Evolution theory a fake science belief system will one day be history. When that day comes, a new breed of scientists will promote a true scientific theory that has standing and respect. We can only wait!
As before in this searies, Berlinski takes an _overly_ simplified example of mutating computer software.
Also, the evidence he is basicly asking for would take thousands of years to produce. Yes, we have millions of species to look at, but are we really, and have we, been measuring DNA mutations in most of them ever since DNA was thought to matter in these things (last 50 years or so)? I would not think so. I'm not familiar with current data, but it sure is going to be better in just 10 years.
Do you freaking know what an engine is? he didn't say mutations ARE evolution, he said mutations are the ENGINE of evolution. He was a post doctorate fellow in Molecular biology at Columbia University, what are your qualifications since you aspire to instruct him?
Finally he isn't a creationist, he is a universal skeptic and a secular Jew.
@Onieracraft So Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species by means of mutations'' Mutation provide the variation in species, Natural selection is the 'engine of evolution''
Mr. Butinski is paid by the Discovery Inst. to make up crap. He has never had a job as a scientist.
"We share less DNA with a plant because we were the same life 1000 million years ago."
This is perhaps the dumbest thing I have seen an a stupid darwinist claim. If you pick up any book on evolution any where on earth, not a single scientist claims life on earth beyond 500 million years ago (because there is simply no proof)
Yet here this moron lies about how plant and animal dna were the same 1000 million years go...
The theory of evolution gets weaker every day. Why is this belief system still with us. Why hasn't science gone back to the drawing broad and come up with a true science instead of a system based purely on faith?
@gregrutz Like one professor said to me once, don't believe everything that is written in university textbooks, just because it's taught at iniversity doesn't mean much. The fact is after over 150 years questions are still being asked about ToE. Gravity also a theory is well accepted, but there are still many mysteries about this force. With ToE it's to science a done deal, no question! It has no laws, no equations. I think we're not too far away from blowing this fantasy out.
@gregrutz You mean a scientific theory and not like ToE a belief system? Whoever said we are from apes? The missing link will never be found because there isn't one.
@TheLogic1010 Biology is a science, dummy. You are classified as a Great Ape, do you think you are a plant? They found all the 'missing links'', try and keep up.
@gregrutz Ok Biology is a natural science. My view is that we are not connected to apes. The missing links have not been ALL been found. If I'm wrong then provide genuine scientific sources to confirm this.
@gregrutz As in this video when anyone states evolution has been proven, the alarm bells ring so loud it's deafening. I still maintain as of my own opinion, we do not descend from apes. When the missing link half ape / half man is evidented, then I will agree. But until then will differ.
@TheLogic1010 There is no half-man half-ape. You are 100% Human, 100% Ape, 100% mammal, 100% vertebrate, 100% animal. Learn what evolution says. Humans and Chimps are apes and share a common ancestor.
@gregrutz LOL.... If man is 100% human, 100% mammal, !00% vertebrate then explain why he shares half the genes of a banana....Lol..that would make him 100% banana, 100% fruit 100% plant as well now wouldnt it?
@gregrutz Um that was not my question. My question was what % are we banana and what % are we human?
But since you brought it up, if we share a common ancestor with a banana so much so that there is only a 50% difference between us and the banana, shouldnt there be similarity of over 50% with a mouse for example, after all it is an animal or wouldnt it follow that we shared more dna with perharps a grouper, since darwinists claim we evolved from fish?
@karamarouge Correct, we share more DNA with our closer relitives. 98.6% the same as a Chimp and it get less the farther we are from a common ancestory. Glad you get it.
@gregrutz Apparently you dont have a fucking idea how evolution works as well (I admit I dont because i cant find even two scientists who even agree on the story of evolution.
Actually the difference between human and mouse DNA was recently found to be less than 2.5% (google it bozo) Thats even closer than that of an ape by according to some scientists likeTim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, According to him dna of a mouse and a human is the same.
