Interestingly enough as far as wisdom teeth go, I had a girlfriend who naturally lacked wisdom teeth as did all her female children, her mother and as far as they were able to tell me all the women in their family. Evolution maybe?
@vOddy75 Actually it does. Wisdom teeth become impacted, infected and abscessed more frequently than other teeth. It's why we typically remove them. They are the most likely to cause medical problems, including lethal ones and those evident enough to effect sexual selection like chronic bad breath and misalignment of the other teeth. So the answer to your question, especially in an ancient or third world environment, is an unqualified YES!
Original sin is bullshit as it implies we're all incestuous bstard children. If we WERE, we'd be suffering from so many imperfections, the infant mortality rate would go up by 95%.
What you call junk DNA actually have function. Science just haven't found it. All other so called vestigial organs is actually have function. People at the past just haven't figure out their function. Tail bone? Try to cut it and let see if you can sit down comfortably. Appendix creating anti infection enzim.
Even according to islam, religon evolved, from the verry primitive rules, o the "Very modern" islam which is the "most evolved one" and yet, it seems to be behind...
Wisdom teeth?...medical iprovements?...what about 4000 years ago?or 5000 years ago?...or for Darwinians billion years ago?..when the medical movement did not even exist?...do those humans die or stop function in large numbers just because they did not had a Darwinian doctor at hand?...i think Darwinians forgot that humans use to live longer and healthy than today,a scientist will look at this video and laugh,cause the video is just so obvious,looks like atheists are running out of material.
@editingroomfloor ...the cave men?..please!...even if they live 35 to 40,they still make it to 40 with out a darwinian doctor or any hospitals,and besides im talking about 3000 years ago,or 4..like for example Plato die when he was 81 years old,and that was in 347 bc,Hannibal Barca was 64 in 182 bc,Pyrrho was 89 years old in 271 bc..how did they get soo old with out Darwin? how did they get soo old with out a dentist?..atheists hear only what they want.You people exaggerates to much.
@breedofthe45 He's referring to the _average_ lifespan being ~35 in those epochs — you know, the age that the _majority_ of people died at; not the wealthy or revered few who were considered significant enough to have left their mark on history. Without modern medicine, not everyone will die giving birth, or from wisdom teeth, an infected appendix or gall bladder — or whatever — but the majority will. The average lifespan has almost tripled in light of medical & technical advancements.
@Boy192 .Thats not an answer, thats an opinion, not a fact. Atheists are intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing to offer in terms of serious moral, theological or even scientific debate. They are very much a product of the television age. They celebrate their own ignorance.The failing of many of these atheists, which I think is at the core utopian vision, is that they believe human beings can progress morally in the same way that science has. That is a disastrous belief system.
B45 So, someone who doesn't believe in God is intellectually bankrupt? 64% of US scientists are atheist or agnostic, and of biologists — those dedicated & educated in the study of life — more than three quarters of them are atheist or agnostic; it's only the scientifically-illiterate general public that boast such overwhelming religious belief. You're also wasting time attacking arguments I didn't necessarily make. I'm not bothering with the rest of your piffle — everyone can see you're a moron.
The new socialist atheist movement misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, which never posits that moral evolution is possible, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible. The New Atheists are a secular version of the religious Right. Religion, at its best, struggles with the transcendent forces in life and seeks to promote an ethic of compassion and justice.Yet we are not blind to the ways religion has been distorted, it is a shame science end up with the same fate.
@Boy192 Next time M.R Intolerance, keep your opinions to yourself, you ain't fooling no one, pet names and insults won't make you an intellectual, makes you a silly bully who can only scare the little kids at school, right now, you're talking to a senior in this class room, therefore if you want my lunch? come and get it and see what will happen KID!
@sleazybtd ...I think he already did refute his points, i guess is you who can't live with his answers, And name callin? where did he call him any names? i can see he said atheists in general not as an individual, breed is attacking the ideology, not the massenger. I agree with breed, i think opinions are not facts, if anybody disagree with that is not only dishonest, but should be out of the scientific field......
@effiu69 He didn't refute any points. Read his posts. He just throws out a whole bunch of misinformed opinions of what atheism is about. He thinks science is a religion which promises to cure all the world's problems (no one has ever made any such promise).
Name calling: look at his last reply. "MR Intolerance" and "KID". Yes, he's using "kid" as an insult if you look at the context.
I agree that opinions are not facts, maybe I missed it, but what opinion is being presented as fact?
@sleazybtd MR Intolerance?...KID???.are you serious? is that now offensive? wow!, so words like 'moron' is not name callin?..cmon, I know better than that and so do you, those are not insults, those words in a Politically Correct situation are not offensive, for crying out loud even Christopher Hitchens say worst things than that!!!....but Kid? or Mr Intolerance? I am sorry, i just can't see it, maybe is just me...
@effiu69 They may be tame, but they're still being used in an insulting manner.
I noticed that you completely latched onto the semantics game and completely ignored my other points. Show me where breedofthe45 refuted any points instead of just spouting nonsense about atheists. Also, you never answered my question of what opinions were presented as facts.
@slea I think the question answer itself, opinions are not facts, i can't understand why ask me to answer that again?. There is always someone out there who is going to know more than you about some things, if not many things. That’s life!. Boy192 ability to think is limited to memorization and breed adress that. The problem with that way of viewing the world according to breedofthe45 is that it excludes critical thought, intuition, empathy, and wisdom.In other words, some atheists are fanatics.
@effiu69 Again, you avoided the question. WHICH SPECIFIC OPINIONS WERE PRESENTED AS FACT? If you're going to accuse someone of presenting opinions as facts, at least point it out so that everyone can be on the same page.
Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Boy192's ability to think is limited to memorization?
breedofthe45 's rants seems to fly off on a tangent saying that atheist this and that, but they're rants. They don't address points brought up.
@sleazybtd You think what you want, i am not telling you what you should belive, but il be damn if you are gonna force me see it your way, i can think for my own, i answer your question, opinions are not facts, what else do you want from me? If you are just gonna agree with every atheist even if is wrong thats fine by me, give him the thumbs up even if he is wrong, because he is, i am not trying to hurt your feelings, but the truth is the truth, im not gonna take your side just to please you.
@effiu69 You stated that you agreed with breedofthe45 that opinions are not fact. This implied that Boy192 had presented an opinion as a fact. I had already agreed with you that opinions are not fact. My question was and still is: what opinion did Boy192 present as a fact? If you're going to accuse him of presenting an opinion as fact, POINT IT OUT! If you can't point it out, then you made a false accusation and should apologize to Boy192. That's what an honest person would do.
@effiu69 I never tried to convince you to take my side. I've only asked you to back up your accusations.
You've accused Boy192 of:
- presenting his opinion as a fact
- his ability to think is limited to memorization
Now back up your accusations or apologize to Boy192 for making false accusations.
You challenged me to point out where breedofthe45 called names, and I pointed it out, you just disagreed that they were name-calling. Now, why don't you back up your accusations like I did?
@sleazybtd What accusations? listen to yourself!!..i said i agree with breed, whats wrong with that? breed did the accusations and i agree, if you want to agree with Boy192 is your right, but is my right to agree with breed, if you want answers to your question you need to adress that with breed, not with me since i just said i agree with him, so relax, not all atheist know everything, thats something you have to live with, you haven't back up nothing, you just bitchin about breed's comments.
@effiu69 If you agree with breedofthe45's accusation, then you must believe that the accusation is correct. So did Boy192 ever present any opinion as fact or not?
And I did address my reply to breedofthe45. For some reason, you decided to jump in.
I backed up my accusation that breedofthe45 was name calling while chastising Boy192 of doing it.
When did ANYONE say that atheists know everything? Is that another accusation that you can't back up? Why would you make that statement at all?
@sleazybt I think the accusation is correct, i do agree with breed, thats not a crime. About breed's name calling, i don't think the Civil Rights movement will join you on that one, neither do i, 'M.r Tolerance' and 'Kid' are not insults, are the remarks of a smartass, but not an insult, besides, boy192 call breed a moron first, i guess thats not name calling in your books, You have an answer to your questions, you just don't like the answers, so you're looking for anything to win the argument.
@effiu69 If you think the accusation is correct, then point out how you came to that conclusion. I'm sure you looked and found nothing, and since you're such a dishonest person, you're refusing to admit that your accusation is baseless.
You might disagree with me that breed was calling names, but I do consider it name calling.
