Evolution is false. Its really opinions passed off as facts.
What came first ....the chicken or egg? The Chicken can not exist without the Egg but the Egg comes from the chicken. Truth is we were ALL created. All evidence points to CREATION. Evolution is speculation.
Speciation — the creation of a new species — is not a process that turns one species into another. It occurs when a mutation begins to create creature that cannot breed with the original species. The original species is always retained, and a new species comes into co-existence the new species may then out-compete its forebears who may die out over time. The premise of your argument is flawed, which you would realize if you had taken even an introductory biology course.
You do realize that if evolution doesn't exist then life as we know it is impossible, because all things evolve from single-celled organisms even in the very process of reproduction. An embryo isn't just magically transformed into a human, it goes through many stages of EVOLUTION. It starts off as a sperm, then a zygote, it develops and loses a vestigial tail, flippers that are sculpted into limbs, primitive blood-pumping organs forming a heart... to deny evolution is to deny your own existence.
@Gilbertus1986 You're an idiot. Nothing I said was a "pre-supposition". Transformation of a sperm into a fetus is a primitive yet undeniable example of evolution in process. If you say that it's "pre-programmed" in the DNA of creatures to gradually transform then evolution has been proven, because that's all evolution is, a gradual transformation through generation. It's the reason why parents who have a resistance to a certain infection give birth to children who are immune.
@PsychoJosh IF you think sperm doing what it was programmed to do is evolution then you really are an idiot.
Evolution as DARWIN said was about species evolving into more complex species... The sperm of a human is still human, therefore same species therefore no evolution. Seriously go to university!
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
im not being a jerk by the way, i actually like trying to find information on things like this to give my brain something else to chew on, and i agree with you on this whole frill shark video and many other christians debunking evolution on here in that they insult your intelligence. But when you get down to the true hard evidence, evolution just doesnt fit together as seamless as it should if were true...
If you've found some really good examples of intermediatry links please just type in some key words to find it and ill look it up personally and see if ive yet to see it. But as it stands now, i bide by my belief that there would have to had been a great deal more to make up for the changes that supposedly happend, so many that a plethora being destroyed wouldnt have stopped more examples from being found.
@KajexFiredrake First off thank you for replying with logic and not just scathing insults. I acknowlege that some would have certainly been destroyed as I said before, and I have looked at a plethora of fossils as I try to figure out the origins of life myself and have yet to find my "smoking gun". Such as partially formed wings for example, and am still perplexed with the appearance of totaly new species during the Cambrian era.
Your premise is incorrect. Evolution is NOT the idea that species must change over time into new species. Because your premise is incorrect, your argument is invalid.
one part of evolution can be stated as change in allele frequency over time. That means that reproductive advantages get spread in the gene pool and a greater percentage of the population have them. If a creature is well adapted to its environment and that environment isnt changing then there is little selective pressure for change.
look, i don't get why there is a debate. among SCIENTISTS (that is, people who actually get paid to do SCIENCE) there is NO DEBATE. evolution is the most well-validated theory in all of science. it has never been disproven by scientists, it has continually been validated. SPECIATION has been documented. and here we are, common folk who for the most part don't even have a bachelors in science, arguing about science. its like blind people arguing over art.
@crapatitus - there is a debate among scientists about most things including evolution theory. Trees are thought to have existed long before animal life. Trees are living, formed from cells and have DNA. Tree cells can mutate and every tree is different from its parent but they have not developed any of the logical advantages that animals have, like eye sight, moveable limbs, ability to move, talk, think etc. This is a real life test of the theory, and it does not support the theory.
@TREACLE97 listen. because you probably don't know this. but animals came before trees. why? because life started in the ocean. secondly, trees dont need to eye sight, they reproduce fine without it.
evolution is determined by fitness (which is the ability to reproduce) so as long as something can continue to reproduce (which trees can by the way), then that thing is evolutionarily successful. whereas plenty of animals with sight and limbs have gone extinct.
Of course, the bones of humanoids and animals would generally deteriorate over time but laws of chance say thatat more of the links between the current species and the steps to their prehistoric forms should have been preserved more frequently. From what ive seen so far the current skeletial structures of todays organisms remain largely unchanged from when they first appeared, the cambrean era's stratum.
Of course, the bones of humanoids and animals would generally deteriorate over time but laws of chance say thatat more of the links between the current species and the steps to their prehistoric forms should have been preserved more frequently. From what ive seen so far the current skeletial structures of todays organisms remain largely unchanged from when they first appeared, the cambrean era's stratum.
You haven't looked at many fossils. Not a question- by making that statement you've essentially proven it.
Fossilization is not a kind process. The laws of chance vary immensely depending on region and environment, but you're still looking at the vast majority of potential fossils being obliterated.
Nevertheless, we DO have an incredibly extensive fossil record (despite what some morons like Duane Gish would say) which shows increasing transition between them.
i dunno we have the skeletons of dinosaurs but we still havent found the in-between skeletons of the other organisims on the planet if evolution is a gradual change in species over time, either quick or slow, there should be a more vast selection of intermediary creatures if weve reached a geological statum far enough to reach dinosaurs.
.Almost everybody knows that some species change very rapidly and others hardly at all over tens of millions of years, and the reason is very simple. If nothing happens in a species' habitat/environment that would favour some noticeable change, the species won't change noticeably. There's nothing strange about that, and it's something he'd learn about if he had picked up a biology book:)
There is not a requirement within evolution that all species always evolve into other species. And in your case, i thiun your genes are doomed to become extinct by retardism. And when your genes are eliminated from the genepool, evolution is proven.
There are two things I don't understand with your argument.
Evolution is an effect not an cause so what cause do you propose exists to force a change? (Time alone?)
How do you know it hasn't change? For instance how do you know the immune system has not evolved (which is likely it has) or the enzymatic function of the liver or metabolic speed or behavioral pattern or cognitive abilities or sensor function etc etc? In other words how do you know they can interbreed with their ancestors?
Human's have been scientifically shown to have been shorter and live a lot shorter lives. With better eating habits (more nutrients for growth) and knowledge of diseases, humans are, on average, taller and live a lot longer. So using your failed, terrible logic, this example proves evolution. But then again, true evolution occurs over millions of years. The shark find was cool! But it is just an example of how we evolved from apes, yet there are still apes. This shark evolved, but he still here
The biggest logical error in this video is that the author assumes that these two evidences of creatures that haven't changed in a long time are the only evidence for evolution. On the contrary, the only two "proofs" that the author gives that Evolution is not true are these two creatures. So the video proves nothing at all.
Saying evolution is wrong doesn't prove a goddamn thing. Show me evidence how evolution is wrong and show me evidence that creationism is correct. i think you're just too insecure about life; that's why you have to stick to fairy-tales to make you feel better.
If a lifeform like the nautilus is surviving well enough as it is then it doesn't need change. Evolution occurs for a lifeform to suit its environment. If it gets warmer, animals will adapt to the heat or die out. The nautilus is an example of an animal that's simple and durable enough to survive with little change for millions of years. Evolution takes these animals into account and they do not disprove it. Try again.
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make a video with that ignorant smug look on your face. Second, your argument doesn't mean anything. The shark could survive, it didn't need to change, however they are almost all gone, so its stubborness to change is killing it off. Roaches are pretty damn old, they don't need to change either.
@emoisbackxxzz I no god isnt real and we are animals we are Homo sapiens the only species left in the taxo of Hominids we are primates and it is more logical to assume that your god and the gods'' of ancient cultures are aliens that i defiently am open to not some invisible fake entity.
@emoisbackxxzz im athiest i am not scared of death i see no proof of a god we are animals mate i think your religious folks are scared to admit that your man in the sky homo is not real and you mate are scared of the unknown which is death and it is you who needs to wake up to the truth your retarted mate you are your so fucking dumb im sorry but anyone who believes in people with wings and a giant mystical entiny that created life needs help.
The organisms, don't change, you idiot. The DNA codes do, for the next generation. For example, if the organism is cold, the DNA will mutate, and compensate for the weather,and create codes for the next progeny with new code. My god, you're stupid!
