There is something wrong with the logic you are applying. You can't say that evolution explains the transitional being... You should be able to prove that the transitional being is one/ " transitioning" and thereby supporting the theory of evolution. That is a fish... it has DNA different from it's ancestors because you want to believe so from the EVOLUTIONARY TREE. Take away the tree and what do you have? A BEAUTIFUL FISH!
@MrLeviaFUN This video was made to show up the massive misunderstandings of Natural Selection made by Kirk et al and the fact that they set up Straw Man competitions by asking for evidence of something which is *not* Natural Selection then insisting that when the thing that they have asked for is not provided that means there is no evidence for Natural Selection.
The fact is there *is* evidence for Natural Selection. Mountains of it. Pretending it's not there will not make it go away. Cont...
This is NOT proof of a transitional creature at all ! All that you say is just "assumptions" and "WHAT IFs". Nothing factual at all ! Just a lot of talking.
But the really interesting question is: how do the modern monotremes fit in the divergence between reptiles and mammals.
From my limited reading in this area the current evidence points to a split between Prototheria (the infra class containing the modern monotremes) and the rest of the mammals about 160-210MYA. That's 100+ MY after the Mammals diverged from Reptiles.
But fossil monotremes are very rare and Platypus DNA is very different from other mammals (part) sequenced so far...cont...
Which means, I think, that we should not be too surprised if a Prototheria fossil turns up dated much earlier than the earliest so far and pushes the divergence back much closer to the original Mammal divergence.
In the mean time I'd avoid claiming that the Platypus is closely related to early mammals. Current evidence seams to be against that.
After seeing this I went to their site and emailed Ray and Kirk a LONG list of transitional fossils from transitions of almost every creature on the tree of life from early fish to humans. It has been over a week and they have not yet responded. I don't think they will accept it because they are probably looking for something stupid like a crocoduck lol. The two of them need to learn a thing or two about evolution because every new video of their's I see they only look more stupid.
Agreed, but before studying evolution I think they, and a whole bunch of other people should try and get their heads round Occam's razor. As in: If it's necessary to assume that practically every scientific experiment ever done was flawed in order for them to be right and only necessary to assume that they don't understand science for them to be wrong, then who wins! :)
I tried to explain this to one guy in my response to his Ice Cores video. :)
Sorry sir, no its not a transitional form! its a flying fish, there are more fishes under the unfathomable depth of the sea that has not been unidentified.
There are even fishes that were look like "lightbulb" but its a fish.
Actually I have learnt since making this video that the modern classification system (Cladistics) suggests that we should call everything that descended from fish "a fish" including ourselves.
I highly recommend the following video by AronRa: watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
Strong argument you have. Can we argue that man's facial hair is a remnant of the ape? Are there any men who do not have or have very little facial hair? If so, then that man seems to be transitional proof of evolution.
The vestigial tail is probably a better example. All apes have them including us. They are evidence of common ancestry with Monkeys.
In one sense we have *more* hair than the other apes. Desmond Morris points this out in "The Naked Ape". He says we look naked, but we actually have *more* hairs per sqr inch than the other Apes.
I read it when I was a teenager. It's considered sexist, and probably way out of date now. So I would not put it top of a suggested reading list.
He was joking about the croc-o-duck... the flying fish- where are the transitions toward that kind of fish? or transitions from the fish, to the bird? at 1:46, the "first single-celled organism.." how did that cell, more complex than a space shuttle form? how did the information required for it fall perfectly into place? what gave elements their properties? You seriously believe deep in your heart that a squid is an ancestor of yours? or dog? or palm tree? I think you know God plays a huge role
I seriously believe that I am related to squid, dogs, palm trees and every other living thing.
I find it hard to understand how any educated person in the 21st century could not believe that.
Of course they are not all my ancestors. They are more like distant cousins. But one of my ancestors was once a fish that is as certain as the fact that the sun rose this morning.
As for the first cell, it was a lot less complex than modern cells. Watch my peanut butter vid!
