I'm surprised that they have enough intellect to know how to do that. They also bash science yet use the technology created by science to votebot and spam bible verses.
You know this evolution/creationist debate is like banging your head into a wall. We as creationist aren't going to change their minds and opinions regardless of what we tell them. And Evolutionist aren't going to change our minds and opinions regardless of what they tell us.
haha well lets anylize tis arguement its millions of year of natural selection and change in species well backed up by every part of science or a big magical thing 6000 years ago poofs everythign into existance despite we have phyiscal proof in fossils contradictory your right it is like banging your head against the wall because its repetitive creationist cant wont and have no evidence and so they had to try to win in law and fail everytime for a good reason
monkeys, chimps, apes don't not look similar to humans here y first the average person can,t the difference betwn a new ape n elderly ape, small n big is all there r.
Gods are a Mankind creation. Have no doubt about it. Just search the history of Holy books. I don't even need to go to science to say that you are blind about Religion. You probably no nothing that came for your own initiative about the bible. Mankind as a history, you don't doubt that. Start knowing it, watch the past to see the future. Take a look inside the Religious Institutions that have your soul in their ands...
But again, you offer me no evidence to prove that evolution is a fact from coelacanth to aercheoptrix being a flighted bird, the evolutionists have been proven wrong more times than they have been proven right
Please my friend, take this point, Science as provided improvements to Mankind. Our society really needs development to sustain it self. People should realize now, that the Bible is a code of conduct to Mankind. An idea that pleases our "spirit". Our idea. If you take a good look to what this creationists are able to the to the future of your society, will see that is most of what happened here in Europe in he Black Age. Go take a pic of that historical, well documented, period.
I'm amazed that evolutionists would rather debunk other views when they have a lack of evidence to support their claims. You have not shown any evidence that one species has evolved into another species. so how is it a fact?
adaptation is not evolution. You have only shown that different species adapt to their environment, which we knew long before the theory of evolution cam out.
Are you talking of scientific evidence? Science can only prove the natural. Nothing Supernatural can be proven by the scientific method. Whether it be ghosts or any type of supernatural phenomenon. I don't pretend to be able to prove the existence of God by natural means, by the sheer nature of their essence their existance can only be accepted by faith. I don't have much space so I'll direct u to sources to consider "Mere Christianity" "Evidence that demands a verdict" C.S. Lewis and Jos
But the scientific method has given us much more than faith has ever given us, vaccinations from some of the most deadly disease's, longer life expectancy we now understand the simplest things from gravity to more complex things such as how the brain works and are closer to understanding how we got here
Do you give the same authority & bias to Muslim apologists who write books defending their faith or Hindu apologists, etc, etc., ad infinitum? Why Lewis & McDowell, why not Behe & Dembski? At least Behe & Dembski hide their failed hypotheses within scientific jargon but have no scientific process. When people troll these vlogs asking for evidence of evolution, it is obvious they are being disingenuous. A simple Google search with an objective eye will produce 351,000 hits in less than 0.2 second
You are a moron!! your maps proved nothing, working to try to do something is not the same as doing it either. your video is a waste of time because you did nothing but try to form some kind of stupid false dichotomy. I can use the same evidence but maybe since we are guessing in the gaps we won't agree because they are some big gaps!!
"the Celera corporation is currently working ever closer to creating a completely synthetic bacterium" - Craig Venter gave a fascinating presentation on this on Ted Talks. He basically admitted that DNA is irreducibly complex.
They tried knocking out what they expected to be useless segments to make copying simpler only to find everything was needed.
If Celera succeeded, it would prove the creation of life needs an intelligent agent.
"In the case of evolutionary biology, this process has been on-going for nearly 150 years. It has been remarkable how robust this biological theory has been."