Dogs, cats, plants, vaccines, horses, birds, fish and numerous other lifeforms are all modified by us (artificial selection) in a short time to make new varieties. Natural selection goes in fits and starts and can stop, dead end, continue and/or split off into new branches of creatures to exploit available resources. Guess what happens if this process continues for geological timescales? Frankly I'd be embarrassed to put my face on the above video.
Because a species is still around today, and it was around 100 million years ago, only shows that it will probably be around like it is for a long time because it is very suited to it's environment.
cells, plants, animals and all living things evolve. Some Elephants are born without tusks do to poutching, evolution is constant my friend.
You talk about change over time being a speculative idea, yet your belief in God is based on the speculation that such a being even exists. So before you go stating that the "guesses" of scientists (who have taken decades to prove what you attempted to disprove in a five-and-a-half minute timespan) are outright wrong, take a minute to look at the foundation of your own flawed belief.
How come no theist can even come close to defending their ridiculous beliefs? I keep looking but nothing, just the same old circular reasoning and logical fallacies. There comes a time fellow atheist, when we don't' give them the time to speak about it. Everything they have to say eventually becomes meaningless and not worth listening to.
I highly doubt that after 80 million years this shark didn't change. Everything evolves in some way no matter how subtle or how apparent. Usually it is a drastic change when combining evolution and 80 million years hahahaha. The Frill Shark is interesting and the thing that gets me is why is it extinct? The point of evo is to stop the extinction of a population of animals. To modify it too bad for this creature evo doesn't exist to do that.
I feel kind of helpless and just sad when I think about that officially USA is like this idiot, hopefully atheist will rise soon and be able to speak what they actually believe.
evolution does not demand change, evolution simply says that if an animal that changes survives better than an animal that doesn't the changing animal obviously leaves continuing generations. if an animal requires no change and can still survive enough to keep it's gene pool alive then change is not needed.
a saying comes to mind "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
@Nixom1334 Under the "billions of years" argument every figment of imagination is possible. If a frog turns into a prince is a myth, but if a frog turns into a prince after 300 million years, it's science.
@raponte1955 lets simplify it a bit lets take a white rabbit and a black rabbit, if both these rabbits live in the snow obviously the white rabbit is harder to see and is less likely to be eaten while the black one stands out, the survivors leave genes behind making a larger population of W rabbits over time, this is just one small trait over a relatively short time in one specific scenario, this is micro evolution, Macro evolution is many micros over a long time.
@Nixom1334 Thanks for your reply, and let me start by saying this is the first reply I receive from an evolution advocate without any ad-hominem or insults. I agree on micro evolution. It is a fact and it is observable. But micro evolution is just change within species, and precisely the argument is the impossibility of providing evidence for macro evolution, at least based on the fossil record. To trace evolution from ambolucetus to whale just shows good imagination, nothing else.
@raponte1955 Macro evolution is just a compilation of micro evolutions compounded over such a long period of time that it seems difficult to determine any connection to it's original form. here's a crude example take a word and change only one letter at a time after a long time you can see the subtle changes made from one word to another but in the long view you can end up with a word that looks nothing like the original. mark park pack pace mace mice dice dime lime line fine file fill etcetera
@Nixom1334 Evolution simply says that if an animal that changes survives better than an animal that doesn't the changing animal obviously leaves continuing generations. No reason to assume the lessor would stop multiplying? It was there and no reason to suspect it would be pushed to extinction, especially when you understand the change should only be micro and selected from existing genes. Science has never observed creation of new genetic info, instead the opposite, so hypothesis is falsified.
@PhalanxPerception no, that's when animals diverge as you can clearly see by differentiation of species. the great dane is obviously superior to a chihuahua, but there were different situations in which both survived. but some animals do get pushed to enxtinction if there survival rate is too low to maintain a breeding population. and even if you can't add new gen. material some parts of DNA cab be turned on and off.
@Nixom1334 Correct! But not all go extinct. Also Selection among a pool of existing genes whether suppressed or lost through mutation still always remains of a particular kind no new species emerge. This is not evidence for evolution. The data is strong on this, it just doesn't happen. They have tested this on select breeding and are able to isolate a certain trait and also reintroduce it back into the common population later and get other traits back, But never new info.
@Nixom1334 See this is the whole point, We don't see mutations adding new info, we don't see new species, the data shows this can't happen and even guards against this. DNA is suffering entropy not the reverse. The evidence is against evolution people just don't want to except this. If evolution is possible there should be clear transitions, this just isn't the case.
@PhalanxPerception the Amino Acids in and nitrogen pairs go in threes. there's a code for the pairs and when re-ordered they make different things. ACT and AGT are not going to be the same thing maybe not even close. and where long chains are grouped together way different things happen as ACTGCATTC is not the same as AGTCTATTG.
@Nixom1334 Sorry the data doesn't lie, Real empirical data has demonstrated on numerous levels evolution is not possible. I'm not going to give you a pass. I have put the hours in and I am quite aware of the science, I can also digest the data and sort speculation, hypothesis from real proven science. When you get enough data to falsify its time to abandon it . When you can point to real research demonstrating a gain in the genetic info I will listen. But I know better and so do you. Good luck.
@Nixom1334 Never has new genetic information been observed, tested, or repeated, I mean NEVER! Not only has this not been observed other data suggest strongly its not even possible. You also ignore the fact ALL DNA is suffering entropy. I think you know full well what I am talking about.
@Nixom1334 Your analogy is speculation, not based on real word data. What I have presented is not speculation but real data backed. You need to get this point. Speculation is fine but there comes a time when you keep hitting dead ends with a hypothesis that you must reevaluate your hypothesis. I strongly believe this time has arrived involving evolution, if you disagree I can live with that, I hope you can do the same. Although I have supported my view beyond opinion. Thanks for your time.
@PhalanxPerception even if the current mechanism for evolution is wrong the fact that it happens is true. looking at the fossil record we can clearly see this. evolution needs to exist to explain why we don't see chihuahuas in the late cretaceous. we know that not all current animals existed millions of years ago. to assume that they all magically poofed into existence is to deny the science that backs you up. Animals DO evolve, even if we're wrong about how.
@Nixom1334 You even admit you could be wrong at how, My friend that is exactly the point. Evolution could be wrong and it looks like it is according to the evidence. The real data shows that evolution should not happen, thats just the truth. Also I don't believe life magically appeared. Hay this has been interesting, you are obviously well read and are convinced of evolution, I just see to much evidence against it. Thanks for your time. We both tried. To bad we can't have a beer summit :)
@Nixom1334 "the fact that it happens is true" I'm sorry this is speculation not fact. If there was empirical evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion? You say we know that not all current animals existed millions of years ago because we don't see them in the fossil record, but the absence of transitional fossils don't mean anything? Can you see the contradiction? You ignore entropy, and no observation of new genetic info. You must have this for evolution to be true. Its just aint so.
@PhalanxPerception there are plenty of transitional fossils but for us to see a perfectly complete fossil record we need the fossils of every single organism to have ever existed. I'm sure you realize that not all animals become fossils. I do realize that we could be wrong about how it works, to claim I knew anything with absolute certainty would be arrogant. and as for entropy the laws of thermodynamics are used for a closed system one in which do not find ourselves in.
@Nixom1334 When i say entropy, I am speaking to a fact that has been observed. ALL DNA is degrading not becoming more complex. It is loosing information and not adding new. If this is happening evolution shouldn't happen. As for transitional fossils i'm not going to beat a dead horse, there is no such fossil on record. I understand a closed and an open system. Sunlight is mostly destructive. Adding energy to a system doesn't equal a progression in complexity and observation shows destruction.
@PhalanxPerception no transitional fossils? cause Archeopteryx is obviously made up, just like Therapsids,? as for the sunlight it's a radioactive element which means that it could cause mutation, mistakes, in the DNA entropy the only thing I could think of is Enthalpy which I think is suppose to compensate for entropy but honestly this strays from my are of knowledge a little bit.
