Just to clarify, are you saying that Pegasi *cannot* evolve, or that they could, but it would take longer than stories say and involve more changes than just a horse sprouting wings?
@ctraver I believe he was saying that they're so improbable so as to be effectively impossible. It's extremely unlikely (bordering on impossible) for a large animal with 4 limbs to somehow sprout an extra set of limbs on it's back as a result of a series of small mutations, each of which must be beneficial. If you add on to that the chance that the wings would be bird wings, the chance goes down even further. It would be like 2 authors coincidentally writing the exact same book, word for word.
Actually, each mutation doesn't have to be beneficial. It's entire possible for complete nonsense mutations to be carried along as long as they don't actually hinder the ability of the species to reproduce (just take blue eyes as an example).
@narutofan9999 True, for individual mutations. But for the type of large-scale change required for something like Pegasi to evolve, it's essentially impossible for multiple mutations to accumulate in a certain direction (IE sprouting a new set of limbs) without some kind of selective pressure for each one. I guess I could clarify my original statement by saying "..each of which must be beneficial, or else the chance that they'd accumulate in a given direction would be effectively zero."
Is that so? Not that I particularily disagree, but I'm thinking like "how did the first limbs evolve then anyways?" I find it hard to imagine that the first primitive forms were of any great advantage. Then again, my knowledge on the subject is, eh, rather limited.
@narutofan9999 I'm no expert either, but just thinking about it, the simplest fins are very simple compared to the arms/legs they evolved into. They're just bits of flesh jutting out, and I could easily imagine how this could give a slight advantage to the earliest ocean animals. 1% more aerodynamic > 0% more aerodynamic.
AronRa, you are my favorite. There are many atheists doing great work, today, and I follow as many as possible, trying to learn and add to the support of truth, and of them all, you are my favorite. You present science to the general public at a level of detail I see nowhere else, while making it visually and verbally understandable, even if just on the surface, to anyone with a mind open to learning. Thank you for your strong work.
It's cool that it was mentioned that chickens have scales on their feet. I own a few faverolle chickens, and one of them has deformed feet. Basically her toes never fully separated in their development giving her webbed feet!
It's funny you used the races from Star Trek. In 1-2 episodes of The Next Generation, it turns out that all of the humanoid species were "designed" by a basal form to all of them. It makes no sense at all, but I'm just saying
@bzeljn "In 1-2 episodes of The Next Generation, it turns out that all of the humanoid species were "designed" by a basal form to all of them"
Sorry but your memory failed you a bit. It was discovered that the biological seeds of the humanoid species were spread throughout the Alpha Quadrant by a long deceased species. Which explains the biological differences as the different species adapted to different planetary environments.
@thomaseshuis But that still doesn't make sense because the "seed" would have been present in earliest life, and would not have led to bipedal, intelligent and reproductively compatible species in different solar systems. Mathematically random mutation (which is a fact) would be less likely to do that than a thousand people winning with the same lottery numbers each consecutive week.
@blackwolf1200 "But that still doesn't make sense because the "seed" would have been present in earliest life, and would not have led to bipedal, intelligent and reproductively compatible species in different solar systems" It would have if that 'seed' had bipedal humanoid 'information'. Even if it did not, bipedal humanoids still could have evolved that way due to the environment of the planets.
@blackwolf1200 "Mathematically random mutation (which is a fact)" Except evolution isn't based solely on random mutation, it is also based on environmental survival.
@thomaseshuis Yes, but natural selection can't make the mutations themselves any less random. I'm not disputing evolution, just saying that it can't lead from a single-celled common ancestor to compatible humanoids on different planets.
@thomaseshuis yeah, it was the same comment but I corrected a typo after it was posted. I do that often :) I don't like to see my posts up with certain mistakes :)
Nicely done, especially when looking towards a future; how concept cannot be denied and misinformed as some taxonomy that does not exist, except in the bad interpretations of a few who want power kept, and shows mis-arrays to/and of anti-matter of black energy. We seldom see the reasons behind people, to which I like to point out!
I'm not sure if it's true when you say that evolution could not produce a hexipodal mammal.
The limbs would be different than most existing limbs. But consider the... I think it's the spider monkey? It has a tail capable of serving much the same purpose as it's other limbs: that is, grasping and hanging.
As such, depending on what your definition of "limb" is, a spider monkey could now, or, if not now, perhaps sometime in the future, be considered a pentapodal mammal.
@Clawdragoons Which, if true, would show that animals are not limited in the number of limbs they possess.
Furthermore, there is no barrier I know of in evolution to structures that could be considered limbs developing from other extant structures, were there the right selective pressures to form them.
The problem as I see it isn't that animals couldn't develop more limbs, it's that under most circumstances, selective pressures will favor modification of existing limbs over new ones.
A single duplication mutation to the homeobox genes might cause hexapodality. Instead of reading say "head, neck, arms, torso, waist, hips, thighs" the gene could be duplicated and leave it with "head, neck, arms, arms, torso, waist, hips, thighs" or "head, neck, arms, torso, arms, waist, hips, thighs" or something of that nature.
We already know extra, and functional, copies of organs as complex as eyes can be duplicated by homeobox mutations in fruit flies.
Actually, there are a few eps in Star Trek that explain that there was an old species that contributed genetic material to all. In Doctor Who, you have the morphic field, which explains that since Time Lord were the first species to evolve, they were basically the template for all the consequent species in the universe. Of course, these are all sci-fi, still, fun!
perfect explanation of why UFOnianity is a remake update of the guilty conscience monotheistic missionary dominant imperial colonial desertbaked brainigions try to overshadow (overdonderen = dutch) out shout and outmanouver as well as carry out and on hiding in plain site ... (almost wrote Palin sight)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
and every time we find something that does not fit your phalogenetic tree, you will simply call it ´´convergent evolution´´
according to your dogma, same structures and even same genes can evolve twice, so any time you can not explain similarities with common ancestry, you can always use convergent evolution to explain it. therefore the phylogeny argument is unfalsifiable.
@Answerquestions1 As I just explained, the same genes can NOT evolve twice, nor can the same structures if they're highly complex. Skulls that are already of similar shape will vary in many ways, and can even be the same shape if they adapted to the same job. This isn't hard to understand unless you're trying hard not to understand it.
´´As I just explained, the same genes can NOT evolve twice, ´´
If that where true, evolution would have been falsified long ago. one example is the sonar in bats and dolphins, we are taking about the same system, and same genes that according to evolutionists evolve twice independently.
@Answerquestions1 The Sonar used by bats is quite different to that used by Whales and Dolphins. One being for use in air and the other under water. They are NOT using the SAME genes otherwise they'd be every similar species. It's called convergent evolution where to species gain similar traits. You are close about it being as complex as sight. You do know sight has evolved more than once though. e.g Arthropods and Vertebrates.
@Gibbons3457 ´´The Sonar used by bats is quite different to that used by Whales and Dolphin... They are NOT using the SAME genes ´´
yes they are usining the same genes, tht is the whole point of my arguemnt. if your theory does not match the facts then change to an other theory.
so if the fact that bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes) did not falsified evolution, then why would things be different with a mammal with feathers?
@Answerquestions1 "yes they are usining the same genes" Just because you say they are doesn't mean your right by default. Baseless assertions like this are common from people like you.
As many people have already now explained there are many differences between bats and dolphins use of echo location. the main difference being one is used in water the other in air. It has also been pointed out that even different bats have different echo location methods. You are wrong, now correct yourself.
@Answerquestions1 " just because my argument contradicts your dogma, does not mean that I am wrong. facts are facts" Speak for yourself. I, nor do most other rationalists dogmatically pursue Evolutionary science. Talk about hypocrisy, you a religitard creationist telling someone who accepts scientific studies and explanations of the natural world not to be dogmatic. Practice what you preach and GO LEARN SOME SCIENCE. Have a nice day.
@Answerquestions1 "yes that is what makes the argument more interesting some bats seem more related to dolphins than to other bats." You just aren't getting it. All echo location is, is, the ability to locate where a sound is coming from, the next step is being able to create a sound which is easily echoed, even humans can do this to an extent we just haven't had to develop it any further. BOTH Bats and Dolphins live in environments where echo location is EVERY...
in this particular case, bats and dolphins share the same ´´sonar genes ´´ so ether same genes can evolve twice (and therefore phylogeny is unfalsifiable) or evolution has been falsified because there is no other way to explain the fact that bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes)
@AQ1 - "bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes)"
You really are prone to overstatement AQ. Same "system" is a huge claim and it's also false. Not only are the systems different between each, they are also different amongst themselves ie:different bats have different "systems".
I know where you are getting this story from and I want you to know that, once again the creationist overlords have lead you astray. I don't want to make a career out of correcting you, but..