-Survival of the fittest: most of nature is symbiotic not in competition
-Early proofs of evo...Piltdown man, Haeckels embryos, archeopteryx: either fraud or not what was first thought
-Evolution of man: australopithicus (gorilla), neanderthal & cro-magnan (no different than modern man), homo habilis & erectus (lived side by side)
-Darwin's finches: cyclical features from dry to wet periods (no change here)
-Blind cave fish with vestigial eyes: Sight loss due to inbreeding (birth defect). It was found in January that they can regain sight within a few generations when different populations are hybridized.
-Gene pool: NS works on whole organisms, not genes. The vast, vast majority of genetic changes are not detected by NS because they cause no immediate problem. Only when it results in malformed individuals.
-Junk DNA: Idea based on "we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing". The Junk DNA idea is passe as we find vital regulatory functions for these strands.
-Vestigial organs: Once presented as organs we no longer need because we've moved on. All human examples have been shown to have important function. Reduced function: unjustified comparison to other species that only proves degradation not improvement.
Evolution is only robust in the minds of its believers. They have become a religious sect unwilling to face its failures to the point of evolution becoming unfalsifiable.
"The theory of evolution unites many observations that populations change over time into a framework which serves as the foundation for modern biology" - Hubris. Evolution is NOT the foundation for modern biology which progresses without it. Louis Pasteur (founder of biochemical study) was against Darwin's theory. So was Mendel.
Philip Skell is a member of the NAS and says "evolution has little bearing on scientific research". My microbiologist friend found that in his post-doc work.
Evolution is a gross appendage that has actually impeded discovery. The whole vestigial organ idea spawned from evolution has encouraged medical malpractice due to misunderstanding. Because of Darwin, the appendix was labeled vestigial and as a result it was largely ignored until its purpose was only recently found.
"Evolution is a very large field of study of which abiogenesis research is a part. Denying this is like denying the study of sedimentation is part of geology. Red herring"
Your misrepresentations of what evolution is, does not change what it is.
Evolution explains the diversity of life once it arose.
Regardless of "how" life arose, whether by abiogenesis, an extra-terrestrial process or the creation by a deity, this aspect has no bearing on evolution which "only" explains diversity.
"Your misrepresentations of what evolution is, does not change what it is." - I merely corrected your attempt to distance evolution from the known dead end study of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation?).
You haven't addressed the known downward spiral of observed changes.
"...this aspect has no bearing on evolution which only explains diversity." - I agree only the diversity comes about through DEvolution (that's decreasing complexity not increasing).
No new species; only degenerate sub-species. Not amphibian to mammal only less fit frog (see the story on the lung-less frogs of Borneo). Birth defects not novel new structures. THAT is what we observe. The rest is wishful thinking and unscientific conjecture.
"The evolution of the morphological features like the eye is well documented in extant and extict species." - That's all intuition and interpretation. You have no idea whether one came from the other. This is where evolution is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence while pretending to be empirical.
"No matter what semantics you use, it has never demonstrated that evolution can produce a biological gain"
This is not true. Check out the evolution of the group of enzymes collectively known as nylonase which can hydrolyse nylon in flvobacteria. Of note: Nylon did not exist until 1937 and was definitely not present in the garden of eden.
Also look up the evolution of citrate metabolism in E.coli
"Nylon did not exist until 1937" - We have no idea how this came about. Nylon is a carbon compound and carbon has been around since day 1.
"Also look up the evolution of citrate metabolism in E.coli" - The ability to metabolize citrate was already there. Lenski's control group developed a pathway to an existing mechanism. The question he didn't answer is whether these bacteria would do well outside the lab. Are these more or less fit?
Also....and I'll quit posting on E.coli - nylonase, we agree that change takes place. We disagree that change nets in biological gain. This has NEVER been convincingly demonstrated.
Evolutionary biologists have a tendency to try to appear they understand all about X when we have just scratched the surface. That is why science journals have a daily dose of "its not what we once thought".
"Abiogenesis is not evolution" - Evolution is a very large field of study of which abiogenesis research is a part. Denying this is like denying the study of sedimentation is part of geology. Red herring.