Any cell that is living requires more complexity than a space-shuttle. A cell can't survive without this complexity. That's why I don't necessarily agree with your statement regarding cells being less complex than modern cells. Sure, some are more complex, but the basic information and hardware required for the simplest cell is extremely complex. I don't believe that it came from primordial soup. Also, how do elements contain properties? Were they created? Any intelligence whatsoever?
Modern cells are very complex. I think "more complexity than a space-shuttle" is an exaggeration as it depends on what you classify as the basic component of both objects. But I am happy to accept that description if you can accept that it is at least possible for modern cells to have evolved by natural selection from something much simpler, perhaps just a handful of replicator molecules surrounded by a membrane.
On elements (as brief a summary as I can make it:):
Elements contain properties depending mainly on the number of protons in their Nucleus which in turn determines the number of electrons they can attract.
The big bang resulted in Hydrogen, and (to the best of my knowledge) a small number of slightly heavier Nuclei such as D, T, and Li3.
All other Nuclei, including most of the ones in our bodies, where created in stars.
Our sun is probably at least a 3rd generation star. Dust and gas from the explosions of 1st and 2nd generation stars gradually accreted to form our sun and the rest of the solar system (including the earth).
By "Any intelligence whatsoever" do you mean "was any intelligent being involved in the creation of the elements"?
If that was the question, my answer is that you can see from my summary of cosmology that it is not necessary.
For 3) and 5) the vast majority of scientist in the fields are agreed. Stars are formed by accretion. Life develops through natural selection.
For 2) accretion is once again the main agreed theory but there is some argument over the exact mechanism (some people think black holes are necessary, others don't).
For 1) and 4) there are many competing theories any or none of which could be the correct one. But we at least know that we don't need gods for 1) and 4) because these theories exist.
Finally I'd like to reiterate that this does not mean your god, or anyone else's does not exist. Just that they are not necessary.
I have my own reasons for believing there almost certainly are no gods, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.
So you should continue to believe if you want to. I am only concerned when people try to destroy the scientific education of kids by corrupting it with the idiocy of things like "ID".
Another example of a transitional form is the mudskipper. A fish that can breathe in and out of water, and "walks" with its pectoral fins. Ray comfort had this show where he was asking students to explain evolution, and he said in the past an animal breathed out of the water, went back in, back out and developed lungs? It sounded moronic, but the mudskipper is proof of that
Actually mudskippers don't have lungs, they breath through their skin and trap oxygen in their gills.
There are fish with lungs called unsurprisingly "lungfish".
Deep water fish have an organ called a "swim bladder" used to maintain the correct depth much the same way as ballast tanks in a submarine.
Shallow water fish don't need swim bladder's to maintain their depth, so when lung fish evolved the redundant swim bladder was converted into lungs enabling the fish to breath in or out of water.
I appreciate how much time you took in answering my questions. I still don't know how the information required for life alligned perfectly in the cell. I don't think it's as simple as saying "it was natural selection." On the elements- I understand the proton and electron differences in various elements, but what I don't understand is why different numbers of protons create different elements. Who says 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons is equal to helium? cont...
"Who says 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons is equal to helium?"
The short answer is that all atoms with 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons behave in the same way. We had to call them something, "helium" is just a label. We could have called it "Element 2".
If we find an animal which meows we call it a cat.
If we find an un-reactive gas which becomes a liquid at minus 268.93 deg C we call it Helium.
On Atomic Theory, post 2 (the medium length answer).
Even this medium length answer is very brief, it would take me a very long time to cover the whole history in depth. To help flesh it out I am putting *s around words or phrases you might want to look up on say wikipedia if you are interested.
In 1869 the Russian chemist *Dmitri Mendeleev* proposed a new system for classifying the elements now known as the *periodic table*.
The basis for his classification was to order the elements by their *atomic weight* and start a new row each time he was able to get the properties of the elements to line up.
E.g. Fluorine and Chlorine behave in a similar fashion so they are placed in the same column, but Fluorine has a lower atomic weight than Chlorine so it is placed in the row above Chlorine.
