It is obvious that the more useful one species is to another that it would continue to be selected. But mutations would have to accidentally change one organism to work specifically with another organism before it would be selected.
The idea that one organism could cause genetic change that alters the phenotype of another unrelated organism is simply foolish. Organisms do not exert any "selective pressure" on the DNA of unrelated species. In order to be selected DNA has to change first then be tested in an active organism.
Here is the thing, you guys have to play by the the rules, your own rules, since all life is formed by random mutations and chance and no intelligence is allowed, none of your answers can show any intelligence whatsoever, and every last one that does is automatically disqualified. SOO I will not respond to any intelligent answers because they do not fall within the realm of evolution sorry
You guys have enough problems explaining how a single organism evolved in and of itself, and explaining how the vanilla orchid could have become what it is today, its unique smell that for some strange reason is so intoxicating for humans, its exquisite flowers.etc etc etc the list goes on and on you guys are way in over your head here
The video focuses on how amazing the relationship is in order to distract viewers from the fact that it make no valid points against evolution. In fact the example works more to support evolution tha. Disprove it
@ykalon the Human Coccyx (Tailbone) Is used for Support when you sit down. Also it is a point where Muscle Tissue form together which helps your anus.. Well er.. Push out Bodily Objects. I believe it also helps you walk because its so close to Butt muscles which pretty much Lift your Upper thighs. Not Quite sure what the appendix is for but i remember someone saying it was once used in early humans to Digest Vegetables which where Grass like.
I find this video patronizing to people... Like they asume you don't know jack about jack... And how does it defy evolution? It doesn't. Misguiding title.
@7t6e354r okay, then the lord created humans to tend the holy saffron plant, which the earth was obviously designed for. you evil saffron-eating pigs will burn in hell to avenge each sacred grain you tormented in your vile, defiling ovens!!!1!!1
It doesn't say once, anywhere in the video, that this defies evolution. For obvious reasons: it rather proves it. Such twisting of reality to fit an agenda is despicable and disgusting. And exactly what one would expect from the losing side of an argument. Bravo.
The type of orchid that produces vanilla beans has slowly evolved into a shape that makes it difficult to pollinate, except for the clever melipona bees (and for hummingbird - they can do it too). What's the evolutionary advantage for the flower? It's got an "exclusive" pollinator - the melipona - less likely to carry pollen from other species of orchids, so less cross-breeding, and the vanilla orchids breed true. As for the meliponas, they get the vanilla monopoly. Convergent evolution.
@alfuentesev so it was being cross pollinated as it slowly evolved?what shape was it before it evolved. your logic is crazier than the creationists.well time made it evolve.thats not an answer.c'mon man. you cant prove that or test it.you just WANT to BELIEVE it.time to look beyond what someone told you to BELIEVE and think critically.
@7t6e354r Could you please translate your comment from gibberish to something that makes sense? The only thing I can surmise is that you haven't got the slightest idea what the theory of evolution means. It would be useful for you to understand the theory first, before you try arguing against it.
@alfuentesev ok.if your talking about 'micro' evolution(variation within the kind) than yes it happens.if your talking about 'macro' evolution than no this is not observable or testable therefore NOT science.comprende?
@7t6e354r Evolution has been observed and tested. Nice try. ''variation within the kind'' is needed for Evolution to work, that is proven by turning a wolf into a poodle. Natural Selection works on the variation.
I always wonder why crationists can't see the big picture.
@gregrutz correct .the poodle is probably from the wolf lineage BUT if you understood some basic genetics you would know there is no new genetic information in the poodle it has been selected out by us.nature works the same way it selects it does not create.so your big macro evolutionpicture is in your imagination.
@7t6e354r turning a wolf into a poodle is not evolution. It is variation in species, proof the genetic information is already there. You can't see the big picture, evolution. Look at the fossil record, dinosaurs ruled the earth and changed over 160 Million years.
@7t6e354r Macroevolution is simply microevolution + incredibly long periods of time. As for your use of the word 'observation', again you show you don't understand science. Science is based on the analysis of empirical data and observable phenomena, including but not limied to eyewitness accounts of events. Data from DNA analysis, paleontology, paleobiology, geology, and a host of other empirical disciplines coincide to support the conclusion that evolution happens. And your data would be ...?
@alfuentesev ok. i can see that your understanding of evolution is only very limited. microevolution is not simple its very complex and it happens everyday.macroevolution happens only in your mind.no organism on earth creates new genetic information and becomes another kind of animal.it SIMPLY does not happen.keep in mind EVERYONE has biases and are subject to them.its clear that you are very closed minded and bias.there are other theories that must be kept in mind.
@7t6e354r I'm sure you'll see that an accusation of having "limited knowledge" about evolution, coming from a simpleton like yourself, means absolutely nothing. Saying that something "simply doesn't happen" is a useless statement that offers nothing but your lack of understanding and your refusal to consider the available evidence - an argument by ignorance and obstinance. Bingo! You win today's prize for the most logical fallacies in a single comment box! A one-way trip to the loony bin.
@alfuentesev wow, better check that ego of yours you almost popped a blood vessle professer.i'd still like to see some actual evidence of an animal CREATING new genetic information and becoming more complex.please,no more fairy tales about eons of time changing organisms.
@7t6e354r Define what you mean by "information". (Pssst! It has to make sense). As for fairy tales, I'll take science over hocus-pocus tales of a talking snake and a 6,000 y.o. Earth. Come on, man. The Dark Ages ended a long time ago. Time to get up to speed.
@alfuentesev 'new genetic information'-please try and read the whole sentence next time mr. elite.i'll take 'science' also, but not blindly as you seem to.
@7t6e354r Typical evasion tactics. You know that your argument hinges on a warped definition of 'information' so you refuse to specify. Let me know when you decide to be honest. Ciao.
@alfuentesev honesty? Should i expect such a thing as honesty in your humanistic and atheistic world?you have no rules other than to survive so the ends justify your means right?
@7t6e354r You obviously know very little about atheism or humanism. Perhaps you should consult the following website: americanhumanist (dot) org. Click on "who we are" and then "about humanism". There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to elevate the discussion. By the way, I'm still waiting for your jury-rigged definition of "information". Cheers.
@alfuentesev please show me a scientific journal that clearly shows a study of new information created by the host.it should be easy to find right? if every single biological entity on earth is still evolving.?reguarding the 'humanist creed' um... yeah so who gets to decide what is good or bad?and uh why does it matter anyway?
@7t6e354r For the nth time, you'll have to provide a coherent definition of 'information' as you use the term, before discussion can proceed. You can't ... so I guess that's the end of your argument. Who gets to decide what's good and bad? We do, between all of us, as a society of individuals with brains to think. Or we can make sacrificial offerings to an imaginary sky god and hope he possesses another virgin, to give birth to a son, who'll then pass us the divine memo. Sigh ...
@alfuentesev right . ok well for the nth time i've asked and i guess i just assumed you could figure out what i meant by 'information'.but apparently your just trying to debate rather than having a discussion.perhaps your a lawyer.not that there is anything wrong with that.sigh...
@7t6e354r I don't have to 'figure out' what your key terms of reference are. I'm afraid that's *your* job, sparky. I'm not a mind-reader. Defining your terms is step 1 in any academic discussion. If you don't know what you mean by 'information', you can't expect anyone else to guess. Your problem, quite simply, is that you're attempting to start a line of argument that even "Answers in Genesis" discourages its fundie-fans from using, because it's a hollow game of semantics.
@7t6e354r '' please show me a scientific journal that clearly shows a study of new information ''
''New Information'' is not something people study, It was made up by creationists to try to prove evolution is wrong. But any change in DNA is new information.
@7t6e354r You obviously know very little about atheism or humanism. Perhaps you should consult the information at americanhumanist d.ot or.g Click on "who we are" and then "about humanism". There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to elevate the discussion. By the way, I'm still waiting for your jury-rigged definition of "information". Cheers.
@7t6e354r Everything you think of as bird-like dinosaurs evolved: Feathers, hollow bones, warm blood, oval eggs in nests, etc. etc. etc. All new information.
@gregrutz wrong. you can believe they did but thats not science.birds have fully developed feathers,hollow bones,warm blood,oval eggs in nests etc. etc. etc. YOU have to show me its new not just say that.
