It never ceases to amaze me how many people deny evolution, and also those that agree with evolution generally but not that we evolved from apes. Seriously? THis is as basic in my humble opinion as denying that the moon and the sun exists, and that Obama is not a real person, but someone or something put there to fool us all. Prove it can ya????? It is so obivously true that there is no reason to doubt it!!!!
The more I watch this, the more I want to learn the exact details of evolutionary biology. It is fascinating, and this is coming from an English major.
when i study surgery i remember the the doctors tell us they were used to Sterilize the instrument by put it in hot water for 15 min too kill the bacteria , but nowadays they using something more powerful like radiation or ray i dont know but now bacteria never die by using hot water.
@PreOMFS: we have learned about extremeophile bacteria, which live quite well in boiling water, extreme radiation, extreme cold, and even without oxygen. They do exist.
What Dr. Harold Neu displayed with the bacteria is no different than a couple having five children and two being born with asthma, it's not that some organisms have a natural advantage so much so that most organisms have a disadvantage that science has yet to pin-point, it's bacterial asthma if you will. That was not evolution it was adaptation with the insecticide. Dr. Randolph Nesse's little speech in darwin's medicine is extraordinarily similar to conventional medicine and dietary warnings.
This is the light. Today finches are still finches Tomwduda, but in hundreds of years and through natrual selection OR artificial, they will change. Or of course you may 'hope' that the answer is god/adam/eve, heaven? I hope too. wouldn'tbe just lovely...... Come on yastactness. Was religion not 'invented' by primative leaders as a form of control before we had goverments? Wake up people... In time an even more factual Darwinism will be put to us and then maybe the misled will see the light! xx
it's interesting to note that the only evidence of evolution are signs of adaptation. How did a fly not go extinct over the millenias while it was evolving wings. And while it was evolving these wings, in the meantime, these partial wings would be more of a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage. Evolution also faces another problam of "irreducibly complex" organisms.
@yistackness: It is interesting to note that you are wrong. Speciation has been noted in the field and in the lab.
If I understand properly, you are claiming that insect wings are irreducibly complex. This has been answered several times; there are co-optive uses for the scales that can be maneuvered to allow an insect to glide; later on the flight muscles are developed from those that maneuver the proto-wings. Co-option is a valid argument, Luskin notwithstanding.
@puncheex: it's all desperate reaching with zero evidence. It's all theory. There should be thousand of time more fossils showing gradual changes, but there is no such transitional evidence.
@yistackness: Uh-uh-uh-uh. Your statement is a dodge. IC says that a mechanism must have been designed because it cannot have evolved one piece at a time. If we can show that indeed it could be assembled one piece at a time in an evolutionary way, then we have debunked the IC argument. We need to make no assertion that it actually did happen that way, just that it might have. Then you switched from IC to that old "no transitional fossils" stuff again; that is moving the goals.
@puncheex: Showing a vanishingly small probablility of how something can come about is by no means evidence of it occuring that way. Especially when an alternative theory is more plausible (although probability could not be applied here). The goal posts arne't being moved, they only appear to be moving because you are zig-zaging all over the feild.
@yistackness: No. You started with asserting IC, then you abandon that for "no transitional fossils", a completely different argument. Now it's changed to probabilities a`la Dembski. You have repeatedly dodged what I say and then start a new, different argument with each new response. That is you, sir, not me. If you want to argue IC, then answer my message above. Ditto transitional fossils. Ditto probabilities. Quit fidgeting and stand your ground, or admit you cannot.
@puncheex: WStand my ground? Who can stand their ground? What does anyone know with 100% certainty in life? there is only one thing, and that is that you know you exist. "I doubt therefore i exist". Anything after that is speculation. Science is permeated with assumptions grounded on blind faith. You complain that I bring up probablilities? How much of science is based on statistics and probablilities? A lot! You cannpt tell me I'm "probably" wrong, whereas the probability of some theories are.
@yistackness: You mean to tell me that you get onto these videos simply to state that you have no certainty about anything? Why are you here? Why do you start arguments about IC and then refuse to back them up? I complain about nothing except that you cannot follow a straight line of logical argument. You inject anti-science into a discussion about science and then refuse to follow up. Take anyone argument that you started on this thread, and we can debate it. Or not, and quit responding.
@puncheex: I simply made a comment on this video, then you came along and commented on my comment, it's you who's looking for a debate. It's also you who's claiming the parameters of a topic. If I'm trying to prove the earth is round to someone who believes it's flat, and then I bring up the hubble telescope and the shuttle, etc... and then the person tells me "stick to the subject, follow a straight line!", well what am I supposed to do? I see different parameters around a topic than you do.
Checkmate, Religion.
reddemondrag 1 month ago
there was a film about darwin , can any one rember what it was called?
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Creation
methinxaweezil 1 month ago
@methinxaweezil
thx
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins is the cherry on the cake :) Great documentary!!!!
MIAfishing1 2 months ago
For me, its hard to beleive we ARENT creatures of evolution...
bovineuniversity1290 7 months ago
so at first there were only fish and u could find life forms and stuff only in the water?
icsvortex665 9 months ago
an all-you-can-eat for thought..
6hundred3score6 9 months ago
@TeamOfThe80s we don't evolve from apes. We evolve from a common ancestor that we used to share with them hundreds of thousands of years ago.
bigmike6192 10 months ago
@bigmike6192 true, but most peopel dont know that, so scientests say ape, or ape LIKE ancestors.
makes it easier than sayin homopithicus or whatever i guess
bovineuniversity1290 7 months ago
@bigmike6192 not MODERN apes. thosounds of years ago they were still apes.
animaljp3 1 month ago
It never ceases to amaze me how many people deny evolution, and also those that agree with evolution generally but not that we evolved from apes. Seriously? THis is as basic in my humble opinion as denying that the moon and the sun exists, and that Obama is not a real person, but someone or something put there to fool us all. Prove it can ya????? It is so obivously true that there is no reason to doubt it!!!!
