Holy shit!! They had legs!! It makes total sense though, so I'm not completely shocked. It's still really cool to see how vastly different they looked when they walked on land though :D!
The universe as it relates to conscious life can be understood now. It is the ultimate truth; the truth that will transform mankind and the world. Google 'Truth Contest' and click the entry called 'The Present' to open it. If this reaches everyone, it will turn this world right side up.
@alexthasy There is no meaning of life, there is only what what we do and will do. Natural selection is not made by some random dude that say "you live, you die, you die, you live". If a specie can't adapt fast enought to a situation, it dies off. In a million years, you would already have an elongiated mouth different teeths, webed feets and hands, and so on. There is no magic about truth.
@ScientificBob You talked with authority that there is "no before" the big bang. Since you said you are so scientific and can explain everything scientifically, not philosophically, just give a scientific evidence to prove your claim.
@gorilla199uncensored What makes you think I'm religious? So stop that cheap religion attack, just address the question. "It's science"... Let me put things straight, science is a bigger enterprise, evolution is one small portion, and it's highly debatable since it does not really pass the scientific method. There are a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking in this theory compared to any other real scientific theory.
@ScientificBob Dude, I need not define macroevolution to you, you know it, you don't have to lie here. I've noticed that you are an avid Darwin defender on YouTube since forever, therefore you must have seen this argument before. So, just give me scientific observable and testable evidences that multiple microevolution leads to macroevolution.
@hisham031170 "I need not define macroevolution to you" Yes you do, just about all of us have sat by and watched the ever shifting Creationist goal posts. Settling terms at the outset is the only way to nail down a group so fond of term fudging.
@ozowen OK fine, though I think you are a hypocrite too. Macroevolution is defined as changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, therefore, any transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution, such as pakicetus to whale (in this video).
@hisham031170 Yeah yeah yeah, trouble is, YECSers trot out that drivel and offer NOTHING to explain the evidence. Oh, they say "what about this?" and "What if it was that?" but never sit down and try and put all their drivel into a cohesive whole. The reason being: it can't be done. There is zero evidence for special creation. Evolution is the only explanation so far.
Get over it. Your logic collapses on evidence- every time.
I note also you failed to address my post Why has no one on the YECS side put all their various claims together under science? Why do they claim endless "what ifs" but can't put it all together.
Evolutionary theory is the best fit across a raft of sciences and disciplines. Its findings match up across geology, into the biological sciences and is support via chemistry and physics. Fails to be falsified. But YECS and ID get falsified all the time.
@ozowen Dude, stop that YEC crap, what makes you think I'm christian? By your own standard " Evolution is the only explanation so far."... so by your own words I can deduce that, it's not falsifiable because you offer no other hypotheses to falsify. Is macroevolution falsifiable?
@ozowen What about me? Remember I didn't offer anything, and I questioned the theory of evolution out of skepticism. The burden to prove is yours not mine. If macroevolution is not falsifiable than it's as good as faith.
@hisham031170 As I said, not up to me mate. This particular challenge is what we call "bollocks". Down to scientists to falsify it. This has been done many times, as I said. I think you're just throwing this crap out there.
@XGralgrathor Dude, read my definition of macroevolution carefully. I repeat it for you - "Macroevolution is defined as changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, therefore, any transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution, such as pakicetus to whale (in this video)." OK, have scientists observed macroevolution? If not on multicellular organism level, what about microbes?
@hisham031170 ERVs are like other mutations of the genome: most are neutral and have no function at all. The deleterious ones have been weeded out by natural selection and very few gained a function (syncityn).
But the function of ERVs is irrelevant for the proof that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Do you agree that the ERVs in our DNA are relicts of virus attacks? Is there macroevolution at all between chimps and humans (there are no new genes AFAIK).
hisham031170 asked for a test of macroevolution and I suggested ERVs. Then he asked me if ERVs have a function (he wants to prepare the creationist defense "ERVs have a function so they cannot be randomly inserted").
My answer is that they have as much function as mutations. Most are neutral, some deleterious, and one out of a billion is good for us.
Orthologous ERVs proof common ancestry, no matter what function they have.
Syncytin (which I misspelled above), a protein of the placenta, is coded by a retroviral env gene. In some cases, the viral promoter LTR substituted or added to the original starter of a human gene (salivary amylase). But there are no examples for a whole ERV, with all its genes and LTRs, fulfilling a task in the human genome.
@Skorm1982 "show me the missing links " What missing links?
"if it is a fact till then its a theory" Hmm. Science jargon fail.
Evolution (as in common ancestry of life) is a fact, as shown by the hierarchical nature of DNA.
Evolution THEORY is a theory of biology to explain the FACT of common ancestry. This theory explains the MECHANISM by which life evolves. The MECHANISM is mutation + natural selection.
We all love to put our thoughts into words with the hope of some truth and reality to spring out of our reasoning. But to does who believe that natural cause and effects are the engines that produce information inside the DNA, Problems arise. These problems are so huge that we dare not talk about them. We close our eyes and wish them away.
@hisham031170 It certainly is testable, yes. Observable? That would depend on how you define "macro evolution". Because in the actual biological sciences, there is no "theory of macro evolution" and "theory of micro evolution". There is only "theory of evolution". It's one and the same. Only creationists make a distinction (yet are usually unable to explain when exactly "micro" turns into "macro").
@hisham031170 Well, if you refuse to define what YOU mean by macro-evolution... then I'm just gonna assume that you use the word "macro" in a correct fashion, which would be that it is not more or less then "lots of micro". Just like many inches added together will result in miles.
All four limbed mammels evolved from fish. That means that the whale started out as a fish, evolved to live on land, and continued to evolve to go back to the ocean.
@TheBradbuzan Are you serious? That beats Greek mythology and Shintoism for mysticism . One thing a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary creation is a fantastic fairy tale. It probably inspired Harry potter
@alexthasy "That beats Greek mythology and Shintoism for mysticism" Indeed. And the reason it beats those (and all other religious attempts at explaining the world) is because evolution actually has evidence to back it up.
@Skorm1982 Yes it is. The "theory" isn't about whether evolution occurs, we know it occurs. Its just learning the where, when, and how it occurs is the reason we use the word theory. Evolution is universally accepted by every aspect and every discipline in biology because they all confirm it independently. After hundreds of tests done for decades not one test has ever even shaken evolution, they all reinforce it.
@Skorm1982 yeah, its only a theory, it isnt fact. Its not like einsteins fact of relitivity, or the germ fact of desease, or the electromagnetic fact... Seriously though, how can you possibly just ignore the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the embrionic, geographical and anitomical evidence. The first two gives precise dates for the existance of common ansestors of species and every time they PERFECTLY agree, so does all the other evidence. read a book please
How can he ignore all the evidence you ask? Simple. Because it requires work to understand it but no work at all to dismiss it. He chose the easy way out.
@Skorm1982 Evolution is a fact buddy. Been observed. There is no other explanation for the transitions of the fossil record, it is the only explanation for how genetics works... it's a fact.... buddy.