When Mendeleev proposed this arrangement some of the spaces on the table did not correspond to a known element. E.g. there was no known element for the right hand space on the top row. Rather than give up the idea, in one of the most brilliant pieces of foresight in scientific history, he proposed that these gaps corresponded to elements which had not been discovered yet.
One of the first vindications came over the next few years. Helium had first been observed as a spectral line in sunlight during a solar eclipse one year earlier in 1868 (hence the name Helium from the Greek for helios meaning Sun). By 1895 it had been isolated on Earth and its low atomic weight (approx 4) plus the fact that it was an un-reactive gas proved that it was the missing element proposed by Mendeleev for the top right space in the periodic table.
In 1907 *Ernest Rutherford* demonstrated that *Alpha particles* are the same as Helium nuclei. Since Alpha Particles are given off when large unstable elements decay into smaller more stable ones (e.g. Polonium 210 decaying into Lead) this was proof that atoms were composed of the same material.
10 years earlier, in 1897, *J.J. Thomson* one of Rutherfords professors, discovered the electron and postulated that matter was smeared positive charge interspersed with electrons (the *plum pudding* model).
Rutherford and his colleagues demonstrated that it was more complex than that in 1909 when they found that alpha particles could bounce off gold nuclei in the famous *gold foil experiment*.
This led to him proposing the *planetary model* where electrons orbit a positively charged core (i.e. the nucleus).
Then in 1913 *Neils Bohr* proposed an extremely important clarification to the planetary model. He suggested that electrons could only orbit the nucleus in certain fixed orbits each with a fixed energy level. This is now known as the *Bohr Model*.
The Bohr model was refined by the application of Quantum Mechanics into the currently accepted *Atomic Orbital Model* which explains most of the chemical and physical properties of the elements. For example it explains *valence*.
In 1918 Rutherford proved the existence of the Proton, and finally in 1932 *James Chadwick* discovered the neutron.
With these discoveries the makeup of the nuclei of the various elements fell into place.
I appreciate the in depth knowledge you've given me, but what I was trying to get at was is there a reason why the number of protons create a different element... -not how, but why.. do you think they just behave like that naturally, or do you think someone gave the protons a reason to behave the way they do? Do you see what I'm getting at? I realize I'm not asking my question effectively (hard question to ask). let me phrase it another way... cont..
By "Any intelligence whatsoever" do you mean "was any intelligent being involved in the creation of the elements"?
You continued and answered that it "isn't necessary." I'm not sure what that means. I think it's incredibly necessary.
You list 1-5 saying they can be explained by natural means, but what I don't understand is that when someone says big bang, it implies there was matter. Same with 2-5, even mentioning those subjects implies something was there before. Intelligence...
On "Intelligence". Consider a human sperm and egg. Do they have "intelligence". I think it depends how you define intelligence, but at least you would have to say "not very much". But put the two together and you get a human with intelligence. Thus intelligence can be developed.
The big bang theory.. I don't believe it was natural for all the stuff in the universe (how'd it all get there in the first place) to be attracted to eachother (gravitation). Then once all the stuff is ready to explode, who says that it Can explode?Who says there is energy? Thats my point, I don't believe it's a natural process. I believe there is a reason for how things are, like how physics works and how chemistry works. I'll quit buggin you, but that's where I'm at. ID makes sense to me
Yes species find the way to survive and evolve then change but not in the like programed way thry all species . Chimps geting smarter but they never be the homosapiens
He'll backpedal and tap dance around that evidence. Do you know why he'll do that? Because Christians in America are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very fucking stupid. They claim we're denying their god and their faith, yet deny the theory of a man who was once a Christian before "evolving" a brain: Charles Darwin. I cannot wait for evidence of life outside this solar system. But, unfortunately, they'll find ways around that, too.
haha Awesome. I imagine if there ever was an animal that some how had half the DNA of one animal, yet was an entirely different animal Krik wouldn't understand it. He DOESN'T understand and it angers me so much. Yet, I have a theory that on some level Kirk Cameron does understand it, hence why he dodges topics of the laws of the universe so well. I find it almost imposible to imagine somebody as stupid as him, unless he 'only' does his "research" on creationist web sites.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of evidence.