No. I'm not saying it knows simply that the variation which best suits the current environment will have an advantage in passing it's genes onto the next generation. This will impact the allelic frequency of the entire population. This change in an allelic frequency over time is evolution.
No matter what semantics you use, it has never demonstrated that evolution can produce a biological gain especially to the extant of a new organ. All observed changes thus far demonstrate the opposite.
Changes degrade. Specialization is the loss of the ability survive in a variety of environments. Over specialization brings extinction with minor environmental change. Devolution is the fact. Observed changes amount to genetic erosion.
How so? Is it directed? Does it have a goal? Evolution is random mutation + natural selection. Natural selection is only half the equation and is a filter that removes bad changes. It needs something to act on, i.e. random undirected changes
Evolution is "variation" + "selection"
The selection pressure on the variation is not random. Natural selection is not simply a filter to remove bad changes, it selects the best variations to suit the current environment.
"it selects the best variations to suit the current environment." - That is a teleological statement and you're playing semantics now. So you're saying evolution "knows" what best suits the environment?
Since the exact opposite of "random" is "directed", are variations directed?
You leave out that evolution also claims that mere "random undirected change over time" can produce insanely complex structures like the human eye from much simpler neurons"
Natural selection is the exact opposite of "random undirected change".
"Natural selection is the exact opposite of random undirected change" - How so? Is it directed? Does it have a goal? Evolution is random mutation + natural selection. Natural selection is only half the equation and is a filter that removes bad changes. It needs something to act on, i.e. random undirected changes.
"The fact of evolution is that the allelic frequencies present in a population change over time. This observation has been verified many times." - You leave out that evolution also claims that mere "random undirected change over time" can produce insanely complex structures like the human eye from much simpler neurons. This has never been verified.
No one argues over mere change. You misrepresent. Observed genetic changes are categorized as near-neutral or negative over 98% of the time.
heh yeah...:> Genetics alone proves evolution, due to the fact that the gene to create eyes in a fruit fly is the same gene in mice, the fact that closly related animals, or even semi distant share many of the same DNA markers.
There is a gene in apes that produces a gene that strengthens the jaw, humans don't posses this protein, but we have the gene for manufacturing it, it's just been turned off. If evolution is wrong why do we have that?
just because we have similar genes does not in and of itself prove evolution. Why was it shut off. The answer is simple, use it or lose it. People who go on liquid diets will lose their teeth because they don't use them
The gene is not simular, it's pretty much the exact gene given room for drift, and the gene would have made it impossible to speak, as it strengthens the jaw and limits movement.
...and, of course, when you bring up the fact that evolution isn't only or even MOSTLY based on the fossil record--when you go into, say, genetics or molecular biology--you instantly get "Lalala I can't hear you!"
Oh, my. Show me ONE evolutionary chain of fossils in the world from ANY museum. Just one. Yep you have great FAITH in your evolutionary religion. Name it....still waiting....and waiting...and waiting..BUZZZ! Times up. You've had 150 years. You loose. Let's get back to reality.
What is the evidence that one extinct species led to another? Isn't that all intuition? Imagination? Can someone please tell me how conjecture can be called science?
Evidence? Plenty. Fossils, genetics and genomes, morphological similarity and continuity, migration patterns, geological strata, dating methods, and much more, all of which can be found through easy Google searches and on Youtube (Thunderf00t, cdk007, AndromedasWake, potholer54, etc.). Plus it's logical in the extreme, easily surviving Occam's Razor. It's science because of the *preponderance* of evidence that stands up to the scientific method. It's NOT conjecture, intuition or imagination.
"...morphological similarity..." - Faulty intuition; "A looks like B and seems to appear before B, therefore B came from A". This can also indicate common design. Engineers frequently design components that can be used in a number products (i.e. all cars have standard nuts and bolts). It's just good design and efficient manufacturing.