@ozowen its not a fact, if it is then show me the missing links! all of them plz till then its still a theory,you Darwin nut's and religous people dont have proof on ether side
@TheBradbuzan Several species of turtles even made this trip multiple times. From sea to land, back to sea, back to land, back to sea, back to land, back to sea. :-)
- microevolution refers to evolution over a relatively small number of generations
- macroevolution refers to evolution over a relatively large number of generations
To microevolution can happen but macroevolution cant is to say you can walk a meter but not a mile; they are the exact same processes over different time periods.
if Microevolution occurs then macroevolution MUST OCCUR provided there is nothing to prevent accumulation of change
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
The universe as it relates to conscious life can be understood now. It is the ultimate truth; the truth that will lead the next step in our evolution. Google 'Truth Contest' and open the entry called 'The Present' to learn the truth. If this reaches everyone, it will turn this world right side up.
@Gazjohnful I m sorry that you feel so bad about the engineering of your body, the working or the dysfunction of your brain and that you would consider yourself only as a monkey that would have grown smart. I guess you really took Rev Dawkins preaching on species not being intelligently designed, programmed and engineered seriously
I believe in God, but don't associate me with the bible. The subject of God can't be explained by science. Same goes to the singularity before the Big Bang. Stephen Hawkins admitted that science does have limit when he said the law of science breakdown at the singularity therefore it's pointless to think what exists outside the universe. Since God by definition created time and space, He is not bound to the law of science. Arguing what created God is also pointless.
@Gazjohnful Well, many atheists also love to quote Ken Millers for debunking Michael Behe. Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic. You must suggest your atheists friends to stop quoting him too. BTW it's ironic that you like to quote the pope too. LOL
@Gazjohnful Your attack on @alexthasy was driven by your view that atheism is correct and God is false. You demand a scientific answer from him when you know believing in God is philosophical. Your argument that God exists than it must created, so what created God. So it's fair also to question, beyond our universe, the realm we can never understand, it exists, so how did it come into being? Both demand philosophical, not empirical science.
@hisham031170 Not only have you failed to answer that question as well giving no proof, which I can give you of humans evolved from the same common ancestor as great apes with out undeniably matching dna. You have also failed to notice any of the other questions I asked him un science related. I asked him how our race was conceived from adam and eve's all male children. I asked him why the pope says evolution happened. The difference between me and you is, you have no evidence to back you, i do.
@hisham031170 Plus, can you really be backing up that no minded idiocy? Even the pope proves it is possible to believe in science as well as religion. In fact science's PROOF of how the world was created is undeniable, it just pushes so far against your views you refuse to believe it and will attack at all costs. Your telling me the likely hood of a spiritual being creating mass from nothing, is more than it coming from particles, which exist and have been directly paired with earthly creation.
@ozowen You are saying nothing. Your Darwinian atheist evolutionary fairytale is a web of lies and deceptions relying 100% on black magic. Natural selection is at the center of your cult circular reasoning. The myth is the revival of ancient goddesses borrowed to pagan mythology. She can be found with the Greek, American Indians and Japanese Shinto mythology
@types10000 Dude, you are funny, testable prediction (hypothesis) is not one form of evidence. It needs evidence to support it. You're correct, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but an unproven one. But sadly it can't be falsified since there's no other options or competing hypothesis. How to falsify the one and only option? Scientists might as well faked experiments like Miller's in desperate attempt to prove abiogenesis.
@types10000 My dishonest answers would be: 1) One day engineers can make a spaceship that can travel infinite distance (or billions light yrs) in short times, 2) use a hubble telescope that can reach infinite distance. Remember, I'm talking about observable evidence, not speculation. My honest answer would be - it's impossible.
"'The fact that you still use Miller-Urey experiment as an evidence is beyond me. Mmm... did they ever produce life? Answer?"
Allow me to dumb things down for you then:
- Demonstrating the creation of life is not necessary inorder to provide EVIDENCE that it arose via this manner (which testable predictions like the miller urey experiment do just fine)
Testable predictions are one of the best forms of evidence in science.
@xnobody777x First, I want to emphasize that science is a bigger entreprise. Theory of origins are only small portions of it. Your theory of origins take as much faith as believing in God. Scientists have no clues at all on origins of life and cosmos. The universe is expanding into what? They won't know, ever. We say God always exists and you said the same thing to universe. There's no difference.
"Your theory of origins take as much faith as believing in God"
- they dont, they have evidence to support them, last time i checked it took less faith to believe in something with evidence than something without it.
"Scientists have no clues at all on origins of life and cosmos"
- no, they have several in terms of the latter abiogenesis is the best well evidenced (as demonstrated by it's testable predictions)
"The universe is expanding into what? They won't know, ever"
- who are you to say we'll never know?
"We say God always exists and you said the same thing to universe"
- nooooo, you say 'god did it' and the intellectually honest people say 'we dont know what caused it' sometimes followed by the statement 'and we dont have any evidence a god is responsible so we will reject that assertion'
@hisham031170 no, evolution does not deal with cosmology and i wish that creationists would take that into their thick skulls. " He did his research extensively, and what did you do? Read articles from desperate evolutionists? Dr Stephen has better credentials than you." well i can't argue with that. i mean, one man (vs. many) says there's no evidence (even though there is and it is available to everyone. plus there's evidence in genetics.) How can anyone compete!?
@xnobody777x "We have evidence in the fossil records" Well Dr Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist) said otherwise. He did his research extensively, and what did you do? Read articles from desperate evolutionists? Dr Stephen has better credentials than you. You need to get your fact straight dude.
People who believe in evolution lack critical thinking. Only very brave scientists can come out of closet and admit the absurdity in Darwinian evolution, or else they risk their careers. So I don't blame them because if I am one also, I'll do the same thing.
@MrGralgrathor It's a typical tactics of athiests like you to call us creationists stupid, delusional, etc. But you must know that there are many scientists who believe in God and certainly 1000X cleverer than you. Have it your way I don't care.
@hisham031170 It's typical of creationists like you to criticize the theory of evolution without even understanding it. If you really believe that a supernatural being created us then idk.
Although I don't believe in macroevolution (Darwinian evolution), I respect the honesty of Ken Miller for recognizing the limit of naturalism and the presence of the higher power.
Micro-evolution is just as much Darwinian evolution as is macro-evolution.
Of course, despite the fact that you don't believe in it, speciation *is* observed. You might do well to redefine your terms or rephrase your objection.
« No tangible evidence for supernatural? Why don't you tell this to Dr. Kenneth Miller. »
Miller *acknowledges* that there is no tangible evidence for the supernatural. The fact that he believes in it despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest so indicates that his belief is not evidence-based, but faith-based.
Fantastic computer animation, I commend you on your skill at creating cartoons, however, you failed to site the "Scientific Processes" used to verify this fairytail..In simple terms did you come to this conclusion by testing or observing these assumptions or is it out of your very fertile immagination?
@usmclukie I happen to know the artist who drew these pictures that the animation is based on, maybe you would like to ask him? No? I didnt think so...
@Rhinogradentian yea, I would ask him did he personally witness this example of "macro-evolution" himself, or did he as I stated before conjur this fantstic illistration in his own creative imagination? Only because I though real science demonstrates facts from testing and observing..Where do you stand on this issue my friend? Do you stand with science or fairytail, this clearly isn't science..