Did I ever say that Boy192 didn't call names? Did I defend him in that regard? I just pointed out how hypocritical it is to call someone out for it while doing it yourself
@effiu69 It's not that I didn't like the answer, it's just that you never gave an answer and are pretending that you did. See, I just provided evidence that you're dishonest.
Obviously, you don't understand the rules of the game. You don't back up baseless accusations with more baseless accusations. You have to provide specific examples, not vague generalizations (which happen to be nonsense in this case).
I think you described yourself when you said that some people stop learning.
@sleazybtd Dude, i am not trying to be disrespectfull towards you or anybody, but i can't understand what do you want, i already give you my answer from my understanding of the subject, but you're asking me to adress questions done by breedofthe45, i am not him, i can't adress that matter, i give you my imput of what i did agree with his comment, but you can't live with the answer, you're asking me the same question in different ways with the hope to get a different answer. I can't help you.
You'll notice that person2's statement is actually a refute of person1's opinion. Person2 is actually saying, "opinions aren't facts, therefore it's not a fact that you have a huge penis". When person3 jumped in agreeing with person2, he implicitly agrees that person1 doesn't have a huge penis.
@sleazybtd These new atheists talk, they don’t listen. They ask lots of questions, but never wait to hear your answers. For them, questions are not a search for information, but rather a method of antagonism. It is a way to keep everyone else on guard while making themselves feel superior. In this game, the atheists fanatic never has to expose his ignorance because he never has to enter into a meaningful dialogue with anyone who has an opposing view.All he has to do is attack, attack, attack.
@effiu69 Wow. It sounds like you're describing a typical christian.
So if atheists don't want answers, then why do so many of them go into the sciences? And you do realize that there's an inverse relationship between religion and intelligence, right? Basically, the more schooling you've completed, the less likely that you're religious. So much for atheists not wanting answers.
Can you point out when I ridiculed you, ignored logic, made threats, or denied your qualification to disagree?
@sleazybtd Your hatred towards Christianity is not gonna make your opinions as facts, all the contrary, it will make you take sides, therefore your answers are a chance to rant about Christianity only, since is too many religions and to see you only ranting against only one i can go into the conclusion that you don't care about the conversation or the subject, but a chance to please your own bigotry against one religion in specific. I never claim to be religious, i said i agree with breed.
@effiu69 Okay, I see your strategy now. You're making all sorts of statements, then qualify them by saying "that's how I understand breedofthe45's argument". By making it someone else's opinion, you can stay clean of making baseless accusations and don't have to back them up. Clever, but still dishonest.
@sleazybtd When confronted with a truth that threatens your established world view, you will do anything to distract or derail the exchange. Resorting to childish ridicule, ignoring cold hard logic, making threats, denying I am qualified to disagree with any atheistic opinion, even though the facts speak for themselves no matter how many twists you give to, will you confront the truth you present on its own terms. Instead, you try to make me the issue of discussion, and not the subject.
@effiu69 Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the listening problem, and have problems following logic?
My basic point is: if you accuse someone of wrongdoing, back it up with facts.
Look at your last 2 posts. You accuse atheists of a whole lot of nonsense, but where's your backup? Can you name any incidents where atheists have done the things you're accusing them of? Point out a video, name a name, anything. You've got a whole lot of nothing backing up your accusations.
@sleazybtd I already did, my opinions are not facts, but neither are yours or boy192, thats something you can't compute, your questions and accusations don't have a foundation or in that matter logic, is only accusations that for some reason are facts because a consensus agree with, a collective mind set, not a scientific mind set, therefore is opinions using data, but disputable since the data is incomplete, driving public opinion which some disagree, others agree, i choose to agree with breed.
@sleazybtd You have a problem with listening, can't answer the same question 50 diffrent ways just because you ain't happy with the answer, or maybe you are looking at the subject from a world view instead of an opinion point of view, i don't know, but you start to creep me out! dude!, talking about penis and name calling using words like 'kid' or 'mr tolerance' i can't get in page with you, i can't follow your logic!, is not only confusing. You have to let it go before it will drive you insane
@sleazyb Learning is a full time job, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the very moment your ticker tocks and you find yourself 6 feet under. Some people, though, seem to think that retirement on learning starts when Dawkins leave the stage. Atheists Fanatics of Darwinism are commonly men and women who are intelligent enough to retain information but not driven enough to research its validity, or to follow a thought through to its logical conclusion. Thats what i understood from breedofthe45.
@sleazybtd Is it really that hard to double check a piece of data to confirm whether or not it is true? it must be, because so many atheists have decided to believe whatever they are told without a second thought as long as the guy telling them is in a suit or a white lab coat with a Darwinian name tag. If a guy in a lab coat told you that cyanide makes you more desirable to the opposite sex, would you slam down a glass before hitting the singles bar? Thats breed's argument and i agree with it.
@breed45 And really, don't humour us with "atheists hear only what they want". You're obviously a superstitious apologist — probably Christian — and therefore, because of your subscription to dogma, you won't accept anything that contradicts that — you'll only hear what you want to hear. Many of your evangelical cronies blatantly testify that they won't accept anything — no amount of evidence — that contradicts holy scripture, i.e. the Bible. Only what they want to hear; no scientist does that.
@Boy192 That kind of garbage is what you get from utopians and fundamentalist, This is a fundamentalist mindset.One of the fascinating things about going after this theists is that it is exactly the same as going after radical Christian fundamentalists.What I am saying to you is, “You are just as messed up as the rest of the human race.” They can’t hear that. Atheists through secular language have created essentially a fundamentalist belief system that elevates them. In this case Darwinism
@Boy192 Of course. It is a malformed theology. It is really a blind religion and science. Science is going to save us in the same way that Christian fundamentalists believe Jesus is going to come down from the sky and lift believers up into heaven. It is no more real than alchemy and just as intellectually shallow. To place a blind faith in science is to ignore the fact that most scientists in this country work on behalf of corporations and the defense industry.
@Boy192 Science isn’t going to save us any more than a (mythical) Virgin descending from the sky is going to save us. And to somehow place your faith in this abstract notion is to relinquish ethical and moral responsibility. It is to fall into a kind of dreamy utopian vision that everything will be made alright. If you go back and study how despotic systems or totalitarian systems come into play, the first thing they do is rewrite the legal code so that tyranny essentially becomes legal.
@breedofthe45 Yeah, that's right, because medical advancements, technological advancements, observation & reason — the products & practices of science — aren't going to save our species any more than superstitious Bronze Age myths will; it's only already tripled the average life expectancy.
The main pillars of the new atheist belief system, including a simplified world view of us versus them, intolerance and an irrational belief in science as the force that will resolve all problems, including the irredeemable flaws of human nature, that belief is itself an act of faith. divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. A secular form of the same disease.
@Boy192 Science isn’t going to save us any more than a (mythical) Virgin descending from the sky is going to save us. And to somehow place your faith in this abstract notion is to relinquish ethical and moral responsibility. It is to fall into a kind of dreamy utopian vision that everything will be made alright. If you go back and study how despotic systems or totalitarian systems come into play, the first thing they do is rewrite the legal code so that tyranny essentially becomes legal.
"I thought that this test would be the one I could think of."
Oh really?
* * *
These "evidences," left alone, mean nothing, really. You MUST research the reason, context and all that.
You take one observation and assume everything from there. False assumption #1 is that God is "required" to create a perfect being. But then we have to define perfect. What if "perfect" creation was designed in such a way that we would strive to learn and understand it; leading eventually to God Himself?
The appendix, as well as the tonsils, are part of the lymphatic system. Many people who remove their appendices or tonsils have a much greater chance of developing stomach cancer or throat cancer, respectively, later in life.
The wisdom teeth are secondary teeth, as when one of our teeth gets punched, knocked out, rotted out, etc. over time, before dental care.
Yes, I would. I'm not saying that there's absolutely nothing I accept, but if I were to accept that a single entity knows everything with flawless accuracy, then that would destroy any and all pursuit of knowledge and learning. To me, loss of that makes life pointless, and thus I would only know loathing of this entity. Therefore, I would question him in order to avoid forfeiting myself to that sense of dread.
So antybu86's point is that if we were created by a perfect Creator, that we in turn would be perfect in all aspects of our being, and that if we were just came out of the mud that we have evolved perfectly? If our appendix/gall bladder/etc are non functioning organs that we don't really need, wouldn't that cause us to evolve them out of our bodies over time? Could it be that they in fact DO have a purpose, but it isn't plainly clear the reason?