"...geological strata..." - circular reasoning. Fossils dated by strata and strata dated by fossils.
"Sadly, no matter how much evidence is presented that supports evolution, the idiot creationists will always ignore them."
Sadly, no matter how many illogical, teleological and unverifiable just-so stories evolutionary biologists spew, someone will always be gullible enough to believe it.
"Evidence for evolution?? How about me. I exist." - Tautology. So you're saying there is no other possible way you could have come into existence? You must have settled on evolution before you looked at any arguments for or against if you have looked at arguments against at all (I doubt it).
I'm trying to be respectful but such a stupid statement makes it hard.
Your only angry at me because i can laugh at this situatiuon. I actually don't care what others think on the matter regarding evolution. I just know i'm not as retarded as other human beings. Those in which random mutation wasn't very benefical.
"Your only angry at me because i can laugh at this situatiuon...." - I'm not angry, I just thought that was a retarded comment; as was your reply. I think you're more like other human beings than you think. You know..."Those in which random mutation wasn't very beneficial[sic]".
I was hoping for a stimulating debate but apparently you're unable.
I almost shat myself with laughter when he said "That is not a monkey."
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
Evolution is not science, and people like you djarm67 are indeed sheeple who can't think for themselves!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
The creatards should have opened the video asking random people to solve a linear, constant coefficient homogeneous differential equation.
People like Folger...massive facepalm.
joelkness 1 year ago
SHE IS ONE DUMB CUNT
sage0857 2 years ago
WTF? Did this shit get botted?
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago 3
Yep. I was hit with over 65K votebots a few months ago.
djarm67 2 years ago 2
I'm surprised that they have enough intellect to know how to do that. They also bash science yet use the technology created by science to votebot and spam bible verses.
trknadam 2 years ago
Well, I just gave you 5 stars, so I hope that helps.
SinnFein4ever 2 years ago
@djarm67 lol if someone needs a votebot that just proves they have no faith that their faith can survive with just faith.
basically for you hardcore creationists out there. votebotting just proves you have NO faith in the first place.
Xellith 9 months ago
Me too, if you go back to the first 100 or so videos on my account, every single one of them were hit over and over again.
They haven't hit me for a while now, but I should really get TubeGuardian just in case.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
You know this evolution/creationist debate is like banging your head into a wall. We as creationist aren't going to change their minds and opinions regardless of what we tell them. And Evolutionist aren't going to change our minds and opinions regardless of what they tell us.
Sambarre 2 years ago
haha well lets anylize tis arguement its millions of year of natural selection and change in species well backed up by every part of science or a big magical thing 6000 years ago poofs everythign into existance despite we have phyiscal proof in fossils contradictory your right it is like banging your head against the wall because its repetitive creationist cant wont and have no evidence and so they had to try to win in law and fail everytime for a good reason
artilistic 2 years ago
Sambarre that can only be becasue yo0u are
a) stupid as a block of cement.
b) in total denial.
Vogter2100 2 years ago
monkeys, chimps, apes don't not look similar to humans here y first the average person can,t the difference betwn a new ape n elderly ape, small n big is all there r.
narupiece 2 years ago
Gods are a Mankind creation. Have no doubt about it. Just search the history of Holy books. I don't even need to go to science to say that you are blind about Religion. You probably no nothing that came for your own initiative about the bible. Mankind as a history, you don't doubt that. Start knowing it, watch the past to see the future. Take a look inside the Religious Institutions that have your soul in their ands...
ThanosDevir 2 years ago
But again, you offer me no evidence to prove that evolution is a fact from coelacanth to aercheoptrix being a flighted bird, the evolutionists have been proven wrong more times than they have been proven right
machinerocks 2 years ago
Please my friend, take this point, Science as provided improvements to Mankind. Our society really needs development to sustain it self. People should realize now, that the Bible is a code of conduct to Mankind. An idea that pleases our "spirit". Our idea. If you take a good look to what this creationists are able to the to the future of your society, will see that is most of what happened here in Europe in he Black Age. Go take a pic of that historical, well documented, period.