@Nixom1334 Yes it could cause mutations, but the mutations are mostly dangerous not advantageous, and never add new information. I can't stress this enough, if you don't have new genetic information you can never have evolution. The second big point is entropy, DNA is basically deteriorating, this is a insurmountable problem for evolution. I won't argue transitional fossils, I now what the evidence is, trust me, if they had a (THE) missing link we wouldn't be talking right now.
@PhalanxPerception By "THE" missing link you mean exactly what? are you waiting for a specific missing link. do you have a hypothesis as to where it might be found. we share 98% of DNA with chimps you don't think we're even remotely related. if evolution is not possible then we have to say that each species is poofed into existence and just happen to look similar to the preceding species before it. do you think you could figure something this big out without a scientist finding out the same?
@Nixom1334 ... and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. we know there are complex organisms now, we know there were less complex organisms before, we know modern animals share similarities with older animals, and we know complex organisms don't pop out of nowhere. I suggest you speak to an evolutionary biologist I dn't know everything on this field and they could answer questions I can't.
@Nixom1334 .. and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. This is where you are having trouble. You are assuming because we don't know yet how we are, that equals it must be an unproven hypothesis. The hypothesis can't stand against the empirical evidence, if you choose to ignore the evidence I just can't help you. Time to look into a different direction. When you eliminate the possible you are left with ? We have eliminated the possibility of evolution.
@Nixom1334 and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. Look at your statement, this is a huge unfounded assumption. Just because we don't know how or even why we are here, doesn't have anything to do with how or why we are here. Evolution just doesn't happen and a commonality shared between genes is just as much proof of ID as it is for evolution, only evolution argues with empirical evidence and ID doesn't. What does the evidence support? Thats all.
@PhalanxPerception You're not understanding what i'm trying to tell you, if we can't evolve then we were originated as we are. that means that a horse has been a horse since the beginning of time. if your trying to argue for creationism you fail because that theory makes even less sense then evolution, and all your science becomes nullified. unless you can think of a scientific way as to show how exactly you could have all the species we have now without magic.
@Nixom1334 If we were created, it would clearly explain how we just showed up. Arbitrarily saying magic means nothing. It may seem like magic to us. If something created us do you not recognize the intellect would be beyond comprehension? Just because we can't understand or fathom His/its origin an intellect, doesn't automatically mean thats not what happened, especially when all evidence supports the idea and falsifies the other. Why do you discount the possible in favor of the impossible?
@PhalanxPerception Why do I favor the possible against the impossible? for what it is perhaps. you can say that god or aliens created us all you want but now you're just straying from the science that gave you validity a few comments ago. some force created every living organism that has ever existed for the Lolz? and after who knows how, long evidence shows at least a couple billion years, they decided "hey let's make one of them critters that can talk." yep, rationality and logic at it's best.
@Nixom1334 Why do I favor the possible against the impossible? No why do you favor the impossible instead of the possible? The science shows evolution not possible.
@PhalanxPerception Yeah that's why all those retarded scientists back it up. I haven't had too much studies in DNA so i can't accurately say if your claims are absolutely true, i couldn't google any results which would arouse suspicion but even if what you say is true you can't bring a rational hypothesis on how life came to be
@PhalanxPerception scientists don't use personal opinion. what point is there on them coming up with a lie for evolution, they test their shit over and over again. they don't just write shit down 'cause they're bored.
@PhalanxPerception Okay dude listen to what I'm saying, if evolution wasn't possible science would have figure this shit out by now. I mean what real point is there to saying we come from less complex animals. no one likes it what is the point of even coming up with it. but we could see why someone would say god made us, it makes us feel special and entitles us to take whatever we want.
@Nixom1334 Why are people scared to explore an idea when the other idea is falsified? I'm not asking you to convert, I am pointing out there are other options that shoud be looked at, and if science was left alone it would explore all options. It is clear there are people who don't want anything else introduced in to the mix. Evolution is the only science that does this, Why, because of the implications.
@PhalanxPerception listen, the only way for organisms to exists without evolution is if they were made one cell at a time. if you want to think god did it then you have no grounds on a science stand.
@Nixom1334 if you want to think god did it then you have no grounds on a science stand If I think there is a creator based on evidence I am on scientific ground. I don't believe evolution because I do believe in a God. I believe in a creator because what science shows. I don't see a problem with evolution and God any way? IF evolution were proven true today I fail to see why there might not be a creator? Abiogenesis is silly and really is a different subject.
@Nixom1334 back up an invisible old man in the sky. Stop being silly, no one is suggesting this. I have giving you several clear checkable facts that disprove evolution, you ignore them then you make speculative statements in favor of your view, without presenting any proof..
@Nixom1334 Science is nothing but a method used to help answer truths about how, thats it. But we are human and if you think a scientist can't substitute his/her own personal biased into there research thats silly. I can give you a few definite cases with fossils and global warming.
@PhalanxPerception I'm talking about what the point would be. i know many have falsified records but f you think there is a global conspiracy of scientist that found god is real and are trying to hide it then you just read too much x-files and Da Vinci Code
@PhalanxPerception your human nature to look for a creator. we are a random chance. out of trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars, at least one was bound to support life.probably more. i'm sure there's other life forms out there brainwashing their people into thinking their god created them and them only
@Nixom1334 God did it. speculation, unproven, moronic. God is a personal belief, not moronic, just personal. I have maintained there is a possibility of a creator based on evidence, you offer none. What is moronic is to argue with me, ignore the facts I presented and plug your ears. Go back and read the post. You are becoming sarcastic so its time to end this. If you're getting angry then the truth stings. I will bow out, as this is now a clear waste of time for both. Good luck in life.
@PhalanxPerception what proof I need a link to your source of proof, all I've seen you do is state "facts" that i can't even seem to google up with any hits. and there is no proof of god even if there isn't one for evolution, it's still YOUR speculation. you've proven nothing.
@Nixom1334 Am I saying everyone does this? No, but if all scientist are taught something as fact and can't question it (if the want a job) than don't be surprised if most are looking through the same glass end up with the same conclusions. Would you be surprised to find most theologians believe in God?
@PhalanxPerception you don't understand how scientific hypothesis work. they look at the evidence and facts. they draw conclusions and if they are wrong they make a new hypothesis. I know that just because they haven't proven it wrong doesn't mean it's fact but if it was something so simple a random youtuber could figure it out I'm sure science would have. and by science I don't mean the ones that the church hire to say bananas are proof of god.
@Nixom1334 you don't understand how scientific hypothesis work. Come on! They are not looking at the evidence. They simply don't want to drop the hypothesis because of the obvious implications.
@Nixom1334 but if it was something so simple a random youtuber could figure it out I'm sure science would have. Funny you keep ignoring the thousands of scientist that disagree with you.
@PhalanxPerception which one's i would like examples. you mean the ones that say evolution is debunked because we can't open a jar of peanut-butter and see a camel fly out?
@Nixom1334 I really do understand your point, and I understand the logic you use. The problem is, you make the mistake of saying because I don't understand how that equals magic. Then you turn to the only other idea even though you know the data denies it.
@PhalanxPerception it's not that i don't understand means magic, it's that you're hypothesis would mean that every living organism was created as is. their are clear gradients in species I don't know if you have actually seen the fossil record but the evolutionary line is quite clear. but let's say you're right, animals can't evolve that means that they had to have been made cell by cell.
@Nixom1334 Look I cant rehash this over and over, I gave you clear scientific data that destroys the possibility of evolution. You can check out everything I told you, you will find the data I gave you is right on the money. It is supported by hard data. As for time line I can show how we don't even know how the earth could be, based on science.
@PhalanxPerception what timeline? the earth's? oh good god you're one of those 6000 year old earth freaks aren't you. if you're going to say carbon dating is inaccurate then don't we use more accurate shit then that. and now i'm begining to suspect that the missing link you're looking for is a crocoduck.
@Nixom1334 Can you explain how we have granite? Granite cannot be molten ever! If it becomes molten it is no longer granite. This is an undisputed fact. This is a huge problem if you understand the earths bedrock is solid granite, and the current model for evolution claim the earth was molten for millions of years?