@alfuentesev lol, your second paragraph is clearly intelligent design, except for the last two sentences, and for your first paragraph, I have a question, How could multiple organisms have once lived independently of services they now require? Note that ecological relationships had to precede coevolution. Consequently, coevolution appears to be no answer for understanding the origin of ecology.Three hours a year, these flowers open up, think that through people.The clever Melipona bee? That I.D
Oh, come on. All I wanted was to watch some nice videos on orchids, maybe actually learn something that could be useful for orchid growing. Instead, I find this. You lunatics are everywhere.
0:33 if that bee is not a whole lot bigger than a flea, then i'd like to see a flea that big. If fleas were that big, then they wouldn't exist, cuz they would be too big to go unnoticed (besides the itchy feeling) and just get removed from the host and die.
That's called survival of the fittest. Also why would god care of making so many creatures without any good reason? Evolution happens by accident, and these accidents try to survive like any other creature on earth.
This doesnt defy evolution. Not at all... These type of vids are made for people who want to believe in creationism. So no real evidnce is required..... They already believe in God and the bible, so are people that are happy to suspend their logical mind, so accepting that evolution is not a very sound theory because of these evidence free monologues is easy for them. I say again, if you are a creationist, simply state that and stop trying to sound as if science informs your view, cos it doesnt!
@gsa974 nice proof to back that up, i really enjoyed a well informed comment FULL of support. if you hold to ur comment, expand so that while ur trying to call creationists uneducated, u dont look uneducated yourself.
@gregrutz no, not evolution, but natural selection. darwin was a believer in god btw and it wasnt charles darwin who cam up with the theory, but rather his father, didnt know that didnt u? charles went on a journey to observe if this theory COULD be possible. he found natural selection. the evolution talked about today with science is not from darwin, its from scientists not wanting to believe in the truth (the word of god).
@RCACsurvivorman You got the ''darwin was a christian' part right.
Evolution the process was known every since mankind found fossils. Darwin showed how evolution happens, the theory, which includes natural selection as the mechenism for getting more complex and diverse. He also had to show 'variation in species', what natural selection selects from. He didn't need to know how genes and DNA work, he was looking at the results.
"no bigger than a flea" he says and a half size bee crawls on a hand. How large fleas does he have, I wonder?
Who said the orchid had the septum thing from the start? Who says the plant and insect didn't evolve together?
... The first chicken egg wasn't laid by a chicken. Same here, the plant evolved the bean later on, probably for other reasons than there being a bee with smarts.
@globi54 He doesn't want to understand. That's my guess.
in fact, nothing you have said has been true. you apparently believe in punctuated equilibrium. this is proof for intelligent design, as it is a fact that the plant does not pollinate without the bee. and even if the flower came up later than it would not be very long before the plant became extinct. so the bee would actually have to know this information within a very short time frame. this cannot happen naturally.
oh, and he knows evolution, you refuse understand it.
@theREALiceveela Jobe just throws up his hands and says "how can that be?! It's impossible! How does that happen?!" even though there's perfectly rational, reasonable, natural explanations for these phenomena. Obviously Jobe doesn't "know" evolution, and he refuses to understand it. Bit like you, 'ey.
yeah... evolution... how long will it take a stream of ants until they realize that if they jump into my cup of kool-aid that they will drown? apparently millions of years.
evolution is dumb and impossible to occure. a lizard with half a wing and half a leg cannot move. it will die. a bee learning this in a short time period would mean it was a coincidence that those bees just so happen to know how to pollinate that specific flower and be in that location at the time.
@REAL It's pretty pathetic that one of your "occupations" is biology. What's dumb is making shit up; not evolution. Evolution is the foundation of our understanding of biology and nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution. Ants that drown, obviously have less genetic influence, and creatures with half a wing can glide -- better than falling. "Half legs" -- i.e short legs -- can still offer mobility, and some advantages come from a streamlined body -- seals, penguins etc.
@theREAL Genes also influence behaviours -- like instinctive behaviours. Flowers attract bees by offering a reward, it really ain't that much of a coincidence. Pollin gets stuck to the bee upon invading the flower and transferred to the next flower as the bee, again seeks its reward of nectar. Does your dog just magically, and coincidentally hone in on its food bowl when you place food in it? No, he responds to taste, sound & olfactory signals that let him know there's food available.
how about you PM if you are going to bitch? you want everyone to think you are big and tough?
you most likly also believe that 99.9% of biologist/scientist accept evolution. if so than PM me the data on THAT too.
in fact, you are most likely a middle school student who gets all of his information off of talkorigins and have not even studied evolution as a whole, let alone any of its counter-arguments.
@Julie You're 20; I'm 24. I'm also calmer, more coherent and use better grammar than you. More than 99% of scientists accept evolution, it's a trivial fact. Google it if you need citations or read Wiki's article on the acceptance of evolution. I've read a lot of creation arguments, there's really no substance to them, and no good counter-arguments. I rarely read TalkOrigins; I mostly read Biology textbooks and scientific literature -- Dawkins, Coyne etc.
besides, you may be smarter than me... but i am right.
and if possible, please PM me a reliable source for your biased claimed of 99%. other people have said it was much lower, 60-80% actually.
also, most germans in the day were nazies and the majority voted on obama, the majority of scientist 20 years ago said homosexuality was a choice, but they were proven wrong. i guess majority cannot play a part in this.
I gave you citations. Try looking up what I mentioned regarding the scientific consensus on evolution. Nazis, Obama & popularity are irrelevant — science is not a democracy / popular vote. "Scientists 20 years ago said homosexuality was a choice". Citation? The act of homosexuality, like any act of sex, is a choice; the urge, the desire, who we find attractive is not a choice, it's a physiological response. Eating is a choice; hunger is a physiological response — we don't choose to be hungry.
you cited nothing, becaus youtube does not allow you to cite sources. now you can either PM me like a real debate, or stop commenting, your lust for attention and fans will not cause you to win this debate.
You simply need to Google what I said and also read the Wiki article I mentioned -- that will provide a laundry list of sources, and it's very easy. So, if you can't do that, then you're simply just re-affirming the point that there is no debate to be had with a creationist. So why would I waste my time? It's like when Dawkins cited hominid fossils to Wendy Wright and told her to go & look! She ignored him. You have to meet me half-way and _bother_ to look, I can't make you.
And I'm also already in a lengthy debate with someone far more intelligent than you, so I don't wish to beat a dead horse. I've looked at your channel, I understand you like to debate, but you need to take small steps and demonstrate you're capable of making progress and learning; otherwise it would appear that you just wish to vent your anger and point of view. It's not a very smart debating technique to simply state "I'm right", especially when it's preceeded by "you may be smarter".
boy 192... i did not win this debate because i am smarter than you. i won because i am right. refusing the truth does not make it any less true. and i know i am right. and i know you are wrong. i cited sources, something you have yet to do
good day and nice life, that is, if you should even have a life if you think it is pointless and worthless. too bad you life the life of a hypocrite.
As a scientist you should know science isn't about "proofs" but probabilities. I love how far off into your own world you are, it's very amusing. You didn't actually cite anything, you've just ignored what I told you to do, so to use your tact I'll simply say "ignoring it doesn't make it less true." And it doesn't make you right. How about that?
You've failed to demonstrate your point, to refer me in any direction; yet you've ignored my referrals. Me? A hypocrite? Nah, just you.
You tried to patronise me by calling me a "kiddo"; I was just pointing out the irony by the fact that you're younger, less coherent and use worse grammar. But Kent Hovind is a lousy candidate; unless you're trying to make the point that older people can be stupid, then I would agree that Kent is a very stupid, ineducable man.
natural selection is contadictory in the theory of evolution.
For example, resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is not an evolution whether micro or macro because Darwin believes NATURAL SELECTION is caused by the death of the unresistant ones and survival of those who are already NATURALLY resistant. Therefore where do the naturally resistant ones come from? Their resistance genes already existed in the gene pool from the beginning when God created them!