There are likely to be 100's of genes involved in echolocation. This story line centers around the 'Prestin" gene. On this point you are almost correct, bats and dolphins DO both have the gene. Hurrah! God is Real! But wait a minute, lets not jump to conclusions, because dear fellow YOU also have this gene, in fact so do all mammals. The gene did not evolve twice, as AronRa noted. The truth is that all mammals inherited it from a common ancestor.
The prestin gene produces a protein which changes shape when subjected to sound,making it essential to our mammalian hearing systems. The gene itself is not the same across species. Mutations are responsible for tuning the protein to different frequencies. We humans are sensitive to a certain range, and echolocators are sensitive to higher ranges. The range amongst bats vary widely, some echos are even audible to our own ears and some blind humans can crudely mimic these bats.
In 2010 Yang Liu, etc, published papers exploring the evolutionary pathways of various prestin genes. The interesting point is not that they have the same gene, that's to be expected because they are mammals, rather it's that some 25 amino acid mutations are shared among whales and bats.
What you are trying to say is that this disproves convergence, it doesn't, Liu concludes (and supports in his paper which I've read) that this displays convergence at the molecular level.
the point is that if you make a phalogenetic tree using perstin, you will have a different phalogenetic tree than the one predicted by evolution. the idea of homology is a myth it all depends in what are you looking at. we don´t see homology we see exactly what arona said that we most find if ID where true.
@Answerquestions1 *VERY, ...useful. Now as I've said before there echo location abilities are different for one very simple reason WATER AND AIR ARE DIFFERENT.
Remember Eyes evolved 9 times I think over the cause of history, are you going to say that this also disproves evolution. The point is it doesn't require much to acquire echo location, however something as complex as feathers, whilst it might be possible for a similar structure to evolve, feathers themselves cannot evolve twice.
you can twists the information 100 times if you what, but facts are facts and in this case facts are very simple, if you drew a family tree using perstine, based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.
@Answerquestions1 I'm twisting no facts. I'm telling you what is actually known to be true. However I'll have you know that everything you've said so far is wrong. PERIOD. This is no point of view issue. All whales that I am aware of use some kind of echo location, however the toothed whales are the ones who use actual echo location or (biosonar) But yet again bats don't use the same system as toothed whales use (other than it's function) Air isn't water how can they be the same? Explain that?
ok, just to clear things, ¿ do you accept the fact that if we draw a phalogenetic tree using perstine, bats will look more closely related to whales, than to other species of bats?
@Answerquestions1 No, because all bats are more closely related to each other EVEN if you only look at their use of perstine and then you will see that that is more closely related to insectivores use of perstine. For the very last time. Whales and Dolphins use perstine in a different way to bats. Period.
if you draw a familly tree using perstine (using evolutionary assumptions) some bats will ´´look´´ more closely related to whales, than to other species of bats, THIS IS A FACT, it is not my interpretation it is not my opinion it is a fact that has been confirmed.
´´ For the very last time. Whales and Dolphins use perstine in a different way to bats´´
it is the same gene and the same protein, wather if they use it in a different way or not is irrelevant.
@Answerquestions1 Repeating the same thing doesn't make it right or fact. You are wrong in your assumptions that by looking at just one gene some bats look more closely related to whales than other bats. You are chatting bullshit. Yes they both have and use a particular protein but so does every other mammal. The genes that control the protein are different because of the very different environments these species live in. You are arguing from ignorance. Go do some actual research.
´´Yes they both have and use a particular protein but so does every other mammal´´
yes, that is true, but the point is: if you compare perstine (simalrities and differences) you will find out that differences between bats´ and whales´ are smaller than perstine between different species of bats. this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me.
so instead of denying a confirmed fact, you should explain how can evolution explain this fact.
@Answerquestions1 Oh and your second point, which seems to be a thinly veiled "common design common designer" argument, go to Brettppalmer's channel and watch his video debunking that claim.
In short the argument goes like this. The same designer can do different things and different designers can do similar things there is no way of telling how many designers there might be for any given thing.
@Answerquestions1 "this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me." How about you provide me the source of your claim. That way I'll be better informed on your "argument".
@DaToNyOyO You know what. I hadn't noticed. XD You are right it does speak volumes. Nice challenge by the way, wish I'd have thought of it when I was partaking in that particular discussion.
I just figured, since he's so sure he has a deal-breaker, he shouldn't be selfish and keep it to himself. I mean, if you want to play the science game that's fine, but you have to actually *play* the science game and not just whine about stuff on YouTube.
I'm sure we'd all like to find the truth, right? So if he's right he stands as much chance as the next guy. If he's right..
@Answerquestions1 "I, did´t mark your comment as spam" No one never claimed you did. We just commented that it speaks volumes that a comment asking a creationst for a source got marked as spam. Oh and are you going to take up @DaToNyOyO 's challenge to get this "argument against evolution" published, or have you finally understood the article you butchered to make it actually explains why your particular argument fails at its first principle?
1) Arona, claimed that one gene can not evolve twice, (meaning that common genes can only be explained by common descend) I simply refuted aronas original claim.
2) I never claimed that this article falsifies evolution, my position is that evolution is unfalsifiale,
3) the authors of the articles simply provided a hypothesis to explain this gene discondance, (that hypothesis has never been proven)
´´The genes that control the protein are different because of the very different environments ´´
so what? if ecolocation using perstine works fine both in water and air, why wouln´t a designer use the same design in whales and bats? for example gasoline works fine in both airplains and cars so why wouldn´t designers use gasoline in both machines?
the fact that whales and bats live in a differen enviroment is only a problem if you believe in evolution
@Answerquestions1 "if ecolocation using perstine works fine both in water and air," It doesn't. It is used differently. that's the point. Both animals have and use it that part is correct however the way in which they is it is different. That's it. End of.
´´Both animals have and use it that part is correct however the way in which they is it is different. That's it. End of. ´´
well I don´t know if that is true or not, but that is irrelevant, weather if bats and whales use the protein in a different way or not does not change the fact that if you draw a famly tree bats will look more closely related to whales than to other species of bats.
@Answerquestions1 that both toothed whales and bats need it for. (picking up low frequency noises) IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT EVOLUTION IN ANY WAY. So get your facts straight before you go around firing them out of your butt. Being ignorant of the facts is ok, but ignoring the facts when you have them is called lying. You could have read on and finished reading the WHOLE article, you didn't and so lied about what it actually concluded.
What was that commandment again? You know the 9th one.
well according to the author of this video a non homologous gene (like perstine) would contradict evolution, i simply answered to the challenge. that does not make me a lier, and I am especting an appology from you.
@Answerquestions1You are cherry picking an article which answers your questions and refutes ALL of your claims. You had access to this article and yet you chose to ignore all the explanations that contradict your argument, you had the option, you deliberately chose to leave these bits out. You lied about what the article concludes. You tried to make it out that this finding contradicted evolution, the article explains why it doesn't. So... no apology.
No, I never talked about the conclutions of the article, conclutions are interpretations (opinions) I have been taking about the FACTS like the fact that persitne is not an homologous protein.
you just don´t get it, This argument (about perstine) only applies for those who claim that an non homologous gene would falsify evolution. there are many evolutionists, like arona. who claim that non hologous genes would falsify evolution.
@Answerquestions1 " Your very argument has already being debunked by the very source you are using. Perstin is the ONLY protein that can be used by mammals to control the hairs which detect sounds and so the fact that two animals both of which use echo location have got similar mutations to prestin to solve the same problem as not a very big stretch. Oh and prestin is in ALL mammals. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying since both bats and birds have wings then evolution is wrong.
so explain ¿how van the theory of evolution explain the fact that perstine in so similar in distant species like bats and whales, but so different in amoung closely related mammals?
@Answerquestions1 It isn't. It's use is similar in ALL mammals it's what it's how it's used in conjunction with other things which makes ignoramuses like you so confused.
Oh and once more. where are your sources for this claim that "this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me." Where are these papers. Show me them and then maybe you'll actually have the beginnings of an argument. Until then you are simply asserting your ignorant opinion as true.
@Answerquestions1 Oh you do make me laugh. How much of this did you read, because it goes on to explain almost exactly what I said. Yes I got a few things wrong I'll admit that, however what you are arguing is refuted (indirectly) in the same article.
Hint: Read the section below the phylogeny picture. It explains it all. Have fun learning.
but at the end of the day, I was right and you where wrong, perstine is not an homologous protein and does not match evolutionary predictions about phylogeny. according to this video fiding an non homologous gene would falsify evolution. so ether evolution has been falsified or evolution is unfalsifiable.