@usmclukie You clearly know nothing about how science works, you are just a creationist bible-troll who takes any opportunity to insult proper scientists. The fossils that the illustrations were based on contain all of the physical features you witness in this animation, the artist observed the anatomy to his best ability, only crackpots think that primitive whales were adapted for land, enjoy your life, sheeple.
@Rhinogradentian How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring when it was living, let alone offspring of another kind? The only thing you or anyone can prove from science regarding a fossil or any dug up set of bones is that something died.. Where you ppl go from science to fairytail is when you ppl assume, thats all this cartoon does is assume..Evolution (with the exception of micro-evolution "variations of kinds") is your religion. You're welcome to that, but it isn't science.
« How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring »
It doesn't matter. That's not part of the definition of 'transitional fossil'. The definition of a transitional fossil is that it should be a morphological intermediate. The hypothesis of common descent predicts that there should be morphological intermediates, in extant biology and in the fossil record. And there are.
"How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring "
- it doesnt (it's not meant to); a fossil is a representative of a population of organisms that existed at one point in time.
- the relatedness of these fossil forms to modern organisms can be established through the same use of comparative anatomy that establishes the relatedness between modern subspecies.
@types10000 Have you ever unbiasly seen a fossil and not recognizing it to be one tht is still living today and concluded it may very well be merely an exstint organism without being a link that propells your biased pre-conceived notion in evolution? You ppl always begin with it must be an EVOLUTIONRY process prior to other possible anticdotes of origin..
" Have you ever unbiasly seen a fossil and not recognizing it to be one tht is still living today and concluded it may very well be merely an exstint"
- please rephrase this using actual words.
"You ppl always begin with it must be an EVOLUTIONRY process prior to..."
- we begin it like that because that's the explanation that's currently the best and most well evidenced. Likewise when we examine physical objects we usually start with the premise they are subject to gravity
- the word 'kind' has no meaning in terms of biology, it's used by creationists to assert a genetic barrier that does not exist.
Under evolutionary theory things happen gradually so gradually infact that any given generation is virtually indistinguishable from the one that preceded it (aside from a few small mutations).
Labels like reptile and bird, are imposed artificially by humans based on established characteristics (after the intermediates die off)
@types10000 if someone believes in something without SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES being utilized and recorded, there is no way legitmately claiming it as fact..Precisely why it still to this day is still refered to as a "THEORY"..You believe in evolution on assumption only..No different than those who believe in religion...You have no proof, your religion is called Evolution.You're entitled to your faith, but don't call it science, call it your "fairytail"
- incorrect i accept it based on the evidence just like for gravity (which happens to occupy the same level of scientific support)
"No different than those who believe in religion"
- incorrect, my acceptance of evolution is based on scientific evidence, religion is based on faith (belief without evidence). they could not be more opposite.
"You have no proof"
- have as much 'proof' as for gravity, nuclear fusion and tectonic plates
@types10000 No one has ever proved"MACRO-EVOLUTION"ever happened.No human ever scientificaly tested or observed one kind of animal transforn into another.Dogs have and always will produce dogs and their kind..wolves,foxes etc. Micro evolution has been proven scientificly.However,you ppl muddy the water with these terms.It's dishonest and destructive to the truth.Micro evolution is merely changes(VARIATIONS)in kinds.horizonal variations.Show evidence of Macro evolution with living creatures today
"No one has ever proved 'MACRO-EVOLUTION' ever happened."
Macroevolution and microevolution are the same processes over different time periods:
- Macroevolution = relatively large number of generations
- Microevolution = relatively small number of generations
Unless you can provide a mechanism to prevent the accumulation of change (and none have been presented) then macroevolution logically necesitates microevolution.
"scientificaly tested or observed one kind of animal"
-the word 'kind' has no meaning in biology, it's used by the religious to assert a genetic barrier that does not exist.
"Dogs have and always will produce dogs"
-the word 'dog' is a colloquial reference to a taxonomic classification IMPOSED ON NATURE BY HUMANS, evolution dosent predict things to evolve out of a classification.
I'll demonstrate:
- What level of mutation would constitute calling it something other than a dog?
- to say microevolution happens and macroevolution doesnt is to say you can walk a meter but not a mile. ie. The accumulation of microevolutionary change = MACROEVOLUTION.
there is no difference between them besides time for accumulation of traits.
"Show evidence of Macro evolution with living creatures today"
- that would be difficult considering you have no clue what macroevolution is.
Q: if a dog gradually evolved (through stepwise mutation) structures resembling those of flippers and a dragon tail at what point would we stop calling it a dog?
A: You infact would never be able to stop calling it dog unless you arbitrarily invented a new classification BECAUSE THE WORD DOG IS JUST A CLASSIFICATION
@riskoish That fairytale of land mammals magically and atheistically altering organs and limbs while evolving into whale upon crossing millions of years and numerous species provides a good laugh if nothing else. It is Harry Potter witchcraft magic at its best. You guys calling that bull crap science makes it even funnier
@alexthasy funny you say that...considering your a fucking christian that believes a big man in the sky will banish you into eternal flames if you dont follow his rules. keep living in fear you ignorant fuck
@srexob715@majoratheist You should revert to your TROLL STALKER name Majoratheist since the only reason you believe in a voodoo Darwinian evolution is to secure your fate in the finality of death. The witchcraft voodoo that took billions of years and led by your goddess of natural selection was awesome. Next time you talk to her, tell her she did a great job on peacocks and honeybees. Enjoy your stalking and your delusion.
@Rhinogradentian God creating the species is a miracle, Species self-creating under a voodoo magic atheistic evolutionary process is Harry Potter like witchcraft
@alexthasy There is no tangible evidence for the supernatural. Evolution occurs no matter if we accept it or not, enjoy your blind, sheeplike existence...
@Rhinogradentian If a Darwinian atheistic evolution were behind the creation of the species it would have to have relied on witchcraft magic. Atheism has no provision for causality and there is 0% probability and no reason for an atheistic evolutionary process to have led to the creation of exquisitely designed, programmed and engineered species. Enjoy your atheistic fairytale and the delusion attached to it.
@Rhinogradentian God creating the species is a miracle. The myth of natural selection creating the species through a voodoo evolutionary process in which species would have been adding or altering organs and limbs while atheistically evolving into something else is the same type of witchcraft magic that inspired Harry Potter
Hi alex. re[peating the same drivel whioch is born in your lack of understanding of evolution is an argument from incredulity. A logical fallacy. This foolishness can be discounted and NO ONE NEEDS TO ADDRESS IT. IT'S ILLOGICAL!
@ozowen You keep repeating the same accusation and using the same slandering against my character. Your dumb cult cannot be defended so you are using cheap personal attacks against those exposing its logical fallacies and circular reasoning
@alexthasy, People who believe in evolution are sinners? And God inspired Darwin with Evolution? Looks like this "God" is the one who makes people sin. What's that noise? Oh, it's your skin, getting a buuuuuuuuuuurn!
Circular reasoning? Another lie! Brilliant. Not only have you no idea what circular reasoning is (you always always fail at getting that right) you usually use circular reasoning to make your case, demonstrating your idiocy. But, this has been pointed out to you many, many times. Repeating it is a lie.