@maxwin1989 The resistant genes already existed in the gene pool from the beginning when Spaghetti-Man Dan created them! Anyway, you didn't demonstrate the apparent contradiction. But yes, natural selection acts upon existing variety among the population. How does that variety get there in the first place? Genetic mutations is one way. There's other factors like cis-regulation and epigenetics, sexual recombination.
the evolution theory is terribly flawed. you all didn't understand his point. For example according to the theory birds should come from the reptiles. However, Darwin said clearly that every evolution must be useful and beneficial and must be able to allow the organism to survive.. Therefore it has to be a gradual change. However how can an intermediate between a bird and a reptile be better than a reptile? And why is a bird better than a reptile since evolution must be beneficial for survival
@max Birds are thought to have evolved from theropods, and they still bear features of reptiles: yolked eggs, scales, nucleated red-blood, single occipital condyle, sclerotic eyes. The most notable early adaptation would have been feathers, which confer advantages: incubating eggs, feathers have light distortion structures which can produce many colours from few pigments — sexual & aggressive displays — insulation from weather, and of course gliding, followed by total flight. Sound beneficial?
@maxwin1989 There's also around two dozen of these feathered theropod fossils discovered: V. mongoliensis, A. lithographica, D. antirrhopus, M. gui to name a few.
The whole world is laughing at how stupid all your videos are. You just need to admit that you don't understand the theory of evolution. You look as stupid as someone still arguing that the Earth is flat because it looks flat. You're that dumb, it's scary. You shoudn't even be a dentist, I'd be scared to have dental work done by such and idiot.
Evolution is more than terribly flawed, its batshit foaming-at-the-mouth crazy. Only the extremist atheists in desperation continue defending it after seeing this video. Fine. you have a religion. How nice. GO preach somewhere else.
This is not an isolated thing. There are TONS of different kinds of plants which fully rely on animals this way. And it doesn't defy evolution in any way. Nobody who has a real understanding of evolution would be saying these embarrassingly stupid things.
Saying this bee defies evolution is every bit as stupid as saying it defies gravity. "Blargh, bee flies. Things not fly cuz grabbity. Bee am defy grabbity durr."
Coevolution and the fertilization of orchids isn't arcane, or novel. It's as old as the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin wrote about it in the Fertilisation of Orchids.
Maybe, before reacting to a theory, it would be a good idea to learn what the theory says.
This guy has no clue how evolution works. It's easy to imagine a vanilla orchid ancestor that had a different way of pollinating and which evolved to be pollinated by these bees gradually.
Evolution is an idea of fallen human nature. Yes, humans don't want there to be a God, because they (or shoid I say we) want to be gods for their (our) own. We are as far as Genesis chapter 3 And this is called sin!. Do not be a fool: look around and just be honest to yourself and you will see the fingerprints of magnificent Creator God!
Bible explains everything: origin, meaning, morality, destiny, information etc.
Evolution pretends to have the answers to the origin and development of life.
1: Please tell me where these fingerprints that you speak of are? I can't claim that I've been looking for them, but please inform me of where I can find them..?
2: Evolution does not "pretend" to have the answers to the development of life, it does however explain it beautifully... and the origin of life, that's Abiogenesis for you :)
That little bee evolved in conjunction with the vanilla plant. The vanilla orchid evolved to attract that bee with enough nectar to make them want to open up that wilted flower. That way they trade. The bee gets a food source, while the orchid gets pollinated. Nice huh? No God. Just "Evolution"
The buffoon in the video is truly ignorant. He makes the claim that the bee couldn't exist without the plant, which is a whole new level of stupid. There are MANY plants that can only survive due to insect pollination. One of them evolved the vanilla bean.
for the record, he didn't say the bee couldn't survive without the plant, he said exactly the opposite. Evolution apparently takes a long time. If the bee doesn't figure out how to pollinate in ONE DAY, the whole species of vanilla plants become extinct. One day, or one generation of plants for that matter, is hardly enough time to "evolve along side". Think about it!
What YOU are missing is that what you said is true of the vanilla plant NOW. The plant has ALSO evolved.
The plant was not always in its current configuration. So there was PLENTY enough time to evolve alongside one another. You have to understand evolution, which you clearly do not.
@toddcruzaider Or a more likely hypothesis would be that the orchid evolved to needing to bloom only for a couple of hours/year to survive. Just like we need only 2 arms to survive, instead of 12, which would be a waste of matter and energy.
no wonder vanilla pods are so expensive. the flowers only bloom and last one day. sheesh, i wonder why it takes so long and for so short a period it blooms
lol "Hernando Cortez" XD I believe you mean Hernan Cortez. besides the bee evolved long before the flower so they weren't "made for each other" the flower evolved so that the bee would be the only thing that could get to its nectar. This video SUPPORTS evolution rather than refuting it.
hahaha I don't like the new comment format! I click "post" but my comment disappears. I redo it, & they both appear. YouTube has some problems it needs to fix. Or, they can let evolution fix the problems hahaha
hahaha I don't like the new comment format! I click "post" but my comment disappears. I redo it, & they both appear. YouTube has some problems it needs to fix. Or, they can let evolution fix the problems hahaha
Even more fascinating than the video is the willful ignorance in some of the comments. Insisting that this & multitudes of other symbiotic relationships in nature are possible by evolution! But they don't explain how.
Fascinating video, but even more fascinating is the willful ignorance in some of the comments, insisting that evolution produced this & multitudes of other symbiotic relationships in nature...but they don't explain how.
@jimmmmie There is an extensive explanation of symbiotic relationships at your fingertips right now if you want it explained (the interwebs have lots of stuff), but your willful ignorance will not allow you look it up.
I feel your pain, however, I can't get anyone to explain how god created life, and I can't even find it on the interwebs. They all just say god did it, and there are no theories as to how.
There's no sense arguing with closed-minded people who express themselves by calling others "idiots." All of life is a mirror and someday all the real idiots will understand that. Maybe.
you evolutionary idiots... if as you claim the symbiotic relationship grew over millenia, then wouldn't the flower evolve to make it easier for this bee? it still has alot of work to do before getting to the pollen, while other flowers have pollen exposed and easy to get. You evolutionists are so ridiculous, you call the truth a fairytale, but you are the ones making up fairy tales.
@Dtoo A clump of mud, that came alive by somebody`s breath blown over it, is of course more believable. That`s a real fairy tale; You fight evolution science because you believe it`s the work of satan.
@Dtoo "wouldn't the flower evolve to make it easier for this bee?"
No, that's the point. They are specialists species. The flower has to spend less energy producing pollen and nectar because the bee will only go to this type of flower and not other flowers that can't be pollinated. Remember the short life of the flower? Some flowering species spend energy producing flowers that live for days or weeks to insure pollination.
There are many examples of symbiotic relationships, but because one couldn't survive without the other today doesn't mean they couldn't a few hundred thousand years ago. As things evolve some become more specialized to their environment others stay generalized and adaptable.This is not a good example of nature needing a creator. This instead shows what evolution already predicts, that environmental pressures will only reward those that are able to survive.
Perhaps the orchid did not always need the bee, and the bee did not always need the orchid. Once they found eachother, they evolved in parallel, and became more specific to each other. Certainly this is a more reasonable (and scientific) explanation than "Zeus made it that way".
That's quite unreasonable. Can a bee go up to a flower and say. Hello, I would like you to go in reverse evolution and become dependent of me, and then teach me how to pollinate you.
No, bees and flowers can't speak on account of they don't have vocal chords or the cognitive capacity for language. and what does "reverse evolution" mean?
However, if a bee sees something attractive about a flower, it's more likely to fly over, and if he polloinates it in the process (unintentionally), then the genes of that flower will pass on, as opposed to the unattractive flower. This process repeating over several millenia will produce a flower with very specific "bee attracting" traits.
But what you're saying is, if there is a certain flower that attracts only a certain kind of bee, no other bee, and that happens for about 7,000 years. The flower becomes dependent on the bee. Extremely unlikely as: If any other bees pollinated that flower it would reverse the process that had to happen to get the flower. If the flower somehow managed to go through this process, if the bees failed to pollinate the flowers for 1 season, the entire species would go extinct.
Maybe other bees did pollinate it here and there. But if mainly one kind of bee finds it more attractive than other kinds of bees (which is what we observe), then we could have the same result. There were probably a hundred species of orchid that went extinct for every one that survived. Of course the numbers will seem unlikely, because they are. Every living thing is the survivor of many similar, now extinct species. How do YOU think these two interrelated organisms came to be?
"The Queen of Trees" this process of pollination staggers my imagination, and how it is so well orchestrated,timed, and accomplished.