Im glad you mentioned Vestigiality, since its a foot in the ass of ID. Although you did forget to mention that some vestigial organs may eventually take on a secondary function, due to evolution. Take our appendix for example; studies have shown that it may harbour and protect bacteria useful to our colon. Once upon a time however, it would have been used to help our primate ancestors digest leaves.
I would have included the blind spot, the ID's biggest bullshit story is the perfection of the eye, the blind spot fucks both arguments up. too simple
Actually, joshman94, a better "design" would be to attach the nerves BEHIND the rods and cones, allowing for a layer to be in place in front of the optic nerve.
no because the blood vessels leading into the vitreous body would still need somewhere to come from
and for that to happen with the nerves on the other side the nerve is attached the same way as the light gets recieved by the rods and cones so you would need to change the whole eye system for that to work which you know would take a very long time and since its not really of importance for that to happen
The blind-spot is there because there is a gap in the retina, through which the fibers of your photo-receptive cells leave your eye to form the optic nerve.
it's amazing for me to hear that there is no design because of a little gap that is actually functioning. Dude, we HAVE eyes! evolution didn't know there was something to see at all. riddle me that. GOD created our eyes to see and our ears to hear and our hands to feel. Evolution couldn't have done any of that.
sir I was simply stating that it is not the vaunted design perfection professed by the ID croud. I know that it is more or less perfectly suited to our needs and that natural selection has compensated for the evolutionary legacy of this mechanism by filling in the bank with something like a pattern detection system (see Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain). The human eye is certainly a selection marvel, but it doesn't need to be this way. case in point, the octopus.
whoa what? I thought goosebumps were a natural way are body constricts the skin when in a cold environment to attempt to retain more heat? or at least that's what Bill Nye tells me :O
this video and all others like it are a noble gesture but true creationists dont rely on facts or evidence or logic
faith is their dogma and scripture is enough
maybe if these videos werent directed as attacks on morons and maybe a softer appraoch to coaxing fence sitters into thinking they would have more effect
yeah. digestion of cells is the definition of death. by eating any vegetable or fruit or animal or anything, they were causing death. life is defined as any organism that maintains internal homeostasis, ie: does all of its functions alone, including replication. all cells are alive, hence death.
also, why would we need to eat if we were perfect? why would we not be infinitely strong, flexible, rugged, intelligent, etc? wouldnt the lack of these perfect traits imply (actually "prove beyond all doubt") that we are not, nor have ever been perfect? 2 legs are better than none, but maybe 4 legs is better. maybe eyes on 4 sides of the head, with vision in the microwave through the gammaray spectrums would be better.
You could argue the same thing rgarding the evolution of creatures. How does a creature (eg sheep) evolve the knowledge that if it falls off a cliff it will die?
perfacetus - How do you know they contain the knowledge of cliffs equalling a fatal incident?
generally, if an animal has came to a non fatal incident, anything in greater severity will be held in higher fears. Most animals have the capability to take this into account when witnessing it.
If you were never told fire could hurt you. Would you know it can cause pain if you never held you skin up towards an open flame?
Considering what the earth was meant to be like all those millions of years ago I'm surprised anything lived at all if they had to get injured/suffer pain/nearly die when interacting with it before they could know that it was dangerous.
"If you were never told fire could hurt you. Would you know it can cause pain if you never held you skin up towards an open flame?"
perfacetus - I'm sure you didn't check "what the earth was meant to be like all those millions of years ago" since you said millions instead of a specific date.
We're always subjected to pain. If it's turning in your bed, getting a new position in your chair or even simply walking.
The fire analogy works because it happens in every creature of every species.
The date need not be specific, no doubt you agree there has always been and abundance of threats/dangers to life
We have always been subject to pain but that is gradual damage. Falling off a cliff gives no pain whatsoever, until you hit the bottom of course and then its lights out. There is no way to evolve a fear of great heights.
I'm not talking about fire, fire is something you have do by half measures (a little burn) I'm talking about the things around us that either kills you or doesn't.
perfacetus - The data does need to be specific. If you'e insinuating the world was more hazardous you need to give more accurate data. The things which are harmful but not fatal will effect your reaction to those which are harmful and fatal. If you fall 10 feet and hurt your leg you'll fear greater heights. If you have a small burn from a small fire you'll fear immense fire. We can still see this happening today.
You still haven't proven a sheep knows a cliff is dangerous.
Sheep know its dangerous and that is why they avoid the edge and don't fall off. Otherwise there would be a rather large pile of dead sheep on the coastline near where I live.
If you fall off 10 feet and its bad it doesn't mean 100 feet will be bad. Well it does logically but we know that because we have experience and logic. Not something you'd expect from a low level animal.
perfacetus - The measurement of height is irrelevant, if you have experienced a fall, anything which can lead to that is going to trigger a response. Children do this on a daily basis.
Being near a coastline means nothing. You need to establish they actually fear going near it. They wouldn't need to go near it because they can't see any food supplies.
My cat was once trapped in a fold out bed and his tail was broken, guess what he stopped doing after that.
I have seen them on the edge of cliffs but not going on parts that would cause them to fall off. There was no barrier and there was an incentive to be there (food).
perfacetus - Hang on, if they're consistently on the edge of a cliff, how is one area a higher risk of falling off than the other? The risk is still the same.
Actually falling can cause severe stress which can be interpreted as pain but since pain itself has no absolute definition, it's nothing more than semantics.
Should I be the first to note your arguments are inherently void because it's a violation of statistics of small numbers fallacy?
Falling causes severe stress, well yes because its your bodies way of saying your are about to die, but how did that reaction occur in the first place.
They go near but not so near they fall off, even though they could physically, they don't.
perfacetus - The body gives no preconceived notion of death. It causes a reaction based on the surrounding environment. It's an evolutionary reaction.
Once again, it's a fallacy and a vague anecdotal account. I can easily do what you're doing to forward my argument, but I'm not.
That is my very point, how could such a reaction evolve?
A great height poses no threat whatsoever unless one falls of and dies. If one does fall then they cannnot evolve and if one doesn't there is no reason to fear falling.
perfacetus - I've told you several times. But you're either not getting it or you have a severe case of selective hearing.
Small fall = Pain. Therefore large fall = Death.
It's called the experiences of life and you had proven my concept when you said yes to my fire question. If a small burn can make you fear fire and avoid a blazing inferno, what is stopping the logic from applying here?
Nothing poses a thread if you're in a situation where you're not being subjected to it.
perfacetus - Fires are not all equally consistent just like not all falls are fatal. The heats intensity isn't consistent however any open flame will cause harm so you can very close to a small fire.
When did you become the commentator on an animals intelligence? Which animals are dull? What are they dull in or are they equally dull for everything?
Oh right, so just because we're so intelligent that some how makes them void of anything rational, by any standard at all.
"The heats intensity isn't consistent however any open flame will cause harm so you can very close to a small fire."
Can you reiterate, I don't understand the sentence.
Simple creatures wouldn't have evolved the ability to foresee death when falling down a cliff face. And the only way to find out would prevent the knowledge from being passed on.
And which genetic information do you think is more likely to be passed down: the animal who developed a fear of heights/cliffs or the animal that didn't?
Neither. The animal wouldn't know to fear (specifically) very high drops unless it had fallen down at some point. Had this occurred it would be dead and unable to pass the genes on.
perfacetus - I'm getting sick of this and you seem to have selective hearing.
1. You HAVE NOT proven sheep fear cliffs because your 'evidence' is anecdotal and a LOGICAL FALLACY.
2. You're failing to understand the small cliff = pain therefore large fall = more pain (e.g death) and you already had proven this with my fire example and now you're pissing around with semantics.
I wouldn't be surprised if you have never picked up a biology book.
It's because fear of heights is an evolutionary advantage! Animals that aren't good at climbing (like humans) are more likely to survive if they have a fear of heights - that way, they stay away from things like steep. Whereas if we weren't afraid of heights, we'd be more likely to hang around ledges and therefore more likely to fall off and die (and therefore less likely to pass on our genes).
What were the chances of perfacetus getting this right?
But how do you get the fear in the first place is what we're talking about?
You need a reason to fear things and you can't tell a cliff is dangerous until you fall off. When you do you have no chance to pass on your fear through genetics... because you're dead.
Well that is rather difficult to provide over the web. You could easily find out by trying to push one over a cliff but since that is probably illegal (not to mention cruel) I wouldn't really be able to recommend it.
You don't really think that a sheep would just walk off the edge of a cliff do you? (even it it was after some grass near the edge or something).