@gregrutz but by the logic you posted just a few posts ago, one would assume that the mouse apparently is an ape as well being that the mouse has only 2.5% difference in dna with humans while the ape hovers around 4% difference (+/-2 depending on who you ask)
Unless you are implying that the humans had two ancestors, the ape like ancestor and the mouse like ancestor. Like it or not the dna evidence here proves evolution to be a bogus myth.
@karamarouge Why don't you learn how evolution works and it would be easier.
There is more difference between Humans and mice than there is between humans and chimps. We are apes just like chimps are apes. We are mammals just like mice are mammals.
@gregrutz Actually the difference between human and mouse DNA was recently found to be less than 2.5% (google it bozo) Thats even closer than that of an ape by according to some scientists likeTim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, According to him dna of a mouse and a human is the same.
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! SIMPLE AS THAT!!
Dont forget to explain your proof of life on earth 1000 million years ago.
@gregrutz Does that mean we are 98% chimp or that chimps are 98% human. Perhaps you could misrepresent what this means further by claiming that you are only 2% human.
@PLScotland No, we are 100% Human and we are 100% Ape. Chimps are 100% Chimp and 100% Ape, We are different Species of Ape with a common ancestory 7 Million years ago. Understand now?
We share a common ancestor with a mouse too, the first mammal.
@gregrutz "We share less with mouse because we were the same mammal 100 million years ago."
"We share more DNA with chimps because we were the same animal 10 million years ago."
Well then explain why human dna is closer to that of a mouse than a chimp. If the human/mouse ancestor was over 100 million years ago why are humans more similar to mice genetically than apes.
@TheLogic1010 you are wasting your time arguing with a complete nincompoop. Save your breath, the guy probably some agoraphobic retard too stupid to understand even the science he claims to believe in.
@TheLogic1010 ''It has no laws, no equations. '' Biology does not use a lot of math. Laws and equations apply only to math. DNA code and it's markers are the best proof of Evolution.
@gregrutz last I checked, religion is studied in all universities and I also believe, once upon a time it used to be taught as fact that the earth was the center of the universe.
@karamarouge Yes, religion is studied in schools. They talk about how they all have creations stories and all have creator gods. And how all of them think they are the one true religion and the others are all wrong.
Science is also taught, biology class will teach you how evolution works. Geology will show you what has happened to the rocks for the last Billion years. Astonomy will teach you why there is no center of the universe.
@gregrutz Point you dont seem to understand is that just because something theoretical like religion or evolution theory does not mean its true. (btw that falls in the category of "theoretical science" in every university in the world so dont compare it to practical sciences like biology and geology) And especially in geology opposing points of view are readily accepted and fully considered unlike the religion of evolution where real science is rejected just to keep the myth alive.
@TheLogic1010 The theory of evolution gets weaker every day. NO, EVERYTHING SUPPORTS EVOLUTION.Why is this belief system still with us. BECAUSE IT HAS BEE PROVEN. Why hasn't science gone back to the drawing broad THE THEORY GET BETTER EVERY DAY and come up with a true science instead of a system based purely on faith? BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON FACTS NOT FAITH.
Nylonese, the common flue virus(theres a reason why we have to modify our vaccines constantly), insects becoming resistant to pesticide, genetically enhanced(mutated) crops, human resistance to HIV(10% of the worlds population). Just to name a few, LOL!!!
@baldurus1 could you be so stupid that you actually think the man has never heard of the flu virus or nylanase? Let me ask you a question. When you type something like genetically enhanced crops, are you serious? It takes a special kind of retard to type out such incredibly dumb shit and then call oneself educated.
This is one thing i hate about evolutionists. They are some of the dumbest people alive but love to argue like they have the slightest inkling as to what the hell gibbering on about
@karamarouge If he has heard about them then why is he so stupid as to say theres no evidence for evolution? And furthermore why are you? Explain to me your inquietude towards my use of GMC as an example.
Now you seem to be pretty damn sure about your position, could you provide any evidence to back it up?
@baldurus1 Thats the point you ignoramus. An accomplished man like that would not be so stupid that he didnt hear about the most common of flu viruses. I know objective thinking is something impossible for dumb people such as yourself. The sad thing is that you actually think your flu virus revelation is actually some mind blowing answer that he some how completely missed.