@Nixom1334 Do you really not see the complexity around us? The beauty, the compatibility, the lack of evidence for other hypothesis, emotions, joy, love, purpose, design, art, poetry, family, flowers, smells, sight, hearing, touching, sadness, friends, companionship, everything just right in the known universe at just the right time, I can go on and on. Do you really in your heart think this is chance without purpose?
@PhalanxPerception I don't care what the heart thinks. the thing is had we not existed you couldn't even ask that. it looks made or designed but it's a psychological illusion. mainly because if our ecosystem did not work we would be dead. there are no common animals that breathe weird rare gases because we're not full or those gases, that's why we breathe our air, cause it's in abundance. had the atmosphere been made of I don't know sulfur, life would adapt or die.
@Nixom1334 Everything you say is speculative. I have given you clear data, you don't want to look at it. Ignore it if you want but that wont change the facts.
@Nixom1334 You keep ignoring the principles, that are needed to drive evolution, when observed are always against it? This is just fact. You really need magic for evolution to work, faith to believe it. I can't go into all the science I have behind my decision, all I can say is KEEP LOOKING UPPPPPPPPPPP. If your old enough you will get that lol. Peace.
@Nixom1334 You must have new info or evolution can't happen pure and simple. The data shows this doesn't happen, fossils show this is not the case, probability is against it. The data doesn't lie.
Frilled sharks belong to genera of sharks that is 100-150 million years old. The species itself is not that old, and has about as much in common with modern sharks as it does with other members of its primitive genus. This is just like when people claim that crocodiles haven't evolved for 100 million years. That's bollocks. Ancient crocdillia are different to modern species, they are just in the same genus.
Dude evolution is real even in people if evolution wern't there we wouldn't have different hair, eye, and skin colors. Evolution is change caused by breeding which we see in dogs dobermans and colis are both dogs but they have different traits because of breeding. That is evolution, it's real deal with it. And even if nteligent desighn is real isn't letting a creation change with it's envirment to survive more intelegent than letting it die from the changes around it?
Good video! - Using facts and logic unfortunately will not get an evolutionist to rethink! - if new species are created through evolution we should have more species now than millions of years ago (we don't), all species should continually evolve as other species strive to be fittest and survive (thereby changing the environment), but as it has been shown, numerous living things have remained unchanged for millions of years. Evolution creates species yet also strives to eliminate them!?
LOL! we should have more species now than millions of years ago?...that's kinda hard when 99% of all the species that ever existed on earth have went extinct.
and according to evolutionary theory, we'd expect certain organisms not to change..change only occurs when nature pressures change to occur. if an organism is perfectly suited to its environment for 100 million years, than it won't change very much in 100 million years..u have a lot of learning to do, yet all u do is assert.
if evolution is true.why are there animals such as apes.if evolution is true all apes should be human by now.what, there are apes who evolved and some are not ? how lame?
I read ALL the comments left and I wonder why only 2 people agree with you. And all they said was, evolutionist believe we came from monkeys. The people arguing for evolution had very well spoken things that made sense, why is that?
science cant prove it, GOD DID IT, lol. you will reley on science needing proof to say something is true but you will jump on something with no proof at all and say your right. now when u talk living fossils i think that its more of something that evolutionized where its to then thats it maybe it stopped for a while, then will began when natural selection occurs for that species,you are a idiot sir
There's nothing more amusing than a misguided non-scientist who thinks he can refute the incredibly complex work of hundreds of thousands of brilliant scientists over the last 150 years with just a few simple statements. Do you also think you can just wing it and perform brain surgery as well as trained surgeons after you do some searching on the Internet for 15 minutes?
It's nice that your mental care housing facility gives you internet and video access but they really should monitor you a bit more. And I might suggest to them that they break your Prozacs in half and see if that improves your delirium.
okay yeah I will watch, seeming how that our "soul" is just kinetic energy that our muscles use which converts to electric pulses. You are just a preacher trying to force your own beliefs on others
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DISPROVED EVOLUTION! PLEASE COLLECT YOUR NOBEL PRIZE AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
IT MUST HAVE BEEN NO SMALL FEAT EXPERTLY DISPROVING MORE THAN A CENTURY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MOUNTAINS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE GATHERED BY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME USING NOTHING BUT A CAMCORDER AND FIVE AND HALF FREE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, BUT SOMEHOW YOU PULLED IT OFF.
First of all part of evolution says that species do change overtime but only according to how well they adapt to there environment . Second if evolution was not true explain to me why we have a tail bone but no tail.
When a living Coelacanth (prehistoric fish) was caught in 1938, scientists at 1st thought it had not changed in 65 million years. What they later discovered is that the Coelacanth of '38 was a different species from his fossilized cousins, so change does happen, but again, it depends of many factors.
You should know this! have you studied Evolution at all? Are you saying that you are more knowledgeable than scientists who spend their lives studying Evolution?? Are you that desperate?
I like your arguments because they helped me get off in a sock
Mikeshereandbig 2 weeks ago
@cfc19900 What evidence points to creation?... lol let me message you...
AlanaPower111 2 weeks ago
Evolution is false. Its really opinions passed off as facts.
What came first ....the chicken or egg? The Chicken can not exist without the Egg but the Egg comes from the chicken. Truth is we were ALL created. All evidence points to CREATION. Evolution is speculation.
AlanaPower111 3 weeks ago
Speciation — the creation of a new species — is not a process that turns one species into another. It occurs when a mutation begins to create creature that cannot breed with the original species. The original species is always retained, and a new species comes into co-existence the new species may then out-compete its forebears who may die out over time. The premise of your argument is flawed, which you would realize if you had taken even an introductory biology course.
EmpireBasejumper 3 weeks ago
You do realize that if evolution doesn't exist then life as we know it is impossible, because all things evolve from single-celled organisms even in the very process of reproduction. An embryo isn't just magically transformed into a human, it goes through many stages of EVOLUTION. It starts off as a sperm, then a zygote, it develops and loses a vestigial tail, flippers that are sculpted into limbs, primitive blood-pumping organs forming a heart... to deny evolution is to deny your own existence.
PsychoJosh 1 month ago
@PsychoJosh Faith statement. You do realise that you pre-suppose that evolution is true. That is in no way evidence.
Embryo formation is pre-programmed within the DNA it is not evolution at all. Unless you are claiming that evolution is programmed? Programmed by who.
Gilbertus1986 3 weeks ago
@Gilbertus1986 You're an idiot. Nothing I said was a "pre-supposition". Transformation of a sperm into a fetus is a primitive yet undeniable example of evolution in process. If you say that it's "pre-programmed" in the DNA of creatures to gradually transform then evolution has been proven, because that's all evolution is, a gradual transformation through generation. It's the reason why parents who have a resistance to a certain infection give birth to children who are immune.
PsychoJosh 3 weeks ago
@PsychoJosh IF you think sperm doing what it was programmed to do is evolution then you really are an idiot.
Evolution as DARWIN said was about species evolving into more complex species... The sperm of a human is still human, therefore same species therefore no evolution. Seriously go to university!
Gilbertus1986 3 weeks ago
It's fascinating to see people who are so smug in their ignorance. Please grow a brain.
lessevdoolbretsim 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
PainSurgeon 1 month ago
This guy is hilarious.
jisaid08 2 months ago
i love comedy on youtube! this is great, man!!! the way you keep a straight face thru this entire rant is awesome!!!!!!
Banged147Chicks 2 months ago 3
im not being a jerk by the way, i actually like trying to find information on things like this to give my brain something else to chew on, and i agree with you on this whole frill shark video and many other christians debunking evolution on here in that they insult your intelligence. But when you get down to the true hard evidence, evolution just doesnt fit together as seamless as it should if were true...
Stratocomet711 2 months ago
If you've found some really good examples of intermediatry links please just type in some key words to find it and ill look it up personally and see if ive yet to see it. But as it stands now, i bide by my belief that there would have to had been a great deal more to make up for the changes that supposedly happend, so many that a plethora being destroyed wouldnt have stopped more examples from being found.