@Answerquestions1 "but at the end of the day, I was right and you where wrong" Wrong. I was wrong and you are wrong in every way. Heres what the article you are using ACTUALLY says (shortened): If you were to just look at perstin then it would appear that toothed whales and same bats were more closely related to each other than toothed whales are to other whales and bat to mega bats. HOWEVER it appears that perstin is the only protein which ALL mammals have which can be used for the function...
´´HOWEVER it appears that perstin is the only protein which ALL mammals have which can be used for the function...´´
which makes the theory of evolution (at least the argument form phaylogeny) unfalsifiable. the argument from homology is simply not true and evolutionists should not use that argument.
´´ Air isn't water how can they be the same? Explain that?´´
I don´t know, ¿why would the exact same random mutations occured in two independent species that liv in a different enviroment and have different selective preassure? you are the one who is suppose to give an answer.
@Answerquestions1 Yet again. THEY AREN'T the same. They are using slightly different methods, because of the very different ways in which they have evolved. More over, they aren't the exact same mutations. That's the point. They are just similar.
´´ More over, they aren't the exact same mutations. That's the point. They are just similar.´´
once again, If you draw a tree using perstine (comparing differences and similarities) bats will look more closely related to whales than to other species of bats.
@Answerquestions1 Then write a scientific paper on it, demonstrating your evidence and predictions and get it peer reviewed and published. If it's falsifiable and true, it will either amend or overturn evolutionary theory.
But neither you, nor any ID pseudo-scientist, will do that because you know you will fail when it is demonstrated how utterly wrong you are.
Now go on, cry "foul play" and claim there's a worldwide scientific conspiracy to hide the truth; managed no doubt by "satan".
As was already demonstrated to you; you are wrong or a liar. That is not what that paper shows. They share a common gene, that is used in a similar way. A gene shared across ALL mammals.
@Answerquestions1 "if you do reaserch you will find that creationists have real reasons for rejecting evolution"
They have ONE reason and it's called religion. If they weren't religious, these people wouldn't devote their pathetic lives to finding easily debunked arguments against evolution.
if we draw a familly tree using perstine, bats would be more closely related to whales and dophins, than to other species of bats, this opposes what we would expect if evolution where true, since acording to evolution all bats are close relatives, and doplhins are far relatives.
@Answerquestions1 Except that isn't what would happen because the use of perstine is not the only thing you would use, you couldn't construct a phylogenetic tree using just prestine. Even if you did it would have to take into account ALL species we have the genetics for and even that (as I am aware) would show the every real differences there are between whales and Bats. I find it funny how I already covered this and yet you still post a comment as ridiculous as this.
@Gibbons3457 I think the consensus may have shifted slightly concerning the eye. In that biologists now think the evidence points to all eyes sharing common genetic markers in DNA. Thus all forms of eye are derived from one ancestral template.
@Answerquestions1 "the point is that if you make a phalogenetic tree using perstin, you will have a different phalogenetic tree than the one predicted by evolution." WRONG AGAIN! And here's why: To construct a phylogenetic tree you use MULTIPLE methods, comparative morphology, genetic markers etc.You can then use that to trace the use of perstin by animals (not the other way around.)
There is only one actual phylogenetic tree and it explains the very real links every species has with
You do not accept this, but it's really not so extraordinary. It simply shows that there are a finite number of pathways towards tuning the prestin gene to the unique frequencies needed amongst echolocators. Like a tuning fork which must be a certain shape to resonate, so too is the prestin protein constrained. If evolution only has one pathway it will take it, THAT'S convergence.
I'm by no means an expert on genes and I'm only speaking as a layman. If there are any geneticists out there who want to correct or add to this, please do. I happen to know a geneticist and I'll be risking his wrath by asking him yet another series of questions inspired by this creationist special pleading.
Anyway AQ, reply if you will but I won't be responding to you anymore. I think we've gone back and forth enough for my taste. So on that note, adieu.
@AronRa Although Hitler commissioned the volkswagen to be built, it was designed by the man he ordered to build it, Ferdinand Porsche. If the new beetle were designed by the good doctor, i dare say it wouldn't have been so shitty.
Hi. I talked to you on your newest video about the marsupial wolf. But this video made evolution even worse to me. You said the feather is far too complex to have evolved twice, but then the same could be said of the marsupial wolf. Why can the skull of the marsupial wolf evolve EXACTLY the same as a real wolf in the skull, but feathers couldn't evolve EXACTLY the same twice? Both are complex.
@HonestforJesus Hey, funny, I came in to look at this video too and saw your comment. I'm the one that replied to you that the wolf skull is not exactly the same as the marsupial wolf skull.
@danoso0931 I didn't see it but its okay. I was shown a picture of the skulls side by side and they were more different than I remember, soi guess I was wrong.
@HonestforJesus Oh ok. The point is, the thylacine (tasmanian wolf) skull has an orifice at the top of the palate.. unlike that of a wolf's, nut exactly like that of every other marsupial. And that is the key... all marsupials share a skull feature, and even thou the thylacine evolved to look very much like a wolf, it still betrays its marsupial roots. There is no way to shed all of your inheritance. The same with the marsupial mole and shrews
@HonestforJesus Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. The skulls of Carnivores and Thylocenes are already quite similar because they started out quite similar. Compare the skulls of shrews and opossums. The only convergence we're talking about here is one of general shape and that's effectively it. They're remarkably similar, yes, just like ichthyosaurs and sharks are similar in the same way -and for the same reason.
´´Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. ´´ can you please provide a metric? can you plese tell us (creationists) how can we know if something if complex enough so that it can not evolve twice independently.
¿what about sonar in bats and dolphins? why did sonar evolved twice (same genes) and feathers can´t, ¿are feathers more complex that the sonar system?
if we find a mammal with feathers you will ether call it convergent evolution, or you will simply change the phalogenetic tree, as has happened before, it all depneds of what is more conviniant to your theory, I am sorry to tell you that this is not how science works, that is how religion works, that is why we keap saying that evolution is a religion
if we find a mammal with feathers you will ether call it convergent evolution, or you will simply change the phalogenetic tree, as has happened before, it all depneds of what is more conviniant to your theory, I am sorry to tell you that this is not how science works, that is how religion works, that is why we keap saying that evolution is a religion
@Answerquestions1 That is a super good point. And speaking of good points....all this construction...dinosaurs all that...6000 years then? I definitely don't agree with your "convergent" comment. It should be very obvious that the science involved makes sense and that knowledge is cumulative to make things fit and not contrived to make things fit...c'mon man...DNA, cures for diseases, splitting the atom...what you suggested is bullshit...maybe if AronRa wore a robe you would agree with him.
@Answerquestions1 Sonar is an activity easily duplicated. With practice, many humans have gotten quite good at it even without physical adaptations following suit. Skulls are just bones of different shapes. Two skulls suited to the same task can easily adopt the same shape. But feathers have a marvelously complex sequence of developmental stages -all of which are completely unique. Check out a video called "the Dinosaur Feather Mystery" to see what I mean.
sonar is a very complicated system, is as complicated as sight, there are many codependent parts that would have to work correctly in order for a sonar to work. in the blind whatch maker there is a detailed description of how complex the sonar is. evolution is unfalsifiable, if something does not match your phalogeny predictions, you will simply call it convergent evolution
@Answerquestions1 "evolution is unfalsifiable, if something does not match your phalogeny predictions, you will simply call it convergent evolution" Wrong.
You are projecting. Passing on your own positions faults onto another position, which simply won't share them. Science doesn't move the goalposts, Religion does.
As stated in this video. If we found a mammal with feathers it would IMMEDIATELY falsify the current theory of evolution. HOWEVER it still wouldn't prove your position.
´´As stated in this video. If we found a mammal with feathers it would IMMEDIATELY falsify the current theory of evolution´´ that prediction was made after we al ready knew that mammals do not have feathers. if mammals would have had feathers you would simply propose a different phalogenetic tree, where mammals and birds share a common ancestor with feathers.
´´You don't understand what convergent evolution is do you?´´
ok, supposedly according to your theory, two genes can evolve twice independenly. weather if you what to call it convergent evolution or not is irelevant, the fact is that your dogma is an untestable religion, NOT SCIENCE
´´Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. ´´ can you please provide a metric? can you plese tell us (creationists) how can we know if something if complex enough so that it can not evolve twice independently.
¿what about sonar in bats and dolphins? why did sonar evolved twice (same genes) and feathers can´t, ¿are feathers more complex that the sonar system?
It is quite possible, though so improbable that, in practical communication it would be acceptable to say that it couldn't happen.
However, human beings could engineer bizarre organisms. Since human beings are animals that were shaped by Natural Selection, perhaps one could say that Unicorns were shaped by Natural Selection, in a transitive sort of way :P if human beings were to engineer one.