ThanosDevir 2 years ago
I'm amazed that evolutionists would rather debunk other views when they have a lack of evidence to support their claims. You have not shown any evidence that one species has evolved into another species. so how is it a fact?
adaptation is not evolution. You have only shown that different species adapt to their environment, which we knew long before the theory of evolution cam out.
machinerocks 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence supporting a god?
AustralianAtheist92 2 years ago
Are you talking of scientific evidence? Science can only prove the natural. Nothing Supernatural can be proven by the scientific method. Whether it be ghosts or any type of supernatural phenomenon. I don't pretend to be able to prove the existence of God by natural means, by the sheer nature of their essence their existance can only be accepted by faith. I don't have much space so I'll direct u to sources to consider "Mere Christianity" "Evidence that demands a verdict" C.S. Lewis and Jos
machinerocks 2 years ago
But the scientific method has given us much more than faith has ever given us, vaccinations from some of the most deadly disease's, longer life expectancy we now understand the simplest things from gravity to more complex things such as how the brain works and are closer to understanding how we got here
AustralianAtheist92 2 years ago
Do you give the same authority & bias to Muslim apologists who write books defending their faith or Hindu apologists, etc, etc., ad infinitum? Why Lewis & McDowell, why not Behe & Dembski? At least Behe & Dembski hide their failed hypotheses within scientific jargon but have no scientific process. When people troll these vlogs asking for evidence of evolution, it is obvious they are being disingenuous. A simple Google search with an objective eye will produce 351,000 hits in less than 0.2 second
IaintNoGood 2 years ago
You are a moron!! your maps proved nothing, working to try to do something is not the same as doing it either. your video is a waste of time because you did nothing but try to form some kind of stupid false dichotomy. I can use the same evidence but maybe since we are guessing in the gaps we won't agree because they are some big gaps!!
cryptoenigmatist 3 years ago
Loved it, gotta love Extant Dodo's work.
Kamidake83 3 years ago
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
'djarm67' clearly embraces the fact of evolution. I'll subscribe on principle.
haydencantact 3 years ago
Best part
"That is not a monkey."
I love you guys.
facelessone86 3 years ago
Is evolution true? lets ask this scientition with an unaccredited, correspondence PhD from Christian Tec Trailer Park and Gas Station.
"No," says the scientition, before going to prison for tax fraud.
lowcomedy 3 years ago 5
Lmao. I guess that $250,000 was claimed by the IRS in the end.
TrueDisbelievin 3 years ago
"the Celera corporation is currently working ever closer to creating a completely synthetic bacterium" - Craig Venter gave a fascinating presentation on this on Ted Talks. He basically admitted that DNA is irreducibly complex.
They tried knocking out what they expected to be useless segments to make copying simpler only to find everything was needed.
If Celera succeeded, it would prove the creation of life needs an intelligent agent.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"In the case of evolutionary biology, this process has been on-going for nearly 150 years. It has been remarkable how robust this biological theory has been."
-Survival of the fittest: most of nature is symbiotic not in competition
-Early proofs of evo...Piltdown man, Haeckels embryos, archeopteryx: either fraud or not what was first thought
-Evolution of man: australopithicus (gorilla), neanderthal & cro-magnan (no different than modern man), homo habilis & erectus (lived side by side)
bbiermanster 3 years ago
-Darwin's finches: cyclical features from dry to wet periods (no change here)
-Blind cave fish with vestigial eyes: Sight loss due to inbreeding (birth defect). It was found in January that they can regain sight within a few generations when different populations are hybridized.
-Gene pool: NS works on whole organisms, not genes. The vast, vast majority of genetic changes are not detected by NS because they cause no immediate problem. Only when it results in malformed individuals.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
-Junk DNA: Idea based on "we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing". The Junk DNA idea is passe as we find vital regulatory functions for these strands.