How these processes "evolved" is beyond me. It's to complex, even if people say ireducable complexity, why make something more complex? would that not lower an organisms chance for success? while the simpler organisms thrive with higher pollination rates?
This is proof of evolution! You have to C it that way! Bible-thumping morons want to disprove evolution and they do it by showing evolution? These guys R lost and have failed @ proving anything!
The truth does hurt and as we can see by your comment its cutting so deep you have to attack the person not the facts. Evolution emotionally retards cause there are no absolutes leaving the believer short of answers and if they have an answer well its pretty weak and emotionally charged :) peace
Richard Dawkins talks about the very same thing in evolutionary terms. It takes millions of years for this kind of evolution to occur. So much for the intelligent designer. It is not emotionally charged in so much as you made any point I'm just tired of stupid un-scientific minds trying desperately to justify the existence of a god when it could be explained quite well scientifically. As for pollination of plants it's called symbiotic adaptation.
These guys, is if anything an attack on a group not an ad hominem attack on a person! Coadaptation (Symbiotic adaptation) is a part of Natural Selection, Evolution. Some creatures R very specialized and it takes thousands of generations-centuries... for these things to happen, but of course U might think that we only been here for 6000 years! Lol!
@theREALiceveela Well, I don't know about college, I've never been, and I'm Australian, so we use Universities here. University professors in biology are scientists. I also get my information from textbooks, which are written by scientists.
This does not defy evolution. If anything it shows how species can evolve to become dependant upon one another. This kind of relationship is a common occurance throughout the natural world. It is no proof against evolutionary theory and supports it in fact.
Oh really, it doesn't?? I wonder how many millions of years apart, according to evolutionary science, the evolution of the bee and the orchid were??? As the man said the orchid didn't just sit around for 1 million years waiting for the bee to evolve DoH! Do you not see a problem here? How within one lifetime of the orchid or the bee could you have evolved the other. You couldn't they were both created phenocontemporaneously! So now you have to prove an animal can evolve ...not going to happen!
First of all, organisms are constantly evolving. Second, it is entirely possible that the orchids had no original dependence upon the bees and, as I described, evolved the dependence. This kind of relationship is known as an ecological niche, where species develop and sustain a co-dependant relationship.
Such instances are commonplace within the natural world. Ecological relationships are continuously forming and dissolving as the environment changes or are affected by other species.
No, I'm afraid they aren't consistently evolving, evolution is a myth perpetrated on the intellectually inferior and trusting my friend. There's no proof Orchids could have EVER survived without bees either, now you're just practicing your religion. God made sure that evolution isn't possible through DNA, RNA replication, in order to prevent deadly genetic mistakes which would kill the species off. Evolution is a scientific impossibility.
All living organisms are subject to evolutionary change. 'Intellectually inferior'? Trust me, with the lack of scientific knowledge you're demonstrating, you are in no position to be making comments like that.
'Your religion'? Evolution is a religion now is it? I guess I'm also a member of the Anglican Church of Gravity.
There ARE dangerous genetic mutations, just as there are neutral and occasionally beneficial ones. God must have done a shoddy job of preventing such instances, hey?
There is lot of such mutual dependence in nature. My favourites are the orchids that have parts looking or even smelling quite like the fëmale of their respective pollinating insects. When the male lands for to mate, the pollen is all he gets. In order to evolve in such way, an orchid must know how the particular female of its pollinating insect looks like.That, and a countless number of other things in nature, shows how absurd the idea of macro-evolution is. Glory to God!
Why ruin a perfectly good lesson discussing the virtues and vices of theology and science? Whatever one believes, what this is is a miracle; it's beautiful, can't we just leave it at that?
The bee dosn't defie evolution, it proves it that the bee had to grow over generations near the flower, to devolpe the instice to learn how to polenate it. The are millions of simaler relationships between bees and orcides and meny other flowers. I love god just the same but i study what is around me and i'm i no evolution contradics my faith but it also makes a lot of sence, i keep an open faith becuse instead of debating over the evolution we should try saving the life thats being lost.
really informative and interesting
MrBrucebracey 3 days ago
you have some great stuff here
thegeffc 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
coevolution does not defy evolution.
odinata 3 months ago
It is obvious that the more useful one species is to another that it would continue to be selected. But mutations would have to accidentally change one organism to work specifically with another organism before it would be selected.
HildyMusic 4 months ago
The idea that one organism could cause genetic change that alters the phenotype of another unrelated organism is simply foolish. Organisms do not exert any "selective pressure" on the DNA of unrelated species. In order to be selected DNA has to change first then be tested in an active organism.
HildyMusic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HildyMusic
Natural selection isn't random.
Fail.
odinata 3 months ago
Here is the thing, you guys have to play by the the rules, your own rules, since all life is formed by random mutations and chance and no intelligence is allowed, none of your answers can show any intelligence whatsoever, and every last one that does is automatically disqualified. SOO I will not respond to any intelligent answers because they do not fall within the realm of evolution sorry
HildyMusic 4 months ago
You guys have enough problems explaining how a single organism evolved in and of itself, and explaining how the vanilla orchid could have become what it is today, its unique smell that for some strange reason is so intoxicating for humans, its exquisite flowers.etc etc etc the list goes on and on you guys are way in over your head here
HildyMusic 4 months ago
"Without the bee you just don't have the bean"
"So here comes the artificial pollenation"
ACapillary 6 months ago
@ACapillary What is artificial pollenation?
HildyMusic 4 months ago
@HildyMusic Artificial pollination is the act of manually pollination by humans.
My two statements simply highlighted the absurdity of the first statement when combined with the second, both quotes from this same video.
Anyway, the answer to this silly little video is coevolution. Google it.
ACapillary 4 months ago
The video focuses on how amazing the relationship is in order to distract viewers from the fact that it make no valid points against evolution. In fact the example works more to support evolution tha. Disprove it
lax2711 6 months ago
If God created us why did he leave us with some mostly useless organs in our bodies? Like the appendix, and why do we have a tail bone?
ykalon 7 months ago
@ykalon the Human Coccyx (Tailbone) Is used for Support when you sit down. Also it is a point where Muscle Tissue form together which helps your anus.. Well er.. Push out Bodily Objects. I believe it also helps you walk because its so close to Butt muscles which pretty much Lift your Upper thighs. Not Quite sure what the appendix is for but i remember someone saying it was once used in early humans to Digest Vegetables which where Grass like.
KEGGAE45 5 months ago
I find this video patronizing to people... Like they asume you don't know jack about jack... And how does it defy evolution? It doesn't. Misguiding title.
Soldier957 8 months ago
Isn't Evolution wonderful. Too bad he can't understand it.
gregrutz 10 months ago
awww i miss my Mexico!~!!
lesterguzman 10 months ago
It's called coevolution, bitch. Read a science book already.
Heathenfidel 11 months ago
@Heathenfidel O.k. "co-evolution" is just a term. It doesn't mean it's true.
TheBlackOnWhiteCrime 10 months ago
@TheBlackOnWhiteCrime the bible is just a book. doesn't mean there's a single grain of anything approaching truth embedded anywhere in it.
nactan 9 months ago
If you like pollination check out this: an ode to all pollinators and flowers!
youtube.com/watch?v=mKn3W6opXxI
Thanks!
BotanyVideo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's no doubt that God created all things in this universe.
But soon, God will destroy this earth and universe.
Judgment Day begins on May 21, 2011
wwwYoutubeCom/watch?v=0SVrlm4BXFM
wwwEBibleFellowshipCom/WeCanKnow/
wwwWorldEndsMay21Com
FamilyRadioCom
may God have mercy on us sinners!
WeCanKnowDottCom 1 year ago
i suppose humans were created to propagate the saffron plant. (read up on the biology of saffron on wikipedia)
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan why did you choose the saffron plant as an example?
WarriorPoetJosiah 10 months ago
@WarriorPoetJosiah because i'm just that awesome! (you don't need reasons to do things. you need reasons not to do them.)
nactan 9 months ago
coevolution
nactan 1 year ago 5
@nactan bunk
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r okay, then the lord created humans to tend the holy saffron plant, which the earth was obviously designed for. you evil saffron-eating pigs will burn in hell to avenge each sacred grain you tormented in your vile, defiling ovens!!!1!!1
nactan 9 months ago
pushes it up and goes in... to drink the nectar
nactan 1 year ago
It doesn't say once, anywhere in the video, that this defies evolution. For obvious reasons: it rather proves it. Such twisting of reality to fit an agenda is despicable and disgusting. And exactly what one would expect from the losing side of an argument. Bravo.