Animals that were incorrectly 'unafraid' of heights, wandered off cliffs before they were able to reproduce.
Animals who had the bizarre mutation to have a measure of acrophobia...did not go near cliffs, and led happy lives long enough to reproduce and pass their bizarre mutation on to the next generation.
Not all the 'non afraid' oganisms died off, leading to some organisms being more 'adventurous' with heights than others.
You REALLY didn't read the whole conversation did you?
perfacetus said sheep are afraid of heights and can't have fear through evolutionary means (amongst other claims) so he needs to establish sheep have a fear before he can make any claims based off that assertion.
I showed a plausible scenario as to how a 'fear of heights' would be passed down via natural selection. Sheep predecessors weeded themselves out of the gene pool by being 'bold/careless' around ledges.
They demonstrate the same type of 'fear' as roaches have for getting stepped on, or paranoid squirrels have for being caught.
Instincts that work out to lead to survival through puberty get passed on to the next generation. Including anything that we call 'fear' in any organism.
The problem first of all is, the guy Stated "everything you see was CREATED by, evolution" Incorrect right there. Evolution does not explain the creation of life. It explains the progression of change. This is a common problem I see with creationist. They use Evolution as a source, to disprove where we all originated from. I say ...Ha! Who knows. Stop wondering and get me a sandwich!
Thank you, I try not to think too much. I find that in most cases it requires researching and I would much rather be eating a piece of strawberry pie!
I could bring you many more examples regarding the obselete bits of the Human Anatomy. There are usless muscles, weird routes for arteries, cancer and the not so perfect eye which has a blind spot.
lol nice vid... I think the vestigial organ arguments are fine for the purpose of refuting that guy... even if minor uses are gained by any evolutionary remnants... they are obviously not the most efficient way to get the tasks done. Too bad we weren't designed or we wouldn't have so many problems =[.
How should they be done more efficiently? How can you even claim something can be done better then it is only in recent years we have evn workd out what it is for?
katfellow below posted examples. so i dont need to repeat them. no matter how small their purpose seem to be, they do have a purpose. can we live without them? yes it has been proven, but we can also live without many other parts of our bodies doesnt make them a bad thing does it? I do get his point though. Im not a creationist so i get it but these examples listen in the video are not too much convincing.
We should remember, many things we don't know. (still ALOT to learn about dna)
Coccyx : remove it & find out what use it had for you. lol
Appendix : acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs - may help digestion, it may help the immune system as well. (studies are still going)
You don't need both your arms & legs to live nowadays, are they leftovers too? lol
Modern science has this bad idea of thinking that human body parts are useless and that they know better. every part in our bodies are important- if they don't know why it's there, or it's use, it's because they haven't discovered it yet. If I became an atheist I still would believe that all our body parts have a functional purpose. btw, science is continually discovering the purposes as they go along. I just wish they wouldn't act like they know it all from the start. it causes problems
perhaps if you were to surgically remove the tailbone you would get why you need it. It certainly doesn't do any harm.
I'm not saying that I personally know the purpose of each and every body part. (although I know a good many that were quoted in this vid) but I strongly believe that each part has a purpose and when cut out or messed with, it's usually to the detriment, unless, in the rare occasion that there is some retardation or abnormal growth.
LOL. Very good. I am now a subscriber. A couple other good ones are the pinky finger and the two bones of the forearm. We don't need the pinky to pick up objects. The two bones in the forearm are redudant and we only really need one.
Interestingly enough as far as wisdom teeth go, I had a girlfriend who naturally lacked wisdom teeth as did all her female children, her mother and as far as they were able to tell me all the women in their family. Evolution maybe?
MrMZaccone 9 months ago
@MrMZaccone I doubt it. Does lacking wisdom teeth make you die less, and / or have more children?
vOddy75 6 months ago
@vOddy75 Actually it does. Wisdom teeth become impacted, infected and abscessed more frequently than other teeth. It's why we typically remove them. They are the most likely to cause medical problems, including lethal ones and those evident enough to effect sexual selection like chronic bad breath and misalignment of the other teeth. So the answer to your question, especially in an ancient or third world environment, is an unqualified YES!
MrMZaccone 6 months ago
This guy obviously never read or understood the bible. This is because he ignores the reasons for the imperfections in humanity.
st4ticblu3 10 months ago
@st4ticblu3
Original sin is bullshit as it implies we're all incestuous bstard children. If we WERE, we'd be suffering from so many imperfections, the infant mortality rate would go up by 95%.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@st4ticblu3 go onnn..
jul1an77 6 months ago
What you call junk DNA actually have function. Science just haven't found it. All other so called vestigial organs is actually have function. People at the past just haven't figure out their function. Tail bone? Try to cut it and let see if you can sit down comfortably. Appendix creating anti infection enzim.
probokator 1 year ago
@probokator Every year around 10000 people are born without an apendix and live perfectly healthy lives.
Sweddude 11 months ago
Ah the Bible, one of my favorites. I especially love the verse that says "And God said let there be no error rate for DNA synthesis."
Oh wait, it doesn't say that. Damn and I thought you had something there.
newart2004 1 year ago
Even according to islam, religon evolved, from the verry primitive rules, o the "Very modern" islam which is the "most evolved one" and yet, it seems to be behind...
mogul50 1 year ago
Yes, you NEED to talk about goose bumps.
91TheKW91 1 year ago
Wisdom teeth?...medical iprovements?...what about 4000 years ago?or 5000 years ago?...or for Darwinians billion years ago?..when the medical movement did not even exist?...do those humans die or stop function in large numbers just because they did not had a Darwinian doctor at hand?...i think Darwinians forgot that humans use to live longer and healthy than today,a scientist will look at this video and laugh,cause the video is just so obvious,looks like atheists are running out of material.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 What are you talking about? During the bronze age human life expectancy was around 35-40, It's now at around 65-70 as a global average.
editingroomfloor 1 year ago
@editingroomfloor ...the cave men?..please!...even if they live 35 to 40,they still make it to 40 with out a darwinian doctor or any hospitals,and besides im talking about 3000 years ago,or 4..like for example Plato die when he was 81 years old,and that was in 347 bc,Hannibal Barca was 64 in 182 bc,Pyrrho was 89 years old in 271 bc..how did they get soo old with out Darwin? how did they get soo old with out a dentist?..atheists hear only what they want.You people exaggerates to much.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 He's referring to the _average_ lifespan being ~35 in those epochs — you know, the age that the _majority_ of people died at; not the wealthy or revered few who were considered significant enough to have left their mark on history. Without modern medicine, not everyone will die giving birth, or from wisdom teeth, an infected appendix or gall bladder — or whatever — but the majority will. The average lifespan has almost tripled in light of medical & technical advancements.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 .Thats not an answer, thats an opinion, not a fact. Atheists are intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing to offer in terms of serious moral, theological or even scientific debate. They are very much a product of the television age. They celebrate their own ignorance.The failing of many of these atheists, which I think is at the core utopian vision, is that they believe human beings can progress morally in the same way that science has. That is a disastrous belief system.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
B45 So, someone who doesn't believe in God is intellectually bankrupt? 64% of US scientists are atheist or agnostic, and of biologists — those dedicated & educated in the study of life — more than three quarters of them are atheist or agnostic; it's only the scientifically-illiterate general public that boast such overwhelming religious belief. You're also wasting time attacking arguments I didn't necessarily make. I'm not bothering with the rest of your piffle — everyone can see you're a moron.
Boy192 1 year ago
The new socialist atheist movement misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, which never posits that moral evolution is possible, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible. The New Atheists are a secular version of the religious Right. Religion, at its best, struggles with the transcendent forces in life and seeks to promote an ethic of compassion and justice.Yet we are not blind to the ways religion has been distorted, it is a shame science end up with the same fate.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@Boy192 Next time M.R Intolerance, keep your opinions to yourself, you ain't fooling no one, pet names and insults won't make you an intellectual, makes you a silly bully who can only scare the little kids at school, right now, you're talking to a senior in this class room, therefore if you want my lunch? come and get it and see what will happen KID!
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 Nice. Calling someone out about name calling while calling them names.
I also like how when you couldn't refute the points made, you go straight for the threats.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd ...I think he already did refute his points, i guess is you who can't live with his answers, And name callin? where did he call him any names? i can see he said atheists in general not as an individual, breed is attacking the ideology, not the massenger. I agree with breed, i think opinions are not facts, if anybody disagree with that is not only dishonest, but should be out of the scientific field......