Here is a hint you bozo, flu viruses ARE NOT PROOF OF EVOLUTION YOU MORON!!!
@karamarouge Yay, more name calling and no answers. Hmmm... wonder why?
Berlinski said there are no beneficial mutations and i gave a list of them, then you call me names for listing them. When i ask you to refute them you spout more profanities.
@baldurus1 The whole point is to get you to do some basic freakin research before you run your mouth using incredibly obvious but stupid answers that any tom dick and harry could stumble upon. A normal person would think to themselves. "hmm, that is such an obvious answer, how come this man never heard of it" A sane person would say to themselves "let me look it up and see if it really proof of a beneficial mutation" But not you... You are definitely too stupid to do this
@baldurus1 Rather you prefer to go on about how "genetically altered" crops are proof of beneficial mutation. Seriously that answer takes the cake! And I am not name calling when I say you suffer from a serious mental retardation. It takes a special kind of stupidity to claim that genetically altered crops are proof of beneficial mutations...Prove you are not stupid. Go do some basic googling to find out why I am calling you especially stupid for making such a claim!
@karamarouge Pest resistance is a beneficial mutation to that plant, if it's beneficial to the person eating it is irrelevant. And you still have not been able to provide any evidence against evolution or for creationism.
@baldurus1 Wait on second, are you now revising your answer from genetically altered crops to pest resistance? Because one would think you are just throwing shit against a wall hoping something will stick. Leaping from Genetically altered crops by a human no less in a lab, with absolutely no mutation any where in the picture to pest resistance. The question has to be asked do you really have any freakin clue as to what you are talking about?
@karamarouge Hahahahahaha... A plant modified in a lab to become resistant to pests is by definition mutated. Whether it's in a lab or not doesn't make it any less mutated. A GENETICALLY ALTERED plant ALTERED to become resistant to insects and pests is GENETICALLY ALTERED. And yes there are mutations, thats the whole point with GENETICALLY ALTERING plants. You obviously do not have a freaking clue what I'M talking about and furthermore you have no freaking clue as how evolution works.
@baldurus1 lol.. boy are you stupid!!! this is quite comical indeed. HEY BOZO, GET IT IN YOUR HEAD. A GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANT IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH MUTATION YOU BABBLING BUFFOON!!!! Genetically altered plants have had genes from another plant implanted into them. THEY HAVE NOT UNDERGONE ANY MUTATION YOU FREAKIN MORON!!!!!
this is the stupidity that practically all evolutionists espouse. your comments are indicative of your stupidity.
Tell us more about those HIV resistant mutated humans.lol
@karamarouge Mutation= changes in genome. They take take most resistant plants and "breed" them with other plants with a high level of germicide and pesticide resistance to get an even more resistant plant.
What you're thinking of when you here mutation is something from sci-fi movies.
Thats not how evolution works.
What they do in the lab is what nature does, they just do it a lot faster.
Most of the people in Scandinavia have a mutation that won't allow the HIV virus to attach itself.
@baldurus1 the most resistant plants are artificially cross bred with other plants. Or some times their genes are simply artificially transferred into other plants.
NONE THE LESS YOU BOZO THESE ARE ARTIFICIAL PROCESSES THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE! THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION YOU MORON.
SECONDLY, EXCHANGING GENETIC MATERIAL IS NOT EVOLUTION. THE GENETIC INFORMATION ALREADY EXISTS IN THE RESISTANT PLANT. IT IS TRANSFERRED FROM THAT PLANT TO OTHER PLANTS. THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF INFO TO THE OFFSPRING
BREEDING A PLANT THAT ALREADY HAS RESISTANCE TO A PESTICIDE WITH OTHER PLANTS THAT DONT HAVE IT IS NOT EVOLUTION. THE PESTICIDE RESISTING QUALITY ALREADY EXISTS. THAT IS LIKE SAYING BIRDS INHERITED THE ABILITY TO FLY FROM BREEDING WITH BIRDS THAT COULD ALREADY FLY...