Meurglys33 1 year ago 2
@Meurglys33 Hoe does it prove evolution?
TheBlackOnWhiteCrime 10 months ago
@TheBlackOnWhiteCrime In short: coevolution.
Meurglys33 10 months ago
The type of orchid that produces vanilla beans has slowly evolved into a shape that makes it difficult to pollinate, except for the clever melipona bees (and for hummingbird - they can do it too). What's the evolutionary advantage for the flower? It's got an "exclusive" pollinator - the melipona - less likely to carry pollen from other species of orchids, so less cross-breeding, and the vanilla orchids breed true. As for the meliponas, they get the vanilla monopoly. Convergent evolution.
alfuentesev 1 year ago 8
@alfuentesev so it was being cross pollinated as it slowly evolved?what shape was it before it evolved. your logic is crazier than the creationists.well time made it evolve.thats not an answer.c'mon man. you cant prove that or test it.you just WANT to BELIEVE it.time to look beyond what someone told you to BELIEVE and think critically.
7t6e354r 10 months ago
@7t6e354r Could you please translate your comment from gibberish to something that makes sense? The only thing I can surmise is that you haven't got the slightest idea what the theory of evolution means. It would be useful for you to understand the theory first, before you try arguing against it.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev ok.if your talking about 'micro' evolution(variation within the kind) than yes it happens.if your talking about 'macro' evolution than no this is not observable or testable therefore NOT science.comprende?
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Evolution has been observed and tested. Nice try. ''variation within the kind'' is needed for Evolution to work, that is proven by turning a wolf into a poodle. Natural Selection works on the variation.
I always wonder why crationists can't see the big picture.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz correct .the poodle is probably from the wolf lineage BUT if you understood some basic genetics you would know there is no new genetic information in the poodle it has been selected out by us.nature works the same way it selects it does not create.so your big macro evolutionpicture is in your imagination.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r turning a wolf into a poodle is not evolution. It is variation in species, proof the genetic information is already there. You can't see the big picture, evolution. Look at the fossil record, dinosaurs ruled the earth and changed over 160 Million years.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Macroevolution is simply microevolution + incredibly long periods of time. As for your use of the word 'observation', again you show you don't understand science. Science is based on the analysis of empirical data and observable phenomena, including but not limied to eyewitness accounts of events. Data from DNA analysis, paleontology, paleobiology, geology, and a host of other empirical disciplines coincide to support the conclusion that evolution happens. And your data would be ...?
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev ok. i can see that your understanding of evolution is only very limited. microevolution is not simple its very complex and it happens everyday.macroevolution happens only in your mind.no organism on earth creates new genetic information and becomes another kind of animal.it SIMPLY does not happen.keep in mind EVERYONE has biases and are subject to them.its clear that you are very closed minded and bias.there are other theories that must be kept in mind.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r I'm sure you'll see that an accusation of having "limited knowledge" about evolution, coming from a simpleton like yourself, means absolutely nothing. Saying that something "simply doesn't happen" is a useless statement that offers nothing but your lack of understanding and your refusal to consider the available evidence - an argument by ignorance and obstinance. Bingo! You win today's prize for the most logical fallacies in a single comment box! A one-way trip to the loony bin.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev wow, better check that ego of yours you almost popped a blood vessle professer.i'd still like to see some actual evidence of an animal CREATING new genetic information and becoming more complex.please,no more fairy tales about eons of time changing organisms.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Define what you mean by "information". (Pssst! It has to make sense). As for fairy tales, I'll take science over hocus-pocus tales of a talking snake and a 6,000 y.o. Earth. Come on, man. The Dark Ages ended a long time ago. Time to get up to speed.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev 'new genetic information'-please try and read the whole sentence next time mr. elite.i'll take 'science' also, but not blindly as you seem to.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Typical evasion tactics. You know that your argument hinges on a warped definition of 'information' so you refuse to specify. Let me know when you decide to be honest. Ciao.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev honesty? Should i expect such a thing as honesty in your humanistic and atheistic world?you have no rules other than to survive so the ends justify your means right?
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r You obviously know very little about atheism or humanism. Perhaps you should consult the following website: americanhumanist (dot) org. Click on "who we are" and then "about humanism". There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to elevate the discussion. By the way, I'm still waiting for your jury-rigged definition of "information". Cheers.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev please show me a scientific journal that clearly shows a study of new information created by the host.it should be easy to find right? if every single biological entity on earth is still evolving.?reguarding the 'humanist creed' um... yeah so who gets to decide what is good or bad?and uh why does it matter anyway?
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r For the nth time, you'll have to provide a coherent definition of 'information' as you use the term, before discussion can proceed. You can't ... so I guess that's the end of your argument. Who gets to decide what's good and bad? We do, between all of us, as a society of individuals with brains to think. Or we can make sacrificial offerings to an imaginary sky god and hope he possesses another virgin, to give birth to a son, who'll then pass us the divine memo. Sigh ...
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@alfuentesev right . ok well for the nth time i've asked and i guess i just assumed you could figure out what i meant by 'information'.but apparently your just trying to debate rather than having a discussion.perhaps your a lawyer.not that there is anything wrong with that.sigh...
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r I don't have to 'figure out' what your key terms of reference are. I'm afraid that's *your* job, sparky. I'm not a mind-reader. Defining your terms is step 1 in any academic discussion. If you don't know what you mean by 'information', you can't expect anyone else to guess. Your problem, quite simply, is that you're attempting to start a line of argument that even "Answers in Genesis" discourages its fundie-fans from using, because it's a hollow game of semantics.
alfuentesev 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7t6e354r '' please show me a scientific journal that clearly shows a study of new information ''
''New Information'' is not something people study, It was made up by creationists to try to prove evolution is wrong. But any change in DNA is new information.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7t6e354r You obviously know very little about atheism or humanism. Perhaps you should consult the information at americanhumanist d.ot or.g Click on "who we are" and then "about humanism". There's nothing like a bit of knowledge to elevate the discussion. By the way, I'm still waiting for your jury-rigged definition of "information". Cheers.
alfuentesev 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Everything you think of as bird-like dinosaurs evolved: Feathers, hollow bones, warm blood, oval eggs in nests, etc. etc. etc. All new information.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz wrong. you can believe they did but thats not science.birds have fully developed feathers,hollow bones,warm blood,oval eggs in nests etc. etc. etc. YOU have to show me its new not just say that.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
@7t6e354r Search Evolution of Birds or Evolution of Feathers.
They now have 20 different dinosaur fossils with several kinds of feathers.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@alfuentesev lol, your second paragraph is clearly intelligent design, except for the last two sentences, and for your first paragraph, I have a question, How could multiple organisms have once lived independently of services they now require? Note that ecological relationships had to precede coevolution. Consequently, coevolution appears to be no answer for understanding the origin of ecology.Three hours a year, these flowers open up, think that through people.The clever Melipona bee? That I.D
HildyMusic 4 months ago
Comment removed
alfuentesev 1 year ago
Comment removed
alfuentesev 1 year ago
Comment removed
alfuentesev 1 year ago
Comment removed
alfuentesev 1 year ago
hey! what an excelent example of convergent evolution!
twizelby 1 year ago
Oh, come on. All I wanted was to watch some nice videos on orchids, maybe actually learn something that could be useful for orchid growing. Instead, I find this. You lunatics are everywhere.
10percentAtheist 1 year ago
It is complex, I don't understand it, so gawd musta dun it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz bingo. now that wasnt so hard now was it.
7t6e354r 9 months ago
CONVERGENT EVOLUTION YOU MISEDUCATED MORONS!!!!!!
MisterEcs7 1 year ago
is this a parody? i honestly cant tell...
MisterEcs7 1 year ago
0:33 if that bee is not a whole lot bigger than a flea, then i'd like to see a flea that big. If fleas were that big, then they wouldn't exist, cuz they would be too big to go unnoticed (besides the itchy feeling) and just get removed from the host and die.