-Vestigial organs: Once presented as organs we no longer need because we've moved on. All human examples have been shown to have important function. Reduced function: unjustified comparison to other species that only proves degradation not improvement.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Evolution is only robust in the minds of its believers. They have become a religious sect unwilling to face its failures to the point of evolution becoming unfalsifiable.
I have more respect for agnostics.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"The theory of evolution unites many observations that populations change over time into a framework which serves as the foundation for modern biology" - Hubris. Evolution is NOT the foundation for modern biology which progresses without it. Louis Pasteur (founder of biochemical study) was against Darwin's theory. So was Mendel.
Philip Skell is a member of the NAS and says "evolution has little bearing on scientific research". My microbiologist friend found that in his post-doc work.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Evolution is a gross appendage that has actually impeded discovery. The whole vestigial organ idea spawned from evolution has encouraged medical malpractice due to misunderstanding. Because of Darwin, the appendix was labeled vestigial and as a result it was largely ignored until its purpose was only recently found.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"Evolution is a very large field of study of which abiogenesis research is a part. Denying this is like denying the study of sedimentation is part of geology. Red herring"
Your misrepresentations of what evolution is, does not change what it is.
Evolution explains the diversity of life once it arose.
Regardless of "how" life arose, whether by abiogenesis, an extra-terrestrial process or the creation by a deity, this aspect has no bearing on evolution which "only" explains diversity.
djarm67 3 years ago
"Your misrepresentations of what evolution is, does not change what it is." - I merely corrected your attempt to distance evolution from the known dead end study of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation?).
You haven't addressed the known downward spiral of observed changes.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"...this aspect has no bearing on evolution which only explains diversity." - I agree only the diversity comes about through DEvolution (that's decreasing complexity not increasing).
No new species; only degenerate sub-species. Not amphibian to mammal only less fit frog (see the story on the lung-less frogs of Borneo). Birth defects not novel new structures. THAT is what we observe. The rest is wishful thinking and unscientific conjecture.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
The evolution of the morphological features like the eye is well documented in extant and extict species.
djarm67 3 years ago
"The evolution of the morphological features like the eye is well documented in extant and extict species." - That's all intuition and interpretation. You have no idea whether one came from the other. This is where evolution is extrapolation and circumstantial evidence while pretending to be empirical.
We have various eye structures today.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Does conjecture count as evidence?
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"No matter what semantics you use, it has never demonstrated that evolution can produce a biological gain"
This is not true. Check out the evolution of the group of enzymes collectively known as nylonase which can hydrolyse nylon in flvobacteria. Of note: Nylon did not exist until 1937 and was definitely not present in the garden of eden.
Also look up the evolution of citrate metabolism in E.coli
djarm67 3 years ago
"Nylon did not exist until 1937" - We have no idea how this came about. Nylon is a carbon compound and carbon has been around since day 1.
"Also look up the evolution of citrate metabolism in E.coli" - The ability to metabolize citrate was already there. Lenski's control group developed a pathway to an existing mechanism. The question he didn't answer is whether these bacteria would do well outside the lab. Are these more or less fit?
bbiermanster 3 years ago
We actually know very little of microbial species. My microbiologist friend estimates we have cataloged less than 2% of what is out there.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Also....and I'll quit posting on E.coli - nylonase, we agree that change takes place. We disagree that change nets in biological gain. This has NEVER been convincingly demonstrated.
Evolutionary biologists have a tendency to try to appear they understand all about X when we have just scratched the surface. That is why science journals have a daily dose of "its not what we once thought".