Stratocomet711 2 months ago
@KajexFiredrake First off thank you for replying with logic and not just scathing insults. I acknowlege that some would have certainly been destroyed as I said before, and I have looked at a plethora of fossils as I try to figure out the origins of life myself and have yet to find my "smoking gun". Such as partially formed wings for example, and am still perplexed with the appearance of totaly new species during the Cambrian era.
Stratocomet711 2 months ago
this is the same guy that suggested dropping an atom bomb on mecca,
that should tell us who we are dealing with here...
bugsy1781 2 months ago
you have a light saber logo
Uranium1972 2 months ago
i cant even listen to you, dam, you slow boring idiot
gazza3112 3 months ago
Your premise is incorrect. Evolution is NOT the idea that species must change over time into new species. Because your premise is incorrect, your argument is invalid.
Try again.
puffin51 4 months ago 7
@puffin51 His premise is the same that Darwin proposed.... So perhaps you should "try again"
Gilbertus1986 3 weeks ago
one part of evolution can be stated as change in allele frequency over time. That means that reproductive advantages get spread in the gene pool and a greater percentage of the population have them. If a creature is well adapted to its environment and that environment isnt changing then there is little selective pressure for change.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
look, i don't get why there is a debate. among SCIENTISTS (that is, people who actually get paid to do SCIENCE) there is NO DEBATE. evolution is the most well-validated theory in all of science. it has never been disproven by scientists, it has continually been validated. SPECIATION has been documented. and here we are, common folk who for the most part don't even have a bachelors in science, arguing about science. its like blind people arguing over art.
crapatitus 4 months ago
@crapatitus - there is a debate among scientists about most things including evolution theory. Trees are thought to have existed long before animal life. Trees are living, formed from cells and have DNA. Tree cells can mutate and every tree is different from its parent but they have not developed any of the logical advantages that animals have, like eye sight, moveable limbs, ability to move, talk, think etc. This is a real life test of the theory, and it does not support the theory.
TREACLE97 3 months ago
@TREACLE97 listen. because you probably don't know this. but animals came before trees. why? because life started in the ocean. secondly, trees dont need to eye sight, they reproduce fine without it.
evolution is determined by fitness (which is the ability to reproduce) so as long as something can continue to reproduce (which trees can by the way), then that thing is evolutionarily successful. whereas plenty of animals with sight and limbs have gone extinct.
finally, NO THERE IS NO DEBATE
crapatitus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, the bones of humanoids and animals would generally deteriorate over time but laws of chance say thatat more of the links between the current species and the steps to their prehistoric forms should have been preserved more frequently. From what ive seen so far the current skeletial structures of todays organisms remain largely unchanged from when they first appeared, the cambrean era's stratum.
Stratocomet711 4 months ago
Of course, the bones of humanoids and animals would generally deteriorate over time but laws of chance say thatat more of the links between the current species and the steps to their prehistoric forms should have been preserved more frequently. From what ive seen so far the current skeletial structures of todays organisms remain largely unchanged from when they first appeared, the cambrean era's stratum.
Stratocomet711 4 months ago
@Stratocomet711
You haven't looked at many fossils. Not a question- by making that statement you've essentially proven it.
Fossilization is not a kind process. The laws of chance vary immensely depending on region and environment, but you're still looking at the vast majority of potential fossils being obliterated.
Nevertheless, we DO have an incredibly extensive fossil record (despite what some morons like Duane Gish would say) which shows increasing transition between them.
KajexFiredrake 2 months ago
i dunno we have the skeletons of dinosaurs but we still havent found the in-between skeletons of the other organisims on the planet if evolution is a gradual change in species over time, either quick or slow, there should be a more vast selection of intermediary creatures if weve reached a geological statum far enough to reach dinosaurs.
Stratocomet711 4 months ago
.Almost everybody knows that some species change very rapidly and others hardly at all over tens of millions of years, and the reason is very simple. If nothing happens in a species' habitat/environment that would favour some noticeable change, the species won't change noticeably. There's nothing strange about that, and it's something he'd learn about if he had picked up a biology book:)
winterstellar 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, you're stupid.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 5 months ago
when you laugh, you really come out retarded...
There is not a requirement within evolution that all species always evolve into other species. And in your case, i thiun your genes are doomed to become extinct by retardism. And when your genes are eliminated from the genepool, evolution is proven.
ExcaliburClan 6 months ago
There are two things I don't understand with your argument.
Evolution is an effect not an cause so what cause do you propose exists to force a change? (Time alone?)
How do you know it hasn't change? For instance how do you know the immune system has not evolved (which is likely it has) or the enzymatic function of the liver or metabolic speed or behavioral pattern or cognitive abilities or sensor function etc etc? In other words how do you know they can interbreed with their ancestors?
jomen112 6 months ago
Human's have been scientifically shown to have been shorter and live a lot shorter lives. With better eating habits (more nutrients for growth) and knowledge of diseases, humans are, on average, taller and live a lot longer. So using your failed, terrible logic, this example proves evolution. But then again, true evolution occurs over millions of years. The shark find was cool! But it is just an example of how we evolved from apes, yet there are still apes. This shark evolved, but he still here
mattyp434 6 months ago
Oh. I thought you were going to present an argument in this video. But no. Instead, more couch conviction, and gross misunderstanding.
haggidubious 6 months ago
The biggest logical error in this video is that the author assumes that these two evidences of creatures that haven't changed in a long time are the only evidence for evolution. On the contrary, the only two "proofs" that the author gives that Evolution is not true are these two creatures. So the video proves nothing at all.
TheJeoshua 6 months ago
Saying evolution is wrong doesn't prove a goddamn thing. Show me evidence how evolution is wrong and show me evidence that creationism is correct. i think you're just too insecure about life; that's why you have to stick to fairy-tales to make you feel better.
ajhrockerboy6 6 months ago
If a lifeform like the nautilus is surviving well enough as it is then it doesn't need change. Evolution occurs for a lifeform to suit its environment. If it gets warmer, animals will adapt to the heat or die out. The nautilus is an example of an animal that's simple and durable enough to survive with little change for millions of years. Evolution takes these animals into account and they do not disprove it. Try again.
flurble33 6 months ago
@flurble33 FTW!
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
Woe, stupid and smug. Annoying combo.
fdasherv 6 months ago
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make a video with that ignorant smug look on your face. Second, your argument doesn't mean anything. The shark could survive, it didn't need to change, however they are almost all gone, so its stubborness to change is killing it off. Roaches are pretty damn old, they don't need to change either.
PurpleDrippy 7 months ago
How can he use a creature 550,000,000 years old as evidence for creationists when most of them believe the world to be less than 6,000 years old duh!
170adamb 7 months ago
this guy makes a good point about how nothing changes cause his brain clearly hasn't evolved much at all lol
maximum amount of wrongness??
mother fuka go buy yourself a dictionary........ and a toupee!
Maccken18 7 months ago
I like how creationist only accept science when it seems to them to support their deluded way of thinking.
BaconSizzler84 7 months ago
The fact that you do not understand evolution proves that you do not understand evolution.
Blarghonius 8 months ago
@emoisbackxxzz I no god isnt real and we are animals we are Homo sapiens the only species left in the taxo of Hominids we are primates and it is more logical to assume that your god and the gods'' of ancient cultures are aliens that i defiently am open to not some invisible fake entity.
JordoF6 8 months ago
@emoisbackxxzz im athiest i am not scared of death i see no proof of a god we are animals mate i think your religious folks are scared to admit that your man in the sky homo is not real and you mate are scared of the unknown which is death and it is you who needs to wake up to the truth your retarted mate you are your so fucking dumb im sorry but anyone who believes in people with wings and a giant mystical entiny that created life needs help.
JordoF6 8 months ago
@emoisbackxxzz
Do the world a favor: please don't have children
hmmmwhatsnext 8 months ago
Thank you for the video :)
sarevor 8 months ago
The organisms, don't change, you idiot. The DNA codes do, for the next generation. For example, if the organism is cold, the DNA will mutate, and compensate for the weather,and create codes for the next progeny with new code. My god, you're stupid!
evelsteev 8 months ago
Dogs, cats, plants, vaccines, horses, birds, fish and numerous other lifeforms are all modified by us (artificial selection) in a short time to make new varieties. Natural selection goes in fits and starts and can stop, dead end, continue and/or split off into new branches of creatures to exploit available resources. Guess what happens if this process continues for geological timescales? Frankly I'd be embarrassed to put my face on the above video.