That's called survival of the fittest. Also why would god care of making so many creatures without any good reason? Evolution happens by accident, and these accidents try to survive like any other creature on earth.
muslymier 1 year ago
This doesnt defy evolution. Not at all... These type of vids are made for people who want to believe in creationism. So no real evidnce is required..... They already believe in God and the bible, so are people that are happy to suspend their logical mind, so accepting that evolution is not a very sound theory because of these evidence free monologues is easy for them. I say again, if you are a creationist, simply state that and stop trying to sound as if science informs your view, cos it doesnt!
gsa974 1 year ago
@gsa974 nice proof to back that up, i really enjoyed a well informed comment FULL of support. if you hold to ur comment, expand so that while ur trying to call creationists uneducated, u dont look uneducated yourself.
RCACsurvivorman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RCACsurvivorman Evolution was proven 150 years ago, try and keep up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz no, not evolution, but natural selection. darwin was a believer in god btw and it wasnt charles darwin who cam up with the theory, but rather his father, didnt know that didnt u? charles went on a journey to observe if this theory COULD be possible. he found natural selection. the evolution talked about today with science is not from darwin, its from scientists not wanting to believe in the truth (the word of god).
RCACsurvivorman 1 year ago
@RCACsurvivorman You got the ''darwin was a christian' part right.
Evolution the process was known every since mankind found fossils. Darwin showed how evolution happens, the theory, which includes natural selection as the mechenism for getting more complex and diverse. He also had to show 'variation in species', what natural selection selects from. He didn't need to know how genes and DNA work, he was looking at the results.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@RCACsurvivorman Not sure I understand!?
gsa974 1 year ago
@gsa974 science informs my view
7t6e354r 9 months ago
....such ignorance should not be allowed on the internet.
CamronJLB 1 year ago
The bee wasn't made for the flower, the flower adapted slowly over time to seduce the bee better and better
aropeofsand 1 year ago
this guy simply doesn't understand evolution....
Bill2bearockstar 1 year ago
"no bigger than a flea" he says and a half size bee crawls on a hand. How large fleas does he have, I wonder?
Who said the orchid had the septum thing from the start? Who says the plant and insect didn't evolve together?
... The first chicken egg wasn't laid by a chicken. Same here, the plant evolved the bean later on, probably for other reasons than there being a bee with smarts.
@globi54 He doesn't want to understand. That's my guess.
mremgee 1 year ago
@mremgee
in fact, nothing you have said has been true. you apparently believe in punctuated equilibrium. this is proof for intelligent design, as it is a fact that the plant does not pollinate without the bee. and even if the flower came up later than it would not be very long before the plant became extinct. so the bee would actually have to know this information within a very short time frame. this cannot happen naturally.
oh, and he knows evolution, you refuse understand it.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela Jobe just throws up his hands and says "how can that be?! It's impossible! How does that happen?!" even though there's perfectly rational, reasonable, natural explanations for these phenomena. Obviously Jobe doesn't "know" evolution, and he refuses to understand it. Bit like you, 'ey.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
yeah... evolution... how long will it take a stream of ants until they realize that if they jump into my cup of kool-aid that they will drown? apparently millions of years.
evolution is dumb and impossible to occure. a lizard with half a wing and half a leg cannot move. it will die. a bee learning this in a short time period would mean it was a coincidence that those bees just so happen to know how to pollinate that specific flower and be in that location at the time.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@REAL It's pretty pathetic that one of your "occupations" is biology. What's dumb is making shit up; not evolution. Evolution is the foundation of our understanding of biology and nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution. Ants that drown, obviously have less genetic influence, and creatures with half a wing can glide -- better than falling. "Half legs" -- i.e short legs -- can still offer mobility, and some advantages come from a streamlined body -- seals, penguins etc.
Boy192 1 year ago
@theREAL Genes also influence behaviours -- like instinctive behaviours. Flowers attract bees by offering a reward, it really ain't that much of a coincidence. Pollin gets stuck to the bee upon invading the flower and transferred to the next flower as the bee, again seeks its reward of nectar. Does your dog just magically, and coincidentally hone in on its food bowl when you place food in it? No, he responds to taste, sound & olfactory signals that let him know there's food available.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
how about you PM if you are going to bitch? you want everyone to think you are big and tough?
you most likly also believe that 99.9% of biologist/scientist accept evolution. if so than PM me the data on THAT too.
in fact, you are most likely a middle school student who gets all of his information off of talkorigins and have not even studied evolution as a whole, let alone any of its counter-arguments.
talk to me in PM or when you get older kiddo.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@Julie You're 20; I'm 24. I'm also calmer, more coherent and use better grammar than you. More than 99% of scientists accept evolution, it's a trivial fact. Google it if you need citations or read Wiki's article on the acceptance of evolution. I've read a lot of creation arguments, there's really no substance to them, and no good counter-arguments. I rarely read TalkOrigins; I mostly read Biology textbooks and scientific literature -- Dawkins, Coyne etc.
So, just calm down.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
kent hovind is 50...
besides, you may be smarter than me... but i am right.
and if possible, please PM me a reliable source for your biased claimed of 99%. other people have said it was much lower, 60-80% actually.
also, most germans in the day were nazies and the majority voted on obama, the majority of scientist 20 years ago said homosexuality was a choice, but they were proven wrong. i guess majority cannot play a part in this.
i use textbooks and books as well...
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
I gave you citations. Try looking up what I mentioned regarding the scientific consensus on evolution. Nazis, Obama & popularity are irrelevant — science is not a democracy / popular vote. "Scientists 20 years ago said homosexuality was a choice". Citation? The act of homosexuality, like any act of sex, is a choice; the urge, the desire, who we find attractive is not a choice, it's a physiological response. Eating is a choice; hunger is a physiological response — we don't choose to be hungry.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
you cited nothing, becaus youtube does not allow you to cite sources. now you can either PM me like a real debate, or stop commenting, your lust for attention and fans will not cause you to win this debate.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@Julie
You simply need to Google what I said and also read the Wiki article I mentioned -- that will provide a laundry list of sources, and it's very easy. So, if you can't do that, then you're simply just re-affirming the point that there is no debate to be had with a creationist. So why would I waste my time? It's like when Dawkins cited hominid fossils to Wendy Wright and told her to go & look! She ignored him. You have to meet me half-way and _bother_ to look, I can't make you.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Julie
And I'm also already in a lengthy debate with someone far more intelligent than you, so I don't wish to beat a dead horse. I've looked at your channel, I understand you like to debate, but you need to take small steps and demonstrate you're capable of making progress and learning; otherwise it would appear that you just wish to vent your anger and point of view. It's not a very smart debating technique to simply state "I'm right", especially when it's preceeded by "you may be smarter".
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192
you can Google proof for ghost too hun.
boy 192... i did not win this debate because i am smarter than you. i won because i am right. refusing the truth does not make it any less true. and i know i am right. and i know you are wrong. i cited sources, something you have yet to do
good day and nice life, that is, if you should even have a life if you think it is pointless and worthless. too bad you life the life of a hypocrite.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@Julie
As a scientist you should know science isn't about "proofs" but probabilities. I love how far off into your own world you are, it's very amusing. You didn't actually cite anything, you've just ignored what I told you to do, so to use your tact I'll simply say "ignoring it doesn't make it less true." And it doesn't make you right. How about that?
You've failed to demonstrate your point, to refer me in any direction; yet you've ignored my referrals. Me? A hypocrite? Nah, just you.
Boy192 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
"Kent Hovind is 50..."
You tried to patronise me by calling me a "kiddo"; I was just pointing out the irony by the fact that you're younger, less coherent and use worse grammar. But Kent Hovind is a lousy candidate; unless you're trying to make the point that older people can be stupid, then I would agree that Kent is a very stupid, ineducable man.
Boy192 1 year ago
natural selection is contadictory in the theory of evolution.
For example, resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is not an evolution whether micro or macro because Darwin believes NATURAL SELECTION is caused by the death of the unresistant ones and survival of those who are already NATURALLY resistant. Therefore where do the naturally resistant ones come from? Their resistance genes already existed in the gene pool from the beginning when God created them!
maxwin1989 1 year ago
@maxwin1989 The resistant genes already existed in the gene pool from the beginning when Spaghetti-Man Dan created them! Anyway, you didn't demonstrate the apparent contradiction. But yes, natural selection acts upon existing variety among the population. How does that variety get there in the first place? Genetic mutations is one way. There's other factors like cis-regulation and epigenetics, sexual recombination.