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"Abiogenesis is not evolution" - Evolution is a very large field of study of which abiogenesis research is a part. Denying this is like denying the study of sedimentation is part of geology. Red herring.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
No. I'm not saying it knows simply that the variation which best suits the current environment will have an advantage in passing it's genes onto the next generation. This will impact the allelic frequency of the entire population. This change in an allelic frequency over time is evolution.
djarm67 3 years ago
No matter what semantics you use, it has never demonstrated that evolution can produce a biological gain especially to the extant of a new organ. All observed changes thus far demonstrate the opposite.
Changes degrade. Specialization is the loss of the ability survive in a variety of environments. Over specialization brings extinction with minor environmental change. Devolution is the fact. Observed changes amount to genetic erosion.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
How so? Is it directed? Does it have a goal? Evolution is random mutation + natural selection. Natural selection is only half the equation and is a filter that removes bad changes. It needs something to act on, i.e. random undirected changes
Evolution is "variation" + "selection"
The selection pressure on the variation is not random. Natural selection is not simply a filter to remove bad changes, it selects the best variations to suit the current environment.
djarm67 3 years ago
"it selects the best variations to suit the current environment." - That is a teleological statement and you're playing semantics now. So you're saying evolution "knows" what best suits the environment?
Since the exact opposite of "random" is "directed", are variations directed?
bbiermanster 3 years ago
You leave out that evolution also claims that mere "random undirected change over time" can produce insanely complex structures like the human eye from much simpler neurons"
Natural selection is the exact opposite of "random undirected change".
djarm67 3 years ago
"Natural selection is the exact opposite of random undirected change" - How so? Is it directed? Does it have a goal? Evolution is random mutation + natural selection. Natural selection is only half the equation and is a filter that removes bad changes. It needs something to act on, i.e. random undirected changes.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"The fact of evolution is that the allelic frequencies present in a population change over time. This observation has been verified many times." - You leave out that evolution also claims that mere "random undirected change over time" can produce insanely complex structures like the human eye from much simpler neurons. This has never been verified.
No one argues over mere change. You misrepresent. Observed genetic changes are categorized as near-neutral or negative over 98% of the time.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
heh yeah...:> Genetics alone proves evolution, due to the fact that the gene to create eyes in a fruit fly is the same gene in mice, the fact that closly related animals, or even semi distant share many of the same DNA markers.
There is a gene in apes that produces a gene that strengthens the jaw, humans don't posses this protein, but we have the gene for manufacturing it, it's just been turned off. If evolution is wrong why do we have that?
wolfwing1 3 years ago
just because we have similar genes does not in and of itself prove evolution. Why was it shut off. The answer is simple, use it or lose it. People who go on liquid diets will lose their teeth because they don't use them
machinerocks 2 years ago
The gene is not simular, it's pretty much the exact gene given room for drift, and the gene would have made it impossible to speak, as it strengthens the jaw and limits movement.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
heh yeah...no chains of fossils....BS, people if your going to attack something get your facts straight or your look like a bunch of dumbass morons.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
...and, of course, when you bring up the fact that evolution isn't only or even MOSTLY based on the fossil record--when you go into, say, genetics or molecular biology--you instantly get "Lalala I can't hear you!"
brpierce 3 years ago
That lady's possessed....
hyeinee 3 years ago
Oh, my. Show me ONE evolutionary chain of fossils in the world from ANY museum. Just one. Yep you have great FAITH in your evolutionary religion. Name it....still waiting....and waiting...and waiting..BUZZZ! Times up. You've had 150 years. You loose. Let's get back to reality.
dradley1 3 years ago 2
How about three such chains?
Ambulocetus to modern whales
Hyracotherium to modern horses
Australopithecus to modern humans
Google them.
criskity 3 years ago
Now demonstrate that these intuitive chains are anything but circumstantial evidence and extrapolation that can't have alternate explanation.
The human chain has some broken links:
australopithicus - couldn't walk upright and had a gorilla-like jaw
homo-erectus and habilis lived side-by-side so one couldn't have led to the other
neanderthal man - no different than modern man(read the latest)
cro-magnan - definitely no different than modern man
bbiermanster 3 years ago
What is the evidence that one extinct species led to another? Isn't that all intuition? Imagination? Can someone please tell me how conjecture can be called science?