MrScienceandReason 8 months ago
Why are you laughing? You're a fool
ElliotVE 8 months ago
You are a moron who doesn't understand evolution. Things don't HAVE to change. They change if it is advantageous to do so.
AmorphicS 8 months ago
Because a species is still around today, and it was around 100 million years ago, only shows that it will probably be around like it is for a long time because it is very suited to it's environment.
cells, plants, animals and all living things evolve. Some Elephants are born without tusks do to poutching, evolution is constant my friend.
bebop7c2 8 months ago
You talk about change over time being a speculative idea, yet your belief in God is based on the speculation that such a being even exists. So before you go stating that the "guesses" of scientists (who have taken decades to prove what you attempted to disprove in a five-and-a-half minute timespan) are outright wrong, take a minute to look at the foundation of your own flawed belief.
A little humility goes a long way.
FreaklanceFilms 8 months ago
How come no theist can even come close to defending their ridiculous beliefs? I keep looking but nothing, just the same old circular reasoning and logical fallacies. There comes a time fellow atheist, when we don't' give them the time to speak about it. Everything they have to say eventually becomes meaningless and not worth listening to.
MsAgnosticatheist 9 months ago
I highly doubt that after 80 million years this shark didn't change. Everything evolves in some way no matter how subtle or how apparent. Usually it is a drastic change when combining evolution and 80 million years hahahaha. The Frill Shark is interesting and the thing that gets me is why is it extinct? The point of evo is to stop the extinction of a population of animals. To modify it too bad for this creature evo doesn't exist to do that.
Dunnization 9 months ago
I feel kind of helpless and just sad when I think about that officially USA is like this idiot, hopefully atheist will rise soon and be able to speak what they actually believe.
Dregge1 9 months ago
evolution does not demand change, evolution simply says that if an animal that changes survives better than an animal that doesn't the changing animal obviously leaves continuing generations. if an animal requires no change and can still survive enough to keep it's gene pool alive then change is not needed.
a saying comes to mind "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Nixom1334 9 months ago 8
@Nixom1334 Under the "billions of years" argument every figment of imagination is possible. If a frog turns into a prince is a myth, but if a frog turns into a prince after 300 million years, it's science.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955 lets simplify it a bit lets take a white rabbit and a black rabbit, if both these rabbits live in the snow obviously the white rabbit is harder to see and is less likely to be eaten while the black one stands out, the survivors leave genes behind making a larger population of W rabbits over time, this is just one small trait over a relatively short time in one specific scenario, this is micro evolution, Macro evolution is many micros over a long time.
Nixom1334 7 months ago
@Nixom1334 Thanks for your reply, and let me start by saying this is the first reply I receive from an evolution advocate without any ad-hominem or insults. I agree on micro evolution. It is a fact and it is observable. But micro evolution is just change within species, and precisely the argument is the impossibility of providing evidence for macro evolution, at least based on the fossil record. To trace evolution from ambolucetus to whale just shows good imagination, nothing else.
raponte1955 7 months ago
Nixom1334 7 months ago
@Nixom1334 Evolution simply says that if an animal that changes survives better than an animal that doesn't the changing animal obviously leaves continuing generations. No reason to assume the lessor would stop multiplying? It was there and no reason to suspect it would be pushed to extinction, especially when you understand the change should only be micro and selected from existing genes. Science has never observed creation of new genetic info, instead the opposite, so hypothesis is falsified.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception no, that's when animals diverge as you can clearly see by differentiation of species. the great dane is obviously superior to a chihuahua, but there were different situations in which both survived. but some animals do get pushed to enxtinction if there survival rate is too low to maintain a breeding population. and even if you can't add new gen. material some parts of DNA cab be turned on and off.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Correct! But not all go extinct. Also Selection among a pool of existing genes whether suppressed or lost through mutation still always remains of a particular kind no new species emerge. This is not evidence for evolution. The data is strong on this, it just doesn't happen. They have tested this on select breeding and are able to isolate a certain trait and also reintroduce it back into the common population later and get other traits back, But never new info.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 See this is the whole point, We don't see mutations adding new info, we don't see new species, the data shows this can't happen and even guards against this. DNA is suffering entropy not the reverse. The evidence is against evolution people just don't want to except this. If evolution is possible there should be clear transitions, this just isn't the case.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception the Amino Acids in and nitrogen pairs go in threes. there's a code for the pairs and when re-ordered they make different things. ACT and AGT are not going to be the same thing maybe not even close. and where long chains are grouped together way different things happen as ACTGCATTC is not the same as AGTCTATTG.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Sorry the data doesn't lie, Real empirical data has demonstrated on numerous levels evolution is not possible. I'm not going to give you a pass. I have put the hours in and I am quite aware of the science, I can also digest the data and sort speculation, hypothesis from real proven science. When you get enough data to falsify its time to abandon it . When you can point to real research demonstrating a gain in the genetic info I will listen. But I know better and so do you. Good luck.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Never has new genetic information been observed, tested, or repeated, I mean NEVER! Not only has this not been observed other data suggest strongly its not even possible. You also ignore the fact ALL DNA is suffering entropy. I think you know full well what I am talking about.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Your analogy is speculation, not based on real word data. What I have presented is not speculation but real data backed. You need to get this point. Speculation is fine but there comes a time when you keep hitting dead ends with a hypothesis that you must reevaluate your hypothesis. I strongly believe this time has arrived involving evolution, if you disagree I can live with that, I hope you can do the same. Although I have supported my view beyond opinion. Thanks for your time.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception even if the current mechanism for evolution is wrong the fact that it happens is true. looking at the fossil record we can clearly see this. evolution needs to exist to explain why we don't see chihuahuas in the late cretaceous. we know that not all current animals existed millions of years ago. to assume that they all magically poofed into existence is to deny the science that backs you up. Animals DO evolve, even if we're wrong about how.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 You even admit you could be wrong at how, My friend that is exactly the point. Evolution could be wrong and it looks like it is according to the evidence. The real data shows that evolution should not happen, thats just the truth. Also I don't believe life magically appeared. Hay this has been interesting, you are obviously well read and are convinced of evolution, I just see to much evidence against it. Thanks for your time. We both tried. To bad we can't have a beer summit :)
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 "the fact that it happens is true" I'm sorry this is speculation not fact. If there was empirical evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion? You say we know that not all current animals existed millions of years ago because we don't see them in the fossil record, but the absence of transitional fossils don't mean anything? Can you see the contradiction? You ignore entropy, and no observation of new genetic info. You must have this for evolution to be true. Its just aint so.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception there are plenty of transitional fossils but for us to see a perfectly complete fossil record we need the fossils of every single organism to have ever existed. I'm sure you realize that not all animals become fossils. I do realize that we could be wrong about how it works, to claim I knew anything with absolute certainty would be arrogant. and as for entropy the laws of thermodynamics are used for a closed system one in which do not find ourselves in.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 When i say entropy, I am speaking to a fact that has been observed. ALL DNA is degrading not becoming more complex. It is loosing information and not adding new. If this is happening evolution shouldn't happen. As for transitional fossils i'm not going to beat a dead horse, there is no such fossil on record. I understand a closed and an open system. Sunlight is mostly destructive. Adding energy to a system doesn't equal a progression in complexity and observation shows destruction.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception no transitional fossils? cause Archeopteryx is obviously made up, just like Therapsids,? as for the sunlight it's a radioactive element which means that it could cause mutation, mistakes, in the DNA entropy the only thing I could think of is Enthalpy which I think is suppose to compensate for entropy but honestly this strays from my are of knowledge a little bit.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Yes it could cause mutations, but the mutations are mostly dangerous not advantageous, and never add new information. I can't stress this enough, if you don't have new genetic information you can never have evolution. The second big point is entropy, DNA is basically deteriorating, this is a insurmountable problem for evolution. I won't argue transitional fossils, I now what the evidence is, trust me, if they had a (THE) missing link we wouldn't be talking right now.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception By "THE" missing link you mean exactly what? are you waiting for a specific missing link. do you have a hypothesis as to where it might be found. we share 98% of DNA with chimps you don't think we're even remotely related. if evolution is not possible then we have to say that each species is poofed into existence and just happen to look similar to the preceding species before it. do you think you could figure something this big out without a scientist finding out the same?