Well, if human beings did genetically engineer a unicorn, I guess it would be perfectly accurate to say they created through a natural process. Just like you could say a spider web and the world-wide-web are naturally occurring phenomena. But by using such a broad brush, you end up losing important components of definition.... such as a deliberate intent behind the selection to produce a specific result.
An important distinction now that we've started hacking the codes for life.
Ah, but now we raise a bigger philosophical question: is there truly such a thing as deliberate intent? Perhaps the human conception of deliberation is just a characteristic of a sufficiently complex system-an emergent property.
Well, regardless of the true nature of our mental processes and what control (if any) we ultimately have over them, we still perceive ourselves and others as being in conscious control of our decisions and actions. It's generally not economically useful to take a neurological view of others when trying to predict behavior. Even without free will, systems of punishment/reward in society still provide the necessary stimuli and associations to modify the the resulting behaviors.
4:00 i need to disagree here, sir. the old beetle did not at all look dumb. the new one does but the old one looked groovy, not dumb! and - i'd debate you about that anytime, any place.
Oxygem transport based on copper doesn't give blue blood instead of green. If I`m not mistaken cephalopods and horseshoe-crabs use copper and both have blue blood.
Sorry AronRa, but your information on the Volkswagen is a little false. The sentiment's surely correct, but you got some facts wrong. First of all, Hitler called it "Kraft durch Freude" which translates to "Strength through Joy". The name "Volkswagen" actually came from the British after the Americans seized the KDF factory and turned it over to the British.
Then, the design of the KDF was actually based on the design of the Tatra T-97.
You evolutionists are a bunch of religious morons. Hanging on to your religious dogma, dogmas told to you by an authority. A lot of you willingly participating in this dogma, because you got to find an easy answer to this enigma....evolement of life.
That life have evolved.... is reasonable proven, but how it's happening is a theory.
Well, call us morons.. No one cares... We all know the truth, and yes.. .it IS easy to participate in this belief because we know that there is phylogenetic and biological study to confirm our findings. Arguing with people like you is pointless. You can't convince someone out of their delusions if they've already been heavily indoctrinated. No matter how much evidence appears, it's never enough for you because you're in denial. I don't even understand the last part of your comment.
Yes, pigs spontaneously sprouting wings in a single generation would refute evolution quite efficiently. We'd have to back to the drawing board in our understanding of biology. On the plus side, we would get pork buffalo wings.
That pigs growing wings and flying away is considered an absurdity is because they never do, which is what evolution predicts. Now special creation can allow for spontaneous avian suidae quite nicely, because absurdities allow for the absurd.
...Left by an ancient race that basically said that they were the humanoid archetypes and that they implanted their genetics into the genepools of various worlds which is why all of the above mentioned Races are alike. The Klingons and Romulans of course scoffed at the idea and it was never brought up again.
WOW, you know something I only just remembered. According to one episode of Star Trek, Humans Romulans, Klingons and Vulcans (and I think another race, I haven't seen this episode in a while) are all related. There's one episode of... I think think Next generation but it might have been DS9... anyway a bunch of scientist find weird artifacts with genetic based clues that lead them to a distant planet where they found a hologram...
Evolution is a hoax, it's reasonable proven that there have been change, species have died out, others have come about, but how in the world this have happened is a theory.
@johnsenkenn Yes, a theory that explains just how all life has emerged from the simple principles of heredity and natural selection. No other theory EXPLAINS how this happens.
Evolution, if it is a hoax, is one of the best kept secrets of all time. Every piece of evidence points to it being FACT
This Evolution is stupid, a deception, and the promoters of this garbage is either stupid or deceptive. No one have ever observed a new species been born. Lots of species goes instinct every day, but none are born, it's a lie made up for purpose.
@kennjohnsen I think you don't understand evolution, and you don't understand the difference between 50 years and 50,000. Small changes and diversion of breeding populations cause species to diverge slowly.
We have seen speciation predicted by evolution occur within the 100 years of observation (western 8-spotted salamander common ancestor into pacific and southern desert species that don't look like each other and can't interbreed for one).
Yes, just a theory, Yes the fossil shows that species just pop up. No, no species have been seen born. No, I have not picked it up on an religious website.
hear that creationists? all you have to do is find a horse with wings and you win! good luck, come back when you find one.
Daugueffxi 18 hours ago
that's why i could never stand star trek
MartianSanta 3 days ago
Do you happen to have the source image for what was shown at 6:50. That looks very interesting. Thanks
ThatMathGuy7318 6 days ago
Just to clarify, are you saying that Pegasi *cannot* evolve, or that they could, but it would take longer than stories say and involve more changes than just a horse sprouting wings?
ctraver 2 weeks ago
@ctraver I believe he was saying that they're so improbable so as to be effectively impossible. It's extremely unlikely (bordering on impossible) for a large animal with 4 limbs to somehow sprout an extra set of limbs on it's back as a result of a series of small mutations, each of which must be beneficial. If you add on to that the chance that the wings would be bird wings, the chance goes down even further. It would be like 2 authors coincidentally writing the exact same book, word for word.
Flyborg 2 weeks ago
@Flyborg
Actually, each mutation doesn't have to be beneficial. It's entire possible for complete nonsense mutations to be carried along as long as they don't actually hinder the ability of the species to reproduce (just take blue eyes as an example).
narutofan9999 6 days ago
@narutofan9999 True, for individual mutations. But for the type of large-scale change required for something like Pegasi to evolve, it's essentially impossible for multiple mutations to accumulate in a certain direction (IE sprouting a new set of limbs) without some kind of selective pressure for each one. I guess I could clarify my original statement by saying "..each of which must be beneficial, or else the chance that they'd accumulate in a given direction would be effectively zero."
Flyborg 6 days ago
@Flyborg
Is that so? Not that I particularily disagree, but I'm thinking like "how did the first limbs evolve then anyways?" I find it hard to imagine that the first primitive forms were of any great advantage. Then again, my knowledge on the subject is, eh, rather limited.
narutofan9999 5 days ago
@narutofan9999 I'm no expert either, but just thinking about it, the simplest fins are very simple compared to the arms/legs they evolved into. They're just bits of flesh jutting out, and I could easily imagine how this could give a slight advantage to the earliest ocean animals. 1% more aerodynamic > 0% more aerodynamic.
Flyborg 5 days ago
so, ... what do you have against grafts and pleaches to lend strength to
branches and so realize the nazi 1000 year plan / cycle of treefamilyhousing
projects .. that makes you distract from it so eloquently?
nazi as in true rooted fasion of course, not germany (or whatever folk) ueber
as in over and across .. but before all .. never leavin home and always 'leavin'
home .. in light of above
.. NAtional soZIalist, not NAtional Zionist, green, not weaponized).
poetpiet 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
poetpiet 2 weeks ago
Thylocenes; very cool.
BillofRightsBrutus 3 weeks ago
Hear the clicketyclack sound?
That's the sound of creationists searching conservapedia right now for examples of mammals with more than 4 limbs lol... :)
TheStigma 1 month ago 5
Thank you.
950horsepower 1 month ago
AronRa, you are my favorite. There are many atheists doing great work, today, and I follow as many as possible, trying to learn and add to the support of truth, and of them all, you are my favorite. You present science to the general public at a level of detail I see nowhere else, while making it visually and verbally understandable, even if just on the surface, to anyone with a mind open to learning. Thank you for your strong work.
NotMuchNU 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bro! What ? Cars are alive ! Not like a human...
But...
arnaVck 1 month ago
I never found Big Bang Theory funny, yet everyone seems to love it. What is wrong with me?
blackwolf1200 1 month ago
the Navi don't use their ponytails to have sex ... damn you big bang theory
Craigipedia 1 month ago
It's cool that it was mentioned that chickens have scales on their feet. I own a few faverolle chickens, and one of them has deformed feet. Basically her toes never fully separated in their development giving her webbed feet!
AmosTheTalented 1 month ago 2
@AmosTheTalented I'd like to see a picture of a chicken with webbed feet.