THAT IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF EVOLUTION.. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT..
@karamarouge C-C chemokine receptor type 5 also known as CCR5 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the CCR5 gene. CCR5 is a member of the beta chemokine receptors family of integral membrane proteins.
The CCR5 gene location is on the short (p) arm at position 21 on chromosome 3. Certain populations have inherited the Delta 32 mutation resulting in the genetic deletion of a portion of the CCR5 gene. Homozygous carriers of this MUTATION are resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV-1 infection.
@baldurus1 Like i said you are a half educated fool who cant grasp what he reads. If the mutation resulted in the deletion of a portion of CCR5 gene that is the FUCKIN DEFINITION OF DELETERIOUS NUMBNUTS!!!
JESUS H CHRIST YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! IF A PORTION OF THE GENE HAS BEEN DELETED BY DEFINITION THAT CANT BE EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION BY DELETION OF GENETIC INFORMATION IS IMPOSSIBLE YOU MORON!!!! THERE MUST BE A NET GAIN OF INFORMATION FOR EVOLUTION TO BE POSSIBLE..
LOL... THE IDIOT POSTS ABOUT THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF MUTATION TO CAUSE HIV IMMUNITY IN HUMANS THEN HE COMES HERE BOASTING ITS PROOF OF EVOLUTION!! lol...
i guess you missed the part in the video where Berlinski says ALMOST ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS!!!
HOW F#$KING RETARDED CAN YOU BE TO POST AN EXAMPLE OF A DELETION TO A GENE AND THEN BRAG YOU HAVE PROVEN HIM WRONG..
HOW STUPID CAN ONE BE?
BRO YOU JUST PROVED YOU ARE AN ILLITERATE RETARD THAT CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
@gregrutz Only a fool would claim that change= new information. And you have to be doubly stupid to think that complexity in a genome can be increased by deletion of parts of the gene.
If you cant understand that simple concept, then your level of stupidity is simply beyond my ability to fix and I will not attempt to do so. I would encourage you to proceed in your ignorance and abject stupidity.
@karamarouge You do realize that some pesticides also kills plants, you do know that right?
If the plant isn't resistant to those pesticides then they will die. Thats why i'm talking about pesticides and herbicides. Go back and finish high-school before you start "educating people about shit you know nothing about.
@baldurus1 Secondly my reason for posting is not to provide any evidence for anything. It is to point out to you that your answers are completely bogus incorrect fabrications that in some case dont even have anything to do with the question asked in the video.
dont try to change the subject because you are being exposed for the typical evolutionist ignoramus who doesnt even have the most basic grasp of biology.
@gregrutz lol...its really funny when an obviously retarded semi illiterate person tries to pass themselves off as educated. All the while proving exactly how stupid they are and how little they know. HEY BOZO IF YOUARE GOING TO CLAIM THE THEORY PICK UP A FeRKING BOOK AND EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE SUBJECT!
Evolution was not proven 150 years ago you freaking moron! The theory may have been proposed and publicised 150 years ago but proposing a theory is not the same as proving it you ignorant ape!
@karamarouge Pick up a book and educate yourself on these things before you run your mouth like a fool!
Talking about genetically altered crops? It takes a special kind of retard to claim that crops altered in a lab using processes nature never can and have has the ability to replicate can be proof of evolution. That is as stupid as saying people with prosthetic limbs are proof of evolution.
@karamarouge Like a virus MUTATING to become resistant to vaccines? Is that also impossible for the virus to do this by itself? Or does the virus need a lab to mutate? Like weeds becoming resistant to pesticide and herbicide? Or did the farmers genetically enhance the weeds to become harder to kill?
You are an idiot, seriously.
And you STILL haven't given a SINGLE argument AGAINST evolution or FOR creationism.
Last chance little boy, if i'm wrong then it should be very simple for you to show it.
@gregrutz I had a feeling that this would be your response after exposing you for a baboon stupid enough to believe that advancing a theory equates to proving it.