Boy192 1 year ago
the evolution theory is terribly flawed. you all didn't understand his point. For example according to the theory birds should come from the reptiles. However, Darwin said clearly that every evolution must be useful and beneficial and must be able to allow the organism to survive.. Therefore it has to be a gradual change. However how can an intermediate between a bird and a reptile be better than a reptile? And why is a bird better than a reptile since evolution must be beneficial for survival
maxwin1989 1 year ago
@max Birds are thought to have evolved from theropods, and they still bear features of reptiles: yolked eggs, scales, nucleated red-blood, single occipital condyle, sclerotic eyes. The most notable early adaptation would have been feathers, which confer advantages: incubating eggs, feathers have light distortion structures which can produce many colours from few pigments — sexual & aggressive displays — insulation from weather, and of course gliding, followed by total flight. Sound beneficial?
Boy192 1 year ago
@maxwin1989 There's also around two dozen of these feathered theropod fossils discovered: V. mongoliensis, A. lithographica, D. antirrhopus, M. gui to name a few.
Boy192 1 year ago
deja'vu .. ? :))) where is the banana :))
eminescinescu 1 year ago
The whole world is laughing at how stupid all your videos are. You just need to admit that you don't understand the theory of evolution. You look as stupid as someone still arguing that the Earth is flat because it looks flat. You're that dumb, it's scary. You shoudn't even be a dentist, I'd be scared to have dental work done by such and idiot.
thismortalsoul 1 year ago
@thismortalsoul
Evolution is more than terribly flawed, its batshit foaming-at-the-mouth crazy. Only the extremist atheists in desperation continue defending it after seeing this video. Fine. you have a religion. How nice. GO preach somewhere else.
yewutube 1 year ago
This is not an isolated thing. There are TONS of different kinds of plants which fully rely on animals this way. And it doesn't defy evolution in any way. Nobody who has a real understanding of evolution would be saying these embarrassingly stupid things.
woxiedowg 1 year ago
Saying this bee defies evolution is every bit as stupid as saying it defies gravity. "Blargh, bee flies. Things not fly cuz grabbity. Bee am defy grabbity durr."
Coevolution and the fertilization of orchids isn't arcane, or novel. It's as old as the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin wrote about it in the Fertilisation of Orchids.
Maybe, before reacting to a theory, it would be a good idea to learn what the theory says.
AlephNine 1 year ago
Biology fail. Look up mutualism and coevolution.
PROTIP: "I don't understand" != "God did it."
PocketNerd 1 year ago
This guy has no clue how evolution works. It's easy to imagine a vanilla orchid ancestor that had a different way of pollinating and which evolved to be pollinated by these bees gradually.
seanattikus 1 year ago
The creators of this video obviously have no idea of what symbiosis is.
norcofreerider604 1 year ago
Evolution is an idea of fallen human nature. Yes, humans don't want there to be a God, because they (or shoid I say we) want to be gods for their (our) own. We are as far as Genesis chapter 3 And this is called sin!. Do not be a fool: look around and just be honest to yourself and you will see the fingerprints of magnificent Creator God!
Bible explains everything: origin, meaning, morality, destiny, information etc.
Evolution pretends to have the answers to the origin and development of life.
Peregrin85 1 year ago
@Peregrin85
1: Please tell me where these fingerprints that you speak of are? I can't claim that I've been looking for them, but please inform me of where I can find them..?
2: Evolution does not "pretend" to have the answers to the development of life, it does however explain it beautifully... and the origin of life, that's Abiogenesis for you :)
fossfass 1 year ago
That little bee evolved in conjunction with the vanilla plant. The vanilla orchid evolved to attract that bee with enough nectar to make them want to open up that wilted flower. That way they trade. The bee gets a food source, while the orchid gets pollinated. Nice huh? No God. Just "Evolution"
FIRSTGLADI8R 1 year ago
this is retarded anyone who studied highschool biology could explain this one
twizelby 1 year ago
Where is the "defying evolution" part?
The buffoon in the video is truly ignorant. He makes the claim that the bee couldn't exist without the plant, which is a whole new level of stupid. There are MANY plants that can only survive due to insect pollination. One of them evolved the vanilla bean.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined
for the record, he didn't say the bee couldn't survive without the plant, he said exactly the opposite. Evolution apparently takes a long time. If the bee doesn't figure out how to pollinate in ONE DAY, the whole species of vanilla plants become extinct. One day, or one generation of plants for that matter, is hardly enough time to "evolve along side". Think about it!
toddcruzaider 1 year ago
@toddcruzaider
What YOU are missing is that what you said is true of the vanilla plant NOW. The plant has ALSO evolved.
The plant was not always in its current configuration. So there was PLENTY enough time to evolve alongside one another. You have to understand evolution, which you clearly do not.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@toddcruzaider Or a more likely hypothesis would be that the orchid evolved to needing to bloom only for a couple of hours/year to survive. Just like we need only 2 arms to survive, instead of 12, which would be a waste of matter and energy.
cowlarva 1 year ago
no wonder vanilla pods are so expensive. the flowers only bloom and last one day. sheesh, i wonder why it takes so long and for so short a period it blooms
Faygo069 1 year ago
lol "Hernando Cortez" XD I believe you mean Hernan Cortez. besides the bee evolved long before the flower so they weren't "made for each other" the flower evolved so that the bee would be the only thing that could get to its nectar. This video SUPPORTS evolution rather than refuting it.
TheAmazingLeztits 1 year ago
The theory of evolution is full of gaps,holes,inconsistencies,contradictions , and
a lot of miss information.
villontre 1 year ago
@villontre name one. or are you just repeating something your pastor told you without actually researching its accuracy?
TheAmazingLeztits 1 year ago
@villontre
more accurate, there are a lot of people that are grossly misinformed about how evolution works, and hold a lot of misconceptions.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
I dont understand the title of this video....
grendelee 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
hahaha I don't like the new comment format! I click "post" but my comment disappears. I redo it, & they both appear. YouTube has some problems it needs to fix. Or, they can let evolution fix the problems hahaha
jimmmmie 1 year ago
hahaha I don't like the new comment format! I click "post" but my comment disappears. I redo it, & they both appear. YouTube has some problems it needs to fix. Or, they can let evolution fix the problems hahaha
jimmmmie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even more fascinating than the video is the willful ignorance in some of the comments. Insisting that this & multitudes of other symbiotic relationships in nature are possible by evolution! But they don't explain how.
jimmmmie 1 year ago
Fascinating video, but even more fascinating is the willful ignorance in some of the comments, insisting that evolution produced this & multitudes of other symbiotic relationships in nature...but they don't explain how.
jimmmmie 1 year ago
@jimmmmie There is an extensive explanation of symbiotic relationships at your fingertips right now if you want it explained (the interwebs have lots of stuff), but your willful ignorance will not allow you look it up.
I feel your pain, however, I can't get anyone to explain how god created life, and I can't even find it on the interwebs. They all just say god did it, and there are no theories as to how.
Visda58 1 year ago
okay, those bees are WAY bigger then fleas
co-evolution you ass
srybicki7 1 year ago
There's no sense arguing with closed-minded people who express themselves by calling others "idiots." All of life is a mirror and someday all the real idiots will understand that. Maybe.
bobbo924B 1 year ago
Clearly does not understand evolution...or doesn't want to understand.
globi54 2 years ago 6
@globi54
no, he understands it perfectly.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
you evolutionary idiots... if as you claim the symbiotic relationship grew over millenia, then wouldn't the flower evolve to make it easier for this bee? it still has alot of work to do before getting to the pollen, while other flowers have pollen exposed and easy to get. You evolutionists are so ridiculous, you call the truth a fairytale, but you are the ones making up fairy tales.
Dtoo 2 years ago
@Dtoo A clump of mud, that came alive by somebody`s breath blown over it, is of course more believable. That`s a real fairy tale; You fight evolution science because you believe it`s the work of satan.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@Dtoo "wouldn't the flower evolve to make it easier for this bee?"