AronRa 1 month ago 2
@AronRa I'm not sure this is real, but:
scientopia(dot)org/blogs/thisscientificlife/2007/01/31/chiuck-ducken/
csnowutube 1 month ago
It's funny you used the races from Star Trek. In 1-2 episodes of The Next Generation, it turns out that all of the humanoid species were "designed" by a basal form to all of them. It makes no sense at all, but I'm just saying
bzeljn 2 months ago
@bzeljn "In 1-2 episodes of The Next Generation, it turns out that all of the humanoid species were "designed" by a basal form to all of them"
Sorry but your memory failed you a bit. It was discovered that the biological seeds of the humanoid species were spread throughout the Alpha Quadrant by a long deceased species. Which explains the biological differences as the different species adapted to different planetary environments.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis But that still doesn't make sense because the "seed" would have been present in earliest life, and would not have led to bipedal, intelligent and reproductively compatible species in different solar systems. Mathematically random mutation (which is a fact) would be less likely to do that than a thousand people winning with the same lottery numbers each consecutive week.
blackwolf1200 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackwolf1200 "But that still doesn't make sense because the "seed" would have been present in earliest life, and would not have led to bipedal, intelligent and reproductively compatible species in different solar systems" It would have if that 'seed' had bipedal humanoid 'information'. Even if it did not, bipedal humanoids still could have evolved that way due to the environment of the planets.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@blackwolf1200 "Mathematically random mutation (which is a fact)" Except evolution isn't based solely on random mutation, it is also based on environmental survival.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
Comment removed
blackwolf1200 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thomaseshuis Yes, but natural selection can't make the mutations themselves any less random. I'm not disputing evolution, just saying that it can't lead from a single-celled common ancestor to compatible humanoids on different planets.
blackwolf1200 1 month ago
@blackwolf1200 Did you delete your last comment, because I cannot see/find it.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis yeah, it was the same comment but I corrected a typo after it was posted. I do that often :) I don't like to see my posts up with certain mistakes :)
blackwolf1200 1 month ago
@blackwolf1200 I do the same, so I can relate.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
Nicely done, especially when looking towards a future; how concept cannot be denied and misinformed as some taxonomy that does not exist, except in the bad interpretations of a few who want power kept, and shows mis-arrays to/and of anti-matter of black energy. We seldom see the reasons behind people, to which I like to point out!
in2dionysus 2 months ago in playlist Falsifying Phylogeny
I'm not sure if it's true when you say that evolution could not produce a hexipodal mammal.
The limbs would be different than most existing limbs. But consider the... I think it's the spider monkey? It has a tail capable of serving much the same purpose as it's other limbs: that is, grasping and hanging.
As such, depending on what your definition of "limb" is, a spider monkey could now, or, if not now, perhaps sometime in the future, be considered a pentapodal mammal.
Clawdragoons 4 months ago
@Clawdragoons Which, if true, would show that animals are not limited in the number of limbs they possess.
Furthermore, there is no barrier I know of in evolution to structures that could be considered limbs developing from other extant structures, were there the right selective pressures to form them.
The problem as I see it isn't that animals couldn't develop more limbs, it's that under most circumstances, selective pressures will favor modification of existing limbs over new ones.
Clawdragoons 4 months ago
@Clawdragoons
A single duplication mutation to the homeobox genes might cause hexapodality. Instead of reading say "head, neck, arms, torso, waist, hips, thighs" the gene could be duplicated and leave it with "head, neck, arms, arms, torso, waist, hips, thighs" or "head, neck, arms, torso, arms, waist, hips, thighs" or something of that nature.
We already know extra, and functional, copies of organs as complex as eyes can be duplicated by homeobox mutations in fruit flies.
rkyeun 1 month ago
05:06 man, how I miss plaeos, why did they close it?
denissymbolic 5 months ago
hehe lord of the rings is more realistic then star trek
viking977 5 months ago
Where can I find the chart shown at 6:35 in this video?
MikeSVOR 5 months ago
Actually, there are a few eps in Star Trek that explain that there was an old species that contributed genetic material to all. In Doctor Who, you have the morphic field, which explains that since Time Lord were the first species to evolve, they were basically the template for all the consequent species in the universe. Of course, these are all sci-fi, still, fun!
zeldaofarel 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
perfect explanation of why UFOnianity is a remake update of the guilty conscience monotheistic missionary dominant imperial colonial desertbaked brainigions try to overshadow (overdonderen = dutch) out shout and outmanouver as well as carry out and on hiding in plain site ... (almost wrote Palin sight)
poetpiet 6 months ago
@poetpiet Have you ever considered using English words in the way they were intended, or do you just love unordered lists? :)
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago
wow, thats a centaur that i would definately fuck.
theeyeisblind 7 months ago
you said Angels while showing Angel....that's just awesome
qtzlctl2012 8 months ago
sad sad Pinocchio
jandkas 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and every time we find something that does not fit your phalogenetic tree, you will simply call it ´´convergent evolution´´
according to your dogma, same structures and even same genes can evolve twice, so any time you can not explain similarities with common ancestry, you can always use convergent evolution to explain it. therefore the phylogeny argument is unfalsifiable.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 As I just explained, the same genes can NOT evolve twice, nor can the same structures if they're highly complex. Skulls that are already of similar shape will vary in many ways, and can even be the same shape if they adapted to the same job. This isn't hard to understand unless you're trying hard not to understand it.
AronRa 8 months ago 19
@AronRa
´´As I just explained, the same genes can NOT evolve twice, ´´
If that where true, evolution would have been falsified long ago. one example is the sonar in bats and dolphins, we are taking about the same system, and same genes that according to evolutionists evolve twice independently.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 The Sonar used by bats is quite different to that used by Whales and Dolphins. One being for use in air and the other under water. They are NOT using the SAME genes otherwise they'd be every similar species. It's called convergent evolution where to species gain similar traits. You are close about it being as complex as sight. You do know sight has evolved more than once though. e.g Arthropods and Vertebrates.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457 ´´The Sonar used by bats is quite different to that used by Whales and Dolphin... They are NOT using the SAME genes ´´
yes they are usining the same genes, tht is the whole point of my arguemnt. if your theory does not match the facts then change to an other theory.
so if the fact that bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes) did not falsified evolution, then why would things be different with a mammal with feathers?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "yes they are usining the same genes" Just because you say they are doesn't mean your right by default. Baseless assertions like this are common from people like you.
As many people have already now explained there are many differences between bats and dolphins use of echo location. the main difference being one is used in water the other in air. It has also been pointed out that even different bats have different echo location methods. You are wrong, now correct yourself.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´Just because you say they are doesn't mean your right by default´´
and just because my argument contradicts your dogma, does not mean that I am wrong. facts are facts
´´ It has also been pointed out that even different bats have different echo location methods´´
yes that is what makes the argument more interesting some bats seem more related to dolphins than to other bats.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 " just because my argument contradicts your dogma, does not mean that I am wrong. facts are facts" Speak for yourself. I, nor do most other rationalists dogmatically pursue Evolutionary science. Talk about hypocrisy, you a religitard creationist telling someone who accepts scientific studies and explanations of the natural world not to be dogmatic. Practice what you preach and GO LEARN SOME SCIENCE. Have a nice day.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "yes that is what makes the argument more interesting some bats seem more related to dolphins than to other bats." You just aren't getting it. All echo location is, is, the ability to locate where a sound is coming from, the next step is being able to create a sound which is easily echoed, even humans can do this to an extent we just haven't had to develop it any further. BOTH Bats and Dolphins live in environments where echo location is EVERY...
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 just because something evolves twice doesn't mean they use the same genes.
rowenclaw1 8 months ago
@rowenclaw1
in this particular case, bats and dolphins share the same ´´sonar genes ´´ so ether same genes can evolve twice (and therefore phylogeny is unfalsifiable) or evolution has been falsified because there is no other way to explain the fact that bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes)
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@AQ1 - "bats and dolphins share the same sonar system (same genes)"
You really are prone to overstatement AQ. Same "system" is a huge claim and it's also false. Not only are the systems different between each, they are also different amongst themselves ie:different bats have different "systems".
I know where you are getting this story from and I want you to know that, once again the creationist overlords have lead you astray. I don't want to make a career out of correcting you, but..
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
@AQ1 - Point #1
There are likely to be 100's of genes involved in echolocation. This story line centers around the 'Prestin" gene. On this point you are almost correct, bats and dolphins DO both have the gene. Hurrah! God is Real! But wait a minute, lets not jump to conclusions, because dear fellow YOU also have this gene, in fact so do all mammals. The gene did not evolve twice, as AronRa noted. The truth is that all mammals inherited it from a common ancestor.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
@AQ1 - Point #2
The prestin gene produces a protein which changes shape when subjected to sound,making it essential to our mammalian hearing systems. The gene itself is not the same across species. Mutations are responsible for tuning the protein to different frequencies. We humans are sensitive to a certain range, and echolocators are sensitive to higher ranges. The range amongst bats vary widely, some echos are even audible to our own ears and some blind humans can crudely mimic these bats.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
@AQ1 - Point #3
In 2010 Yang Liu, etc, published papers exploring the evolutionary pathways of various prestin genes. The interesting point is not that they have the same gene, that's to be expected because they are mammals, rather it's that some 25 amino acid mutations are shared among whales and bats.
