As "fun" as a demonstration like this might be to children, it certainly tries to "mistify" science a little too much and the themes of indoctrination are really dangerous, especially for kids. All children should be allowed to study religion, but using metaphors and models instead of cold, hard facts isn't the way to properly educate the youth, especially when you use something like a science experiment with allusions to spiritual power. This does more harm than it could good. Take it from me.
Jesus was considered radical by the religious leaders of his day, because he taught us that God loves everyone, even tax collectors and sinners. The Bible and the teachings of Jesus do not present a political view, but a moral view. Jesus showed us the importance of every human life. Jesus said that from the beginning God ordained marriage as between one man and one woman. He taught that those in power should not take advantage of the weak. That is the kind of world I would like to live in.
God killed innocent babies all the time in the bible, hence abortion is okay and even godly.
Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, hence capitalism is bad and socialism is good.
Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, hence we should pay whatever taxes the government decides.
God said homosexuality is an abomination, but so is eating shrimp, hence homosexuality is no worse than eating a shrimp dinner.
"God killed innocent babies all the time in the Bible" shows you don't know much about what is in the Bible. Jesus did say it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but then he said,"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Jesus did say to pay taxes, but he also condemned those in power who mistreated the poor and used their power for financial gain.
In Leviticus 11 God gives a list of animals (including sea creatures without fins or scales) which the Israelites were not to eat, and which would not have been healthy eating in that day. Many of them are not healthy foods today, but the New Testament takes away those restrictions. In Lev 18 God forbids a list of sexual acts (including homosexual sex) that are still considered immoral today. Sexual immorality (including homosexual) is condemned in the NT and HIV/AIDS has shown it is unhealthy.
We have already discussed the bird and dino "link" (archaeopteryx) and some of the problems associated with it. But I wonder why you think a creator would not create genes. It seems to be a pretty good system with a lot of potential for evolution within species for changes and adaptations.
This lesson is disconcerting to me and I find it interesting that the concept of God needs to be conveyed in such an abstract way.
How does a glowing pickle assist children to solidify their belief of an all powerful, all knowing entity?
It's extremely intriguing to me how we humans embody our reality in everything around us. Perhaps there's no other way but I feel we sell ourselves way short by doing so.
Thanks for the comment. Perhaps this is a silly illustration, but it is not intended to prove anything about God or his existence, it is only an object lesson for children about how we can live our lives.
A "lesson"? It's actually not teaching anything outside of propaganda. As a kid growing up I always felt offended by people trying to tell me that "oh if you life your life like a christian you'll get to see the world so much brighter etc etc..." I could not stand it. I read the bible, i studied it, then i read the Torah and the Vulgate. I did so because of all these positive messages I'd been told as a child growing up. For a while I experienced severe depression because it didn't work for me.
I find it very interesting that you read the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome in the 4th century. Did you read the Torah in Hebrew also? How about the New Testament in Greek? I can see how you might have gotten bogged down and not been able to find the "positive messages." I would suggest starting out by reading John's gospel in a modern English translation like the NIV.
Do you not realize that it takes thousands upon thousands of generations for changes to occur? If you try to compress the Earth's age down to 6000 years or whatever, then sure, evolution couldn't have happened.
But every refutable scientist in the world agrees that the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years, including many creation scientists.
Thousands of gerations over 6000 years is impossible, but over 3 billion years? Entirely possible, and as science shows, the most likely scenario.
"...every refutable (sic) scientist in the world agrees that the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years, including many creation scientists." Grandpa John does too, but I think you mean "reputable" scientists. Are you saying that given enough time, a monkey pounding on a keyboard could type the complete works of Shakespeare -- or even one sonnet?
But to answer your "question", the two have nothing in common. Evolution isn't as random as you think it.
A closer example would be "Would a monkey, given enough time, produce the entire works of Shakespeare if the stuff he typed that WASN'T Shakespeare was disregarded so that he wouldn't have to start from scratch each time and if he was hitting infinite typewriter keys at the same time rather than linearly".
Given those more comparable circumstances, yes he could.
Darwinian evolution is defined as natural selection acting on random variations to produce all living things. Of course hitting an "infinite number of typewriter keys at the same time" (or an infinite number of random variations at the same time) is impossible in the real world. Also there have been a number of mass extinctions which might require starting from scratch. Experiments have shown the universe isn't big or old enough to hold enough monkeys to type even one of Shakespeare's sonnets.
Oh not this old line again. I've heard so many thousands of Christians use the monkeys typing Shakespeare defense. Life wasn't just generated "at random" there were clearly placed events which helped to tip the balance of scales in life's favor. And if you want to go quantum physics on me we can go even further by saying that all alternative realities must ultimately result in having some form of an observer to maintain non-chaotic matter. You probably can't comprehend that, though.
Actually it was the French mathematician Emile Borel in 1913 who first used the million monkeys with typewriters illustration to illustrate the extreme unlikelihood of certain events. Richard Dawkins now uses it to illustrate the likelihood that random processes CAN produce information. Dawkins is an outstanding biologist. As a mathematician he may not be so strong and as a theologian he is out of his department. "Alternative realities" are unproven and unprovable and therefore not scientific.
Really i have to hand it to you guys. You got into a deep and complex discussion about evolution... because you watched a video of an electrified pickle? Well done. :-)
I agree completely, all religious people should have forks included and electricity passed through them. Then the others can see the light and energy they give off and later we can get on with our lives.
I now hate christians more than ever. This is proof they are retarded. Your metaphor is stupid. Please, kill yourself to remove your genes from our gene pool.
To polarize creationism against evolution is so entirely counterproductive it debases faith in the eyes of fact and debases science in the eyes of faith.
Just because evolution hasn't been proven through every stage of life doesn't mena it has no merit.
And the same can be said of creation. there's no way to prove that it merely happened and there wasn not any divine intervention.
the creation/evolution debate is stale and goes nowhere.
Then why do christians hate athiests or even non-christians? I am not athiest nor am I christian, yet I have been persecuted, hounded, and harassed by christians for various reasons. I have *never* had the same experience with athiests!
For believing something different. It's happened to me and many people I know. Christianity and its offshoots are by and large the most pushy, judgemental religions out there. Even hinduism amalgamated the other religions that it's culture enveloped. Christianity has no room for free thinkers.
my experiences have been the same i'm afraid to say. just look at history for examples of christian hatred, you don't have to look that far back. look at the hatred between protestants and catholics that still flourishes today in ireland and regularilly ends in bloodshed. i think it was ghandi that said when asked what he though of christianity "i like your christ, i don't like your christians though, your christians are so unlike your christ".
If people are unlike Christ and act in ways that are opposed to Christ's teachings, how can you call them Christians? Personally I don't believe a person who claims to be a Christian but whose life goes against Christ's teaching and example.
Wow! I would say that this video has nothing to do with christianity, but really is says all you need to know. I guess since I don't have anything nice to say... I'll say something mean. God is fake. There is no heaven. The hope of its existence is merely a coping mechanism for weak-minded people that cannot fathom an existence that does not go beyond this mortal plane. Fund stem cells so my sister can live. This is a more worthy subject for study than pickle torture, if you ask me.
I don't know what is wrong with your sister, but I hope she will get well. I would tell you I am praying for her, but that would probably offend you. If you only have hope for this life I am sorry. Life is short. We will all get sick. We will all die. Pain is inevitable in this life. Any medical help can only bring temporary relief. But I do have something nice to say, and that is I think God created us for something better.
Just curious. Technically, it's well produced, but it destroys an interesting science experiment by combining it with a poorly concieved metaphor that doesn't nothing but make Christianity look silly.
It was certainly not without its merits, it did inpire me to make some electric pickle videos for a local gay bar.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of the words of Jesus, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Matt 5:44
Torture Christians? I think that would be redundant. Anyone who would cause unspeakable violence to a defensless pickle and claim it was a good analogy for being a Christian sounds like they're already tortured enough.
The christian pickle might believe that god is giving it 'energy' and 'light', but the skeptical pickle at least understands that pickles don't have any way of knowing if thats true or not.
I would agree with your argument that pickles, have no knowledge of their factory or farmer. I believe humans also have no knowledge of their creation/creators (if there are any), so assuming you believe in a christian god, why do you assert something you must admit you cannot support the existence of? If it is simply that you believe, then you probably also realize that one prima facie belief isn't much different from nor more valuable than any other.
I would suggest that people are smarter than pickles. People can look at themselves and the world around them and realize that it's not all one big accident. Pickles don't even think about it.
I never asserted that it was one big accident, nor that people should not think. I have looked at the world around me, thought about it, and come to a conclusion. It could be created by a god, it could be one big accident, or the reason could lie elsewhere. I withhold judgment on whether or not one or the other is true. If you believe humans can or do know that the world is not one big accident, that a god created it, then I would first like to hear your criterion of knowledge.