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 He didn't refute any points. Read his posts. He just throws out a whole bunch of misinformed opinions of what atheism is about. He thinks science is a religion which promises to cure all the world's problems (no one has ever made any such promise).
Name calling: look at his last reply. "MR Intolerance" and "KID". Yes, he's using "kid" as an insult if you look at the context.
I agree that opinions are not facts, maybe I missed it, but what opinion is being presented as fact?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd MR Intolerance?...KID???.are you serious? is that now offensive? wow!, so words like 'moron' is not name callin?..cmon, I know better than that and so do you, those are not insults, those words in a Politically Correct situation are not offensive, for crying out loud even Christopher Hitchens say worst things than that!!!....but Kid? or Mr Intolerance? I am sorry, i just can't see it, maybe is just me...
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 They may be tame, but they're still being used in an insulting manner.
I noticed that you completely latched onto the semantics game and completely ignored my other points. Show me where breedofthe45 refuted any points instead of just spouting nonsense about atheists. Also, you never answered my question of what opinions were presented as facts.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@slea I think the question answer itself, opinions are not facts, i can't understand why ask me to answer that again?. There is always someone out there who is going to know more than you about some things, if not many things. That’s life!. Boy192 ability to think is limited to memorization and breed adress that. The problem with that way of viewing the world according to breedofthe45 is that it excludes critical thought, intuition, empathy, and wisdom.In other words, some atheists are fanatics.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 Again, you avoided the question. WHICH SPECIFIC OPINIONS WERE PRESENTED AS FACT? If you're going to accuse someone of presenting opinions as facts, at least point it out so that everyone can be on the same page.
Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Boy192's ability to think is limited to memorization?
breedofthe45 's rants seems to fly off on a tangent saying that atheist this and that, but they're rants. They don't address points brought up.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd You think what you want, i am not telling you what you should belive, but il be damn if you are gonna force me see it your way, i can think for my own, i answer your question, opinions are not facts, what else do you want from me? If you are just gonna agree with every atheist even if is wrong thats fine by me, give him the thumbs up even if he is wrong, because he is, i am not trying to hurt your feelings, but the truth is the truth, im not gonna take your side just to please you.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 You stated that you agreed with breedofthe45 that opinions are not fact. This implied that Boy192 had presented an opinion as a fact. I had already agreed with you that opinions are not fact. My question was and still is: what opinion did Boy192 present as a fact? If you're going to accuse him of presenting an opinion as fact, POINT IT OUT! If you can't point it out, then you made a false accusation and should apologize to Boy192. That's what an honest person would do.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@effiu69 I never tried to convince you to take my side. I've only asked you to back up your accusations.
You've accused Boy192 of:
- presenting his opinion as a fact
- his ability to think is limited to memorization
Now back up your accusations or apologize to Boy192 for making false accusations.
You challenged me to point out where breedofthe45 called names, and I pointed it out, you just disagreed that they were name-calling. Now, why don't you back up your accusations like I did?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd What accusations? listen to yourself!!..i said i agree with breed, whats wrong with that? breed did the accusations and i agree, if you want to agree with Boy192 is your right, but is my right to agree with breed, if you want answers to your question you need to adress that with breed, not with me since i just said i agree with him, so relax, not all atheist know everything, thats something you have to live with, you haven't back up nothing, you just bitchin about breed's comments.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 If you agree with breedofthe45's accusation, then you must believe that the accusation is correct. So did Boy192 ever present any opinion as fact or not?
And I did address my reply to breedofthe45. For some reason, you decided to jump in.
I backed up my accusation that breedofthe45 was name calling while chastising Boy192 of doing it.
When did ANYONE say that atheists know everything? Is that another accusation that you can't back up? Why would you make that statement at all?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybt I think the accusation is correct, i do agree with breed, thats not a crime. About breed's name calling, i don't think the Civil Rights movement will join you on that one, neither do i, 'M.r Tolerance' and 'Kid' are not insults, are the remarks of a smartass, but not an insult, besides, boy192 call breed a moron first, i guess thats not name calling in your books, You have an answer to your questions, you just don't like the answers, so you're looking for anything to win the argument.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 If you think the accusation is correct, then point out how you came to that conclusion. I'm sure you looked and found nothing, and since you're such a dishonest person, you're refusing to admit that your accusation is baseless.
You might disagree with me that breed was calling names, but I do consider it name calling.
Did I ever say that Boy192 didn't call names? Did I defend him in that regard? I just pointed out how hypocritical it is to call someone out for it while doing it yourself
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd I did, you just don't like the answer, thats not my problem anymore.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 It's not that I didn't like the answer, it's just that you never gave an answer and are pretending that you did. See, I just provided evidence that you're dishonest.
Obviously, you don't understand the rules of the game. You don't back up baseless accusations with more baseless accusations. You have to provide specific examples, not vague generalizations (which happen to be nonsense in this case).
I think you described yourself when you said that some people stop learning.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Dude, i am not trying to be disrespectfull towards you or anybody, but i can't understand what do you want, i already give you my answer from my understanding of the subject, but you're asking me to adress questions done by breedofthe45, i am not him, i can't adress that matter, i give you my imput of what i did agree with his comment, but you can't live with the answer, you're asking me the same question in different ways with the hope to get a different answer. I can't help you.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 Context.
Let me present an example:
Person1: I have a huge penis!
Person2: Opinions aren't facts!
Person3: I agree, opinions aren't facts!
You'll notice that person2's statement is actually a refute of person1's opinion. Person2 is actually saying, "opinions aren't facts, therefore it's not a fact that you have a huge penis". When person3 jumped in agreeing with person2, he implicitly agrees that person1 doesn't have a huge penis.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd These new atheists talk, they don’t listen. They ask lots of questions, but never wait to hear your answers. For them, questions are not a search for information, but rather a method of antagonism. It is a way to keep everyone else on guard while making themselves feel superior. In this game, the atheists fanatic never has to expose his ignorance because he never has to enter into a meaningful dialogue with anyone who has an opposing view.All he has to do is attack, attack, attack.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 Wow. It sounds like you're describing a typical christian.
So if atheists don't want answers, then why do so many of them go into the sciences? And you do realize that there's an inverse relationship between religion and intelligence, right? Basically, the more schooling you've completed, the less likely that you're religious. So much for atheists not wanting answers.
Can you point out when I ridiculed you, ignored logic, made threats, or denied your qualification to disagree?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Your hatred towards Christianity is not gonna make your opinions as facts, all the contrary, it will make you take sides, therefore your answers are a chance to rant about Christianity only, since is too many religions and to see you only ranting against only one i can go into the conclusion that you don't care about the conversation or the subject, but a chance to please your own bigotry against one religion in specific. I never claim to be religious, i said i agree with breed.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 I guess you win because I can't understand half of what you just posted.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@effiu69 Okay, I see your strategy now. You're making all sorts of statements, then qualify them by saying "that's how I understand breedofthe45's argument". By making it someone else's opinion, you can stay clean of making baseless accusations and don't have to back them up. Clever, but still dishonest.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd When confronted with a truth that threatens your established world view, you will do anything to distract or derail the exchange. Resorting to childish ridicule, ignoring cold hard logic, making threats, denying I am qualified to disagree with any atheistic opinion, even though the facts speak for themselves no matter how many twists you give to, will you confront the truth you present on its own terms. Instead, you try to make me the issue of discussion, and not the subject.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 Have you considered the possibility that you're the one with the listening problem, and have problems following logic?
My basic point is: if you accuse someone of wrongdoing, back it up with facts.
Look at your last 2 posts. You accuse atheists of a whole lot of nonsense, but where's your backup? Can you name any incidents where atheists have done the things you're accusing them of? Point out a video, name a name, anything. You've got a whole lot of nothing backing up your accusations.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd I already did, my opinions are not facts, but neither are yours or boy192, thats something you can't compute, your questions and accusations don't have a foundation or in that matter logic, is only accusations that for some reason are facts because a consensus agree with, a collective mind set, not a scientific mind set, therefore is opinions using data, but disputable since the data is incomplete, driving public opinion which some disagree, others agree, i choose to agree with breed.
effiu69 1 year ago
@sleazybtd You have a problem with listening, can't answer the same question 50 diffrent ways just because you ain't happy with the answer, or maybe you are looking at the subject from a world view instead of an opinion point of view, i don't know, but you start to creep me out! dude!, talking about penis and name calling using words like 'kid' or 'mr tolerance' i can't get in page with you, i can't follow your logic!, is not only confusing. You have to let it go before it will drive you insane
effiu69 1 year ago
@sleazyb Learning is a full time job, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the very moment your ticker tocks and you find yourself 6 feet under. Some people, though, seem to think that retirement on learning starts when Dawkins leave the stage. Atheists Fanatics of Darwinism are commonly men and women who are intelligent enough to retain information but not driven enough to research its validity, or to follow a thought through to its logical conclusion. Thats what i understood from breedofthe45.
effiu69 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Is it really that hard to double check a piece of data to confirm whether or not it is true? it must be, because so many atheists have decided to believe whatever they are told without a second thought as long as the guy telling them is in a suit or a white lab coat with a Darwinian name tag. If a guy in a lab coat told you that cyanide makes you more desirable to the opposite sex, would you slam down a glass before hitting the singles bar? Thats breed's argument and i agree with it.
effiu69 1 year ago
@effiu69 More baseless accusations. Can you provide a specific example of people who stop learning after the lecture is over?