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Why do you hate God so much snake features? Why do you defile truth regularly weasel sputum? Why do you have no integrity?
@ozowen The circular reasoning is obvious since a Darwinian Natural Selection Darwin pretends is responsible for the creation of the species through a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary process is a myth
Are you serious?!
Fusion840 22 hours ago
Whales have no sense of smell (no olfactory bulb) but they still have hundreds of pseudogenes for smelling in the air (olfactory receptor genes).
kereng5 1 day ago
Holy shit!! They had legs!! It makes total sense though, so I'm not completely shocked. It's still really cool to see how vastly different they looked when they walked on land though :D!
BlueDragonFuze 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe as it relates to conscious life can be understood now. It is the ultimate truth; the truth that will transform mankind and the world. Google 'Truth Contest' and click the entry called 'The Present' to open it. If this reaches everyone, it will turn this world right side up.
doufinc 2 days ago
@alexthasy There is no meaning of life, there is only what what we do and will do. Natural selection is not made by some random dude that say "you live, you die, you die, you live". If a specie can't adapt fast enought to a situation, it dies off. In a million years, you would already have an elongiated mouth different teeths, webed feets and hands, and so on. There is no magic about truth.
Poodleinacan 2 days ago
@ScientificBob You talked with authority that there is "no before" the big bang. Since you said you are so scientific and can explain everything scientifically, not philosophically, just give a scientific evidence to prove your claim.
hisham031170 2 days ago
@gorilla199uncensored What makes you think I'm religious? So stop that cheap religion attack, just address the question. "It's science"... Let me put things straight, science is a bigger enterprise, evolution is one small portion, and it's highly debatable since it does not really pass the scientific method. There are a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking in this theory compared to any other real scientific theory.
hisham031170 2 days ago
@ScientificBob Dude, I need not define macroevolution to you, you know it, you don't have to lie here. I've noticed that you are an avid Darwin defender on YouTube since forever, therefore you must have seen this argument before. So, just give me scientific observable and testable evidences that multiple microevolution leads to macroevolution.
hisham031170 2 days ago
@hisham031170 "I need not define macroevolution to you" Yes you do, just about all of us have sat by and watched the ever shifting Creationist goal posts. Settling terms at the outset is the only way to nail down a group so fond of term fudging.
ozowen 2 days ago
@ozowen OK fine, though I think you are a hypocrite too. Macroevolution is defined as changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, therefore, any transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution, such as pakicetus to whale (in this video).
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170 Yeah yeah yeah, trouble is, YECSers trot out that drivel and offer NOTHING to explain the evidence. Oh, they say "what about this?" and "What if it was that?" but never sit down and try and put all their drivel into a cohesive whole. The reason being: it can't be done. There is zero evidence for special creation. Evolution is the only explanation so far.
Get over it. Your logic collapses on evidence- every time.
ozowen 1 day ago
@ozowen Yeah OK, theory of evolution is not falsifiable. So much for science.
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170
It's falsifiable- it just hasn't happened. Go and find a Pre Cambrian monkey and wham! It's falsified. Feel free.
ozowen 1 day ago
@hisham031170
I note also you failed to address my post Why has no one on the YECS side put all their various claims together under science? Why do they claim endless "what ifs" but can't put it all together.
Evolutionary theory is the best fit across a raft of sciences and disciplines. Its findings match up across geology, into the biological sciences and is support via chemistry and physics. Fails to be falsified. But YECS and ID get falsified all the time.
ozowen 1 day ago
@ozowen Dude, stop that YEC crap, what makes you think I'm christian? By your own standard " Evolution is the only explanation so far."... so by your own words I can deduce that, it's not falsifiable because you offer no other hypotheses to falsify. Is macroevolution falsifiable?
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170
Why on earth would I be wanting to offer an alternative theory or even a hypothesis?
When someone does, and they do regularly, they usually don't get very far as their own offerings get trashed.
macro-ev is falsifiable- but not by this little black duck.
What about you?
ozowen 1 day ago
@ozowen What about me? Remember I didn't offer anything, and I questioned the theory of evolution out of skepticism. The burden to prove is yours not mine. If macroevolution is not falsifiable than it's as good as faith.
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170 As I said, not up to me mate. This particular challenge is what we call "bollocks". Down to scientists to falsify it. This has been done many times, as I said. I think you're just throwing this crap out there.
Have fun.
ozowen 1 day ago
@ozowen OK dude, just give an example, don't just talk. How do you test (falsify) macroevolution?
hisham031170 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"How do you test (falsify) macroevolution?"
You can't falsify an observation. Speciation is observed, and macro-evolution is therefore fact.
You probably didn't mean macro-evolution, but the emergence of major taxa from a common ancestry, which is a *subset* of macro-evolution.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor Dude, read my definition of macroevolution carefully. I repeat it for you - "Macroevolution is defined as changes in the gene pool that create new genes. Since new organs and structures require new genes, therefore, any transition that involves a new structure or organ is an example of macroevolution, such as pakicetus to whale (in this video)." OK, have scientists observed macroevolution? If not on multicellular organism level, what about microbes?
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170
Have a look at the distribution of Endogenous Retroviruses in the DNA of chimps and humans.
kereng5 1 day ago
@kereng5 First of all, do you equate ERV's in the DNA as junk DNA? One with no function whatsoever?
hisham031170 1 day ago
@hisham031170 ERVs are like other mutations of the genome: most are neutral and have no function at all. The deleterious ones have been weeded out by natural selection and very few gained a function (syncityn).
But the function of ERVs is irrelevant for the proof that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Do you agree that the ERVs in our DNA are relicts of virus attacks? Is there macroevolution at all between chimps and humans (there are no new genes AFAIK).
kereng5 1 day ago
@kereng5
"ERVs are like other mutations "
Well its clear you have no idea an ERV is let alone anything about it.
"But the function of ERVs is irrelevant for the proof that chimps and humans have a common ancestor."
Function? explain
Care to explain how the ERVs match up in humans and other great apes?
gorilla199uncensored 16 hours ago
@gorilla199uncensored
hisham031170 asked for a test of macroevolution and I suggested ERVs. Then he asked me if ERVs have a function (he wants to prepare the creationist defense "ERVs have a function so they cannot be randomly inserted").
My answer is that they have as much function as mutations. Most are neutral, some deleterious, and one out of a billion is good for us.
Orthologous ERVs proof common ancestry, no matter what function they have.
kereng5 14 hours ago
@kereng5
"ERVs have a function"
LOL thats so stupid, but they have to strech the lies even further.
"one out of a billion is good for us."
Do you have a reference for this, as I dont think this would happen.
gorilla199uncensored 14 hours ago
@gorilla199uncensored
Syncytin (which I misspelled above), a protein of the placenta, is coded by a retroviral env gene. In some cases, the viral promoter LTR substituted or added to the original starter of a human gene (salivary amylase). But there are no examples for a whole ERV, with all its genes and LTRs, fulfilling a task in the human genome.
kereng5 11 hours ago
Comment removed
gorilla199uncensored 14 hours ago
@hisham031170 "How do you test (falsify) macroevolution? "
Find a Pre Cambrian rabbit, demonstrate no shared genes (especially spliced ones) humans with other apes.