I think you are saying that whether a person believes in a creator or not, we have to do it on faith because we can't actually prove either position beyond any doubt. I agree with you. I choose to place my faith in God because I think it is a more reasonable choice.
It is true that you can't prove either position beyond any doubt whatsoever. However one position has a moderate amount of evidence whereas the other has none.
Since you have chosen the position that has no evidence and you have stated that you think it is the more reasonable choice, I am curious. What is it about believing in an invisible creator who chooses to remain "anonomous" (with the alleged exception of one book) that makes you think it is "a more reasonable choice?"
The evidence for a creator is seen in everything he created. I know you will tell me that evolution has disproved God but that isn't rrue. Evolution can weakly explain unfolding change but it can't explain how lifeless matter became proteins, DNA and living cells. It can't explain the Cambrian Explosion. It can't explain self-awareness or morality. It can't explain why most people beleive there is a higher power. God may be invisible, but evidence of his work can clearly be seen.
Haha you stupid little man. Evolution isn't meant to explain self-awareness. Evolution is meant to explain how creatures gradually evolved and became "different" creatures after many generations.
Perhaps you need to evolve into a more advanced creature who shows some respect and "tolerance" for people you don't agree with rather than calling them names.
It also doesn't means that Dracula didn't do it. There are a million different gods and mythological beings why believe in Christ instead of others? I think the only thing that really matters is if you lead a good life helping others. What you believe doesn't make a big difference in the whole scheme of things.
So, are you saying the only reason you help others is to get in good with god and go to heaven? Then, in reality, you are helping others just to help yourself. I help others because I have compassion and realize what it is like to have nothing. If you never help anyone don't expect to ever get help when your chips are down.
Two questions. 1-If you are only a chance collection of atoms where does your compassion come from? 2-Are you helping others for your own benefit so that you can "get help when your chips are down"?
1) We aren't a chance collection of atoms, but my compassion comes from my personal past experiences.
2) I have a theory that everything balances out in the end. It's pretty much a law of nature. Almost everyone only helps others to help themselves that's my point. I was pointing out that you are only helping others to help yourself. Heaven isn't the only reason to help others.
1) But if you say that we just evolved from inorganic matter with no design then you are saying we are a chance collection of atoms. One of the great proponents of evolution, Julian Huxley said it this way: "We are as much a product of chance as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."
2) No, heaven is not the only reason to help others. In fact, it isn't a very good reason because it's a selfish one. The best reason is that is what God created us to do and it pleases him when we love and help each other.
I think you are seeing the work of a creator because the world as we know it currently exists. Evolution actually explains unfolding change pretty well. There are plenty of thories as to the causes of the Cambrian explosion. Self Awareness is the logical extension of an evolutionary universal, Intelligence. Basic morality relates to committment, whereby people could trust each other and mutually improve their chances of survival.
Evolution only explains change within species to any adequate extent. Inter-species changes should leave millions of intermediate fossils. So far those have not been found even though we have millions of fossils in museum collections. Yes, there are diverse theories to explain the Cambrian explosion, including early-arrival and late-arrival models, but all have their problems. Random mutations, natural selection and survival of the fittest cannot explain morality and selfless acts of love.
Believe it or not there are evolutionary advantages to basic human morality. To tell you the truth, the arts interest me more as an evolutionary question than morality. As far as the interspecies jumps, don't be surprised if you don't see them. If we were wiped off the planet, in a few billions years there would be nothing to remember us by. Think about how long the dinosaurs lived, and then think about how many T-Rex skeletons we've found.
There are fossils of 100,000 individual dinosaurs in museums today. 32 T-rex dinosaurs have been found. Museums also have 1K fossil bats, 1K fossil flying reptiles, 4K fossil whales, 5K fossil seals, 14K fossil rodents, 15K fossil sea lions and walruses, 100K fossil turtles, 200K fossil birds, 1 million fossil insects and 100 million fossil invertebrates. The number of transitional fossils between any of those categories is still 0.
Those fossils are transitional. All fossils are and everything is. How do you explain different breeds of dogs and mutating viruses and drug resistance of diseases? Natural selection/selective breeding leads to evolution.
Scientists are even able to change a single gene in a chicken that allows it to gain back it's teeth that it lost over the years. Evolution is proven.
There are different breeds of dogs and different strains of viruses, but all dogs are still dogs and all viruses are still viruses. There are no transitional fossils between any of the different kinds of animals I listed, or any others.
The different breeds of dogs came from a single source. A wolf. Selective breeding (like natural selection) changed them into all the breeds we see today. Like I said before, the fossils ARE transitional. Every living thing is in a transitional phase.
As I said there are 15,000 fossils of sea lions collected in museums. Many scientists believe sea lions evolved from a dog-like creature. How many fossils of animals that are half dog and half sea lion to we have? None. You would think that for the thousands or millions of years it would take to make the transition from dog to sea lion there would have been one fossil left behind when we have 15K sea lion fossils. Dogs are dogs and sea lions are sea lions. The same is true for all animals.
Also, the odds of a human being being created with exactly mine or your DNA structure is extremely improbable. However, if we weren't here, something else woud be. Same goes for our world and this universe. If some other lifeform adapted to a hostile environment like we did (Oxygen is a volatile gas), they would come to the same conclusion that the world was perfectly created for them. I like to think that there is an overarching purpose to life and everything. But it is what it is a belief
I agree. Which is why I am hesitant to say that I believe that life has no purpose. It may have a purpose I do not understand. There could be a kind of being responsible for all this. So while I'm not necessarily advocating that life is meaningless, science is about continuing to investigate the questions that we don't yet understand while religion, historically, has been a means of using what we don't understand as a basis to justify the existence of the supernatural.
Look at it this way. If God created us, he apparently gave us a curiosity and a desire to find the answers to our questions. Therefore, he surely can't be offended by our curiosity. He should be offended if we failed to ask questions. A father who wants his child to achieve will delight in the youngster asking questions. Science is one outlet for our curiosity. We would do well to apply the Socratic principle as Anthony Flew did, "following the evidence wherever it may lead."
Evolution has nothing to do with your god or any other god humanity chooses to believe in. Evolution merely proves how the diversity of species came into existence from a few or even a single living organism. Evolution is not and never was supposed to explain anything beyond that (e.g. how life started, how the universe started, how living things became self-aware, why many primates have a moral compass, why people choose to create stories to explain things they don't understand).
The point I made is that we have no inter-species fossils showing the various steps of one species changing into another. How then can evolution "prove how the diversity of species came into existence from a few or even a single living organism"? However, evolution does explain diversity within species, such as why we have such a variety of dogs or roses.
That statement does not make sense. You are observing evolution through a very limited scope here. We have many fossils of species that were our late ancestors. Evolution occurs over a very long timeline. We only get a very limited sample of fossils for given time frame because an animal has to die in a precise set of circumstances to leave fossils for us. If we were to die out today there is a possibility in 50 million years or so, there might not be a fossil of us.
Here are the facts. We have more than 200,000,000 (two hundred million) fossils in museum collections today. We have 0 (ZERO) fossils that are clearly transitions from one species to another. That means no fossils of intermediate species of any varieties of animals. Darwin recognized that as a problem in 1859, but he said the problem would be corrected as more fossils were found. 150 years later - same problem.
200 million fossils is a drop in the ocean of the number of creatures that have lived and died on this planet. There are already 6.5 billion people living right now on this planet. If we all died off today we might not leave a single fossil behind. Compare this with the lifespan of the Earth and the exact conditions it takes in order to produce a fossil and it is no surprise that we have not yet found an exact snapshot. How many dinosaurs species with deformities have we found?
200 million fossils may be small compared to individuals, but it is not so small compared to number of species. Sure you can wait for more to be found before reaching a conclusion, but based on the present evidence I would say it is very hard to prove amoeba to man evolution. The 3 best fossil proofs according to evolution scientists are land mammal to whales, reptile to birds, and ape to humans. Looking at the evidence even in those 3 categories, it is very weak.
Even if you describe evoloutionary evidence as weak at least there is some physical findings which can support the theory of evolution. Personally I think there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
There is no physical evidence that Jesus was magic or even that your God exists.
P.S The bible does not count as evidence.
It seems all you have is an electrified pickle as an anology
The question is not how many fossils have been found to prove it (How much of the earth do you think has been excavated? Under 1%) The question is how many fossils disprove evolution. For example, finding a pigeon in the Triassic era. It has not happened yet.
What happens when a child is conceived? hmmm? It starts off as a single cell and over time develops into a adult human. Cell to human development, in a human lifetime. Think about it.
The child starts as a single human cell and grows into a multi-cell human. The single cell is human. The fully grown human is still human. The single cell has the complete genetic blueprint for all of the other cells which develop. If we did a DNA study of the single cell we would find that it is the same person as the fully-grown human. What does that have to do with evolution?
Evolution simply means change over time. A single cell is nothing like an adult human. The cell evolves into a human. This is a different mechanism of course from evolution by natural selection.