My accusation: creationists are too stupid to learn what they're trying to force into science classes.
My evidence: Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. When the school board members were asked to explain intelligent design, none of them were able to do it.
That's how it works. You make an accusation, then back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you're just talking nonsense.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@breed45 And really, don't humour us with "atheists hear only what they want". You're obviously a superstitious apologist — probably Christian — and therefore, because of your subscription to dogma, you won't accept anything that contradicts that — you'll only hear what you want to hear. Many of your evangelical cronies blatantly testify that they won't accept anything — no amount of evidence — that contradicts holy scripture, i.e. the Bible. Only what they want to hear; no scientist does that.
Boy192 1 year ago
@Boy192 That kind of garbage is what you get from utopians and fundamentalist, This is a fundamentalist mindset.One of the fascinating things about going after this theists is that it is exactly the same as going after radical Christian fundamentalists.What I am saying to you is, “You are just as messed up as the rest of the human race.” They can’t hear that. Atheists through secular language have created essentially a fundamentalist belief system that elevates them. In this case Darwinism
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@Boy192 Of course. It is a malformed theology. It is really a blind religion and science. Science is going to save us in the same way that Christian fundamentalists believe Jesus is going to come down from the sky and lift believers up into heaven. It is no more real than alchemy and just as intellectually shallow. To place a blind faith in science is to ignore the fact that most scientists in this country work on behalf of corporations and the defense industry.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@Boy192 Science isn’t going to save us any more than a (mythical) Virgin descending from the sky is going to save us. And to somehow place your faith in this abstract notion is to relinquish ethical and moral responsibility. It is to fall into a kind of dreamy utopian vision that everything will be made alright. If you go back and study how despotic systems or totalitarian systems come into play, the first thing they do is rewrite the legal code so that tyranny essentially becomes legal.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 Yeah, that's right, because medical advancements, technological advancements, observation & reason — the products & practices of science — aren't going to save our species any more than superstitious Bronze Age myths will; it's only already tripled the average life expectancy.
Boy192 1 year ago
The main pillars of the new atheist belief system, including a simplified world view of us versus them, intolerance and an irrational belief in science as the force that will resolve all problems, including the irredeemable flaws of human nature, that belief is itself an act of faith. divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. A secular form of the same disease.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Boy192 Science isn’t going to save us any more than a (mythical) Virgin descending from the sky is going to save us. And to somehow place your faith in this abstract notion is to relinquish ethical and moral responsibility. It is to fall into a kind of dreamy utopian vision that everything will be made alright. If you go back and study how despotic systems or totalitarian systems come into play, the first thing they do is rewrite the legal code so that tyranny essentially becomes legal.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
oh sh..it,our human astronauts will become another spices..that's the point...ooooooo
vukdc 2 years ago
"I thought that this test would be the one I could think of."
Oh really?
* * *
These "evidences," left alone, mean nothing, really. You MUST research the reason, context and all that.
You take one observation and assume everything from there. False assumption #1 is that God is "required" to create a perfect being. But then we have to define perfect. What if "perfect" creation was designed in such a way that we would strive to learn and understand it; leading eventually to God Himself?
djfiddles1 2 years ago
The appendix, as well as the tonsils, are part of the lymphatic system. Many people who remove their appendices or tonsils have a much greater chance of developing stomach cancer or throat cancer, respectively, later in life.
The wisdom teeth are secondary teeth, as when one of our teeth gets punched, knocked out, rotted out, etc. over time, before dental care.
All evidence of evolution, though. Great vid.
hoktauri1968 2 years ago
this is nitpicky, but at 1:18 it should be "effect" instead of "affect"
xanderthegreatt 2 years ago
This was a good video but could you have picked worse music? I had to turn it off.
TheFenceandtheJug 2 years ago
Well done on the video
nightw4tchman 2 years ago
"would you still question him?"
Yes, I would. I'm not saying that there's absolutely nothing I accept, but if I were to accept that a single entity knows everything with flawless accuracy, then that would destroy any and all pursuit of knowledge and learning. To me, loss of that makes life pointless, and thus I would only know loathing of this entity. Therefore, I would question him in order to avoid forfeiting myself to that sense of dread.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
Goosebumps, or as I call them, avian protuberances, are caused by tiny demons, hiding just beneath the epidermis. Everybody knows this, my friend.
DarkMatter2525 2 years ago
-.- What song is this?
NapalmXD 2 years ago
Emma by Alkaline Trio
antybu86 2 years ago
Thank you SO much! ^_^
NapalmXD 2 years ago
God fucking damn it!
People PLEASE credit music!
NapalmXD 2 years ago
Alright I'm bored now. Its my time off. I'll leave more comments and votes later.
SocialDeviant77 2 years ago
So antybu86's point is that if we were created by a perfect Creator, that we in turn would be perfect in all aspects of our being, and that if we were just came out of the mud that we have evolved perfectly? If our appendix/gall bladder/etc are non functioning organs that we don't really need, wouldn't that cause us to evolve them out of our bodies over time? Could it be that they in fact DO have a purpose, but it isn't plainly clear the reason?
rathbun53 2 years ago
Im glad you mentioned Vestigiality, since its a foot in the ass of ID. Although you did forget to mention that some vestigial organs may eventually take on a secondary function, due to evolution. Take our appendix for example; studies have shown that it may harbour and protect bacteria useful to our colon. Once upon a time however, it would have been used to help our primate ancestors digest leaves.
Proagain 2 years ago
I would have included the blind spot, the ID's biggest bullshit story is the perfection of the eye, the blind spot fucks both arguments up. too simple
LukeOfTroy 2 years ago
no retard the blind spot is caused by the optic nerve which leads nerves from the eye to the brain so we can visualise what we are seeing in our head
our blind spot isnt something that can be improved if we didnt have one we wouldnt be able to see fucking idiot
joshman94 2 years ago
Actually, joshman94, a better "design" would be to attach the nerves BEHIND the rods and cones, allowing for a layer to be in place in front of the optic nerve.
antybu86 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
joshman94 2 years ago
no because the blood vessels leading into the vitreous body would still need somewhere to come from
and for that to happen with the nerves on the other side the nerve is attached the same way as the light gets recieved by the rods and cones so you would need to change the whole eye system for that to work which you know would take a very long time and since its not really of importance for that to happen
joshman94 2 years ago
it probaly wont happen but still you were right, in a way it could be improved but we know its likely not going to happen
btw do you know about the lymphoid tissue in the appendix? and how it used as a safe house? btw i liked ur vid
joshman94 2 years ago
@ joshman 94 and @antybu86
The blind-spot is there because there is a gap in the retina, through which the fibers of your photo-receptive cells leave your eye to form the optic nerve.
it's amazing for me to hear that there is no design because of a little gap that is actually functioning. Dude, we HAVE eyes! evolution didn't know there was something to see at all. riddle me that. GOD created our eyes to see and our ears to hear and our hands to feel. Evolution couldn't have done any of that.
SierraMascara28 1 year ago
sir I was simply stating that it is not the vaunted design perfection professed by the ID croud. I know that it is more or less perfectly suited to our needs and that natural selection has compensated for the evolutionary legacy of this mechanism by filling in the bank with something like a pattern detection system (see Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain). The human eye is certainly a selection marvel, but it doesn't need to be this way. case in point, the octopus.
LukeOfTroy 2 years ago
but you said it fucks up both arguments
unless that was a reply to sum1 else and i got the whole situation wrong?
sorry for swearing at u btw
joshman94 2 years ago
my orignial post was months ago, I dont even remember what I meant by that.
no harm done.