Have fun.
ozowen 1 day ago
@hisham031170
Define what you call macroevolution
"testable evidences that multiple microevolution leads to macroevolution."
Provide evidence evolution stops before what you call macroevolution.
gorilla199uncensored 14 hours ago
evolution is fact. for all those who don't believe, try giving a pikachu a thunder stone. see what happens!
zimmermjaz 3 days ago
@zimmermjaz show me the missing links if it is a fact till then its a theory
Skorm1982 3 days ago
@Skorm1982
Learn to google. Do you get everyone to do your thinking for you?
ozowen 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skorm1982 "show me the missing links " What missing links?
"if it is a fact till then its a theory" Hmm. Science jargon fail.
Evolution (as in common ancestry of life) is a fact, as shown by the hierarchical nature of DNA.
Evolution THEORY is a theory of biology to explain the FACT of common ancestry. This theory explains the MECHANISM by which life evolves. The MECHANISM is mutation + natural selection.
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@zimmermjaz Evolution is a theory,
uraharagreenhat 3 days ago
@uraharagreenhat
Theory means solid on facts in science, not s hairbrained idea someone dreamed up.
ozowen 3 days ago
@zimmermjaz I did, and it's dead. Sorry for your pikachu.
hisham031170 1 day ago
they are biological transformers :O
Arwyroe 3 days ago
@SidewaysQuark You make no sense, Jack. LOL
hisham031170 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all love to put our thoughts into words with the hope of some truth and reality to spring out of our reasoning. But to does who believe that natural cause and effects are the engines that produce information inside the DNA, Problems arise. These problems are so huge that we dare not talk about them. We close our eyes and wish them away.
morrisdecat 5 days ago
@types10000 Macroevolution must happen? Is it testable and observable?
hisham031170 6 days ago
@hisham031170 Of course it is. Confidence follows from consilience. We got the facts, Jack! LOL
SidewaysQuark 4 days ago
@hisham031170 It certainly is testable, yes. Observable? That would depend on how you define "macro evolution". Because in the actual biological sciences, there is no "theory of macro evolution" and "theory of micro evolution". There is only "theory of evolution". It's one and the same. Only creationists make a distinction (yet are usually unable to explain when exactly "micro" turns into "macro").
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@ScientificBob Just answer this honest question. Is macroevolution observable and testable?
hisham031170 3 days ago
@hisham031170 Well, if you refuse to define what YOU mean by macro-evolution... then I'm just gonna assume that you use the word "macro" in a correct fashion, which would be that it is not more or less then "lots of micro". Just like many inches added together will result in miles.
So yes. And yes.
ScientificBob 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
" Is macroevolution observable and testable?"
Yes it is, its science.
Now what are you are arguing for?
A basless belief of ignornat bnronze aged goat hearders, from a story book that contradicts every field fo science.
Now why do you have your basless bleifs, sicne nobody observed it.
But it has been tested and proven false with every test.
gorilla199uncensored 3 days ago
All four limbed mammels evolved from fish. That means that the whale started out as a fish, evolved to live on land, and continued to evolve to go back to the ocean.
TheBradbuzan 6 days ago
@TheBradbuzan Are you serious? That beats Greek mythology and Shintoism for mysticism . One thing a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary creation is a fantastic fairy tale. It probably inspired Harry potter
alexthasy 6 days ago
@alexthasy Alex the liar speaks.... nonsense of course, but he speaks.
ozowen 6 days ago
@alexthasy "That beats Greek mythology and Shintoism for mysticism" Indeed. And the reason it beats those (and all other religious attempts at explaining the world) is because evolution actually has evidence to back it up.
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@TheBradbuzan Evolution is not a fact buddy
Skorm1982 4 days ago
@Skorm1982 Yes it is. The "theory" isn't about whether evolution occurs, we know it occurs. Its just learning the where, when, and how it occurs is the reason we use the word theory. Evolution is universally accepted by every aspect and every discipline in biology because they all confirm it independently. After hundreds of tests done for decades not one test has ever even shaken evolution, they all reinforce it.
ifurhereurpissed 4 days ago
@Skorm1982 yeah, its only a theory, it isnt fact. Its not like einsteins fact of relitivity, or the germ fact of desease, or the electromagnetic fact... Seriously though, how can you possibly just ignore the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the embrionic, geographical and anitomical evidence. The first two gives precise dates for the existance of common ansestors of species and every time they PERFECTLY agree, so does all the other evidence. read a book please
bluexepnos 4 days ago
@bluexepnos
How can he ignore all the evidence you ask? Simple. Because it requires work to understand it but no work at all to dismiss it. He chose the easy way out.
Kindred1a1 3 days ago
@Kindred1a1 "Because it requires work to understand it but no work at all to dismiss it"
So full of win.
+1
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@Skorm1982 Evolution is a fact buddy. Been observed. There is no other explanation for the transitions of the fossil record, it is the only explanation for how genetics works... it's a fact.... buddy.
ozowen 4 days ago
@ozowen its not a fact, if it is then show me the missing links! all of them plz till then its still a theory,you Darwin nut's and religous people dont have proof on ether side
Skorm1982 3 days ago
@Skorm1982
You don't know how to google? Really?
ozowen 3 days ago
@Skorm1982 "show me the missing links! all of them plz "
Show me a picture of your face of EVERY second of your life. If you can't, then aging is "just a theory".
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@TheBradbuzan Several species of turtles even made this trip multiple times. From sea to land, back to sea, back to land, back to sea, back to land, back to sea. :-)
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@PainSurgeon That would be microevolution. Observable and testable.
hisham031170 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"That would be microevolution..."
- microevolution refers to evolution over a relatively small number of generations
- macroevolution refers to evolution over a relatively large number of generations
To microevolution can happen but macroevolution cant is to say you can walk a meter but not a mile; they are the exact same processes over different time periods.
if Microevolution occurs then macroevolution MUST OCCUR provided there is nothing to prevent accumulation of change
types10000 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
PainSurgeon 1 week ago
this is cool. :)
17arcano 1 week ago
they were some weird animals back then.
daryps03 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe as it relates to conscious life can be understood now. It is the ultimate truth; the truth that will lead the next step in our evolution. Google 'Truth Contest' and open the entry called 'The Present' to learn the truth. If this reaches everyone, it will turn this world right side up.
jzs1501 1 week ago
ha
DICKIEMONSTER 1 week ago
They all look so different from each other O_O
TurquoiseTheoryProds 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gazjohnful I m sorry that you feel so bad about the engineering of your body, the working or the dysfunction of your brain and that you would consider yourself only as a monkey that would have grown smart. I guess you really took Rev Dawkins preaching on species not being intelligently designed, programmed and engineered seriously
alexthasy 1 week ago
How come every other mammal, reptile, fish, or amphibian swims with a side-to-side tail motion except for THIS guy? (ok, maybe beavers)
Firesprink72 1 week ago
0:32 Om nom nom
qazwazlaz 1 week ago
I believe in God, but don't associate me with the bible. The subject of God can't be explained by science. Same goes to the singularity before the Big Bang. Stephen Hawkins admitted that science does have limit when he said the law of science breakdown at the singularity therefore it's pointless to think what exists outside the universe. Since God by definition created time and space, He is not bound to the law of science. Arguing what created God is also pointless.
hisham031170 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
" The subject of God can't be explained by science...Same goes to the singularity before the Big Bang."