You are right that evolution means change over time. However, a child growing up is not darwinian evolution, which I think is what the discussion was about. There is no change on the DNA level, only the addition of more cells.
You claim there have been no fossils found which link two species, but that is not true. Archaeopteryx links not only two species, but two totally different types of animals (dinosaurs and birds).
You seem to have a weak understanding of evolution. While it can and does occur over a long time, it also can and does occur in sudden fits. The wolf is thought to have evolved in less than 4 generations. Since less than one in a billion things fossilize, the chances of it happening her is near 0
Archaeopteryx was thought to be half bird-half dino. Because scientists saw no feather imprints around the head in the fossils they assumed there were none. They went a step further and added scales to the head making it look reptilian, even though fossils showed no scales either. But birds often loose their smaller head feathers before being fossilized. Newer reconstructions of archaeopteryx like in Chicago's Field Museum near where I live show him with a feathered head like a modern bird.
I suppose you didn't know that the same genes that produce feathers, also produce scales. the way this occurs is over time, genes can be "turned off" at a very early in development, or Learn new ways of doing things in a simple way of putting it. Watch the discovery channel, they were able to program a chicken to grow feathers all the way down to its feet, or to grow teeth, or to grow a tail..... all by activating genes,
Archaeopteryx was also thought to be reptilian because of wing claws. Ostriches have wing claws and no one says they're a link between reptiles and birds. Bats have them too, and they're mammals. Archaeopteryx also had teeth, but they were not similar to teeth of the carnivorous dinos some said they evolved from. Archaeopteryx was thought to evolve from a dino named Deinonychus but according to fossil layers he lived 30 million years after Archaeopteryx. Missing link or just extinct bird?
Archaeopteryx is classified as the "first bird" but it is still considered a link. Other things in common with dinos include micro and macroscopic bone structure, bone shapes/numbers/positions, a very long osseous tail, feathers which are clearly not avian, etc. Bats and ostriches do not have these traits.
Also the Ostrich does NOT have claws on its wings.
I can not comment on the teeth because I am not an evolutionary biologist and I have not studied periodontal evolution.
Modern ostriches, hoatzins, and juvenile touracos have claws on their wings. The prehistoric flying reptile, the pterosaur, had claws on its wings. None of those are thought to be descendents of dinosaurs. Dinosaur tails were 4-5 feet long with scales. Archaeopteryx tails were 4-5 inches long with feathers. Also no direct reptilian ancestor of Archaeopteryx has been found to date.
The only reference I can find (in my limited time) for clawed wings on an ostrich is a book written in 1869 and known to have errors.
If you think a 10 inch long animal would have a 5 foot bony tail, you need more science education. An animal's tail is relative to the size of its body. The osseous tail to body ratio of Archaeopteryx is approximately 1:1 (like a bipedal a dinosaur).
The key phrase above is "to date." We are constantly learning unearthing new information. Patience = virtue
Archaeopteryx was said to have evolved from a small therapod ancestor quite similar to Deinonychus, however no credible sources have claimed that Deinonychus was the ancestor of Archaeopteryx. If you want to know know more about the loss of teeth in avians you should look up hox genes.
Books and museum displays often give the impression that Archaeopteryx evolved from Deinonychus - example Chicago Field Museum display on evolution overlaying bones of upper extremeties of the two. The "small therapod ancestor" only exists in the creative imagination, not fossils.
Evolution (natural selection) does *not* provide evidence for the diversity of things man has intentionally bred like dogs and roses. This is explained by artificial selection (breeding programs).
Recall Archaeopteryx is between dinosaurs and birds.
Imagine living millions of years from now and unearthing a toy poodle and a standard poodle. You would probably think they were two different species. How do you know this mistake has not been made with the current fossil record?
Evolution by definition is "change over time." It can be natural or it can be accomplished by man's intelligence. "Natural selection" is the killing off of weaker varieties and CAN ONLY REMOVE the weaker animals and plants and CANNOT ADD COMPLETELY NEW BODY PARTS. That can only be done by random or chance mutation. Almost always chance mutation results in weakening of the life form which is then eliminated by natural selection. Even a rare mutation which benefits may not be passed on to progeny.
Evolution, by definition, is NATURAL SELECTION. It is not "selective breeding." Your failure to understand what evolution is seems to be the primary issue. Mutations occurs to the detriment (e.g. albamism-any animal) or or betterment (e.g. antibiotic resistance-any bacteria) of any life form. The ones which are better adapted to the environment they are currently in live on and often have progeny with similar traits while lesser adaptive ones die. Mutation is a necessary part of evolution.
Radiology DRAGON says, "Evolution, by definition, is NATURAL SELECTION." Charles Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification." Darwin's contribution was the engine for change which he referred to as "natural selection." That's why he called his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Actually Darwin wrote that evolution occurred through acquired characteristics, adaptation, and natural selection.
Darwin believed that acquired characteristics could be passed on to future generations and stated that in "Origin." He was wrong. An animal cannot develop a long neck by stretching to reach food and pass that acquired characteristic on to the next generation. That was disproven years ago. Body cells have no influence on DNA in the reproductive cells. Only the genes in the reproductive cells are passed on to progeny. Otherwise if you broke your arm you could birth children with broken arms.
"Adaptation" is a word that is largely misunderstood. If by it you mean that an animal changes in response to the environment out of necessity through purpose, you are incorrect. That can't happen. If a scientist speaks of adaptation it means accidental mutations occurred resulting in an animal that is better suited for the environment. The animal has had some lucky breaks completely by accident.
RadiologyDRAGON, I notice that you mention one mutation that is detrimental (it is albinism, by the way) and one that is beneficial. However, an albino rabbit is still a rabbit and an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria. Can you think of a mutation (not just a variation such as color or beak size or overall size) which has been observed in an animal larger than one cell that was beneficial and was passed on to its offspring?
in humans : Lactose tolerance. it can be traced back to the first agricultural settlements, and it hasn't spread to the whole population yet.
There are many other point mutations that helped survive plagues in the past, there are even people in Africa that is immune to some HIV viruses, which is rather astonishing given the short time it has been around.
Bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance and the ability to use other, previously unusable material for food (as a sample of E. Coli recently did) is direct and irrefutable proof of evolution.
A dinosaur didn't just lay an egg that a bird hatched from one day. It takes tens of thousands of generations for changes to take place.
In the E. Coli example, it took the bacteria 31,500 generations to evolve the new trait. We were able to notice this since bacterial generations are so short.
Evolution is change over time. We can observe these changes in bacteria and dogs and roses and Darwin's finches. However, if it takes "tens of thousands of generations" for changes to take place to transform one type of animal into another type of animal, we should be able to find some fossils of the transitional stages.
Also, not all dead creatures get preserved as fossils.
But again, that's neither here nor there as we HAVE found transitional stages for many, many creatures. Creationists simply disregard them for whatever stupid reason.
Could you suggest to me a museum or a book where I might see the "transitional stages for many, many creatures" you are telling me about? I don't want to be "willfully ignorant."
Um you just named one; beak size, to suite the plant's size. A plant's size might change to suit the environment (such as less sunlight in that area) which leads to all life changing to meet the change. You admitted that its possible for organisms to evolve to suit environment. Eventually, the changes add up and make an entirely new species. Welcome to grade 10 biology.
We have plenty of examples of changes within animals such as beak size. However, the potential for various beak sizes was in the original animal. It only takes environmental conditions to make one size more prevalent because it is more useful for life. However, to believe that these changes add up to creating an entirely new type of animal requires faith because it cannot be seen in the fossil record.
Please explain how E. Coli bacteria was recently observed evolving the ability to metabolize citrate when it couldn't before. It took 31,000 generations, but it happened.
Also, please don't make yourself look like a fool and say "Well, that's MICROevolution not MACROevolution". Evolution is evolution and micro vs. macro evolution was invented by Creation "scientists" when they could no longer deny that evolution was being observed.
The evidence for evolution is in everything that has evolved to this point and is still evolving. Yet there is no evidence of any deity that any person has ever believed in or worshiped. You yourself admit above that evolution explains the diversity of life.
So why do you say that believing an invisible deity/entity created the diversity of life is more reasonable than the process of evolution (which has some evidence/proof *and* you admit explains diversity)??
Yes, we do see evolution taking place. I have seen new varieties of dogs and roses within my lifetime. I said evolution explains the diversity within species. However, we have no fossil evidence (or living evidence) of one species evolving into another.
Anyway, all species are in transition. You just need to stretch the timeline. Think of the huge variety and difference we can see within the dog species already. Evolution works on a long timeline. When you think that we only have 32 fossils of the T-Rex, one of the most popular dinosaurs that we have been actively seeking, and they were around for about 4 million years. Anyway, we've been able to extrapolate enough evidence between fossils to be able to link them together.