That is not surprising at all. Any one who has met the average darwinist knows that you lot are perharps som of the dumbest illiterate baboons on this planet
@gregrutz aw shut up with your dumb one liners. Its enough that you are stupid enough to think that because Darwin published his theory 150 years ago then that is the equivalent of proving it...lmao.
(never mind the fact that all his arguments have been proven false and unscientific because the man knew nothing of genetics) but preach on...brother, after all thats what every religious extremist does.
@gregrutz and now the same baboon who wanted to sell a the immensly stupid lie that evolution theory was proven 150 years ago wishes to leap to a new argument. That DNA is the best proof for evolution lol..
I said this guy was stupid and his stupidit will always be constantly proven by the words he writes. Stupid people cant escape their own words. Only a complete moron would claim DNA has proven evolution. DNA is from living animals. IT WILL NEVER EVER PROVE EVOLUTION DUMBASS!
@gregrutz lol... If you are educated and you run around saying completely dumbshit like evolution was proven 150 years ago, i think I will decline your offer.
I dont want to become the dim wit educated fool like you are.
@gregrutz lol... I see where you deleted the previous dumbshit comments that you made!
lol nice try MR EDUCATED GENIUS" you are one daft idiot and deleting your words wont make you smarter, it still leaves you a complete half educated buffoon and if you are to be judged as the educated one I would sooner prefer to be judged as the un-educated idiot.
At least I dont go making asinine statements on youtube then deleting them like a daft nine year old.
Comments like "this has already been proven" are laughable, many scientific theories were believed to have been "proven" which after a great deal of time and more information becoming available disproved the theory originally believed to be true. The theories evolved, and it is highly possible that this same process will prove true with Darwin. This closed-minded view point is normally reserved for fundamentalists, not science. Flat earth, anyone?
David Berlinski was raised in New York City, educated at Columbia College [founded by the church of England] and recieved his Ph.D in philosophy from Princeton University. And Never studied Evolution.
@gregrutz And yet he seems to provide such strong scientific arguments against the theory to which you are yet to provide even one coherent scientific argument.. (And just so you know, blabbing on about peered reviewed papers, books, and numbers of "believers in the myth of evolution" does not work as a valid scientific argument.
YES SIR, YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE.. YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED A SINGLE ONE OF THE VALIDE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS PAUSED TO YOU. NOT ONCE!!1
Mutation is only part of evolution, what an IDiot. Darwin didn't even know about mutations and still showed the 'driving force'' of evolution, Natural Selection. Mr. Butinski is Paid by the Discovery Institute to Bullshit people.
@gregrutz Once again selling silly myths as fact? Then you have the audacity to ask me why people accept evolution as fact? It is because many like you sell this half baked non scientific gibberish and actually believe it.
Mutation never has and never will lead to the addition of any new, meaningful information to the genome of a species. If you or any scientists have done some lab work proving otherwise, name peer reviewed paper, experiment, species and the name of the new gene added.
@karamarouge One has to wonder, if you both blind and deaf!!! Did you hear what Berlinski says in this very video? There is simply no evidence!
You cant just come in here and claim "acceptance" of a theory as your greatest argument for its validity instead of addressing the huge contradictory tangible facts..(some of which are still living today, unchanged from the earliest known fossils on earth like the horse shoe crab. (No surprise there that you dont want to talk about that issue)
@karamarouge There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
Get over it. Mr. Butinski is paid to make shit up.
Why do you think ''living fossils' prove evolution wrong, it does not. Sharks have not change much, so what?
@gregrutz Evolution is not the backbone of biology!!! once again you expose your ignorance and stupidity on the subject. Biology is the study of living things. Every single principle of biology can stand completely independent of the theory of evolution. But then again you are the same idiot who doesnt even understand the most basic description of what science is. I wouldnt be surprised that you would post this nonsense.
@karamaroug 99.98% of scientists and educated people accept evolution because of the mountain of evidence that supports it. Evolution has withstood 150 years of crationists attacks. Paleontologists are biologists.
@gregrutz Again with this nonsensical argument!! Science IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD!!! It does not matter how many scientists believe in your magic "DNA tree of life", that will not change the fact that its a figment of your imagination!