- no, the singularity is something that we have evidence did exist, also that same evidence indicates there could not have been a 'before'
"Hawkins admitted that science does have limit when he said the law of science breakdown at the singularity"
- incorrect, his statement was in reference CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL laws.
types10000 1 week ago
@hisham031170
"Since God by definition created time and space"
- you cant define something into existence; any claim made without evidence can (and should) be dismissed without evidence
- the fact you've defined your claim in such a way that your UNABLE to provide evidence for it, doesnt change this.
types10000 1 week ago
@hisham031170 Stephen hawkings said there is no god. You might not want to quote him for your example.
Gazjohnful 1 week ago
Comment removed
hisham031170 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gazjohnful Well, many atheists also love to quote Ken Millers for debunking Michael Behe. Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic. You must suggest your atheists friends to stop quoting him too. BTW it's ironic that you like to quote the pope too. LOL
hisham031170 1 week ago
@hisham031170 "the singularity before the Big Bang" There is no 'before' the big bang, just like there is no 'north' of the north pole. Just saying.
"Since God by definition created time and space" By defenition?? And how did you arrive at that definition?
"Arguing what created God is also pointless." Why?
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@Gazjohnful Your attack on @alexthasy was driven by your view that atheism is correct and God is false. You demand a scientific answer from him when you know believing in God is philosophical. Your argument that God exists than it must created, so what created God. So it's fair also to question, beyond our universe, the realm we can never understand, it exists, so how did it come into being? Both demand philosophical, not empirical science.
hisham031170 1 week ago
@hisham031170 Not only have you failed to answer that question as well giving no proof, which I can give you of humans evolved from the same common ancestor as great apes with out undeniably matching dna. You have also failed to notice any of the other questions I asked him un science related. I asked him how our race was conceived from adam and eve's all male children. I asked him why the pope says evolution happened. The difference between me and you is, you have no evidence to back you, i do.
Gazjohnful 1 week ago
@hisham031170 Plus, can you really be backing up that no minded idiocy? Even the pope proves it is possible to believe in science as well as religion. In fact science's PROOF of how the world was created is undeniable, it just pushes so far against your views you refuse to believe it and will attack at all costs. Your telling me the likely hood of a spiritual being creating mass from nothing, is more than it coming from particles, which exist and have been directly paired with earthly creation.
Gazjohnful 1 week ago
@hisham031170 "Both demand philosophical, not empirical science"
Can you name one usefull thing that ever came out of "philosophical science"?
ScientificBob 3 days ago
@ShaneyCunn84 look for them on the internet
xnobody777x 1 week ago
nice Video wheres the fossils?
ShaneyCunn84 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ozowen You are saying nothing. Your Darwinian atheist evolutionary fairytale is a web of lies and deceptions relying 100% on black magic. Natural selection is at the center of your cult circular reasoning. The myth is the revival of ancient goddesses borrowed to pagan mythology. She can be found with the Greek, American Indians and Japanese Shinto mythology
alexthasy 1 week ago
@types10000 Dude, you are funny, testable prediction (hypothesis) is not one form of evidence. It needs evidence to support it. You're correct, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but an unproven one. But sadly it can't be falsified since there's no other options or competing hypothesis. How to falsify the one and only option? Scientists might as well faked experiments like Miller's in desperate attempt to prove abiogenesis.
hisham031170 1 week ago
@types10000 My dishonest answers would be: 1) One day engineers can make a spaceship that can travel infinite distance (or billions light yrs) in short times, 2) use a hubble telescope that can reach infinite distance. Remember, I'm talking about observable evidence, not speculation. My honest answer would be - it's impossible.
hisham031170 1 week ago
@types10000 Who am I to make such a claim? So, when do you think that scientists will know what exists outside the universe?
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"Who am I to make such a claim? So, when do you think that scientists will know what exists outside the universe?"
- not a clue, however to assert that they will never know is a claim that requires evidence.
Also, next time you want a response try using the reply button instead of simply making it look like your replying :)
types10000 2 weeks ago
@types10000 "Not a clue"? LOL
hisham031170 1 week ago
@hisham031170
"'Not a clue'? LOL'"
- that's right, i made intellectually honest statement that 'i do not know whether it will ever be known'
- YOU on otherhand made the baseless assertion that 'it will never be known'
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000 Abiogenesis is the best evidence and testable? Wow, give me an example please.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"Abiogenesis is the best evidence and testable? Wow, give me an example please."
sure:
inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - abenteuer-universum[.]de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi[.]nlm[.]nih.gov/pubmed/909793
ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule) - wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine) - biology-direct[.]com/content/5/1/36
Questions?
types10000 2 weeks ago
@types10000 The fact that you still use Miller-Urey experiment as an evidence is beyond me. Mmm... did they ever produce life? Answer?
hisham031170 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"'The fact that you still use Miller-Urey experiment as an evidence is beyond me. Mmm... did they ever produce life? Answer?"
Allow me to dumb things down for you then:
- Demonstrating the creation of life is not necessary inorder to provide EVIDENCE that it arose via this manner (which testable predictions like the miller urey experiment do just fine)
Testable predictions are one of the best forms of evidence in science.
types10000 1 week ago
@xnobody777x First, I want to emphasize that science is a bigger entreprise. Theory of origins are only small portions of it. Your theory of origins take as much faith as believing in God. Scientists have no clues at all on origins of life and cosmos. The universe is expanding into what? They won't know, ever. We say God always exists and you said the same thing to universe. There's no difference.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
"Your theory of origins take as much faith as believing in God"
- they dont, they have evidence to support them, last time i checked it took less faith to believe in something with evidence than something without it.
"Scientists have no clues at all on origins of life and cosmos"
- no, they have several in terms of the latter abiogenesis is the best well evidenced (as demonstrated by it's testable predictions)
types10000 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170
"The universe is expanding into what? They won't know, ever"
- who are you to say we'll never know?
"We say God always exists and you said the same thing to universe"
- nooooo, you say 'god did it' and the intellectually honest people say 'we dont know what caused it' sometimes followed by the statement 'and we dont have any evidence a god is responsible so we will reject that assertion'
types10000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170 no, evolution does not deal with cosmology and i wish that creationists would take that into their thick skulls. " He did his research extensively, and what did you do? Read articles from desperate evolutionists? Dr Stephen has better credentials than you." well i can't argue with that. i mean, one man (vs. many) says there's no evidence (even though there is and it is available to everyone. plus there's evidence in genetics.) How can anyone compete!?
xnobody777x 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170 wasn't stephen jay gould an evolutionary biologist? when did he say that?
xnobody777x 2 weeks ago
@xnobody777x "We have evidence in the fossil records" Well Dr Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist) said otherwise. He did his research extensively, and what did you do? Read articles from desperate evolutionists? Dr Stephen has better credentials than you. You need to get your fact straight dude.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
People who believe in evolution lack critical thinking. Only very brave scientists can come out of closet and admit the absurdity in Darwinian evolution, or else they risk their careers. So I don't blame them because if I am one also, I'll do the same thing.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
If a stupid ass believes in theory of evolution, does that make him clever? LOL fail.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
@MrGralgrathor It's a typical tactics of athiests like you to call us creationists stupid, delusional, etc. But you must know that there are many scientists who believe in God and certainly 1000X cleverer than you. Have it your way I don't care.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170
"But you must know that there are many scientists who believe in God and certainly 1000X cleverer than you."