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 ... and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. we know there are complex organisms now, we know there were less complex organisms before, we know modern animals share similarities with older animals, and we know complex organisms don't pop out of nowhere. I suggest you speak to an evolutionary biologist I dn't know everything on this field and they could answer questions I can't.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 .. and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. This is where you are having trouble. You are assuming because we don't know yet how we are, that equals it must be an unproven hypothesis. The hypothesis can't stand against the empirical evidence, if you choose to ignore the evidence I just can't help you. Time to look into a different direction. When you eliminate the possible you are left with ? We have eliminated the possibility of evolution.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 and if animals can't become more complex then there is no way for them to exist. Look at your statement, this is a huge unfounded assumption. Just because we don't know how or even why we are here, doesn't have anything to do with how or why we are here. Evolution just doesn't happen and a commonality shared between genes is just as much proof of ID as it is for evolution, only evolution argues with empirical evidence and ID doesn't. What does the evidence support? Thats all.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception You're not understanding what i'm trying to tell you, if we can't evolve then we were originated as we are. that means that a horse has been a horse since the beginning of time. if your trying to argue for creationism you fail because that theory makes even less sense then evolution, and all your science becomes nullified. unless you can think of a scientific way as to show how exactly you could have all the species we have now without magic.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 If we were created, it would clearly explain how we just showed up. Arbitrarily saying magic means nothing. It may seem like magic to us. If something created us do you not recognize the intellect would be beyond comprehension? Just because we can't understand or fathom His/its origin an intellect, doesn't automatically mean thats not what happened, especially when all evidence supports the idea and falsifies the other. Why do you discount the possible in favor of the impossible?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Why do I favor the possible against the impossible? for what it is perhaps. you can say that god or aliens created us all you want but now you're just straying from the science that gave you validity a few comments ago. some force created every living organism that has ever existed for the Lolz? and after who knows how, long evidence shows at least a couple billion years, they decided "hey let's make one of them critters that can talk." yep, rationality and logic at it's best.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Why do I favor the possible against the impossible? No why do you favor the impossible instead of the possible? The science shows evolution not possible.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Yeah that's why all those retarded scientists back it up. I haven't had too much studies in DNA so i can't accurately say if your claims are absolutely true, i couldn't google any results which would arouse suspicion but even if what you say is true you can't bring a rational hypothesis on how life came to be
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Just check out what I told you.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Not all scientist back you up, and if majority rule is now science then God must be real?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception scientists don't use personal opinion. what point is there on them coming up with a lie for evolution, they test their shit over and over again. they don't just write shit down 'cause they're bored.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 scientists don't use personal opinion. what point is there on them coming up with a lie for evolution
This is naive, thinking a scientist don't have a human nature is silly. It also doesn't explain why some scientist disagree with you.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Okay dude listen to what I'm saying, if evolution wasn't possible science would have figure this shit out by now. I mean what real point is there to saying we come from less complex animals. no one likes it what is the point of even coming up with it. but we could see why someone would say god made us, it makes us feel special and entitles us to take whatever we want.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 What is the point? If it were that simple why not look at all the options?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Why are people scared to explore an idea when the other idea is falsified? I'm not asking you to convert, I am pointing out there are other options that shoud be looked at, and if science was left alone it would explore all options. It is clear there are people who don't want anything else introduced in to the mix. Evolution is the only science that does this, Why, because of the implications.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception listen, the only way for organisms to exists without evolution is if they were made one cell at a time. if you want to think god did it then you have no grounds on a science stand.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 if you want to think god did it then you have no grounds on a science stand If I think there is a creator based on evidence I am on scientific ground. I don't believe evolution because I do believe in a God. I believe in a creator because what science shows. I don't see a problem with evolution and God any way? IF evolution were proven true today I fail to see why there might not be a creator? Abiogenesis is silly and really is a different subject.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception is chemistry which I suck at so i'm not going to get into it. but there is no science to back up an invisible old man in the sky.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 back up an invisible old man in the sky. Stop being silly, no one is suggesting this. I have giving you several clear checkable facts that disprove evolution, you ignore them then you make speculative statements in favor of your view, without presenting any proof..
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception show me the links to what backs up your statement. i can't seem to find anything myself.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Science is nothing but a method used to help answer truths about how, thats it. But we are human and if you think a scientist can't substitute his/her own personal biased into there research thats silly. I can give you a few definite cases with fossils and global warming.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception I'm talking about what the point would be. i know many have falsified records but f you think there is a global conspiracy of scientist that found god is real and are trying to hide it then you just read too much x-files and Da Vinci Code
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 No x-files involved, just human nature.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception your human nature to look for a creator. we are a random chance. out of trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars, at least one was bound to support life.probably more. i'm sure there's other life forms out there brainwashing their people into thinking their god created them and them only
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 we are a random chance. speculation, unproven.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception God did it. speculation, unproven, moronic
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 God did it. speculation, unproven, moronic. God is a personal belief, not moronic, just personal. I have maintained there is a possibility of a creator based on evidence, you offer none. What is moronic is to argue with me, ignore the facts I presented and plug your ears. Go back and read the post. You are becoming sarcastic so its time to end this. If you're getting angry then the truth stings. I will bow out, as this is now a clear waste of time for both. Good luck in life.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception what proof I need a link to your source of proof, all I've seen you do is state "facts" that i can't even seem to google up with any hits. and there is no proof of god even if there isn't one for evolution, it's still YOUR speculation. you've proven nothing.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Am I saying everyone does this? No, but if all scientist are taught something as fact and can't question it (if the want a job) than don't be surprised if most are looking through the same glass end up with the same conclusions. Would you be surprised to find most theologians believe in God?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception you don't understand how scientific hypothesis work. they look at the evidence and facts. they draw conclusions and if they are wrong they make a new hypothesis. I know that just because they haven't proven it wrong doesn't mean it's fact but if it was something so simple a random youtuber could figure it out I'm sure science would have. and by science I don't mean the ones that the church hire to say bananas are proof of god.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 you don't understand how scientific hypothesis work. Come on! They are not looking at the evidence. They simply don't want to drop the hypothesis because of the obvious implications.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception hahaha, what obvious implications. that god did it. science isn't afraid to be wrong it tries to be wrong
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 but if it was something so simple a random youtuber could figure it out I'm sure science would have. Funny you keep ignoring the thousands of scientist that disagree with you.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception which one's i would like examples. you mean the ones that say evolution is debunked because we can't open a jar of peanut-butter and see a camel fly out?
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 I really do understand your point, and I understand the logic you use. The problem is, you make the mistake of saying because I don't understand how that equals magic. Then you turn to the only other idea even though you know the data denies it.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception it's not that i don't understand means magic, it's that you're hypothesis would mean that every living organism was created as is. their are clear gradients in species I don't know if you have actually seen the fossil record but the evolutionary line is quite clear. but let's say you're right, animals can't evolve that means that they had to have been made cell by cell.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Look I cant rehash this over and over, I gave you clear scientific data that destroys the possibility of evolution. You can check out everything I told you, you will find the data I gave you is right on the money. It is supported by hard data. As for time line I can show how we don't even know how the earth could be, based on science.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception what timeline? the earth's? oh good god you're one of those 6000 year old earth freaks aren't you. if you're going to say carbon dating is inaccurate then don't we use more accurate shit then that. and now i'm begining to suspect that the missing link you're looking for is a crocoduck.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 6000?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception early earth creationists, they claim the bible says 6000 years and therefore it must be fact.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nixom1334 early earth creationists, they claim the bible says 6000 years and therefore it must be fact. So? That is a theological debate.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 I don't have any clue as to the age of the earth? I have herd claims from top to bottom.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception I've hear 4.5 billions years. tested by many methods.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Can you explain how we have granite? Granite cannot be molten ever! If it becomes molten it is no longer granite. This is an undisputed fact. This is a huge problem if you understand the earths bedrock is solid granite, and the current model for evolution claim the earth was molten for millions of years?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception I don't study geolog. but i do know that the state of earth before life is not implied in the theory of evolution.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Do you really not see the complexity around us? The beauty, the compatibility, the lack of evidence for other hypothesis, emotions, joy, love, purpose, design, art, poetry, family, flowers, smells, sight, hearing, touching, sadness, friends, companionship, everything just right in the known universe at just the right time, I can go on and on. Do you really in your heart think this is chance without purpose?