What you are trying to say is that this disproves convergence, it doesn't, Liu concludes (and supports in his paper which I've read) that this displays convergence at the molecular level.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
the point is that if you make a phalogenetic tree using perstin, you will have a different phalogenetic tree than the one predicted by evolution. the idea of homology is a myth it all depends in what are you looking at. we don´t see homology we see exactly what arona said that we most find if ID where true.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "we don´t see homology we see exactly what arona said that we most find if ID where true." Aren't you a rotten liar.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 *VERY, ...useful. Now as I've said before there echo location abilities are different for one very simple reason WATER AND AIR ARE DIFFERENT.
Remember Eyes evolved 9 times I think over the cause of history, are you going to say that this also disproves evolution. The point is it doesn't require much to acquire echo location, however something as complex as feathers, whilst it might be possible for a similar structure to evolve, feathers themselves cannot evolve twice.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
you can twists the information 100 times if you what, but facts are facts and in this case facts are very simple, if you drew a family tree using perstine, based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 I'm twisting no facts. I'm telling you what is actually known to be true. However I'll have you know that everything you've said so far is wrong. PERIOD. This is no point of view issue. All whales that I am aware of use some kind of echo location, however the toothed whales are the ones who use actual echo location or (biosonar) But yet again bats don't use the same system as toothed whales use (other than it's function) Air isn't water how can they be the same? Explain that?
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
ok, just to clear things, ¿ do you accept the fact that if we draw a phalogenetic tree using perstine, bats will look more closely related to whales, than to other species of bats?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 No, because all bats are more closely related to each other EVEN if you only look at their use of perstine and then you will see that that is more closely related to insectivores use of perstine. For the very last time. Whales and Dolphins use perstine in a different way to bats. Period.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
if you draw a familly tree using perstine (using evolutionary assumptions) some bats will ´´look´´ more closely related to whales, than to other species of bats, THIS IS A FACT, it is not my interpretation it is not my opinion it is a fact that has been confirmed.
´´ For the very last time. Whales and Dolphins use perstine in a different way to bats´´
it is the same gene and the same protein, wather if they use it in a different way or not is irrelevant.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Repeating the same thing doesn't make it right or fact. You are wrong in your assumptions that by looking at just one gene some bats look more closely related to whales than other bats. You are chatting bullshit. Yes they both have and use a particular protein but so does every other mammal. The genes that control the protein are different because of the very different environments these species live in. You are arguing from ignorance. Go do some actual research.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´Yes they both have and use a particular protein but so does every other mammal´´
yes, that is true, but the point is: if you compare perstine (simalrities and differences) you will find out that differences between bats´ and whales´ are smaller than perstine between different species of bats. this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me.
so instead of denying a confirmed fact, you should explain how can evolution explain this fact.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Oh and your second point, which seems to be a thinly veiled "common design common designer" argument, go to Brettppalmer's channel and watch his video debunking that claim.
In short the argument goes like this. The same designer can do different things and different designers can do similar things there is no way of telling how many designers there might be for any given thing.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1 "this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me." How about you provide me the source of your claim. That way I'll be better informed on your "argument".
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457 I love that your request for a citation got marked as spam. That speaks volumes..
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago
@DaToNyOyO You know what. I hadn't noticed. XD You are right it does speak volumes. Nice challenge by the way, wish I'd have thought of it when I was partaking in that particular discussion.
Gibbons3457 2 weeks ago
@Gibbons3457 Fresh eyes to the fray..
I just figured, since he's so sure he has a deal-breaker, he shouldn't be selfish and keep it to himself. I mean, if you want to play the science game that's fine, but you have to actually *play* the science game and not just whine about stuff on YouTube.
I'm sure we'd all like to find the truth, right? So if he's right he stands as much chance as the next guy. If he's right..
..which he's not. :D
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago 3
@Gibbons3457
I, did´t mark your comment as spam, if you what the source for my claims just google this
´´Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene´´
the original peer revied sources are quoted in this article
Answerquestions1 2 weeks ago
@Answerquestions1 "I, did´t mark your comment as spam" No one never claimed you did. We just commented that it speaks volumes that a comment asking a creationst for a source got marked as spam. Oh and are you going to take up @DaToNyOyO 's challenge to get this "argument against evolution" published, or have you finally understood the article you butchered to make it actually explains why your particular argument fails at its first principle?
Gibbons3457 2 weeks ago
@Gibbons3457
1) Arona, claimed that one gene can not evolve twice, (meaning that common genes can only be explained by common descend) I simply refuted aronas original claim.
2) I never claimed that this article falsifies evolution, my position is that evolution is unfalsifiale,
3) the authors of the articles simply provided a hypothesis to explain this gene discondance, (that hypothesis has never been proven)
Answerquestions1 2 weeks ago
@Gibbons3457
´´The genes that control the protein are different because of the very different environments ´´
so what? if ecolocation using perstine works fine both in water and air, why wouln´t a designer use the same design in whales and bats? for example gasoline works fine in both airplains and cars so why wouldn´t designers use gasoline in both machines?
the fact that whales and bats live in a differen enviroment is only a problem if you believe in evolution
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "if ecolocation using perstine works fine both in water and air," It doesn't. It is used differently. that's the point. Both animals have and use it that part is correct however the way in which they is it is different. That's it. End of.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´Both animals have and use it that part is correct however the way in which they is it is different. That's it. End of. ´´
well I don´t know if that is true or not, but that is irrelevant, weather if bats and whales use the protein in a different way or not does not change the fact that if you draw a famly tree bats will look more closely related to whales than to other species of bats.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 that both toothed whales and bats need it for. (picking up low frequency noises) IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT EVOLUTION IN ANY WAY. So get your facts straight before you go around firing them out of your butt. Being ignorant of the facts is ok, but ignoring the facts when you have them is called lying. You could have read on and finished reading the WHOLE article, you didn't and so lied about what it actually concluded.
What was that commandment again? You know the 9th one.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´ IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT EVOLUTION IN ANY WAY´´
well according to the author of this video a non homologous gene (like perstine) would contradict evolution, i simply answered to the challenge. that does not make me a lier, and I am especting an appology from you.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1You are cherry picking an article which answers your questions and refutes ALL of your claims. You had access to this article and yet you chose to ignore all the explanations that contradict your argument, you had the option, you deliberately chose to leave these bits out. You lied about what the article concludes. You tried to make it out that this finding contradicted evolution, the article explains why it doesn't. So... no apology.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´ You lied about what the article concludes´´
No, I never talked about the conclutions of the article, conclutions are interpretations (opinions) I have been taking about the FACTS like the fact that persitne is not an homologous protein.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
things are very simple
1) First: Creationists say that evolution is unfalsifiable (therefore not science)
2) Then: Evolutionists provide a potencial falsification in this case Arnona said that a non homologous gene would falsify evolution.
3) Then: creationists provide the evidance for non homologous genes (perstine)
4)finally: evolutionists invent some excuse, that automaticaly drives to point number one EVOLUTON IS UNFALSIFIEBLE
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 No.
1.) Creationists claim all sort of bullshit.
2.) Aronra gives a detailed explanation, which you don't understand
3.) You then come up with an argument using a source which disproves your own argument
4.) I tell you this and you completely ignore me and keep repeating yourself.
End of.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
you just don´t get it, This argument (about perstine) only applies for those who claim that an non homologous gene would falsify evolution. there are many evolutionists, like arona. who claim that non hologous genes would falsify evolution.
Answerquestions1 7 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´You tried to make it out that this finding contradicted evolution´´
NO, my position is and has always been the same ´´EVOLUTION IS UNTESTABLE´´ no matter what we find you will always find an excuse.
I presented perstine because the author of the video said that a non homologous protein (like perstine) would falsify evolution
but that is ok for you, you are not the author of the video and you don´t have to pay for his mistakes
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 " Your very argument has already being debunked by the very source you are using. Perstin is the ONLY protein that can be used by mammals to control the hairs which detect sounds and so the fact that two animals both of which use echo location have got similar mutations to prestin to solve the same problem as not a very big stretch. Oh and prestin is in ALL mammals. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying since both bats and birds have wings then evolution is wrong.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
if what the author of the article concluded is true, then the next logical conclution is that similarities do not imply common ancestry.
Answerquestions1 7 months ago
@Answerquestions1 You are trying so hard to not listen to anything. Talk about confirmation bias. Ignorant belligerent creationist.
Pomaori 7 months ago
@Gibbons3457
so explain ¿how van the theory of evolution explain the fact that perstine in so similar in distant species like bats and whales, but so different in amoung closely related mammals?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 It isn't. It's use is similar in ALL mammals it's what it's how it's used in conjunction with other things which makes ignoramuses like you so confused.