Good argument!
So lets get the facts straight and compare them :)
As education level/IQ increases belief in god decreases.
You will find most fundies are not very intelligent, you will find very few fundies have PhDs!
So its not a good argument you made.
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170 It's typical of creationists like you to criticize the theory of evolution without even understanding it. If you really believe that a supernatural being created us then idk.
xnobody777x 2 weeks ago
Although I don't believe in macroevolution (Darwinian evolution), I respect the honesty of Ken Miller for recognizing the limit of naturalism and the presence of the higher power.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hisham031170
« macroevolution (Darwinian evolution) »
Micro-evolution is just as much Darwinian evolution as is macro-evolution.
Of course, despite the fact that you don't believe in it, speciation *is* observed. You might do well to redefine your terms or rephrase your objection.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170
"macroevolution (Darwinian evolution),"
What do youmena by macroevolution?
What ever definition you use that is only a tiny part of what Darwin explained.
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@Rhinogradentian No tangible evidence for supernatural? Why don't you tell this to Dr. Kenneth Miller.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170
« No tangible evidence for supernatural? Why don't you tell this to Dr. Kenneth Miller. »
Miller *acknowledges* that there is no tangible evidence for the supernatural. The fact that he believes in it despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest so indicates that his belief is not evidence-based, but faith-based.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
Fantastic computer animation, I commend you on your skill at creating cartoons, however, you failed to site the "Scientific Processes" used to verify this fairytail..In simple terms did you come to this conclusion by testing or observing these assumptions or is it out of your very fertile immagination?
usmclukie 2 weeks ago
@usmclukie I happen to know the artist who drew these pictures that the animation is based on, maybe you would like to ask him? No? I didnt think so...
Rhinogradentian 2 weeks ago
@Rhinogradentian yea, I would ask him did he personally witness this example of "macro-evolution" himself, or did he as I stated before conjur this fantstic illistration in his own creative imagination? Only because I though real science demonstrates facts from testing and observing..Where do you stand on this issue my friend? Do you stand with science or fairytail, this clearly isn't science..
usmclukie 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@usmclukie
" I would ask him did he personally witness this example of "macro-evolution" himself"
Creatard, you havent witnessed your god do anything so please stop pretending it exists! Using your own logic!
"Only because I though real science demonstrates facts from testing and observing"
Yes it does!
The tested the Human and chimp DNA
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY OBSERVED? google it you ignorant fool!
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
@usmclukie we have evidence in the fossil record.
xnobody777x 2 weeks ago
@usmclukie You clearly know nothing about how science works, you are just a creationist bible-troll who takes any opportunity to insult proper scientists. The fossils that the illustrations were based on contain all of the physical features you witness in this animation, the artist observed the anatomy to his best ability, only crackpots think that primitive whales were adapted for land, enjoy your life, sheeple.
Rhinogradentian 2 weeks ago
@Rhinogradentian How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring when it was living, let alone offspring of another kind? The only thing you or anyone can prove from science regarding a fossil or any dug up set of bones is that something died.. Where you ppl go from science to fairytail is when you ppl assume, thats all this cartoon does is assume..Evolution (with the exception of micro-evolution "variations of kinds") is your religion. You're welcome to that, but it isn't science.
usmclukie 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@usmclukie
« How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring »
It doesn't matter. That's not part of the definition of 'transitional fossil'. The definition of a transitional fossil is that it should be a morphological intermediate. The hypothesis of common descent predicts that there should be morphological intermediates, in extant biology and in the fossil record. And there are.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@usmclukie It's like arguing with a brick wall...I give up.
Rhinogradentian 2 weeks ago
@usmclukie
"How does a fossil prove that it even produced offspring "
- it doesnt (it's not meant to); a fossil is a representative of a population of organisms that existed at one point in time.
- the relatedness of these fossil forms to modern organisms can be established through the same use of comparative anatomy that establishes the relatedness between modern subspecies.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000 Have you ever unbiasly seen a fossil and not recognizing it to be one tht is still living today and concluded it may very well be merely an exstint organism without being a link that propells your biased pre-conceived notion in evolution? You ppl always begin with it must be an EVOLUTIONRY process prior to other possible anticdotes of origin..
usmclukie 1 week ago
Comment removed
types10000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Have you ever unbiasly seen a fossil and not recognizing it to be one tht is still living today and concluded it may very well be merely an exstint"
- please rephrase this using actual words.
"You ppl always begin with it must be an EVOLUTIONRY process prior to..."
- we begin it like that because that's the explanation that's currently the best and most well evidenced. Likewise when we examine physical objects we usually start with the premise they are subject to gravity
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"another kind?"
- the word 'kind' has no meaning in terms of biology, it's used by creationists to assert a genetic barrier that does not exist.
Under evolutionary theory things happen gradually so gradually infact that any given generation is virtually indistinguishable from the one that preceded it (aside from a few small mutations).
Labels like reptile and bird, are imposed artificially by humans based on established characteristics (after the intermediates die off)
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"The only thing you or anyone can prove from science regarding a fossil or any dug up set of bones is that something died"
- incorrect, i already pointed-out how comparative anatomy can be used to establish relatedness.
if we found the bones of a dead possum do you seriously think we wouldnt be able to identify it was a possum (or a mammal .etc) ???
"Evolution (with the exception of micro-evolution" - Micro and macro are the same processes over different time periods!
types10000 1 week ago
Comment removed
usmclukie 1 week ago
@types10000 if someone believes in something without SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES being utilized and recorded, there is no way legitmately claiming it as fact..Precisely why it still to this day is still refered to as a "THEORY"..You believe in evolution on assumption only..No different than those who believe in religion...You have no proof, your religion is called Evolution.You're entitled to your faith, but don't call it science, call it your "fairytail"
usmclukie 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"if someone believes in something without SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES being utilized and recorded, there is no way legitmately claiming it as fact"
- evolution DOES utilize scientific processes, hence why it is a scientific theory
"Precisely why it still to this day is still refered to as a "THEORY"."
- Incorrect, 'theory' is the HIGHEST level of scientific evidentiary support (atomic theory, the theory of gravity, theory of relativity .etc)
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"evolution on assumption"
- incorrect i accept it based on the evidence just like for gravity (which happens to occupy the same level of scientific support)
"No different than those who believe in religion"
- incorrect, my acceptance of evolution is based on scientific evidence, religion is based on faith (belief without evidence). they could not be more opposite.
"You have no proof"
- have as much 'proof' as for gravity, nuclear fusion and tectonic plates
Try again.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000 No one has ever proved"MACRO-EVOLUTION"ever happened.No human ever scientificaly tested or observed one kind of animal transforn into another.Dogs have and always will produce dogs and their kind..wolves,foxes etc. Micro evolution has been proven scientificly.However,you ppl muddy the water with these terms.It's dishonest and destructive to the truth.Micro evolution is merely changes(VARIATIONS)in kinds.horizonal variations.Show evidence of Macro evolution with living creatures today
usmclukie 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"No one has ever proved 'MACRO-EVOLUTION' ever happened."