"We have been able to extrapolate enough evidence between fossils to be able to link them together." Meaning some have been able to imagine and draw pictures of intermediate animals (missing links) to make up for the fact that we haven't found them. There is a fine line between science and fantasy which we must be careful not to cross. We can show scientific proof of evolution within species, but we are very far from establishing a line from amoeba to man.
Actually there are evidence. Let's take horses and donkeys for example. They were the same species, but aren't anymore. A horse and a donkey can still get offspring but those are all sterile. If you wait a little longer (actually a LOT of generations) then they wouldn't be able to mate anymore.
Again, if forming a new subspecies from a species takes so long, how much longer would it take for a hyena to become a whale as some scientists suggest? Wouldn't we have a few fossils showing transitional steps?
A December 1998 California Academy of Sciences Natural History Museum in San Francisco display on whale evolution showed a hyena-like animal called Pachyaena evolving over millions of years into a whale.
What would you count as a transitional step? You seem to be viewing evolution as a direct line between, let's use your example, hyena and whale. That's not how it works. Millions of years ago there would have been a hyena-like creature, some of whose offspring would have developed into modern hyenas, some of them into, say, hippopotami, and some into modern whales, dolphins, etc. Any hippopotamus-ancestor could well be the "transitional" step to the modern-day whale.
Genesis 19 gives a historical account of homosexuality and incest in connection with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's family. What is there to explain?
How about how God destroyed everyone except for Lot and his daughters, yet somehow they were able to start a new tribe.. Especially, when incest was forbidden, and science tells us we can not reproduce within our bloodlines without severe genetic defects. Which also brings up the basic point that Adam and Eve could have never spawned humankind because of the same reason.
Reply to NegativeEl3ment: Most scientists agree that all people in the world today came from a single primitive couple. The genetic problems inherent in reproduction between close relatives is something that has arisen as we have become more "evolved." What Lot's daughters did, however, was wrong.
The theory that genetic problems have proliferated after we evolved is preposterous. If anything, history teaches us that nature chooses the strongest candidate, and weak ones go extinct, simple historic fact.
Actually, Most scientists agree that we evolved from primates and that we gradually became human over a great many years. And the "genetic problems inherent in reproduction between close relatives" is something present in nearly all species present on earth, and as such is certainly not something that we "evolved" into.
reinkaos82, you missed my point. The existence of all we see is explained by the fact that God created it. The Bible is not a science book to explain everything in the universe. If it did try to explain every aspect of science, it would be larger than the state of Texas and would never have been printed, let alone copied by hand. Besides, research scientists would be out of work.
Kind of a dumb analogy, yes; but do y'all have to be so hateful? I am not a christian (tried it, not for me), but I believe strongly that we should value and respect each other (one of the reasons christianity wasn't right for me). Okay, so the dude fried a pickle. I've seen stupider things all over youtube. Give him a break.
Well, I must concur, this experiment proves that some cristians resemble a pickle in an anstonishing way, same colour, same ammount of brains, and when electricity is induced they emit light just as when they get the chair,,, I'm convinced... heh
but to believe the bible over science; rather to warp science to fit the bible doesn't make any sense either. The bible may be written as the word of god, but it was written by men. not god. There are imperfections and even contradictions in the bible that prove this to be true. Science is an exercise of logic. You can't warp logic to match imperfection
You're right. You should not have to warp science to fit the Bible. However, our science has often been, and still is, imperfect. But then also our understanding of the Bible is imperfect at times. Can you point out any of the contradicitons you have found in the Bible?
Do we really believe rdearnst that Christians live without hate? You only love the enemies you believe you can convert. For example if I bring out the G word (gay) suddenly you're full of all that unreasonable hatred you righteously claim that you do not have.
on a side note; this pickle experiment was brought to you by science; science that the Christians shun (unless it fails to disprove the bible)
I don't claim that any Christian is perfect, but they should be living by the standard of their leader. Jesus loved his enemies who tried (successfully) to put him to death and he loved those who were hated and outcast by society. True science and the Bible when properly understood cannot be in conflict because they have the same Author.
One thing I have noticed in the last few hundred comments is the difference between Christians and atheists. Christians follow the example of Christ to love even their enemies. The atheists' comments are full of hatred for Christians, for God, and even for a man named Grandpa John whom they don't even know. They hate him just because he is teaching kids to live life in a positive way.
By "atheist" you clearly mean free thinking humans who reject both poorly concieved metaphors and inane comments by sanctimonious twits like yourself.
Again you are demonstrating that "free thinking" atheists have no respect for those who don't agree with them and treat them with disrespect by calling them "twits" (and worse). Jesus told his followers to love even those who hate them. That is a big difference between true followers of Christ and atheists.
Religious people are so stupid. If we seperate atheists from christians for a year atheist will get so much farther in life because they don't have to ask "god" to do stuff for them.
As "fun" as a demonstration like this might be to children, it certainly tries to "mistify" science a little too much and the themes of indoctrination are really dangerous, especially for kids. All children should be allowed to study religion, but using metaphors and models instead of cold, hard facts isn't the way to properly educate the youth, especially when you use something like a science experiment with allusions to spiritual power. This does more harm than it could good. Take it from me.
ianboswell 3 years ago 199
Are you saying that you were harmed by "indoctrination" when you were a child?
PowerVine 3 years ago
Ergo, anyone who thinks the Bible demands that we live in some kind of Leave It To Beaver fantasy world is out of their mind.
Jesus was liberal and progressive and heck and the Bible clearly doesn't support a conservative agenda.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 61
Jesus was considered radical by the religious leaders of his day, because he taught us that God loves everyone, even tax collectors and sinners. The Bible and the teachings of Jesus do not present a political view, but a moral view. Jesus showed us the importance of every human life. Jesus said that from the beginning God ordained marriage as between one man and one woman. He taught that those in power should not take advantage of the weak. That is the kind of world I would like to live in.
PowerVine 3 years ago
God killed innocent babies all the time in the bible, hence abortion is okay and even godly.
Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, hence capitalism is bad and socialism is good.
Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, hence we should pay whatever taxes the government decides.
God said homosexuality is an abomination, but so is eating shrimp, hence homosexuality is no worse than eating a shrimp dinner.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 85
"God killed innocent babies all the time in the Bible" shows you don't know much about what is in the Bible. Jesus did say it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but then he said,"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Jesus did say to pay taxes, but he also condemned those in power who mistreated the poor and used their power for financial gain.
PowerVine 3 years ago
In Leviticus 11 God gives a list of animals (including sea creatures without fins or scales) which the Israelites were not to eat, and which would not have been healthy eating in that day. Many of them are not healthy foods today, but the New Testament takes away those restrictions. In Lev 18 God forbids a list of sexual acts (including homosexual sex) that are still considered immoral today. Sexual immorality (including homosexual) is condemned in the NT and HIV/AIDS has shown it is unhealthy.
PowerVine 3 years ago
We have already discussed the bird and dino "link" (archaeopteryx) and some of the problems associated with it. But I wonder why you think a creator would not create genes. It seems to be a pretty good system with a lot of potential for evolution within species for changes and adaptations.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Do you have to keep repeating that to make yourself believe it?
PowerVine 3 years ago
I enjoyed this. Thanks.
CaptainDunamis 3 years ago
This is a pretty cute, simple analogy. I enjoyed it.
And most of the comments on this video are very saddening.
Unibasu 3 years ago
Christians are like pickles, Really ugly and should be electrocuted.
floydinator91 3 years ago 47
Thanks for uploading this video, PowerVine.
This lesson is disconcerting to me and I find it interesting that the concept of God needs to be conveyed in such an abstract way.
How does a glowing pickle assist children to solidify their belief of an all powerful, all knowing entity?
It's extremely intriguing to me how we humans embody our reality in everything around us. Perhaps there's no other way but I feel we sell ourselves way short by doing so.
Grandpa John seems like a very cool dude.
barrywilliamsmb 3 years ago
Thanks for the comment. Perhaps this is a silly illustration, but it is not intended to prove anything about God or his existence, it is only an object lesson for children about how we can live our lives.
PowerVine 3 years ago
A "lesson"? It's actually not teaching anything outside of propaganda. As a kid growing up I always felt offended by people trying to tell me that "oh if you life your life like a christian you'll get to see the world so much brighter etc etc..." I could not stand it. I read the bible, i studied it, then i read the Torah and the Vulgate. I did so because of all these positive messages I'd been told as a child growing up. For a while I experienced severe depression because it didn't work for me.
ianboswell 3 years ago 412
I find it very interesting that you read the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome in the 4th century. Did you read the Torah in Hebrew also? How about the New Testament in Greek? I can see how you might have gotten bogged down and not been able to find the "positive messages." I would suggest starting out by reading John's gospel in a modern English translation like the NIV.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Do you not realize that it takes thousands upon thousands of generations for changes to occur? If you try to compress the Earth's age down to 6000 years or whatever, then sure, evolution couldn't have happened.
But every refutable scientist in the world agrees that the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years, including many creation scientists.