I'm not claiming anything in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of evidence.
If you listen carefully to the vid you will see that this is the case.
Kirk on the other hand claims that no transitional forms have been found despite the fact that 1000s of transitional fossils belonging to 100s of transitional species have been documented.
He asks for living examples of transitional forms knowing that the real answer is that every single living creature is a potential transitional form and you are not going to see what it transitions into for many generations.
If you watch the debate in full you will see that what he's really asking for is something like what he calls a "croc-a-duck" (half crocodile, half duck) when he must know (unless he is even more congenitally stupid than he appears) that ducks and crocodiles both evolved from a common ancestor so you would not expect to find anything that's half one and half the other!
*my* argument based on faith?! Sorry, no!!!! Kirk is the one doing that! If I'm guilt of anything it's taking the Michael!
I hate when people say you never see a half-duck-half- crocodile. This is fucking retarded and isn't even what evolution is.
LOGICandREAS0N 1 week ago
@LOGICandREAS0N agreed. Trying to explain that:
1. Transitionals don't have to be on the main line of decent.
2. Don't need to look 1/2 way between 1 thing and another.
3. Are a fulfilled prediction of Natural Selection.
Is all uphill work.
I made another video on this subject "Transitional Fossils and Ancestral Fossils, what's the difference?"
kandtell 1 week ago
There is something wrong with the logic you are applying. You can't say that evolution explains the transitional being... You should be able to prove that the transitional being is one/ " transitioning" and thereby supporting the theory of evolution. That is a fish... it has DNA different from it's ancestors because you want to believe so from the EVOLUTIONARY TREE. Take away the tree and what do you have? A BEAUTIFUL FISH!
purpletree11 7 months ago
@purpletree11
Sorry, but you misunderstand what transitional means, as does Kirk, as does almost every YEC I've ever come across.
Please watch my other video: watch?v=CHS_AqBArwc
kandtell 7 months ago
pathlights(DOT)c0m(FORWARD SLASH)ce_encyclopedia(FORWARD SLASH)Encyclopedia(FORWARD SLASH)12fos03(DOT)htm
MrLeviaFUN 8 months ago
@MrLeviaFUN This video was made to show up the massive misunderstandings of Natural Selection made by Kirk et al and the fact that they set up Straw Man competitions by asking for evidence of something which is *not* Natural Selection then insisting that when the thing that they have asked for is not provided that means there is no evidence for Natural Selection.
The fact is there *is* evidence for Natural Selection. Mountains of it. Pretending it's not there will not make it go away. Cont...
kandtell 8 months ago
I read the "19 problems" article you linked too.
Every single one contains at least one falsehood.
They show a spectacular ignorance of Natural Selection and the current state of our knowledge.
kandtell 8 months ago
This is NOT proof of a transitional creature at all ! All that you say is just "assumptions" and "WHAT IFs". Nothing factual at all ! Just a lot of talking.
MrLeviaFUN 8 months ago
Google Binturong
LurchibaldBioshock 9 months ago
@LurchibaldBioshock
I did.
Like it :) thanks!
kandtell 9 months ago
You Sir, deserve a medal of intelligence. Hope you get the 10K USD from Kirk.
heerotheman 1 year ago
@heerotheman thanks :)
kandtell 1 year ago
Have you contacted kirk of the banana squad team?
gidgetgoes1128 1 year ago
@gidgetgoes1128
No, like other evilutionists, I'm scared of his superior intellect! :)
kandtell 1 year ago 2
what about the platypus? head of a duck, body of a rat or some shit, and tail of a squirrel or something...couldn´t that be a transitional form?
themessanger4U 1 year ago
@themessanger4U The platypus is a personal favorite. Wish I'd seen one in the wild, I had to settle for one in Sydney zoo.
Kirk is not going to accept it as transitional, but it fit's Darwin's definition in that it has features of both Mammals and Reptiles.
Be careful when discussing it though. Platypus evolution is still being studied and may hold some surprises in the near future.