Macroevolution and microevolution are the same processes over different time periods:
- Macroevolution = relatively large number of generations
- Microevolution = relatively small number of generations
Unless you can provide a mechanism to prevent the accumulation of change (and none have been presented) then macroevolution logically necesitates microevolution.
So yes it has been 'proved'
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"scientificaly tested or observed one kind of animal"
-the word 'kind' has no meaning in biology, it's used by the religious to assert a genetic barrier that does not exist.
"Dogs have and always will produce dogs"
-the word 'dog' is a colloquial reference to a taxonomic classification IMPOSED ON NATURE BY HUMANS, evolution dosent predict things to evolve out of a classification.
I'll demonstrate:
- What level of mutation would constitute calling it something other than a dog?
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"Micro evolution has been proven "
- to say microevolution happens and macroevolution doesnt is to say you can walk a meter but not a mile. ie. The accumulation of microevolutionary change = MACROEVOLUTION.
there is no difference between them besides time for accumulation of traits.
types10000 1 week ago
@types10000 yes more time than the earth existed do
ShaneyCunn84 1 week ago
@ShaneyCunn84
"yes more time than the earth existed do"
- no, not at all.
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
"Show evidence of Macro evolution with living creatures today"
- that would be difficult considering you have no clue what macroevolution is.
Q: if a dog gradually evolved (through stepwise mutation) structures resembling those of flippers and a dragon tail at what point would we stop calling it a dog?
A: You infact would never be able to stop calling it dog unless you arbitrarily invented a new classification BECAUSE THE WORD DOG IS JUST A CLASSIFICATION
types10000 1 week ago
@usmclukie
Evolutionary Population example:
A segment of PopA gain some mutations, we call this PopB.
PopB expands.
A segment of PopB gain some mutations we call this PopC.
PopC expands.
A segment of PopC gain some mutations we call this PopD.
- Over time PopB and PopC become extinct.
- Humans come along and decide to call 'PopA reptiles and PopD mammals'.
- Dumbass creationists come along and say 'DERP they're different kinds'
types10000 1 week ago
Eternal flame is a nice song.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
@alexthasy +1
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
@hisham031170 -2
thetruth34o9 2 weeks ago
you are what you eat XD
but anyway, what whale was that?
theBEARDEDcanuck 2 weeks ago
I believe narwhal evolved from the unicorn.
hisham031170 2 weeks ago
yep a big fat rat went for fish and ended up beeing the biggest fish of em all...
thesoftish 2 weeks ago
@thesoftish that is evolution and it has been proven, dumb shit. go back to sucking jesus' lil dick.
riskoish 2 weeks ago
@riskoish hahahah wtf is wrong with you dude? You is one dumbass.
thesoftish 2 weeks ago
@riskoish That fairytale of land mammals magically and atheistically altering organs and limbs while evolving into whale upon crossing millions of years and numerous species provides a good laugh if nothing else. It is Harry Potter witchcraft magic at its best. You guys calling that bull crap science makes it even funnier
alexthasy 2 weeks ago
@alexthasy funny you say that...considering your a fucking christian that believes a big man in the sky will banish you into eternal flames if you dont follow his rules. keep living in fear you ignorant fuck
thetruth34o9 2 weeks ago
@thetruth34o9 I am not living in fear and I do not mind dying not believing in an atheistic Darwinian evolutionary fairy tale.
alexthasy 2 weeks ago
@alexthasy says the one who believes in angels
doomfrost7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy TROLL!
srexob715 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srexob715 @majoratheist You should revert to your TROLL STALKER name Majoratheist since the only reason you believe in a voodoo Darwinian evolution is to secure your fate in the finality of death. The witchcraft voodoo that took billions of years and led by your goddess of natural selection was awesome. Next time you talk to her, tell her she did a great job on peacocks and honeybees. Enjoy your stalking and your delusion.
alexthasy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetruth34o9 He's just trolling you. I wouldn't waste my time on people that prefer to act dumb, when they could act smart.
srexob715 2 weeks ago
@alexthasy So god spouting magic words and creating animals from dirt is not magic? Geeze man, get some perspective.
Rhinogradentian 2 weeks ago
@Rhinogradentian God creating the species is a miracle, Species self-creating under a voodoo magic atheistic evolutionary process is Harry Potter like witchcraft
alexthasy 2 weeks ago
@alexthasy There is no tangible evidence for the supernatural. Evolution occurs no matter if we accept it or not, enjoy your blind, sheeplike existence...
Rhinogradentian 2 weeks ago 7
@Rhinogradentian If a Darwinian atheistic evolution were behind the creation of the species it would have to have relied on witchcraft magic. Atheism has no provision for causality and there is 0% probability and no reason for an atheistic evolutionary process to have led to the creation of exquisitely designed, programmed and engineered species. Enjoy your atheistic fairytale and the delusion attached to it.
alexthasy 1 week ago
@Rhinogradentian God creating the species is a miracle. The myth of natural selection creating the species through a voodoo evolutionary process in which species would have been adding or altering organs and limbs while atheistically evolving into something else is the same type of witchcraft magic that inspired Harry Potter
alexthasy 1 week ago
@alexthasy, You're confusing Darwinism with Pokemon. You call evolution magic? Scroll up and read my other post. It has 2 thumbs up.
MrSmith2100 1 week ago
@alexthasy
Hi alex. re[peating the same drivel whioch is born in your lack of understanding of evolution is an argument from incredulity. A logical fallacy. This foolishness can be discounted and NO ONE NEEDS TO ADDRESS IT. IT'S ILLOGICAL!
Do you have some more lies as well aled-liar?
ozowen 1 week ago
@ozowen You keep repeating the same accusation and using the same slandering against my character. Your dumb cult cannot be defended so you are using cheap personal attacks against those exposing its logical fallacies and circular reasoning
alexthasy 1 week ago
@alexthasy, People who believe in evolution are sinners? And God inspired Darwin with Evolution? Looks like this "God" is the one who makes people sin. What's that noise? Oh, it's your skin, getting a buuuuuuuuuuurn!
MrSmith2100 1 week ago
@alexthasy
LOL
Circular reasoning? Another lie! Brilliant. Not only have you no idea what circular reasoning is (you always always fail at getting that right) you usually use circular reasoning to make your case, demonstrating your idiocy. But, this has been pointed out to you many, many times. Repeating it is a lie.
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Why do you hate God so much snake features? Why do you defile truth regularly weasel sputum? Why do you have no integrity?
ozowen 1 week ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 1 week ago
@alexthasy, I love the way you are so full of shit! :)
MrSmith2100 1 week ago
@alexthasy Prove the circular reasoning mate. Prove that I am a liar. Feel free, should be a good laugh.
Face it alex, you can't so all you have is empty lies and an empty head.
ozowen 1 week ago
@ozowen The circular reasoning is obvious since a Darwinian Natural Selection Darwin pretends is responsible for the creation of the species through a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary process is a myth
alexthasy 1 week ago
@alexthasy So obvious you can't describe it? LOL
ozowen 1 week ago