No, that's the point. They are specialists species. The flower has to spend less energy producing pollen and nectar because the bee will only go to this type of flower and not other flowers that can't be pollinated. Remember the short life of the flower? Some flowering species spend energy producing flowers that live for days or weeks to insure pollination.
foxlake02 1 year ago
There are many examples of symbiotic relationships, but because one couldn't survive without the other today doesn't mean they couldn't a few hundred thousand years ago. As things evolve some become more specialized to their environment others stay generalized and adaptable.This is not a good example of nature needing a creator. This instead shows what evolution already predicts, that environmental pressures will only reward those that are able to survive.
KrazySkooter 2 years ago
I don't think Zeus made anything. Creation wasn't his role. It seems like he was mostly into chasing skirts.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Perhaps the orchid did not always need the bee, and the bee did not always need the orchid. Once they found eachother, they evolved in parallel, and became more specific to each other. Certainly this is a more reasonable (and scientific) explanation than "Zeus made it that way".
Visda58 2 years ago
@Visda58
That's quite unreasonable. Can a bee go up to a flower and say. Hello, I would like you to go in reverse evolution and become dependent of me, and then teach me how to pollinate you.
xXdaveXsuperstarXx 2 years ago
No, bees and flowers can't speak on account of they don't have vocal chords or the cognitive capacity for language. and what does "reverse evolution" mean?
However, if a bee sees something attractive about a flower, it's more likely to fly over, and if he polloinates it in the process (unintentionally), then the genes of that flower will pass on, as opposed to the unattractive flower. This process repeating over several millenia will produce a flower with very specific "bee attracting" traits.
Visda58 2 years ago
@Visda58
But what you're saying is, if there is a certain flower that attracts only a certain kind of bee, no other bee, and that happens for about 7,000 years. The flower becomes dependent on the bee. Extremely unlikely as: If any other bees pollinated that flower it would reverse the process that had to happen to get the flower. If the flower somehow managed to go through this process, if the bees failed to pollinate the flowers for 1 season, the entire species would go extinct.
xXdaveXsuperstarXx 2 years ago
Maybe other bees did pollinate it here and there. But if mainly one kind of bee finds it more attractive than other kinds of bees (which is what we observe), then we could have the same result. There were probably a hundred species of orchid that went extinct for every one that survived. Of course the numbers will seem unlikely, because they are. Every living thing is the survivor of many similar, now extinct species. How do YOU think these two interrelated organisms came to be?
Visda58 2 years ago
@Visda58
They were came into being at the same time with the attributes we see today.
xXdaveXsuperstarXx 2 years ago
How?
Visda58 2 years ago
So what is your theory on how that happened? Explain the process.
Visda58 2 years ago
Is there any way to beleive in evolution and god (like islamic god) at the same time?
Herndonboy14 2 years ago
@Herndonboy14
Nope.
xXdaveXsuperstarXx 2 years ago
Exelent video.
It's nice to learn about things that our creator already know.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
Yo! check out the PBS doc titled
"The Queen of Trees" this process of pollination staggers my imagination, and how it is so well orchestrated,timed, and accomplished.
How these processes "evolved" is beyond me. It's to complex, even if people say ireducable complexity, why make something more complex? would that not lower an organisms chance for success? while the simpler organisms thrive with higher pollination rates?
Watch the above stated doc it's awesome.
realistromeo 2 years ago
This is proof of evolution! You have to C it that way! Bible-thumping morons want to disprove evolution and they do it by showing evolution? These guys R lost and have failed @ proving anything!
tomestubbs 2 years ago
The truth does hurt and as we can see by your comment its cutting so deep you have to attack the person not the facts. Evolution emotionally retards cause there are no absolutes leaving the believer short of answers and if they have an answer well its pretty weak and emotionally charged :) peace
FriedFish50 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins talks about the very same thing in evolutionary terms. It takes millions of years for this kind of evolution to occur. So much for the intelligent designer. It is not emotionally charged in so much as you made any point I'm just tired of stupid un-scientific minds trying desperately to justify the existence of a god when it could be explained quite well scientifically. As for pollination of plants it's called symbiotic adaptation.
tomestubbs 2 years ago 2
These guys, is if anything an attack on a group not an ad hominem attack on a person! Coadaptation (Symbiotic adaptation) is a part of Natural Selection, Evolution. Some creatures R very specialized and it takes thousands of generations-centuries... for these things to happen, but of course U might think that we only been here for 6000 years! Lol!
tomestubbs 2 years ago
...and the comments on this video show the fact that if you don't wanna believe, it doesn't matter how many proofs one might present you...
fireflaps 2 years ago
Convergent evolution; not intelligent design. Fuck, I'm too tired to explain why... and I'm sick of this childish bullshit.
Dr. Martin, you're a dentist, not a scientist.
Boy192 2 years ago 8
@Boy192
college teachers are not scientist either,
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela Well, I don't know about college, I've never been, and I'm Australian, so we use Universities here. University professors in biology are scientists. I also get my information from textbooks, which are written by scientists.
Boy192 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela Oh, you failed to pick my error. It's coevolution, not convergent.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 ^coevolution
Boy192 1 year ago
A fine example of evolution. Thanks.
insectpollinator 2 years ago 3
This does not defy evolution. If anything it shows how species can evolve to become dependant upon one another. This kind of relationship is a common occurance throughout the natural world. It is no proof against evolutionary theory and supports it in fact.
BloodFromCatsFace 2 years ago 3
3:18
fireflaps 2 years ago
Again, this only shows that the species evolved a dependance upon the bees. This relationship supports evolution and in no way contradicts it.
BloodFromCatsFace 2 years ago
Oh really, it doesn't?? I wonder how many millions of years apart, according to evolutionary science, the evolution of the bee and the orchid were??? As the man said the orchid didn't just sit around for 1 million years waiting for the bee to evolve DoH! Do you not see a problem here? How within one lifetime of the orchid or the bee could you have evolved the other. You couldn't they were both created phenocontemporaneously! So now you have to prove an animal can evolve ...not going to happen!
sweetbilly 2 years ago
First of all, organisms are constantly evolving. Second, it is entirely possible that the orchids had no original dependence upon the bees and, as I described, evolved the dependence. This kind of relationship is known as an ecological niche, where species develop and sustain a co-dependant relationship.
Such instances are commonplace within the natural world. Ecological relationships are continuously forming and dissolving as the environment changes or are affected by other species.
BloodFromCatsFace 2 years ago 2
No, I'm afraid they aren't consistently evolving, evolution is a myth perpetrated on the intellectually inferior and trusting my friend. There's no proof Orchids could have EVER survived without bees either, now you're just practicing your religion. God made sure that evolution isn't possible through DNA, RNA replication, in order to prevent deadly genetic mistakes which would kill the species off. Evolution is a scientific impossibility.
sweetbilly 2 years ago
All living organisms are subject to evolutionary change. 'Intellectually inferior'? Trust me, with the lack of scientific knowledge you're demonstrating, you are in no position to be making comments like that.
'Your religion'? Evolution is a religion now is it? I guess I'm also a member of the Anglican Church of Gravity.
There ARE dangerous genetic mutations, just as there are neutral and occasionally beneficial ones. God must have done a shoddy job of preventing such instances, hey?
BloodFromCatsFace 2 years ago 2
There is lot of such mutual dependence in nature. My favourites are the orchids that have parts looking or even smelling quite like the fëmale of their respective pollinating insects. When the male lands for to mate, the pollen is all he gets. In order to evolve in such way, an orchid must know how the particular female of its pollinating insect looks like.That, and a countless number of other things in nature, shows how absurd the idea of macro-evolution is. Glory to God!
mikilavush 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikilavush 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikilavush 2 years ago
Why ruin a perfectly good lesson discussing the virtues and vices of theology and science? Whatever one believes, what this is is a miracle; it's beautiful, can't we just leave it at that?
Sherlockrulez 2 years ago
The bee dosn't defie evolution, it proves it that the bee had to grow over generations near the flower, to devolpe the instice to learn how to polenate it. The are millions of simaler relationships between bees and orcides and meny other flowers. I love god just the same but i study what is around me and i'm i no evolution contradics my faith but it also makes a lot of sence, i keep an open faith becuse instead of debating over the evolution we should try saving the life thats being lost.
Mjb3914 2 years ago