What we know with reasonable confidence is that they diverged from echidnas around 19–48MYA
cont...
kandtell 1 year ago
But the really interesting question is: how do the modern monotremes fit in the divergence between reptiles and mammals.
From my limited reading in this area the current evidence points to a split between Prototheria (the infra class containing the modern monotremes) and the rest of the mammals about 160-210MYA. That's 100+ MY after the Mammals diverged from Reptiles.
But fossil monotremes are very rare and Platypus DNA is very different from other mammals (part) sequenced so far...cont...
kandtell 1 year ago
Which means, I think, that we should not be too surprised if a Prototheria fossil turns up dated much earlier than the earliest so far and pushes the divergence back much closer to the original Mammal divergence.
In the mean time I'd avoid claiming that the Platypus is closely related to early mammals. Current evidence seams to be against that.
kandtell 1 year ago
After seeing this I went to their site and emailed Ray and Kirk a LONG list of transitional fossils from transitions of almost every creature on the tree of life from early fish to humans. It has been over a week and they have not yet responded. I don't think they will accept it because they are probably looking for something stupid like a crocoduck lol. The two of them need to learn a thing or two about evolution because every new video of their's I see they only look more stupid.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
@HaveFaithInScience
Agreed, but before studying evolution I think they, and a whole bunch of other people should try and get their heads round Occam's razor. As in: If it's necessary to assume that practically every scientific experiment ever done was flawed in order for them to be right and only necessary to assume that they don't understand science for them to be wrong, then who wins! :)
I tried to explain this to one guy in my response to his Ice Cores video. :)
kandtell 1 year ago
haha love the title of this video
ibby40k 1 year ago
@ibby40k thanks :)
kandtell 1 year ago
Sorry sir, no its not a transitional form! its a flying fish, there are more fishes under the unfathomable depth of the sea that has not been unidentified.
There are even fishes that were look like "lightbulb" but its a fish.
sutadebastos 1 year ago
@sutadebastos
Actually I have learnt since making this video that the modern classification system (Cladistics) suggests that we should call everything that descended from fish "a fish" including ourselves.
I highly recommend the following video by AronRa: watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
kandtell 1 year ago
My favorite transitional form is the invisible pink flying spaghetti unicorn.
DarthKrattus 1 year ago
@DarthKrattus
Not sure about that one, I'm spagnostic :)
kandtell 1 year ago
what kind of fish was that??
Kikkankleiven 1 year ago
A Band-wing flyingfish (Cheilopogon exsiliens).
kandtell 1 year ago
Strong argument you have. Can we argue that man's facial hair is a remnant of the ape? Are there any men who do not have or have very little facial hair? If so, then that man seems to be transitional proof of evolution.
infonomics 2 years ago
The vestigial tail is probably a better example. All apes have them including us. They are evidence of common ancestry with Monkeys.
In one sense we have *more* hair than the other apes. Desmond Morris points this out in "The Naked Ape". He says we look naked, but we actually have *more* hairs per sqr inch than the other Apes.
I read it when I was a teenager. It's considered sexist, and probably way out of date now. So I would not put it top of a suggested reading list.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
But a lot of things he said have stuck in my mind.
kandtell 2 years ago
Excellent!
definitiveatheist 2 years ago
@definitiveatheist Thanks!
kandtell 2 years ago
He was joking about the croc-o-duck... the flying fish- where are the transitions toward that kind of fish? or transitions from the fish, to the bird? at 1:46, the "first single-celled organism.." how did that cell, more complex than a space shuttle form? how did the information required for it fall perfectly into place? what gave elements their properties? You seriously believe deep in your heart that a squid is an ancestor of yours? or dog? or palm tree? I think you know God plays a huge role
Limehammers 2 years ago
I seriously believe that I am related to squid, dogs, palm trees and every other living thing.
I find it hard to understand how any educated person in the 21st century could not believe that.
Of course they are not all my ancestors. They are more like distant cousins. But one of my ancestors was once a fish that is as certain as the fact that the sun rose this morning.