Thousands of gerations over 6000 years is impossible, but over 3 billion years? Entirely possible, and as science shows, the most likely scenario.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 14
"...every refutable (sic) scientist in the world agrees that the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years, including many creation scientists." Grandpa John does too, but I think you mean "reputable" scientists. Are you saying that given enough time, a monkey pounding on a keyboard could type the complete works of Shakespeare -- or even one sonnet?
PowerVine 3 years ago
Nice ad hominem attack.
But to answer your "question", the two have nothing in common. Evolution isn't as random as you think it.
A closer example would be "Would a monkey, given enough time, produce the entire works of Shakespeare if the stuff he typed that WASN'T Shakespeare was disregarded so that he wouldn't have to start from scratch each time and if he was hitting infinite typewriter keys at the same time rather than linearly".
Given those more comparable circumstances, yes he could.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 24
Darwinian evolution is defined as natural selection acting on random variations to produce all living things. Of course hitting an "infinite number of typewriter keys at the same time" (or an infinite number of random variations at the same time) is impossible in the real world. Also there have been a number of mass extinctions which might require starting from scratch. Experiments have shown the universe isn't big or old enough to hold enough monkeys to type even one of Shakespeare's sonnets.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Oh not this old line again. I've heard so many thousands of Christians use the monkeys typing Shakespeare defense. Life wasn't just generated "at random" there were clearly placed events which helped to tip the balance of scales in life's favor. And if you want to go quantum physics on me we can go even further by saying that all alternative realities must ultimately result in having some form of an observer to maintain non-chaotic matter. You probably can't comprehend that, though.
ianboswell 3 years ago 20
Actually it was the French mathematician Emile Borel in 1913 who first used the million monkeys with typewriters illustration to illustrate the extreme unlikelihood of certain events. Richard Dawkins now uses it to illustrate the likelihood that random processes CAN produce information. Dawkins is an outstanding biologist. As a mathematician he may not be so strong and as a theologian he is out of his department. "Alternative realities" are unproven and unprovable and therefore not scientific.
PowerVine 3 years ago
What else is the menu? Proof of God with the convenience of a banana, or (fail to) discover new life in a jar of peanut butter?
effyleven 3 years ago 15
Really i have to hand it to you guys. You got into a deep and complex discussion about evolution... because you watched a video of an electrified pickle? Well done. :-)
johnhmstr 3 years ago 21
Not a Christian (sorry Grandpa John), but I did enjoy this video. Totally a fun way to get your point across.
Hyoscine 3 years ago
I agree completely, all religious people should have forks included and electricity passed through them. Then the others can see the light and energy they give off and later we can get on with our lives.
mnovember9 3 years ago 9
I now hate christians more than ever. This is proof they are retarded. Your metaphor is stupid. Please, kill yourself to remove your genes from our gene pool.
iampatches 3 years ago 3
To polarize creationism against evolution is so entirely counterproductive it debases faith in the eyes of fact and debases science in the eyes of faith.
Just because evolution hasn't been proven through every stage of life doesn't mena it has no merit.
And the same can be said of creation. there's no way to prove that it merely happened and there wasn not any divine intervention.
the creation/evolution debate is stale and goes nowhere.
try not to be a tool, people.
newboldrob 3 years ago 3
Two previous comments show the big contrast. Atheists teach hatred - Jesus Christ taught us to love everyone, even our enemies.
rdearnst 3 years ago
Then why do christians hate athiests or even non-christians? I am not athiest nor am I christian, yet I have been persecuted, hounded, and harassed by christians for various reasons. I have *never* had the same experience with athiests!
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 23
For what reasons have you been "persecuted, hounded, and harassed" by Christians?
PowerVine 3 years ago
You tell me, you are the christian.
Why do they try to force others to become christian?
Why do they have TV commercials telling children of other faiths they should become christian?
Why do they kill people of other faiths just because they aren't christian?
Why do they refuse to be friendly or even talk to people of other faiths?
Why do they spread rumors that someone is satanic simply because she wears a fox pendant? (it was my grandmother's)
Christians harass others for no good reason.
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 16
For believing something different. It's happened to me and many people I know. Christianity and its offshoots are by and large the most pushy, judgemental religions out there. Even hinduism amalgamated the other religions that it's culture enveloped. Christianity has no room for free thinkers.
oogaboogan 3 years ago 9
my experiences have been the same i'm afraid to say. just look at history for examples of christian hatred, you don't have to look that far back. look at the hatred between protestants and catholics that still flourishes today in ireland and regularilly ends in bloodshed. i think it was ghandi that said when asked what he though of christianity "i like your christ, i don't like your christians though, your christians are so unlike your christ".
killslay 3 years ago 7
If people are unlike Christ and act in ways that are opposed to Christ's teachings, how can you call them Christians? Personally I don't believe a person who claims to be a Christian but whose life goes against Christ's teaching and example.
PowerVine 3 years ago
You make a good point.. electrocute all Christians!
trcwm 3 years ago 38
so the message is, plant 2 forks in a christian and then electrocut him? cool
parasite00 3 years ago 21
Wow! I would say that this video has nothing to do with christianity, but really is says all you need to know. I guess since I don't have anything nice to say... I'll say something mean. God is fake. There is no heaven. The hope of its existence is merely a coping mechanism for weak-minded people that cannot fathom an existence that does not go beyond this mortal plane. Fund stem cells so my sister can live. This is a more worthy subject for study than pickle torture, if you ask me.
MegaJusto 3 years ago 8
I don't know what is wrong with your sister, but I hope she will get well. I would tell you I am praying for her, but that would probably offend you. If you only have hope for this life I am sorry. Life is short. We will all get sick. We will all die. Pain is inevitable in this life. Any medical help can only bring temporary relief. But I do have something nice to say, and that is I think God created us for something better.
PowerVine 3 years ago
hmm, wonder what that pickle smelled like after.
spirakit 3 years ago 5
So tell me something, PowerVine. Did you actually produce this video or did you just post it? Are you THE Grandpa John?
AZ1577 3 years ago
Yes, I produced the video. No, I am not John N. Clayton (aka Grandpa John) I just work with him. Why do you ask?
PowerVine 3 years ago
Just curious. Technically, it's well produced, but it destroys an interesting science experiment by combining it with a poorly concieved metaphor that doesn't nothing but make Christianity look silly.
It was certainly not without its merits, it did inpire me to make some electric pickle videos for a local gay bar.
AZ1577 3 years ago 15
Hmm. So if I stick two forks into a Christian and plug him into the wall socket ... it will change the world? It's worth a try.
fluffymcdeath 3 years ago 7
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of the words of Jesus, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Matt 5:44
PowerVine 3 years ago
What? Are Christians my enemies and are they persecuting me? Thanks for the warning. I must have been a fool to fall for all their talk of love.
fluffymcdeath 3 years ago
It sounds like you want to torture Christians. I don't see any Christian threatening you.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Torture Christians? I think that would be redundant. Anyone who would cause unspeakable violence to a defensless pickle and claim it was a good analogy for being a Christian sounds like they're already tortured enough.
fluffymcdeath 3 years ago 6
Are you one of those members of the SPCP? (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Pickles)
PowerVine 3 years ago
The christian pickle might believe that god is giving it 'energy' and 'light', but the skeptical pickle at least understands that pickles don't have any way of knowing if thats true or not.
CelestialOkami 3 years ago
Actually pickles don't know that the farmer raised them and the pickle canning factory pickled them, but it's true whether they know it or not.
PowerVine 3 years ago
I would agree with your argument that pickles, have no knowledge of their factory or farmer. I believe humans also have no knowledge of their creation/creators (if there are any), so assuming you believe in a christian god, why do you assert something you must admit you cannot support the existence of? If it is simply that you believe, then you probably also realize that one prima facie belief isn't much different from nor more valuable than any other.
CelestialOkami 3 years ago 6
I would suggest that people are smarter than pickles. People can look at themselves and the world around them and realize that it's not all one big accident. Pickles don't even think about it.
PowerVine 3 years ago
I never asserted that it was one big accident, nor that people should not think. I have looked at the world around me, thought about it, and come to a conclusion. It could be created by a god, it could be one big accident, or the reason could lie elsewhere. I withhold judgment on whether or not one or the other is true. If you believe humans can or do know that the world is not one big accident, that a god created it, then I would first like to hear your criterion of knowledge.
CelestialOkami 3 years ago 6
I think you are saying that whether a person believes in a creator or not, we have to do it on faith because we can't actually prove either position beyond any doubt. I agree with you. I choose to place my faith in God because I think it is a more reasonable choice.
PowerVine 3 years ago
It is true that you can't prove either position beyond any doubt whatsoever. However one position has a moderate amount of evidence whereas the other has none.
Since you have chosen the position that has no evidence and you have stated that you think it is the more reasonable choice, I am curious. What is it about believing in an invisible creator who chooses to remain "anonomous" (with the alleged exception of one book) that makes you think it is "a more reasonable choice?"