TeamOfThe80s 1 year ago
The more I watch this, the more I want to learn the exact details of evolutionary biology. It is fascinating, and this is coming from an English major.
drewskione 1 year ago
Nice to see John Maynard Smith again.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
i want to add something here.
when i study surgery i remember the the doctors tell us they were used to Sterilize the instrument by put it in hot water for 15 min too kill the bacteria , but nowadays they using something more powerful like radiation or ray i dont know but now bacteria never die by using hot water.
sorry for my bad english ,
the man who create god and allah
not allah or god who create the man
greeting
PreOMFS 1 year ago 3
@PreOMFS its very true they learn to adapt, and they change...sometimes thats the downfall of our own advancement, they learn to resist.
TheNocturneMoon 1 year ago
@PreOMFS: we have learned about extremeophile bacteria, which live quite well in boiling water, extreme radiation, extreme cold, and even without oxygen. They do exist.
puncheex 1 year ago
What Dr. Harold Neu displayed with the bacteria is no different than a couple having five children and two being born with asthma, it's not that some organisms have a natural advantage so much so that most organisms have a disadvantage that science has yet to pin-point, it's bacterial asthma if you will. That was not evolution it was adaptation with the insecticide. Dr. Randolph Nesse's little speech in darwin's medicine is extraordinarily similar to conventional medicine and dietary warnings.
mbmanon 1 year ago
@mbmanon how do you adapt when you are dead? evolution is random TRAITS that survive.
animaljp3 1 month ago
This is the light. Today finches are still finches Tomwduda, but in hundreds of years and through natrual selection OR artificial, they will change. Or of course you may 'hope' that the answer is god/adam/eve, heaven? I hope too. wouldn'tbe just lovely...... Come on yastactness. Was religion not 'invented' by primative leaders as a form of control before we had goverments? Wake up people... In time an even more factual Darwinism will be put to us and then maybe the misled will see the light! xx
JamesGarrett1 1 year ago
When Yistackness gets struck by lightning, searching for Zeus, let's nominate him for the Darwin awards.
xxSoLovely 1 year ago
it's interesting to note that the only evidence of evolution are signs of adaptation. How did a fly not go extinct over the millenias while it was evolving wings. And while it was evolving these wings, in the meantime, these partial wings would be more of a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage. Evolution also faces another problam of "irreducibly complex" organisms.
yistackness 2 years ago
@yistackness: It is interesting to note that you are wrong. Speciation has been noted in the field and in the lab.
If I understand properly, you are claiming that insect wings are irreducibly complex. This has been answered several times; there are co-optive uses for the scales that can be maneuvered to allow an insect to glide; later on the flight muscles are developed from those that maneuver the proto-wings. Co-option is a valid argument, Luskin notwithstanding.
puncheex 1 year ago 3
@puncheex: it's all desperate reaching with zero evidence. It's all theory. There should be thousand of time more fossils showing gradual changes, but there is no such transitional evidence.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness: Uh-uh-uh-uh. Your statement is a dodge. IC says that a mechanism must have been designed because it cannot have evolved one piece at a time. If we can show that indeed it could be assembled one piece at a time in an evolutionary way, then we have debunked the IC argument. We need to make no assertion that it actually did happen that way, just that it might have. Then you switched from IC to that old "no transitional fossils" stuff again; that is moving the goals.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex: Showing a vanishingly small probablility of how something can come about is by no means evidence of it occuring that way. Especially when an alternative theory is more plausible (although probability could not be applied here). The goal posts arne't being moved, they only appear to be moving because you are zig-zaging all over the feild.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness: No. You started with asserting IC, then you abandon that for "no transitional fossils", a completely different argument. Now it's changed to probabilities a`la Dembski. You have repeatedly dodged what I say and then start a new, different argument with each new response. That is you, sir, not me. If you want to argue IC, then answer my message above. Ditto transitional fossils. Ditto probabilities. Quit fidgeting and stand your ground, or admit you cannot.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex: WStand my ground? Who can stand their ground? What does anyone know with 100% certainty in life? there is only one thing, and that is that you know you exist. "I doubt therefore i exist". Anything after that is speculation. Science is permeated with assumptions grounded on blind faith. You complain that I bring up probablilities? How much of science is based on statistics and probablilities? A lot! You cannpt tell me I'm "probably" wrong, whereas the probability of some theories are.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness: You mean to tell me that you get onto these videos simply to state that you have no certainty about anything? Why are you here? Why do you start arguments about IC and then refuse to back them up? I complain about nothing except that you cannot follow a straight line of logical argument. You inject anti-science into a discussion about science and then refuse to follow up. Take anyone argument that you started on this thread, and we can debate it. Or not, and quit responding.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex: I simply made a comment on this video, then you came along and commented on my comment, it's you who's looking for a debate. It's also you who's claiming the parameters of a topic. If I'm trying to prove the earth is round to someone who believes it's flat, and then I bring up the hubble telescope and the shuttle, etc... and then the person tells me "stick to the subject, follow a straight line!", well what am I supposed to do? I see different parameters around a topic than you do.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness: Fine. As you will.
puncheex 1 year ago
@yistackness you need to PROVE something is wrong.
animaljp3 1 month ago
@animaljp3 i don't get it.
yistackness 1 month ago
oh my god i was 666 view, dam the devil
Dogratt 2 years ago 11
All 5 videos are very interesting, indeed. Thanks for sharing.
veramann 2 years ago 35
Excellent, informative, liberating. Thank you.
cfibb 2 years ago 28