As for the first cell, it was a lot less complex than modern cells. Watch my peanut butter vid!
kandtell 2 years ago
Any cell that is living requires more complexity than a space-shuttle. A cell can't survive without this complexity. That's why I don't necessarily agree with your statement regarding cells being less complex than modern cells. Sure, some are more complex, but the basic information and hardware required for the simplest cell is extremely complex. I don't believe that it came from primordial soup. Also, how do elements contain properties? Were they created? Any intelligence whatsoever?
Limehammers 2 years ago
On cells:
Modern cells are very complex. I think "more complexity than a space-shuttle" is an exaggeration as it depends on what you classify as the basic component of both objects. But I am happy to accept that description if you can accept that it is at least possible for modern cells to have evolved by natural selection from something much simpler, perhaps just a handful of replicator molecules surrounded by a membrane.
kandtell 2 years ago
On cells cont....
Please watch my vid "Why no new replicator molecules in my peanut butter" or any of the other vids on abiogenesis (e.g. AronRa).
kandtell 2 years ago
On elements (as brief a summary as I can make it:):
Elements contain properties depending mainly on the number of protons in their Nucleus which in turn determines the number of electrons they can attract.
The big bang resulted in Hydrogen, and (to the best of my knowledge) a small number of slightly heavier Nuclei such as D, T, and Li3.
All other Nuclei, including most of the ones in our bodies, where created in stars.
cont...
kandtell 2 years ago
cont from above:
Our sun is probably at least a 3rd generation star. Dust and gas from the explosions of 1st and 2nd generation stars gradually accreted to form our sun and the rest of the solar system (including the earth).
By "Any intelligence whatsoever" do you mean "was any intelligent being involved in the creation of the elements"?
If that was the question, my answer is that you can see from my summary of cosmology that it is not necessary.
Of course "not necessary" does not mean "no".
kandtell 2 years ago
cont from above:
Id go further and say we have natural (i.e. non-devine) explanations for all the major events in the history of the universe. I.e.:
1)We dont need gods to explain the Big Bang.
2)We dont need gods to explain the formation of Galaxies.
3)We dont need gods to explain the formation of Stars and Planets.
4)We dont need gods to explain the formation of the first life forms.
5)We dont need gods to explain the development of all other life forms from the first life forms.
kandtell 2 years ago
For 3) and 5) the vast majority of scientist in the fields are agreed. Stars are formed by accretion. Life develops through natural selection.
For 2) accretion is once again the main agreed theory but there is some argument over the exact mechanism (some people think black holes are necessary, others don't).
For 1) and 4) there are many competing theories any or none of which could be the correct one. But we at least know that we don't need gods for 1) and 4) because these theories exist.
kandtell 2 years ago
Finally I'd like to reiterate that this does not mean your god, or anyone else's does not exist. Just that they are not necessary.
I have my own reasons for believing there almost certainly are no gods, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.
So you should continue to believe if you want to. I am only concerned when people try to destroy the scientific education of kids by corrupting it with the idiocy of things like "ID".
kandtell 2 years ago
Another example of a transitional form is the mudskipper. A fish that can breathe in and out of water, and "walks" with its pectoral fins. Ray comfort had this show where he was asking students to explain evolution, and he said in the past an animal breathed out of the water, went back in, back out and developed lungs? It sounded moronic, but the mudskipper is proof of that
mrtnsamson 2 years ago
Actually mudskippers don't have lungs, they breath through their skin and trap oxygen in their gills.
There are fish with lungs called unsurprisingly "lungfish".
Deep water fish have an organ called a "swim bladder" used to maintain the correct depth much the same way as ballast tanks in a submarine.
Shallow water fish don't need swim bladder's to maintain their depth, so when lung fish evolved the redundant swim bladder was converted into lungs enabling the fish to breath in or out of water.
kandtell 2 years ago
Sorry for the late reply, I was in Western Australia with very little access to the internet.
kandtell 2 years ago
I appreciate how much time you took in answering my questions. I still don't know how the information required for life alligned perfectly in the cell. I don't think it's as simple as saying "it was natural selection." On the elements- I understand the proton and electron differences in various elements, but what I don't understand is why different numbers of protons create different elements. Who says 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons is equal to helium? cont...