LukeOfTroy 2 years ago
oh ok
thats good
joshman94 2 years ago
whoa what? I thought goosebumps were a natural way are body constricts the skin when in a cold environment to attempt to retain more heat? or at least that's what Bill Nye tells me :O
flawbertrobert 2 years ago
getting wisdom teeth removed sucks!!! Good video though
RockSmithStudio 2 years ago
goosebumps have a function
i forget, i dont do biology, but they do have a function
something about losing heat
retardguitarist 2 years ago
You forgot my favourite, the defunct vitamin C synthesis pathway in all apes.
sandricdoliba 2 years ago
this video and all others like it are a noble gesture but true creationists dont rely on facts or evidence or logic
faith is their dogma and scripture is enough
maybe if these videos werent directed as attacks on morons and maybe a softer appraoch to coaxing fence sitters into thinking they would have more effect
CrunkRockSteadyEvan 2 years ago
yeah. digestion of cells is the definition of death. by eating any vegetable or fruit or animal or anything, they were causing death. life is defined as any organism that maintains internal homeostasis, ie: does all of its functions alone, including replication. all cells are alive, hence death.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
also, why would we need to eat if we were perfect? why would we not be infinitely strong, flexible, rugged, intelligent, etc? wouldnt the lack of these perfect traits imply (actually "prove beyond all doubt") that we are not, nor have ever been perfect? 2 legs are better than none, but maybe 4 legs is better. maybe eyes on 4 sides of the head, with vision in the microwave through the gammaray spectrums would be better.
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Yeah, my leg hurts like fuck right now... God must have really fucked up when he was building it.
antybu86 2 years ago
"over 4 people"? once you get to four, is the number too high to comprehend? :P
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
kababayanC2 - Faith cannot constitute knowledge by definition.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
kababayanC2 - I read your statement. Yet it's impossible for two people to eat, move, create dialogue, judge distance if they were just created.
Everything is open for questioning and criticism, if you don't want people to argue against the claims you've made, don't say anything.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
You could argue the same thing rgarding the evolution of creatures. How does a creature (eg sheep) evolve the knowledge that if it falls off a cliff it will die?
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - How do you know they contain the knowledge of cliffs equalling a fatal incident?
generally, if an animal has came to a non fatal incident, anything in greater severity will be held in higher fears. Most animals have the capability to take this into account when witnessing it.
If you were never told fire could hurt you. Would you know it can cause pain if you never held you skin up towards an open flame?
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Considering what the earth was meant to be like all those millions of years ago I'm surprised anything lived at all if they had to get injured/suffer pain/nearly die when interacting with it before they could know that it was dangerous.
"If you were never told fire could hurt you. Would you know it can cause pain if you never held you skin up towards an open flame?"
Well, no. I wouldn't.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - I'm sure you didn't check "what the earth was meant to be like all those millions of years ago" since you said millions instead of a specific date.
We're always subjected to pain. If it's turning in your bed, getting a new position in your chair or even simply walking.
The fire analogy works because it happens in every creature of every species.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
The date need not be specific, no doubt you agree there has always been and abundance of threats/dangers to life
We have always been subject to pain but that is gradual damage. Falling off a cliff gives no pain whatsoever, until you hit the bottom of course and then its lights out. There is no way to evolve a fear of great heights.
I'm not talking about fire, fire is something you have do by half measures (a little burn) I'm talking about the things around us that either kills you or doesn't.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - The data does need to be specific. If you'e insinuating the world was more hazardous you need to give more accurate data. The things which are harmful but not fatal will effect your reaction to those which are harmful and fatal. If you fall 10 feet and hurt your leg you'll fear greater heights. If you have a small burn from a small fire you'll fear immense fire. We can still see this happening today.
You still haven't proven a sheep knows a cliff is dangerous.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Sheep know its dangerous and that is why they avoid the edge and don't fall off. Otherwise there would be a rather large pile of dead sheep on the coastline near where I live.
If you fall off 10 feet and its bad it doesn't mean 100 feet will be bad. Well it does logically but we know that because we have experience and logic. Not something you'd expect from a low level animal.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - The measurement of height is irrelevant, if you have experienced a fall, anything which can lead to that is going to trigger a response. Children do this on a daily basis.
Being near a coastline means nothing. You need to establish they actually fear going near it. They wouldn't need to go near it because they can't see any food supplies.
My cat was once trapped in a fold out bed and his tail was broken, guess what he stopped doing after that.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
I have seen them on the edge of cliffs but not going on parts that would cause them to fall off. There was no barrier and there was an incentive to be there (food).
Falling doesn't hurt. Hitting the ground hurts.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - Hang on, if they're consistently on the edge of a cliff, how is one area a higher risk of falling off than the other? The risk is still the same.
Actually falling can cause severe stress which can be interpreted as pain but since pain itself has no absolute definition, it's nothing more than semantics.
Should I be the first to note your arguments are inherently void because it's a violation of statistics of small numbers fallacy?
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Falling causes severe stress, well yes because its your bodies way of saying your are about to die, but how did that reaction occur in the first place.
They go near but not so near they fall off, even though they could physically, they don't.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - The body gives no preconceived notion of death. It causes a reaction based on the surrounding environment. It's an evolutionary reaction.
Once again, it's a fallacy and a vague anecdotal account. I can easily do what you're doing to forward my argument, but I'm not.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
That is my very point, how could such a reaction evolve?
A great height poses no threat whatsoever unless one falls of and dies. If one does fall then they cannnot evolve and if one doesn't there is no reason to fear falling.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - I've told you several times. But you're either not getting it or you have a severe case of selective hearing.
Small fall = Pain. Therefore large fall = Death.
It's called the experiences of life and you had proven my concept when you said yes to my fire question. If a small burn can make you fear fire and avoid a blazing inferno, what is stopping the logic from applying here?
Nothing poses a thread if you're in a situation where you're not being subjected to it.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
"Small fall = Pain. Therefore large fall = Death"
You know that and I know that but how does a dull animal know that?
Fire is a gradual thing, the closer you get the more heat and pain you sense, it is not an appropriate analogy.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - Fires are not all equally consistent just like not all falls are fatal. The heats intensity isn't consistent however any open flame will cause harm so you can very close to a small fire.
When did you become the commentator on an animals intelligence? Which animals are dull? What are they dull in or are they equally dull for everything?
Oh right, so just because we're so intelligent that some how makes them void of anything rational, by any standard at all.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
"The heats intensity isn't consistent however any open flame will cause harm so you can very close to a small fire."
Can you reiterate, I don't understand the sentence.
Simple creatures wouldn't have evolved the ability to foresee death when falling down a cliff face. And the only way to find out would prevent the knowledge from being passed on.
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - You wont feel the heat from a smaller flame so you can come much closer to it which causes a higher chance of touching it.
Okay, I'm getting sick of saying the same thing over and over again so I'm going to make it clearer.
Your examples of showing that animals can fear cliff faces is a logical fallacy and anecdotal.
If an animal can fear cliffs it doesn't need to fall down one for it to be evident.
This doesn't disprove the ample amounts of evidence for evolution.
Nuff said.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
A smaller flame doesn't even hurt unless you leave it there for a few seconds (excluding the flame of a bunsen burner for eg).
"If an animal can fear cliffs it doesn't need to fall down one for it to be evident."
But my point is why would it fear cliffs? It can't learn it by evolution.
perfacetus 2 years ago
"But my point is why would it fear cliffs? It can't learn it by evolution."
Er... yeah it can. What kind of understanding do you have of evolution?
antybu86 2 years ago
One where information is passed on by genetics... which can't happen if you're dead.
perfacetus 2 years ago
And which genetic information do you think is more likely to be passed down: the animal who developed a fear of heights/cliffs or the animal that didn't?
antybu86 2 years ago
Neither. The animal wouldn't know to fear (specifically) very high drops unless it had fallen down at some point. Had this occurred it would be dead and unable to pass the genes on.
perfacetus 2 years ago
No. You are confusing Lamarckian evolution with Darwinian evolution.
antybu86 2 years ago
Then how does a creature know to avoid dangers such as cliffs?
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - I'm getting sick of this and you seem to have selective hearing.
1. You HAVE NOT proven sheep fear cliffs because your 'evidence' is anecdotal and a LOGICAL FALLACY.
2. You're failing to understand the small cliff = pain therefore large fall = more pain (e.g death) and you already had proven this with my fire example and now you're pissing around with semantics.
I wouldn't be surprised if you have never picked up a biology book.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
What you genuinely think that sheep left to themselves will just fall off cliffs???