Oh and once more. where are your sources for this claim that "this is a fact, it is not my opinion, reed the scientific papers if you don´t trust me." Where are these papers. Show me them and then maybe you'll actually have the beginnings of an argument. Until then you are simply asserting your ignorant opinion as true.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´Oh and once more. where are your sources for this claim that ´´
what? you have been saying that I am wrong for days, and you haven´t even reed about the topic?
reed this article,
´´Echolocation in bats and whales based on same changes to same gene´´ (after reeding you can look at the primary sources mentioned in the article)
so now that you know the facts please explain ¿how can your theory explain these FACTS?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Oh you do make me laugh. How much of this did you read, because it goes on to explain almost exactly what I said. Yes I got a few things wrong I'll admit that, however what you are arguing is refuted (indirectly) in the same article.
Hint: Read the section below the phylogeny picture. It explains it all. Have fun learning.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
but at the end of the day, I was right and you where wrong, perstine is not an homologous protein and does not match evolutionary predictions about phylogeny. according to this video fiding an non homologous gene would falsify evolution. so ether evolution has been falsified or evolution is unfalsifiable.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "but at the end of the day, I was right and you where wrong" Wrong. I was wrong and you are wrong in every way. Heres what the article you are using ACTUALLY says (shortened): If you were to just look at perstin then it would appear that toothed whales and same bats were more closely related to each other than toothed whales are to other whales and bat to mega bats. HOWEVER it appears that perstin is the only protein which ALL mammals have which can be used for the function...
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gibbons3457
´´HOWEVER it appears that perstin is the only protein which ALL mammals have which can be used for the function...´´
which makes the theory of evolution (at least the argument form phaylogeny) unfalsifiable. the argument from homology is simply not true and evolutionists should not use that argument.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457
´´ Air isn't water how can they be the same? Explain that?´´
I don´t know, ¿why would the exact same random mutations occured in two independent species that liv in a different enviroment and have different selective preassure? you are the one who is suppose to give an answer.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Yet again. THEY AREN'T the same. They are using slightly different methods, because of the very different ways in which they have evolved. More over, they aren't the exact same mutations. That's the point. They are just similar.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gibbons3457
´´ More over, they aren't the exact same mutations. That's the point. They are just similar.´´
once again, If you draw a tree using perstine (comparing differences and similarities) bats will look more closely related to whales than to other species of bats.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Then write a scientific paper on it, demonstrating your evidence and predictions and get it peer reviewed and published. If it's falsifiable and true, it will either amend or overturn evolutionary theory.
But neither you, nor any ID pseudo-scientist, will do that because you know you will fail when it is demonstrated how utterly wrong you are.
Now go on, cry "foul play" and claim there's a worldwide scientific conspiracy to hide the truth; managed no doubt by "satan".
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago
@DaToNyOyO
there are scientific papers on the topic.
´´Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene´´
if you do reaserch you will find that creationists have real reasons for rejecting evolution.
Answerquestions1 2 weeks ago
@Answerquestions1
"there are scientific papers on the topic"
As was already demonstrated to you; you are wrong or a liar. That is not what that paper shows. They share a common gene, that is used in a similar way. A gene shared across ALL mammals.
Fail.
DaToNyOyO 2 weeks ago
@DaToNyOyO
yes, if you draw a family tree with that gene dolphins appear more closely related to bats than with whales. evolution can not explain this
Answerquestions1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1 "if you do reaserch you will find that creationists have real reasons for rejecting evolution"
They have ONE reason and it's called religion. If they weren't religious, these people wouldn't devote their pathetic lives to finding easily debunked arguments against evolution.
VesusSheist 1 week ago
@Gibbons3457
if we draw a familly tree using perstine, bats would be more closely related to whales and dophins, than to other species of bats, this opposes what we would expect if evolution where true, since acording to evolution all bats are close relatives, and doplhins are far relatives.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Except that isn't what would happen because the use of perstine is not the only thing you would use, you couldn't construct a phylogenetic tree using just prestine. Even if you did it would have to take into account ALL species we have the genetics for and even that (as I am aware) would show the every real differences there are between whales and Bats. I find it funny how I already covered this and yet you still post a comment as ridiculous as this.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gibbons3457
´´ you couldn't construct a phylogenetic tree using just prestine´´
why not? evolutionists draw family trees using one single protein all the time.
´´would show the every real differences there are between whales and Bats´´
in the case of perstine, it is nearly identical in both animals, these is a fact that has been confirmed.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Gibbons3457 I think the consensus may have shifted slightly concerning the eye. In that biologists now think the evidence points to all eyes sharing common genetic markers in DNA. Thus all forms of eye are derived from one ancestral template.
trooperJac 8 months ago
@trooperJac Hmm. It could be possible. Thanks for the heads up.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1 "the point is that if you make a phalogenetic tree using perstin, you will have a different phalogenetic tree than the one predicted by evolution." WRONG AGAIN! And here's why: To construct a phylogenetic tree you use MULTIPLE methods, comparative morphology, genetic markers etc.You can then use that to trace the use of perstin by animals (not the other way around.)
There is only one actual phylogenetic tree and it explains the very real links every species has with
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
@AQ1 - Point #4
You do not accept this, but it's really not so extraordinary. It simply shows that there are a finite number of pathways towards tuning the prestin gene to the unique frequencies needed amongst echolocators. Like a tuning fork which must be a certain shape to resonate, so too is the prestin protein constrained. If evolution only has one pathway it will take it, THAT'S convergence.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
Last point.
I'm by no means an expert on genes and I'm only speaking as a layman. If there are any geneticists out there who want to correct or add to this, please do. I happen to know a geneticist and I'll be risking his wrath by asking him yet another series of questions inspired by this creationist special pleading.
Anyway AQ, reply if you will but I won't be responding to you anymore. I think we've gone back and forth enough for my taste. So on that note, adieu.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
@AronRa Although Hitler commissioned the volkswagen to be built, it was designed by the man he ordered to build it, Ferdinand Porsche. If the new beetle were designed by the good doctor, i dare say it wouldn't have been so shitty.
justtryharder 8 months ago
Hi. I talked to you on your newest video about the marsupial wolf. But this video made evolution even worse to me. You said the feather is far too complex to have evolved twice, but then the same could be said of the marsupial wolf. Why can the skull of the marsupial wolf evolve EXACTLY the same as a real wolf in the skull, but feathers couldn't evolve EXACTLY the same twice? Both are complex.
HonestforJesus 8 months ago
@HonestforJesus Hey, funny, I came in to look at this video too and saw your comment. I'm the one that replied to you that the wolf skull is not exactly the same as the marsupial wolf skull.
danoso0931 8 months ago
@danoso0931 I didn't see it but its okay. I was shown a picture of the skulls side by side and they were more different than I remember, soi guess I was wrong.
HonestforJesus 8 months ago
@HonestforJesus Oh ok. The point is, the thylacine (tasmanian wolf) skull has an orifice at the top of the palate.. unlike that of a wolf's, nut exactly like that of every other marsupial. And that is the key... all marsupials share a skull feature, and even thou the thylacine evolved to look very much like a wolf, it still betrays its marsupial roots. There is no way to shed all of your inheritance. The same with the marsupial mole and shrews
danoso0931 8 months ago
@HonestforJesus Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. The skulls of Carnivores and Thylocenes are already quite similar because they started out quite similar. Compare the skulls of shrews and opossums. The only convergence we're talking about here is one of general shape and that's effectively it. They're remarkably similar, yes, just like ichthyosaurs and sharks are similar in the same way -and for the same reason.
AronRa 8 months ago 7
@AronRa
´´Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. ´´ can you please provide a metric? can you plese tell us (creationists) how can we know if something if complex enough so that it can not evolve twice independently.
¿what about sonar in bats and dolphins? why did sonar evolved twice (same genes) and feathers can´t, ¿are feathers more complex that the sonar system?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1
if we find a mammal with feathers you will ether call it convergent evolution, or you will simply change the phalogenetic tree, as has happened before, it all depneds of what is more conviniant to your theory, I am sorry to tell you that this is not how science works, that is how religion works, that is why we keap saying that evolution is a religion
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
if we find a mammal with feathers you will ether call it convergent evolution, or you will simply change the phalogenetic tree, as has happened before, it all depneds of what is more conviniant to your theory, I am sorry to tell you that this is not how science works, that is how religion works, that is why we keap saying that evolution is a religion
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 That is a super good point. And speaking of good points....all this construction...dinosaurs all that...6000 years then? I definitely don't agree with your "convergent" comment. It should be very obvious that the science involved makes sense and that knowledge is cumulative to make things fit and not contrived to make things fit...c'mon man...DNA, cures for diseases, splitting the atom...what you suggested is bullshit...maybe if AronRa wore a robe you would agree with him.
sixtiksix 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 Sonar is an activity easily duplicated. With practice, many humans have gotten quite good at it even without physical adaptations following suit. Skulls are just bones of different shapes. Two skulls suited to the same task can easily adopt the same shape. But feathers have a marvelously complex sequence of developmental stages -all of which are completely unique. Check out a video called "the Dinosaur Feather Mystery" to see what I mean.