Limehammers 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 1.
"Who says 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons is equal to helium?"
The short answer is that all atoms with 2 protons, 2 electrons, and 2 neutrons behave in the same way. We had to call them something, "helium" is just a label. We could have called it "Element 2".
If we find an animal which meows we call it a cat.
If we find an un-reactive gas which becomes a liquid at minus 268.93 deg C we call it Helium.
I am working on a longer answer....
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 2 (the medium length answer).
Even this medium length answer is very brief, it would take me a very long time to cover the whole history in depth. To help flesh it out I am putting *s around words or phrases you might want to look up on say wikipedia if you are interested.
In 1869 the Russian chemist *Dmitri Mendeleev* proposed a new system for classifying the elements now known as the *periodic table*.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 3.
The basis for his classification was to order the elements by their *atomic weight* and start a new row each time he was able to get the properties of the elements to line up.
E.g. Fluorine and Chlorine behave in a similar fashion so they are placed in the same column, but Fluorine has a lower atomic weight than Chlorine so it is placed in the row above Chlorine.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 4.
When Mendeleev proposed this arrangement some of the spaces on the table did not correspond to a known element. E.g. there was no known element for the right hand space on the top row. Rather than give up the idea, in one of the most brilliant pieces of foresight in scientific history, he proposed that these gaps corresponded to elements which had not been discovered yet.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 5.
One of the first vindications came over the next few years. Helium had first been observed as a spectral line in sunlight during a solar eclipse one year earlier in 1868 (hence the name Helium from the Greek for helios meaning Sun). By 1895 it had been isolated on Earth and its low atomic weight (approx 4) plus the fact that it was an un-reactive gas proved that it was the missing element proposed by Mendeleev for the top right space in the periodic table.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 6.
In 1907 *Ernest Rutherford* demonstrated that *Alpha particles* are the same as Helium nuclei. Since Alpha Particles are given off when large unstable elements decay into smaller more stable ones (e.g. Polonium 210 decaying into Lead) this was proof that atoms were composed of the same material.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 7.
10 years earlier, in 1897, *J.J. Thomson* one of Rutherfords professors, discovered the electron and postulated that matter was smeared positive charge interspersed with electrons (the *plum pudding* model).
Rutherford and his colleagues demonstrated that it was more complex than that in 1909 when they found that alpha particles could bounce off gold nuclei in the famous *gold foil experiment*.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 8.
This led to him proposing the *planetary model* where electrons orbit a positively charged core (i.e. the nucleus).
Then in 1913 *Neils Bohr* proposed an extremely important clarification to the planetary model. He suggested that electrons could only orbit the nucleus in certain fixed orbits each with a fixed energy level. This is now known as the *Bohr Model*.
kandtell 2 years ago
On Atomic Theory, post 9 (and last).
The Bohr model was refined by the application of Quantum Mechanics into the currently accepted *Atomic Orbital Model* which explains most of the chemical and physical properties of the elements. For example it explains *valence*.
In 1918 Rutherford proved the existence of the Proton, and finally in 1932 *James Chadwick* discovered the neutron.
With these discoveries the makeup of the nuclei of the various elements fell into place.
kandtell 2 years ago
I appreciate the in depth knowledge you've given me, but what I was trying to get at was is there a reason why the number of protons create a different element... -not how, but why.. do you think they just behave like that naturally, or do you think someone gave the protons a reason to behave the way they do? Do you see what I'm getting at? I realize I'm not asking my question effectively (hard question to ask). let me phrase it another way... cont..
Limehammers 2 years ago
Sometimes there does not have to be a "why".
If there is a "reason" I am sure it is a natural one.
It's like "why does the Sun rise in the morning?" Because the Earth turns.
Why does the Earth turn? Because it has residual angular momentum from the gas cloud that formed the solar system.
Why did the gas cloud form the solar system? Because it collapsed under gravity.