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 3
The evidence for a creator is seen in everything he created. I know you will tell me that evolution has disproved God but that isn't rrue. Evolution can weakly explain unfolding change but it can't explain how lifeless matter became proteins, DNA and living cells. It can't explain the Cambrian Explosion. It can't explain self-awareness or morality. It can't explain why most people beleive there is a higher power. God may be invisible, but evidence of his work can clearly be seen.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Haha you stupid little man. Evolution isn't meant to explain self-awareness. Evolution is meant to explain how creatures gradually evolved and became "different" creatures after many generations.
thor0707 3 years ago
Perhaps you need to evolve into a more advanced creature who shows some respect and "tolerance" for people you don't agree with rather than calling them names.
rdearnst 3 years ago 2
just because you can't explain something doesn't mean "god did it"
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago 3
You are right. It also doesn't mean God didn't do it.
PowerVine 3 years ago
It also doesn't means that Dracula didn't do it. There are a million different gods and mythological beings why believe in Christ instead of others? I think the only thing that really matters is if you lead a good life helping others. What you believe doesn't make a big difference in the whole scheme of things.
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago 5
If there is no God and nothing beyond this life, then why "lead a good life helping others"? Why not devote your brief time to pleasing yourself?
PowerVine 3 years ago
So, are you saying the only reason you help others is to get in good with god and go to heaven? Then, in reality, you are helping others just to help yourself. I help others because I have compassion and realize what it is like to have nothing. If you never help anyone don't expect to ever get help when your chips are down.
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago 7
Two questions. 1-If you are only a chance collection of atoms where does your compassion come from? 2-Are you helping others for your own benefit so that you can "get help when your chips are down"?
PowerVine 3 years ago
1) We aren't a chance collection of atoms, but my compassion comes from my personal past experiences.
2) I have a theory that everything balances out in the end. It's pretty much a law of nature. Almost everyone only helps others to help themselves that's my point. I was pointing out that you are only helping others to help yourself. Heaven isn't the only reason to help others.
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago
1) But if you say that we just evolved from inorganic matter with no design then you are saying we are a chance collection of atoms. One of the great proponents of evolution, Julian Huxley said it this way: "We are as much a product of chance as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."
PowerVine 3 years ago
2) No, heaven is not the only reason to help others. In fact, it isn't a very good reason because it's a selfish one. The best reason is that is what God created us to do and it pleases him when we love and help each other.
PowerVine 3 years ago
I think you are seeing the work of a creator because the world as we know it currently exists. Evolution actually explains unfolding change pretty well. There are plenty of thories as to the causes of the Cambrian explosion. Self Awareness is the logical extension of an evolutionary universal, Intelligence. Basic morality relates to committment, whereby people could trust each other and mutually improve their chances of survival.
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
Evolution only explains change within species to any adequate extent. Inter-species changes should leave millions of intermediate fossils. So far those have not been found even though we have millions of fossils in museum collections. Yes, there are diverse theories to explain the Cambrian explosion, including early-arrival and late-arrival models, but all have their problems. Random mutations, natural selection and survival of the fittest cannot explain morality and selfless acts of love.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Believe it or not there are evolutionary advantages to basic human morality. To tell you the truth, the arts interest me more as an evolutionary question than morality. As far as the interspecies jumps, don't be surprised if you don't see them. If we were wiped off the planet, in a few billions years there would be nothing to remember us by. Think about how long the dinosaurs lived, and then think about how many T-Rex skeletons we've found.
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
There are fossils of 100,000 individual dinosaurs in museums today. 32 T-rex dinosaurs have been found. Museums also have 1K fossil bats, 1K fossil flying reptiles, 4K fossil whales, 5K fossil seals, 14K fossil rodents, 15K fossil sea lions and walruses, 100K fossil turtles, 200K fossil birds, 1 million fossil insects and 100 million fossil invertebrates. The number of transitional fossils between any of those categories is still 0.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Those fossils are transitional. All fossils are and everything is. How do you explain different breeds of dogs and mutating viruses and drug resistance of diseases? Natural selection/selective breeding leads to evolution.
Scientists are even able to change a single gene in a chicken that allows it to gain back it's teeth that it lost over the years. Evolution is proven.
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago 5
There are different breeds of dogs and different strains of viruses, but all dogs are still dogs and all viruses are still viruses. There are no transitional fossils between any of the different kinds of animals I listed, or any others.
PowerVine 3 years ago
The different breeds of dogs came from a single source. A wolf. Selective breeding (like natural selection) changed them into all the breeds we see today. Like I said before, the fossils ARE transitional. Every living thing is in a transitional phase.
SKELETATIOUS 3 years ago 2
As I said there are 15,000 fossils of sea lions collected in museums. Many scientists believe sea lions evolved from a dog-like creature. How many fossils of animals that are half dog and half sea lion to we have? None. You would think that for the thousands or millions of years it would take to make the transition from dog to sea lion there would have been one fossil left behind when we have 15K sea lion fossils. Dogs are dogs and sea lions are sea lions. The same is true for all animals.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Also, the odds of a human being being created with exactly mine or your DNA structure is extremely improbable. However, if we weren't here, something else woud be. Same goes for our world and this universe. If some other lifeform adapted to a hostile environment like we did (Oxygen is a volatile gas), they would come to the same conclusion that the world was perfectly created for them. I like to think that there is an overarching purpose to life and everything. But it is what it is a belief
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
The idea that life has no purpose (except survival of the fittest and that only by accident) is also a belief which requires faith.
PowerVine 3 years ago
I agree. Which is why I am hesitant to say that I believe that life has no purpose. It may have a purpose I do not understand. There could be a kind of being responsible for all this. So while I'm not necessarily advocating that life is meaningless, science is about continuing to investigate the questions that we don't yet understand while religion, historically, has been a means of using what we don't understand as a basis to justify the existence of the supernatural.
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
Look at it this way. If God created us, he apparently gave us a curiosity and a desire to find the answers to our questions. Therefore, he surely can't be offended by our curiosity. He should be offended if we failed to ask questions. A father who wants his child to achieve will delight in the youngster asking questions. Science is one outlet for our curiosity. We would do well to apply the Socratic principle as Anthony Flew did, "following the evidence wherever it may lead."
PowerVine 3 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with your god or any other god humanity chooses to believe in. Evolution merely proves how the diversity of species came into existence from a few or even a single living organism. Evolution is not and never was supposed to explain anything beyond that (e.g. how life started, how the universe started, how living things became self-aware, why many primates have a moral compass, why people choose to create stories to explain things they don't understand).
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 2
The point I made is that we have no inter-species fossils showing the various steps of one species changing into another. How then can evolution "prove how the diversity of species came into existence from a few or even a single living organism"? However, evolution does explain diversity within species, such as why we have such a variety of dogs or roses.
PowerVine 3 years ago
That statement does not make sense. You are observing evolution through a very limited scope here. We have many fossils of species that were our late ancestors. Evolution occurs over a very long timeline. We only get a very limited sample of fossils for given time frame because an animal has to die in a precise set of circumstances to leave fossils for us. If we were to die out today there is a possibility in 50 million years or so, there might not be a fossil of us.
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
Here are the facts. We have more than 200,000,000 (two hundred million) fossils in museum collections today. We have 0 (ZERO) fossils that are clearly transitions from one species to another. That means no fossils of intermediate species of any varieties of animals. Darwin recognized that as a problem in 1859, but he said the problem would be corrected as more fossils were found. 150 years later - same problem.
PowerVine 3 years ago
200 million fossils is a drop in the ocean of the number of creatures that have lived and died on this planet. There are already 6.5 billion people living right now on this planet. If we all died off today we might not leave a single fossil behind. Compare this with the lifespan of the Earth and the exact conditions it takes in order to produce a fossil and it is no surprise that we have not yet found an exact snapshot. How many dinosaurs species with deformities have we found?
dreamspider4223 3 years ago
200 million fossils may be small compared to individuals, but it is not so small compared to number of species. Sure you can wait for more to be found before reaching a conclusion, but based on the present evidence I would say it is very hard to prove amoeba to man evolution. The 3 best fossil proofs according to evolution scientists are land mammal to whales, reptile to birds, and ape to humans. Looking at the evidence even in those 3 categories, it is very weak.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Even if you describe evoloutionary evidence as weak at least there is some physical findings which can support the theory of evolution. Personally I think there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
There is no physical evidence that Jesus was magic or even that your God exists.
P.S The bible does not count as evidence.
It seems all you have is an electrified pickle as an anology
charrudeboy 3 years ago
This is a common misconception -
The question is not how many fossils have been found to prove it (How much of the earth do you think has been excavated? Under 1%) The question is how many fossils disprove evolution. For example, finding a pigeon in the Triassic era. It has not happened yet.
parrecords 3 years ago
What happens when a child is conceived? hmmm? It starts off as a single cell and over time develops into a adult human. Cell to human development, in a human lifetime. Think about it.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
The child starts as a single human cell and grows into a multi-cell human. The single cell is human. The fully grown human is still human. The single cell has the complete genetic blueprint for all of the other cells which develop. If we did a DNA study of the single cell we would find that it is the same person as the fully-grown human. What does that have to do with evolution?
