the power to breathe--ANY FOOL would eat the cow under LIFE THREATENING CONDITIONS
subrecter 3 years ago
The machine does not sustain life, only the immitation of life.= This was intened to communicate an old mystic proverb, where in it states that in order to be Whole, one must bring the sum of your parts into accord, as opposed to seprate, working against each other, dependant upon external influences for support and momentary comfort.
subrecter 3 years ago
but in order to manipulate this gene they must continualy drink milk
subrecter 3 years ago
As a POPULATION, but NOT on an individual level. Individuals don't evolve; populations do.
shanedk 3 years ago
You CANNOT "manipulate" this gene in your life. You just cant, no matter how much milk you drink.
It's probably mostly hereditary, nothing more. In places where people depend on milk, those who cannot benefit from it are in danger of perishing.
Nature can be cruel, but this would be exactly what we call natural selection.
latuman 3 years ago
"In places where people depend on milk, those who cannot benefit from it are in danger of perishing."
therefore some have always been able to benifit from milk.
we are all made differently
subrecter 3 years ago
Conclusion does not follow from premise. Try again.
shanedk 3 years ago
How can they be dependent on milk for survival if it has no nutritional value?
subrecter 3 years ago
But it DOES to the ones who have the mutated gene. Since there's a big avenue of nutrition open to them that others can't take advantage of, they have a survival advantage.
shanedk 3 years ago
if you keep doing something that makes you sick STOP thats COMMON SENSE
subrecter 3 years ago
It DOESN'T make you sick IF you have the mutated gene.
shanedk 3 years ago
You wrote that poor diet has NOTHING to do obesity, diabetes or stroke. now thats funny, don't drink the kool aid here kiddies!!!
subrecter 3 years ago
I ABSOLUTELY said NO SUCH THING!!! I said that HEART ATTACKS have nothing to do with them! A heart attack is NOT a stroke! A heart attack is NOT diabetes!
So, like all creationists, you're just going to LIE about what I said because YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH.
This is a BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Deal with it.
shanedk 3 years ago
The difference between a stroke and a heart attack is where the broken off piece of arterial clogging goes, if it reaches the brain- stroke. if it reaches the heart -- heart attack. THIS IS DUE TO POOR DIET AND CHOLESTEROL keep calling me a liar. lol
subrecter 3 years ago
Strokes are caused by all sorts of other things, including blood clots. If an artery has been injured, for example, the site where it heals may leave a scab. That scab may dislodge later and go to the brain. NOTHING to do with plaque.
They CAN be caused by plaque, but they can also be caused by a LOT of other stuff, too--including stuff which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with diet.
Does it EVER occur to you to educate yourself about what you're talking about? You'd look a lot less stupid.
shanedk 3 years ago
hmmm what happens to dna when people commit incest KISSING COUSINS OF THE WORLD REJOICE you done evolvimecated
subrecter 3 years ago
I'm not sure what brought on this question, but the DNA works as normal. In fact, the first generation of inbreeders experience no greater rate of genetic defects than anyone else.
With subsequent generations, the chances of being homozygous for recessive genes increases. This is where the birth defects come from.
shanedk 3 years ago
okay show me a mutation that benefits mankind this isn't the xmen, chernobyl and hiroshima victims rejoice its okay you evolved! cool huh? when someone mutates it is a bad thing shane
subrecter 3 years ago
"okay show me a mutation that benefits mankind"
Do you like milk? That's from the lactase mutation. It happened several times in many different cultures.
The AIDS resistance mutation has happened at least twice, once among Europeans and once in Africa.
An Italian family can eat all of the fat and cholesterol they want because of a mutation that allows their digestive system to break it all down properly.
That's a bad thing???
shanedk 3 years ago
those are tolerences built up by lifelong exposure, does a junkie evolve because they have a higher tolerance to opiates even after they stop?, no they've only changed their own chemistry, and as long as they're not using during procreation or while pregnant (which further backs up lifelong exposure) their children will have no tolerance to opiates.
subrecter 3 years ago
and by the way what italians are you talking about? my italian friends mom is morbidly obese, diabetic and has had a stroke
subrecter 3 years ago
Yeah, because anecdotes are always good evidence...