AronRa 8 months ago 11
@AronRa
´´ Sonar is an activity easily duplicated´´
sonar is a very complicated system, is as complicated as sight, there are many codependent parts that would have to work correctly in order for a sonar to work. in the blind whatch maker there is a detailed description of how complex the sonar is. evolution is unfalsifiable, if something does not match your phalogeny predictions, you will simply call it convergent evolution
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 "evolution is unfalsifiable, if something does not match your phalogeny predictions, you will simply call it convergent evolution" Wrong.
You are projecting. Passing on your own positions faults onto another position, which simply won't share them. Science doesn't move the goalposts, Religion does.
As stated in this video. If we found a mammal with feathers it would IMMEDIATELY falsify the current theory of evolution. HOWEVER it still wouldn't prove your position.
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gibbons3457
´´As stated in this video. If we found a mammal with feathers it would IMMEDIATELY falsify the current theory of evolution´´ that prediction was made after we al ready knew that mammals do not have feathers. if mammals would have had feathers you would simply propose a different phalogenetic tree, where mammals and birds share a common ancestor with feathers.
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@Answerquestions1 You don't understand what convergent evolution is do you?
Gibbons3457 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gibbons3457
´´You don't understand what convergent evolution is do you?´´
ok, supposedly according to your theory, two genes can evolve twice independenly. weather if you what to call it convergent evolution or not is irelevant, the fact is that your dogma is an untestable religion, NOT SCIENCE
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa
´´Skulls are nowhere near as complex as the construction of feathers. ´´ can you please provide a metric? can you plese tell us (creationists) how can we know if something if complex enough so that it can not evolve twice independently.
¿what about sonar in bats and dolphins? why did sonar evolved twice (same genes) and feathers can´t, ¿are feathers more complex that the sonar system?
Answerquestions1 8 months ago
@HonestforJesus
It is quite possible, though so improbable that, in practical communication it would be acceptable to say that it couldn't happen.
However, human beings could engineer bizarre organisms. Since human beings are animals that were shaped by Natural Selection, perhaps one could say that Unicorns were shaped by Natural Selection, in a transitive sort of way :P if human beings were to engineer one.
karatefox 8 months ago
@karatefox
Well, if human beings did genetically engineer a unicorn, I guess it would be perfectly accurate to say they created through a natural process. Just like you could say a spider web and the world-wide-web are naturally occurring phenomena. But by using such a broad brush, you end up losing important components of definition.... such as a deliberate intent behind the selection to produce a specific result.
An important distinction now that we've started hacking the codes for life.
Sinuev1 8 months ago
@Sinuev1
Ah, but now we raise a bigger philosophical question: is there truly such a thing as deliberate intent? Perhaps the human conception of deliberation is just a characteristic of a sufficiently complex system-an emergent property.
karatefox 8 months ago
@karatefox
Well, regardless of the true nature of our mental processes and what control (if any) we ultimately have over them, we still perceive ourselves and others as being in conscious control of our decisions and actions. It's generally not economically useful to take a neurological view of others when trying to predict behavior. Even without free will, systems of punishment/reward in society still provide the necessary stimuli and associations to modify the the resulting behaviors.
Sinuev1 8 months ago
4:00 i need to disagree here, sir. the old beetle did not at all look dumb. the new one does but the old one looked groovy, not dumb! and - i'd debate you about that anytime, any place.
daskraut 8 months ago
@daskraut ha, and I you over the new beetle also not looking dumb.
qtzlctl2012 8 months ago
AronRa the klingon! :o Evil bastard.
BigLundi 9 months ago in playlist Falsifying Phylogeny
Lol, Hercules at the end.
Golon13 9 months ago
... and that is still the fuckably hottest centaur I've ever seen.
MultiPaulinator 9 months ago
Oxygem transport based on copper doesn't give blue blood instead of green. If I`m not mistaken cephalopods and horseshoe-crabs use copper and both have blue blood.
MC0Mijado 9 months ago
One nitpick, Pokemon doesn't have a plural.
GeoRyukaiser 9 months ago
Sorry AronRa, but your information on the Volkswagen is a little false. The sentiment's surely correct, but you got some facts wrong. First of all, Hitler called it "Kraft durch Freude" which translates to "Strength through Joy". The name "Volkswagen" actually came from the British after the Americans seized the KDF factory and turned it over to the British.
Then, the design of the KDF was actually based on the design of the Tatra T-97.
luccaskunk 9 months ago
You evolutionists are a bunch of religious morons. Hanging on to your religious dogma, dogmas told to you by an authority. A lot of you willingly participating in this dogma, because you got to find an easy answer to this enigma....evolement of life.
That life have evolved.... is reasonable proven, but how it's happening is a theory.
kennjohnsen 9 months ago
@kennjohnsen
Well, call us morons.. No one cares... We all know the truth, and yes.. .it IS easy to participate in this belief because we know that there is phylogenetic and biological study to confirm our findings. Arguing with people like you is pointless. You can't convince someone out of their delusions if they've already been heavily indoctrinated. No matter how much evidence appears, it's never enough for you because you're in denial. I don't even understand the last part of your comment.
GuitarMannnnnn 9 months ago
god damn sexy centaurs!
maikeru01 9 months ago
So what you're saying is in order to disprove Evolution, pigs would have to sprout wings and fly. Beautiful.
Arcanavii 10 months ago
@Arcanavii
Yes, pigs spontaneously sprouting wings in a single generation would refute evolution quite efficiently. We'd have to back to the drawing board in our understanding of biology. On the plus side, we would get pork buffalo wings.
That pigs growing wings and flying away is considered an absurdity is because they never do, which is what evolution predicts. Now special creation can allow for spontaneous avian suidae quite nicely, because absurdities allow for the absurd.
Sinuev1 8 months ago
i think porsche would give a slightly better example of evolution with the 911
silentpillager 11 months ago
...Left by an ancient race that basically said that they were the humanoid archetypes and that they implanted their genetics into the genepools of various worlds which is why all of the above mentioned Races are alike. The Klingons and Romulans of course scoffed at the idea and it was never brought up again.
Weird Trek Trivia.
bdpickett 11 months ago
WOW, you know something I only just remembered. According to one episode of Star Trek, Humans Romulans, Klingons and Vulcans (and I think another race, I haven't seen this episode in a while) are all related. There's one episode of... I think think Next generation but it might have been DS9... anyway a bunch of scientist find weird artifacts with genetic based clues that lead them to a distant planet where they found a hologram...
bdpickett 11 months ago
You are an amazing speaker. I wish the world would evolve more brains like yours.
spinynorman1982 1 year ago
Evolution is a hoax, it's reasonable proven that there have been change, species have died out, others have come about, but how in the world this have happened is a theory.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn Yes, a theory that explains just how all life has emerged from the simple principles of heredity and natural selection. No other theory EXPLAINS how this happens.
Evolution, if it is a hoax, is one of the best kept secrets of all time. Every piece of evidence points to it being FACT
How long have you been a troll?
drfoxcourt 11 months ago
@drfoxcourt
This Evolution is stupid, a deception, and the promoters of this garbage is either stupid or deceptive. No one have ever observed a new species been born. Lots of species goes instinct every day, but none are born, it's a lie made up for purpose.
kennjohnsen 11 months ago
@kennjohnsen I think you don't understand evolution, and you don't understand the difference between 50 years and 50,000. Small changes and diversion of breeding populations cause species to diverge slowly.
We have seen speciation predicted by evolution occur within the 100 years of observation (western 8-spotted salamander common ancestor into pacific and southern desert species that don't look like each other and can't interbreed for one).
drfoxcourt 11 months ago
@kennjohnsen So if species go extinct all the time... why haven't we run out of species? Herp derp...
Juxtaroberto 11 months ago
@Juxtaroberto
Herp derp....that's the question, is it not, that is the theory, a theory.
kennjohnsen 11 months ago
@kennjohnsen I'm having trouble understanding you... are you arguing that it's "just a theory?" Look up the scientific definition of theory.
Evolution is vindicated in the nested hierarchy of the fossil record and the nested hierarchy of our DNA.
Yes, we've seen new species of plant and fruit fly be born. So there goes THAT argument.
Let me guess.... you don't actually have a degree in evolutionary biology, all your research was done at creationist websites. Am I right?
Juxtaroberto 11 months ago
@Juxtaroberto
Yes, just a theory, Yes the fossil shows that species just pop up. No, no species have been seen born. No, I have not picked it up on an religious website.
kennjohnsen 11 months ago