PowerVine 3 years ago
"What does that have to do with evolution?"
Evolution simply means change over time. A single cell is nothing like an adult human. The cell evolves into a human. This is a different mechanism of course from evolution by natural selection.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
You are right that evolution means change over time. However, a child growing up is not darwinian evolution, which I think is what the discussion was about. There is no change on the DNA level, only the addition of more cells.
PowerVine 3 years ago
"However, a child growing up is not darwinian evolution". That's what I said.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
You claim there have been no fossils found which link two species, but that is not true. Archaeopteryx links not only two species, but two totally different types of animals (dinosaurs and birds).
You seem to have a weak understanding of evolution. While it can and does occur over a long time, it also can and does occur in sudden fits. The wolf is thought to have evolved in less than 4 generations. Since less than one in a billion things fossilize, the chances of it happening her is near 0
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago
Archaeopteryx was thought to be half bird-half dino. Because scientists saw no feather imprints around the head in the fossils they assumed there were none. They went a step further and added scales to the head making it look reptilian, even though fossils showed no scales either. But birds often loose their smaller head feathers before being fossilized. Newer reconstructions of archaeopteryx like in Chicago's Field Museum near where I live show him with a feathered head like a modern bird.
PowerVine 3 years ago
I suppose you didn't know that the same genes that produce feathers, also produce scales. the way this occurs is over time, genes can be "turned off" at a very early in development, or Learn new ways of doing things in a simple way of putting it. Watch the discovery channel, they were able to program a chicken to grow feathers all the way down to its feet, or to grow teeth, or to grow a tail..... all by activating genes,
phyk3n 3 years ago
But it was still a chicken.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Archaeopteryx was also thought to be reptilian because of wing claws. Ostriches have wing claws and no one says they're a link between reptiles and birds. Bats have them too, and they're mammals. Archaeopteryx also had teeth, but they were not similar to teeth of the carnivorous dinos some said they evolved from. Archaeopteryx was thought to evolve from a dino named Deinonychus but according to fossil layers he lived 30 million years after Archaeopteryx. Missing link or just extinct bird?
PowerVine 3 years ago
Archaeopteryx is classified as the "first bird" but it is still considered a link. Other things in common with dinos include micro and macroscopic bone structure, bone shapes/numbers/positions, a very long osseous tail, feathers which are clearly not avian, etc. Bats and ostriches do not have these traits.
Also the Ostrich does NOT have claws on its wings.
I can not comment on the teeth because I am not an evolutionary biologist and I have not studied periodontal evolution.
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 20
Modern ostriches, hoatzins, and juvenile touracos have claws on their wings. The prehistoric flying reptile, the pterosaur, had claws on its wings. None of those are thought to be descendents of dinosaurs. Dinosaur tails were 4-5 feet long with scales. Archaeopteryx tails were 4-5 inches long with feathers. Also no direct reptilian ancestor of Archaeopteryx has been found to date.
PowerVine 3 years ago
The only reference I can find (in my limited time) for clawed wings on an ostrich is a book written in 1869 and known to have errors.
If you think a 10 inch long animal would have a 5 foot bony tail, you need more science education. An animal's tail is relative to the size of its body. The osseous tail to body ratio of Archaeopteryx is approximately 1:1 (like a bipedal a dinosaur).
The key phrase above is "to date." We are constantly learning unearthing new information. Patience = virtue
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago
"The ostrich has three claws on each wing" according to EnchantedLearning-dot-com page on Bird Extremes.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Archaeopteryx was said to have evolved from a small therapod ancestor quite similar to Deinonychus, however no credible sources have claimed that Deinonychus was the ancestor of Archaeopteryx. If you want to know know more about the loss of teeth in avians you should look up hox genes.
McJesus007 3 years ago
Books and museum displays often give the impression that Archaeopteryx evolved from Deinonychus - example Chicago Field Museum display on evolution overlaying bones of upper extremeties of the two. The "small therapod ancestor" only exists in the creative imagination, not fossils.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Evolution (natural selection) does *not* provide evidence for the diversity of things man has intentionally bred like dogs and roses. This is explained by artificial selection (breeding programs).
Recall Archaeopteryx is between dinosaurs and birds.
Imagine living millions of years from now and unearthing a toy poodle and a standard poodle. You would probably think they were two different species. How do you know this mistake has not been made with the current fossil record?
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 3
Evolution by definition is "change over time." It can be natural or it can be accomplished by man's intelligence. "Natural selection" is the killing off of weaker varieties and CAN ONLY REMOVE the weaker animals and plants and CANNOT ADD COMPLETELY NEW BODY PARTS. That can only be done by random or chance mutation. Almost always chance mutation results in weakening of the life form which is then eliminated by natural selection. Even a rare mutation which benefits may not be passed on to progeny.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Evolution, by definition, is NATURAL SELECTION. It is not "selective breeding." Your failure to understand what evolution is seems to be the primary issue. Mutations occurs to the detriment (e.g. albamism-any animal) or or betterment (e.g. antibiotic resistance-any bacteria) of any life form. The ones which are better adapted to the environment they are currently in live on and often have progeny with similar traits while lesser adaptive ones die. Mutation is a necessary part of evolution.
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 33
Radiology DRAGON says, "Evolution, by definition, is NATURAL SELECTION." Charles Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification." Darwin's contribution was the engine for change which he referred to as "natural selection." That's why he called his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Actually Darwin wrote that evolution occurred through acquired characteristics, adaptation, and natural selection.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Acquired characteristics and adaptation are all steps in Natural selection, so your post is a moot point.
Goatmon 3 years ago
Darwin believed that acquired characteristics could be passed on to future generations and stated that in "Origin." He was wrong. An animal cannot develop a long neck by stretching to reach food and pass that acquired characteristic on to the next generation. That was disproven years ago. Body cells have no influence on DNA in the reproductive cells. Only the genes in the reproductive cells are passed on to progeny. Otherwise if you broke your arm you could birth children with broken arms.
PowerVine 3 years ago
"Adaptation" is a word that is largely misunderstood. If by it you mean that an animal changes in response to the environment out of necessity through purpose, you are incorrect. That can't happen. If a scientist speaks of adaptation it means accidental mutations occurred resulting in an animal that is better suited for the environment. The animal has had some lucky breaks completely by accident.
PowerVine 3 years ago
RadiologyDRAGON, I notice that you mention one mutation that is detrimental (it is albinism, by the way) and one that is beneficial. However, an albino rabbit is still a rabbit and an antibiotic resistant bacteria is still a bacteria. Can you think of a mutation (not just a variation such as color or beak size or overall size) which has been observed in an animal larger than one cell that was beneficial and was passed on to its offspring?
PowerVine 3 years ago
in humans : Lactose tolerance. it can be traced back to the first agricultural settlements, and it hasn't spread to the whole population yet.
There are many other point mutations that helped survive plagues in the past, there are even people in Africa that is immune to some HIV viruses, which is rather astonishing given the short time it has been around.
claschxtreme 3 years ago
Various people have different immunities or susceptibilities to various diseases or foods or toxins, but they are still humans.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance and the ability to use other, previously unusable material for food (as a sample of E. Coli recently did) is direct and irrefutable proof of evolution.
A dinosaur didn't just lay an egg that a bird hatched from one day. It takes tens of thousands of generations for changes to take place.
In the E. Coli example, it took the bacteria 31,500 generations to evolve the new trait. We were able to notice this since bacterial generations are so short.
AwfulVision 3 years ago
Evolution is change over time. We can observe these changes in bacteria and dogs and roses and Darwin's finches. However, if it takes "tens of thousands of generations" for changes to take place to transform one type of animal into another type of animal, we should be able to find some fossils of the transitional stages.
PowerVine 3 years ago
We HAVE. You are being willfully ignorant.
Also, not all dead creatures get preserved as fossils.
But again, that's neither here nor there as we HAVE found transitional stages for many, many creatures. Creationists simply disregard them for whatever stupid reason.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 14
Could you suggest to me a museum or a book where I might see the "transitional stages for many, many creatures" you are telling me about? I don't want to be "willfully ignorant."
PowerVine 3 years ago
Um you just named one; beak size, to suite the plant's size. A plant's size might change to suit the environment (such as less sunlight in that area) which leads to all life changing to meet the change. You admitted that its possible for organisms to evolve to suit environment. Eventually, the changes add up and make an entirely new species. Welcome to grade 10 biology.