"You're failing to understand the small cliff = pain therefore large fall = more pain"
I understand that, but how does the animal? Did someone explain that correlation to them?
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - Then prove sheep's fear cliffs.
The correlation is self evident. It's not going to give fear for cliffs but fear of all heights. Why do you think people are afraid of them?
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Oh! Can I answer this one?
It's because fear of heights is an evolutionary advantage! Animals that aren't good at climbing (like humans) are more likely to survive if they have a fear of heights - that way, they stay away from things like steep. Whereas if we weren't afraid of heights, we'd be more likely to hang around ledges and therefore more likely to fall off and die (and therefore less likely to pass on our genes).
What were the chances of perfacetus getting this right?
antybu86 2 years ago
antybu86 - I think perfacetus is being willingly ignorant so he doesn't need to accept a study which some areas of it were first conceived in 6BC.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
But how do you get the fear in the first place is what we're talking about?
You need a reason to fear things and you can't tell a cliff is dangerous until you fall off. When you do you have no chance to pass on your fear through genetics... because you're dead.
perfacetus 2 years ago
Here's your big misunderstanding - You say there needs to be a reason... NO!
Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" explains it simply. Try reading.
ILYIAB 2 years ago
That doesn't explain how unintelligent creatures fear things are cause instantaneous death.
perfacetus 2 years ago
I can tell you haven't read anything.
And "Yes!", Dawkins book explains it so simple even you can get it. Maybe.
ILYIAB 2 years ago
What you are saying is equal to me saying you're wrong, the answer is in the Bible, read it.
If you have any points, make them. If you don't, don't.
perfacetus 2 years ago
I have read the bible (OT twice and NT 5 times, I was raised as a JW).
The Lord of the Rings is also true. Do you agree? If "Yes", why? If "No", why not?
ILYIAB 2 years ago
No, Tolken was writing a fantasy. It has nothing to do with the truth.
perfacetus 2 years ago
How do you know that?
ILYIAB 2 years ago
The foreword. Information from the author.
perfacetus 2 years ago
People are afraid for the same reason sheep are, its programmed into us to be cautious around heights so we don't kill ourselves.
What would you accept as proof?
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - Testable, observable evidence and not this anecdotal crap you're trying to sell me.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Well that is rather difficult to provide over the web. You could easily find out by trying to push one over a cliff but since that is probably illegal (not to mention cruel) I wouldn't really be able to recommend it.
You don't really think that a sheep would just walk off the edge of a cliff do you? (even it it was after some grass near the edge or something).
perfacetus 2 years ago
perfacetus - I'm not accepting anything you say until you provide evidence for it.
If you cannot, then any assertions based on your claim is automatically nullified.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Animals that were incorrectly 'unafraid' of heights, wandered off cliffs before they were able to reproduce.
Animals who had the bizarre mutation to have a measure of acrophobia...did not go near cliffs, and led happy lives long enough to reproduce and pass their bizarre mutation on to the next generation.
Not all the 'non afraid' oganisms died off, leading to some organisms being more 'adventurous' with heights than others.
Any questions?
Darkbison7 2 years ago
Darkbison7 - I have one question.
You REALLY didn't read the whole conversation did you?
perfacetus said sheep are afraid of heights and can't have fear through evolutionary means (amongst other claims) so he needs to establish sheep have a fear before he can make any claims based off that assertion.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
I showed a plausible scenario as to how a 'fear of heights' would be passed down via natural selection. Sheep predecessors weeded themselves out of the gene pool by being 'bold/careless' around ledges.
They demonstrate the same type of 'fear' as roaches have for getting stepped on, or paranoid squirrels have for being caught.
Instincts that work out to lead to survival through puberty get passed on to the next generation. Including anything that we call 'fear' in any organism.
Darkbison7 2 years ago
Darkbison7 - I'll take that answer as a yes.
I'm not arguing against Evolution so I don't know why you're replying to me.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
forward it to prefactus then. i saw that yall were going back and forth on it, and didnt know how 'fear' is passed down.
Darkbison7 2 years ago
Darkbison7 - No point he hasn't replied.
I was arguing that his evidence he supplied suggesting sheep feel fear is anecdotal and a logical fallacy.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
kababayanC2 - 'probably'? Check your sources before making a claim.
No death or disease? What did they eat? Whether it be plants, animals, insects etc your body is disgusting and destroying cells.
Did I forget to mention there is zero evidence for Adam and Eve? Actually there are a handfull of arguments against it, I can state them if you like.
For example, how were they able to talk, walk, identify distance etc when we spend decades learning to do it? Where did they get this knowledge?
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Not to mention, we'd all have the same mitochondrial genome if we descended from a single woman less than 6000 years ago.
sandricdoliba 2 years ago
The problem first of all is, the guy Stated "everything you see was CREATED by, evolution" Incorrect right there. Evolution does not explain the creation of life. It explains the progression of change. This is a common problem I see with creationist. They use Evolution as a source, to disprove where we all originated from. I say ...Ha! Who knows. Stop wondering and get me a sandwich!
CptUnknown 2 years ago 2
cool, i like the way you think
corotor12345 2 years ago
Thank you, I try not to think too much. I find that in most cases it requires researching and I would much rather be eating a piece of strawberry pie!
CptUnknown 2 years ago
I could bring you many more examples regarding the obselete bits of the Human Anatomy. There are usless muscles, weird routes for arteries, cancer and the not so perfect eye which has a blind spot.
t1tot4 2 years ago
If the beauty of the world proves God,
the strange things in nature prove evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You don't have to limit the examples to humans.
Why would a designer make whale flippers have analogous bone structure to arms and hands instead of fish fins?
Why would a designer need to share *any* dna between a banana and a human, much less 50%?
sorienor 2 years ago
lol nice vid... I think the vestigial organ arguments are fine for the purpose of refuting that guy... even if minor uses are gained by any evolutionary remnants... they are obviously not the most efficient way to get the tasks done. Too bad we weren't designed or we wouldn't have so many problems =[.
Oh and <3 the song choice.
homer52486 2 years ago
How should they be done more efficiently? How can you even claim something can be done better then it is only in recent years we have evn workd out what it is for?
perfacetus 2 years ago
I don't think those organ examples are any good... All these organs do have a purpose. Just google them up....
gskowal 2 years ago
Could you save most of us the work and give us a few examples.
ZeroLogics 2 years ago
katfellow below posted examples. so i dont need to repeat them. no matter how small their purpose seem to be, they do have a purpose. can we live without them? yes it has been proven, but we can also live without many other parts of our bodies doesnt make them a bad thing does it? I do get his point though. Im not a creationist so i get it but these examples listen in the video are not too much convincing.
gskowal 2 years ago
the "completely nonfunctional" definition of a vestige is a common misconception.
The human appendix is a vestige of the caecum for example.
digiring 2 years ago
Goosebumps = Piloerection. A similarity in Simians. Ever see a gorilla do that? It's pretty sweet.
GeologyofOhio 2 years ago
We should remember, many things we don't know. (still ALOT to learn about dna)
Coccyx : remove it & find out what use it had for you. lol
Appendix : acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs - may help digestion, it may help the immune system as well. (studies are still going)
You don't need both your arms & legs to live nowadays, are they leftovers too? lol
I'm just messin witchoo
Katfellow 2 years ago 2
Modern science has this bad idea of thinking that human body parts are useless and that they know better. every part in our bodies are important- if they don't know why it's there, or it's use, it's because they haven't discovered it yet. If I became an atheist I still would believe that all our body parts have a functional purpose. btw, science is continually discovering the purposes as they go along. I just wish they wouldn't act like they know it all from the start. it causes problems
chiniwillly 2 years ago 2
There are only a few things bones are good for, and a tail bone is good for none of them. what possible purpose could it serve?
Fratley762 2 years ago
perhaps if you were to surgically remove the tailbone you would get why you need it. It certainly doesn't do any harm.
I'm not saying that I personally know the purpose of each and every body part. (although I know a good many that were quoted in this vid) but I strongly believe that each part has a purpose and when cut out or messed with, it's usually to the detriment, unless, in the rare occasion that there is some retardation or abnormal growth.
chiniwillly 2 years ago
Some people do have their tailbone surgically removed.
antybu86 2 years ago
So so true.
perfacetus 2 years ago
LOL. Very good. I am now a subscriber. A couple other good ones are the pinky finger and the two bones of the forearm. We don't need the pinky to pick up objects. The two bones in the forearm are redudant and we only really need one.
lifeisfair123 2 years ago