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception I don't care what the heart thinks. the thing is had we not existed you couldn't even ask that. it looks made or designed but it's a psychological illusion. mainly because if our ecosystem did not work we would be dead. there are no common animals that breathe weird rare gases because we're not full or those gases, that's why we breathe our air, cause it's in abundance. had the atmosphere been made of I don't know sulfur, life would adapt or die.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 Everything you say is speculative. I have given you clear data, you don't want to look at it. Ignore it if you want but that wont change the facts.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@PhalanxPerception you want to talk about speculative, you're saying God made us. Now that's speculation.
Nixom1334 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 do you have a hypothesis as to where it might be found. ? there may be no missing link, thats the point.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 You keep ignoring the principles, that are needed to drive evolution, when observed are always against it? This is just fact. You really need magic for evolution to work, faith to believe it. I can't go into all the science I have behind my decision, all I can say is KEEP LOOKING UPPPPPPPPPPP. If your old enough you will get that lol. Peace.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 You must have new info or evolution can't happen pure and simple. The data shows this doesn't happen, fossils show this is not the case, probability is against it. The data doesn't lie.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
@Nixom1334 You can't have a special miracle take place for evolution to function than call it science.
PhalanxPerception 6 months ago
seriously I think you need professional help
tasfastas 9 months ago 7
The fact is we are going through a devolution stage.You ever watch Jersey Shore?lmao
Uncrazamatic 9 months ago
Frilled sharks belong to genera of sharks that is 100-150 million years old. The species itself is not that old, and has about as much in common with modern sharks as it does with other members of its primitive genus. This is just like when people claim that crocodiles haven't evolved for 100 million years. That's bollocks. Ancient crocdillia are different to modern species, they are just in the same genus.
labrat1807 9 months ago
Why do chickens have the genes for making teeth? Or whales having the genes for making legs? Or humans for making tails?
zwerrell 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You've got to be the biggest moron on YouTube.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
Dude evolution is real even in people if evolution wern't there we wouldn't have different hair, eye, and skin colors. Evolution is change caused by breeding which we see in dogs dobermans and colis are both dogs but they have different traits because of breeding. That is evolution, it's real deal with it. And even if nteligent desighn is real isn't letting a creation change with it's envirment to survive more intelegent than letting it die from the changes around it?
f00tstep 10 months ago
Scientists world wide are indoctrinated ? By who ? What !! Another Conspiracy ? To Kill god ?
Aleksamson 10 months ago
It's impossible... nobody with the ability to turn on a webcam can be this stupid... ¡¡¡¡WARNING!!!
THIS GUY IS AN ANTI-TROLL
DON'T WATCH HIS VIDEOS, HE'S WASTING OUR TIME!!!
HE'S TROLLING AGNOSTIC TROLLS!!!
¡¡¡HE'S JUST A DISTRACTION!!!
LN1992 10 months ago
Sean, aren't u embarrassed to leave this bullshit up on youtube after so many people in the comment section exposed it for being nonsense?
itzahazylife 10 months ago
Good video! - Using facts and logic unfortunately will not get an evolutionist to rethink! - if new species are created through evolution we should have more species now than millions of years ago (we don't), all species should continually evolve as other species strive to be fittest and survive (thereby changing the environment), but as it has been shown, numerous living things have remained unchanged for millions of years. Evolution creates species yet also strives to eliminate them!?
TREACLE97 11 months ago
@TREACLE97 ..duh?
zacksdaboomking 11 months ago
@TREACLE97
LOL! we should have more species now than millions of years ago?...that's kinda hard when 99% of all the species that ever existed on earth have went extinct.
and according to evolutionary theory, we'd expect certain organisms not to change..change only occurs when nature pressures change to occur. if an organism is perfectly suited to its environment for 100 million years, than it won't change very much in 100 million years..u have a lot of learning to do, yet all u do is assert.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm sorry to inform you but Evolution is a FACT.
rgrggfdgfgr 11 months ago
Stop blinking so much jesus christ
DanceLikeANitwit 11 months ago
if evolution is true.why are there animals such as apes.if evolution is true all apes should be human by now.what, there are apes who evolved and some are not ? how lame?
loosersism 11 months ago
@loosersism Modern day apes and humans share a common ancestor.
I know you refer to all apes as "apes", but there are actually different species of apes.
Modern day apes, along with humans came from an older species of "ape".
playerwithfaith 11 months ago
somebody is unhappy hes an ape.
oooh di dums
NefariousVirtuoso88 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I read ALL the comments left and I wonder why only 2 people agree with you. And all they said was, evolutionist believe we came from monkeys. The people arguing for evolution had very well spoken things that made sense, why is that?
ACoustaDC 1 year ago
Comment removed
ACoustaDC 1 year ago
science cant prove it, GOD DID IT, lol. you will reley on science needing proof to say something is true but you will jump on something with no proof at all and say your right. now when u talk living fossils i think that its more of something that evolutionized where its to then thats it maybe it stopped for a while, then will began when natural selection occurs for that species,you are a idiot sir
trevmma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel pity for this guy
mau571 1 year ago
What a fucking Dickbonce !
MrPaulpops2003 1 year ago
There's nothing more amusing than a misguided non-scientist who thinks he can refute the incredibly complex work of hundreds of thousands of brilliant scientists over the last 150 years with just a few simple statements. Do you also think you can just wing it and perform brain surgery as well as trained surgeons after you do some searching on the Internet for 15 minutes?
Thanks for the laugh you poor deluded moron!
CaneFu 1 year ago
It's nice that your mental care housing facility gives you internet and video access but they really should monitor you a bit more. And I might suggest to them that they break your Prozacs in half and see if that improves your delirium.
gigisdad 1 year ago
He has a mental disorder. Just look, he can barely speak...
EvoPortal 1 year ago
okay yeah I will watch, seeming how that our "soul" is just kinetic energy that our muscles use which converts to electric pulses. You are just a preacher trying to force your own beliefs on others
roogiebear 1 year ago
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DISPROVED EVOLUTION! PLEASE COLLECT YOUR NOBEL PRIZE AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
IT MUST HAVE BEEN NO SMALL FEAT EXPERTLY DISPROVING MORE THAN A CENTURY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MOUNTAINS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE GATHERED BY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME USING NOTHING BUT A CAMCORDER AND FIVE AND HALF FREE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, BUT SOMEHOW YOU PULLED IT OFF.
WHAT A CHAMP!
321cheeseman 1 year ago
Yes clearly evolution is false, and that's why we all look different even though we were all made in God's image.
*gasp* There must have been "change over time" since we were created!
ZeDingoBlag 1 year ago
First of all part of evolution says that species do change overtime but only according to how well they adapt to there environment . Second if evolution was not true explain to me why we have a tail bone but no tail.
mangafan589 1 year ago
"hes been indoctrinated by the scientific community." The irony is just staggering.
brianpv1 1 year ago
Why would a species change if it didn't give them any survival advantages?
This video is ridiculous.
neomysterio 1 year ago
When a living Coelacanth (prehistoric fish) was caught in 1938, scientists at 1st thought it had not changed in 65 million years. What they later discovered is that the Coelacanth of '38 was a different species from his fossilized cousins, so change does happen, but again, it depends of many factors.
You should know this! have you studied Evolution at all? Are you saying that you are more knowledgeable than scientists who spend their lives studying Evolution?? Are you that desperate?
Cootabux 1 year ago