YOYObus 3 years ago
We have plenty of examples of changes within animals such as beak size. However, the potential for various beak sizes was in the original animal. It only takes environmental conditions to make one size more prevalent because it is more useful for life. However, to believe that these changes add up to creating an entirely new type of animal requires faith because it cannot be seen in the fossil record.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Please explain how E. Coli bacteria was recently observed evolving the ability to metabolize citrate when it couldn't before. It took 31,000 generations, but it happened.
Also, please don't make yourself look like a fool and say "Well, that's MICROevolution not MACROevolution". Evolution is evolution and micro vs. macro evolution was invented by Creation "scientists" when they could no longer deny that evolution was being observed.
AwfulVision 3 years ago 10
You are right "evolution is evolution." Also, I should add that E. Coli which can metabolize citrate is still E. Coli.
PowerVine 3 years ago
The evidence for evolution is in everything that has evolved to this point and is still evolving. Yet there is no evidence of any deity that any person has ever believed in or worshiped. You yourself admit above that evolution explains the diversity of life.
So why do you say that believing an invisible deity/entity created the diversity of life is more reasonable than the process of evolution (which has some evidence/proof *and* you admit explains diversity)??
That just doesn't make sense.
radiologyDRAGON 3 years ago 2
Yes, we do see evolution taking place. I have seen new varieties of dogs and roses within my lifetime. I said evolution explains the diversity within species. However, we have no fossil evidence (or living evidence) of one species evolving into another.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Anyway, all species are in transition. You just need to stretch the timeline. Think of the huge variety and difference we can see within the dog species already. Evolution works on a long timeline. When you think that we only have 32 fossils of the T-Rex, one of the most popular dinosaurs that we have been actively seeking, and they were around for about 4 million years. Anyway, we've been able to extrapolate enough evidence between fossils to be able to link them together.
dreamspider4223 3 years ago 2
"We have been able to extrapolate enough evidence between fossils to be able to link them together." Meaning some have been able to imagine and draw pictures of intermediate animals (missing links) to make up for the fact that we haven't found them. There is a fine line between science and fantasy which we must be careful not to cross. We can show scientific proof of evolution within species, but we are very far from establishing a line from amoeba to man.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Actually there are evidence. Let's take horses and donkeys for example. They were the same species, but aren't anymore. A horse and a donkey can still get offspring but those are all sterile. If you wait a little longer (actually a LOT of generations) then they wouldn't be able to mate anymore.
Tatikrae 3 years ago 2
Again, if forming a new subspecies from a species takes so long, how much longer would it take for a hyena to become a whale as some scientists suggest? Wouldn't we have a few fossils showing transitional steps?
PowerVine 3 years ago
No one says Whales come from Hyenas. That would be almost as silly as saying a magic sky daddy made Humans out of dirt.
brooksy362436 3 years ago 2
A December 1998 California Academy of Sciences Natural History Museum in San Francisco display on whale evolution showed a hyena-like animal called Pachyaena evolving over millions of years into a whale.
PowerVine 3 years ago
What would you count as a transitional step? You seem to be viewing evolution as a direct line between, let's use your example, hyena and whale. That's not how it works. Millions of years ago there would have been a hyena-like creature, some of whose offspring would have developed into modern hyenas, some of them into, say, hippopotami, and some into modern whales, dolphins, etc. Any hippopotamus-ancestor could well be the "transitional" step to the modern-day whale.
Fauconblanc 3 years ago
The bible is not Gods word, just a guide on how people should treat each other written by man. If you disagree, explain Genesis 19. Case Closed.
NegativeEl3ment 3 years ago
NegativeEl3ment said, "explain Genesis 19."
Genesis 19 gives a historical account of homosexuality and incest in connection with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's family. What is there to explain?
rdearnst 3 years ago
How about how God destroyed everyone except for Lot and his daughters, yet somehow they were able to start a new tribe.. Especially, when incest was forbidden, and science tells us we can not reproduce within our bloodlines without severe genetic defects. Which also brings up the basic point that Adam and Eve could have never spawned humankind because of the same reason.
NegativeEl3ment 3 years ago 2
Reply to NegativeEl3ment: Most scientists agree that all people in the world today came from a single primitive couple. The genetic problems inherent in reproduction between close relatives is something that has arisen as we have become more "evolved." What Lot's daughters did, however, was wrong.
rdearnst 3 years ago
The theory that genetic problems have proliferated after we evolved is preposterous. If anything, history teaches us that nature chooses the strongest candidate, and weak ones go extinct, simple historic fact.
NegativeEl3ment 3 years ago
Actually, Most scientists agree that we evolved from primates and that we gradually became human over a great many years. And the "genetic problems inherent in reproduction between close relatives" is something present in nearly all species present on earth, and as such is certainly not something that we "evolved" into.
sets13 3 years ago
reinkaos82, you missed my point. The existence of all we see is explained by the fact that God created it. The Bible is not a science book to explain everything in the universe. If it did try to explain every aspect of science, it would be larger than the state of Texas and would never have been printed, let alone copied by hand. Besides, research scientists would be out of work.
rdearnst 3 years ago
Your point was that science is explained by God. I am merely asking where and when it was all explained to mankind.
reinkaos82 3 years ago
I think once you pass 3rd grade, you'd find this video boring. What person can adequately explain such matters?
Like St. Augustine, back in the 4th century once wrote, "Trying to explain the Trinity only gives me one huge headache."
PhoenixChannel 3 years ago
Grandpa John, you are an idiot.
reinkaos82 3 years ago 4
you have to be an complete idiot lol
Redsoul76 3 years ago
i think its time to put grandpa in a nursing home
LesPaul508 3 years ago 4
Pickles by religion:
Protestant - Bread and Butter
Jewish - Kosher Dill
Catholic - Polish
Muslim - Gherkin
chthonictonic 3 years ago
I hate that pickle just like I hate Christians
smashmiek 3 years ago
Kind of a dumb analogy, yes; but do y'all have to be so hateful? I am not a christian (tried it, not for me), but I believe strongly that we should value and respect each other (one of the reasons christianity wasn't right for me). Okay, so the dude fried a pickle. I've seen stupider things all over youtube. Give him a break.
kdmusicman 3 years ago
you wouldn't even have energy and that light source without science....
sonicUnison 3 years ago 5
Correction. You wouldn't have energy and light without God.
rdearnst 3 years ago
Well, I must concur, this experiment proves that some cristians resemble a pickle in an anstonishing way, same colour, same ammount of brains, and when electricity is induced they emit light just as when they get the chair,,, I'm convinced... heh
Mythopoeikon 3 years ago
but to believe the bible over science; rather to warp science to fit the bible doesn't make any sense either. The bible may be written as the word of god, but it was written by men. not god. There are imperfections and even contradictions in the bible that prove this to be true. Science is an exercise of logic. You can't warp logic to match imperfection
austinpsycho 3 years ago
You're right. You should not have to warp science to fit the Bible. However, our science has often been, and still is, imperfect. But then also our understanding of the Bible is imperfect at times. Can you point out any of the contradicitons you have found in the Bible?
rdearnst 3 years ago
Do we really believe rdearnst that Christians live without hate? You only love the enemies you believe you can convert. For example if I bring out the G word (gay) suddenly you're full of all that unreasonable hatred you righteously claim that you do not have.
on a side note; this pickle experiment was brought to you by science; science that the Christians shun (unless it fails to disprove the bible)
austinpsycho 3 years ago
I don't claim that any Christian is perfect, but they should be living by the standard of their leader. Jesus loved his enemies who tried (successfully) to put him to death and he loved those who were hated and outcast by society. True science and the Bible when properly understood cannot be in conflict because they have the same Author.
rdearnst 3 years ago
Interesting how he compares an energized pickle with a Christian. In the end, you just become scorched, callous, and full of angry steam.
extermininja 3 years ago 2
That comment from iyaramonk just proved my point.
rdearnst 3 years ago
hate to be the messenger but you are insane grandpa john
iyaramonk 3 years ago 2
One thing I have noticed in the last few hundred comments is the difference between Christians and atheists. Christians follow the example of Christ to love even their enemies. The atheists' comments are full of hatred for Christians, for God, and even for a man named Grandpa John whom they don't even know. They hate him just because he is teaching kids to live life in a positive way.
rdearnst 3 years ago
All Grandpa John shows us is how he can torchers pickles, which is a violation of the tenth commandment.
jackdeath 3 years ago
By "atheist" you clearly mean free thinking humans who reject both poorly concieved metaphors and inane comments by sanctimonious twits like yourself.
AZ1577 3 years ago 3
Again you are demonstrating that "free thinking" atheists have no respect for those who don't agree with them and treat them with disrespect by calling them "twits" (and worse). Jesus told his followers to love even those who hate them. That is a big difference between true followers of Christ and atheists.
PowerVine 3 years ago
He spears the Christian pickle just like how I spear Christians, how enlightening.
SuperNature90 3 years ago
Religious people are so stupid. If we seperate atheists from christians for a year atheist will get so much farther in life because they don't have to ask "god" to do stuff for them.
not1336 3 years ago