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Evidence? Plenty. Fossils, genetics and genomes, morphological similarity and continuity, migration patterns, geological strata, dating methods, and much more, all of which can be found through easy Google searches and on Youtube (Thunderf00t, cdk007, AndromedasWake, potholer54, etc.). Plus it's logical in the extreme, easily surviving Occam's Razor. It's science because of the *preponderance* of evidence that stands up to the scientific method. It's NOT conjecture, intuition or imagination.
criskity 3 years ago 2
You didn't address my previous entry regarding fossils.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
...and THIS is a lot of hand waving.
"Plus it's logical in the extreme" - It's illogical to assume that matter can self-organize into life. Especially when we observe degeneration.
"...dating methods..." - Did you know carbon 14 can be found in diamond and coal (not supposed to be there)?
"...genetics..." - How so? Information (DNA) needs an intelligent origin.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Information (DNA) needs an intelligent origin.
Why?
MCH1984 3 years ago
"...morphological similarity..." - Faulty intuition; "A looks like B and seems to appear before B, therefore B came from A". This can also indicate common design. Engineers frequently design components that can be used in a number products (i.e. all cars have standard nuts and bolts). It's just good design and efficient manufacturing.
"...geological strata..." - circular reasoning. Fossils dated by strata and strata dated by fossils.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Your arms must be tired from all that hand waving.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
ah, dradley1. another creationist babbling about things he doesn't understand...
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
lol thats not a mokey
thenollie3 3 years ago
Evidence for evolution?? How about me. I exist.
Avionicgenius 3 years ago
Evidence for evolution?? How about me. I exist.
~~~~~UNQUOTE
I can do one better.
Other primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46.
Our chromosome #2 is fused.
DracoReincarnated 3 years ago
Sadly, no matter how much evidence is presented that supports evolution, the idiot creationists will always ignore them. Look at hovind.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
"Sadly, no matter how much evidence is presented that supports evolution, the idiot creationists will always ignore them."
Sadly, no matter how many illogical, teleological and unverifiable just-so stories evolutionary biologists spew, someone will always be gullible enough to believe it.
See crev. info
bbiermanster 3 years ago
"Evidence for evolution?? How about me. I exist." - Tautology. So you're saying there is no other possible way you could have come into existence? You must have settled on evolution before you looked at any arguments for or against if you have looked at arguments against at all (I doubt it).
I'm trying to be respectful but such a stupid statement makes it hard.
bbiermanster 3 years ago
Your only angry at me because i can laugh at this situatiuon. I actually don't care what others think on the matter regarding evolution. I just know i'm not as retarded as other human beings. Those in which random mutation wasn't very benefical.
Avionicgenius 3 years ago
"Your only angry at me because i can laugh at this situatiuon...." - I'm not angry, I just thought that was a retarded comment; as was your reply. I think you're more like other human beings than you think. You know..."Those in which random mutation wasn't very beneficial[sic]".
I was hoping for a stimulating debate but apparently you're unable.
bbiermanster 3 years ago 2
Many people have tried to collect the $250,000, but Mr. Hovind keeps coming up with new criteria. He told one person to recreate the Big Bang.
Hovind's secretary admitted to one caller that he never really intends to give up that money.
NOTE: "Mr." is no typo.
busymartian 3 years ago
In order for Illustra Media's DMCA takedown to be valid, this video would have to be taken down as well:
watch?v=nNyOVEerPC8
This is an unaltered version of Case for a Creator (6 parts), containing the same content as ED's video, posted for the same purposes as ED's video.
Well, of course they're not going to take that one down, because there is no criticizm to silence there. As expected, hypocracy at its best.
ThomasKaira 3 years ago
I can't @$#!ing believe Extantdodo was banned...
Hooya2 3 years ago 2