All these "why" questions are really "how" questions in disguise.Maybe that's enough. Maybe that's all the "reason" there is.
kandtell 2 years ago
By "Any intelligence whatsoever" do you mean "was any intelligent being involved in the creation of the elements"?
You continued and answered that it "isn't necessary." I'm not sure what that means. I think it's incredibly necessary.
You list 1-5 saying they can be explained by natural means, but what I don't understand is that when someone says big bang, it implies there was matter. Same with 2-5, even mentioning those subjects implies something was there before. Intelligence...
Limehammers 2 years ago
By "necessary" I mean that we don't need the supernatural to explain these 5 things since we already have possible natural explanations.
The Big Bang is the most challenging of the 5. But believe me, there are dozens of proposed models suggested by cosmologists.
That's my main point. Having no agreed explanation does not mean we don't have any explanation. Usually it means we have too many explanations.
kandtell 2 years ago
On "Intelligence". Consider a human sperm and egg. Do they have "intelligence". I think it depends how you define intelligence, but at least you would have to say "not very much". But put the two together and you get a human with intelligence. Thus intelligence can be developed.
kandtell 2 years ago
The big bang theory.. I don't believe it was natural for all the stuff in the universe (how'd it all get there in the first place) to be attracted to eachother (gravitation). Then once all the stuff is ready to explode, who says that it Can explode?Who says there is energy? Thats my point, I don't believe it's a natural process. I believe there is a reason for how things are, like how physics works and how chemistry works. I'll quit buggin you, but that's where I'm at. ID makes sense to me
Limehammers 2 years ago
Yes species find the way to survive and evolve then change but not in the like programed way thry all species . Chimps geting smarter but they never be the homosapiens
dreamonstereo 2 years ago
Why not? It has happened once, it could happen again, no?
It's just a matter of the right "selection pressures" in the right order.
kandtell 2 years ago
Photoshop
dreamonstereo 2 years ago
He'll backpedal and tap dance around that evidence. Do you know why he'll do that? Because Christians in America are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very fucking stupid. They claim we're denying their god and their faith, yet deny the theory of a man who was once a Christian before "evolving" a brain: Charles Darwin. I cannot wait for evidence of life outside this solar system. But, unfortunately, they'll find ways around that, too.
Tap dancing for Jesus!
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
haha Awesome. I imagine if there ever was an animal that some how had half the DNA of one animal, yet was an entirely different animal Krik wouldn't understand it. He DOESN'T understand and it angers me so much. Yet, I have a theory that on some level Kirk Cameron does understand it, hence why he dodges topics of the laws of the universe so well. I find it almost imposible to imagine somebody as stupid as him, unless he 'only' does his "research" on creationist web sites.
Kimbahley 2 years ago
I thank the FSM I live the other side of the pond and don't come across his ilk very often :)
kandtell 2 years ago
ur whole arguement here is based on faith
boobsquad 3 years ago
No it's not!
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of evidence.
I'm not claiming anything in the absence of evidence or in contradiction of evidence.
If you listen carefully to the vid you will see that this is the case.
Kirk on the other hand claims that no transitional forms have been found despite the fact that 1000s of transitional fossils belonging to 100s of transitional species have been documented.
kandtell 3 years ago
He asks for living examples of transitional forms knowing that the real answer is that every single living creature is a potential transitional form and you are not going to see what it transitions into for many generations.
kandtell 3 years ago
If you watch the debate in full you will see that what he's really asking for is something like what he calls a "croc-a-duck" (half crocodile, half duck) when he must know (unless he is even more congenitally stupid than he appears) that ducks and crocodiles both evolved from a common ancestor so you would not expect to find anything that's half one and half the other!
*my* argument based on faith?! Sorry, no!!!! Kirk is the one doing that! If I'm guilt of anything it's taking the Michael!
kandtell 3 years ago
But he deserves it!
kandtell 3 years ago
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
Thanks!
I wrote a longer reply, but the FSM ate it :(
kandtell 3 years ago
Nice video of flying fish here:
watch?v=cADLrwoWJGw
Minttzz 3 years ago