It's only the ones descended from a particular family with the mutated gene PCSK9. They have greatly reduced LDL cholesterol and a much lower chance of heart attack.
That has NOTHING to do with obesity, diabetes, or stroke.
shanedk 3 years ago
stoke is due to high cholesterol
subrecter 3 years ago
"those are tolerences built up by lifelong exposure"
No, those are GENE MUTATIONS. They've IDENTIFIED the mutations! Someone without the lactase mutation WILL NEVER develop an ability to digest milk.
You're just another lying creationist trying to weasel out of the evidence.
shanedk 3 years ago
Jargen, all mammal babies drink milk. You are just trying to 'draw water from a stone' or life from a stone hahaha
subrecter 3 years ago
"Jargen, all mammal babies drink milk."
But NO mammal ADULTS drink milk--EXCEPT FOR HUMANS! And NONE of them can digest milk, EXCEPT FOR HUMANS WITH THIS MUTATION!
Geez...
shanedk 3 years ago
"But NO mammal ADULTS drink milk-- EXCEPT FOR HUMANS!"
dogs and CATS most certainly will drink milk
and digest it properly ask any cat owner
come on shane
subrecter 3 years ago
ANY cat or dog expert will tell you to ABSOLUTELY NOT give milk to your adult cat or dog BECAUSE THEY CANNOT DIGEST IT.
This is COMMONLY KNOWN. How STUPID are you???
shanedk 3 years ago
do a search on google and you will find out that not all cats are lactose intolerant, notice the root word - tolerant(if anyone else reads this you try it too)do they have a mutant gene?no its a built up TOLERANCE.
poor you getting all flustered that you have to insult me
subrecter 3 years ago
Oh? Do they end up producing lactase as a result of this tolerance? Do you have ANY scientific data WHATSOEVER to back you up on this?
Humans have a MUTATION--which HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED--which keeps the lactase gene going FOR LIFE. What's more, we DON'T see it in regions that haven't been dependent on milk for survival, EXACTLY AS EVOLUTION PREDICTS.
Do you get tired of looking like a fool after every post?
shanedk 3 years ago
we have always been able to drink milk, why would generations and generations of people do something that made them sick untill they evolved themselves up a gene to make them not sick?
subrecter 3 years ago
the genes for making lactase are present in all mammals. obviously, all mammals drink milk from an early age.
most mammals' lactase decreases in production towards the weening period.
the only thing that needs to happen is a mutation that causes people to carry on producing lactase throughout life.
TheProf1988 3 years ago
"the genes for making lactase are present in all mammals."
The normal mammalian gene for lactase GETS TURNED OFF when the mammal matures. The mutation we have keeps the gene going for life. That's NOT a tolerance; it's an ACTUAL ABILITY TO DIGEST IT.
This has been OBSERVED. This has been CONFIRMED. We KNOW what the mutation is. (It's on Chromosome 2, by the way.)
shanedk 3 years ago
cool, my bad. and this mutation occurred in europeans, right? asians and africans are prone to lactose intolerance
TheProf1988 3 years ago
In cultures such as Japan where milk is being consumed increasingly, we're seeing more and more cases of lactose digestion there. We can also expect this to be the case in the third world when milk becomes more of a staple there.
shanedk 3 years ago
how many generations of 3rd world citizens does it take to develope this gene?
subrecter 3 years ago
They've discovered three separate mutations in East Africa. How long it will take to assert itself in the population depends directly on how dependent they are on milk for survival.
shanedk 3 years ago
but untill they develope this gene it has no nutrional value whatsoever?
subrecter 3 years ago
It does in infancy, but the n it gets deactivated. The mutation alters the controls for the gene so that it stays on for life.
shanedk 3 years ago
'dogs and CATS most certainly will drink milk'
actually pet owners are discouraged from giving their pets milk, it is a common misconception that cats drink cream.
TheProf1988 3 years ago
If you need more of this, there are TONS of video series explaining Creationism fallacies etc.
Teirusu155 3 years ago