Instead of wasting your time listing the numbers of scientists who apparently believe in the theory, how about you post some actual scientific evidence...
Oh wait! You did... the magic "dna tree of life" lmao
@gregrutz "Any and all changes in DNA is 'new information''.. I am glad that all humans who suffer from genetic diseases, due to missing or corrupted portions of their dna, do not depend on idiots like you for their health care.
That comment is so stupid, i wont even waste my time on it!
@karamarouge There are many kinds and forms of dogs. There all came from the wolf, proving that there is plenty of variation in nature to allow natural selection to work. No 'new information' needed. It is already there.
@gregrutz I have already exposed your stupidity and will do so yet again. A dog is still a dog. Of course there are many kinds of dogs. But they are still dogs. They didnt change into fish, or snakes. NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THE ISSUE OF VARIATION.
Secondly to the point of DNA and how ignorant you are about it. A dog for example, does not have DNA code for poison glands, or hollow fangs, or scales, or gills! It would need new DNA info to get this DNA..
@karamarouge Get it in your thick ignorant head, that the first animal to "evolve" a skeleton would have to magically acquire DNA code for building skeletal features out of calcuim absorbed by the organism.
-NO SINGLE SCIENTIST HAS EVER PROVED THAT MUTATION CAN LEAD TO THE ADDITION OF THIS NEW INFORMATION. (FACT)
-EVEN IN A COMP SIMULATION (LET ALONE THE LAB) NO AMOUNT OF DNA SCRAMBLING HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN TO RESULT IN NEW GENETIC INFORMATION!! (FACT)
@gregrutz LAst i checked, dogs breed with dogs. Unless your mom was an ape and your dad a human, and you are the result, i dont think it is accurate to claim human are apes. The two cant and dont breed.
And i hate to break this to you, but even the most fervent evolutionist who has "read a book" will tell you humans and apes have the same very distant ancestor. That ancestore was not an ape. Apes apparently have their own distinct lineage after "splitting from humans"
@karamarouge Humans, Chimps and gorillas are all apes dummy, read a biology book. We all have a common ancestor, the first ape. Yes, we split from the other apes millions of years ago, that makes us apes.
@karamarouge Wow, now you know what a species is. Good work you are learning some science. Humans, chimps and gorillas are seperate Species. They were once the same primate, same species but through evolution have changed into distinct species and can't breed now. Origin of Species. So glad you finally get it.
@gregrutz "They were once the same primate, same species but through evolution have changed into distinct species and can't breed now. "
There were actually some experiments to create a human-chimp hybrid, they were never successful, but the hypothesis has not actually been disproven. Note there is distinct evidence that the two species however did have a multi-node cladistic linage which is extremely interesting as apparently they contintued to breed after the initial divergence point.
@karamarouge'' humans and apes have the same very distant ancestor'' NO, humans and chimps have the same very distant ancestor, an ape. Apes make apes, so chimp and humans are both still apes.
'Ape' is a classificaion, like primate. Like mammal.
@gregrutz How do i explain the fossil record? Again with these stupid questions. Have you still failed to muster the common sense to view the video you are commenting about? How about you start by watching the video
then see how stupid you sound asking me to explain the cambrian marine fossils.
@gregrutz How do i explain the fossil record? Again with these stupid questions. Have you still failed to muster the common sense to view the video you are commenting about? How about you start by watching the video
then see how stupid you sound asking me to explain the cambrian marine fossils.
Ps..I have to say i am no longer surprised by the stupid things that come out of your mouth, but you have to be exceptionally dumb to ask me to explain cambrian fossils to you!
@karamarouge Evolution explains the fossil record, creatards have to pretend like it isn't there because it prove their silly religious stories wrong.
@CesarPhilosophe "Perhaps the phenomena "gravity" has been observed but not the theory the attempts to explain it."
A point of interest is we still are unsure as to exactly what is the nature of gravity, is it a distortion in four dimensional space, or is it a particle transfer or is it something else (quantum description). Are we observing the absolute nature or just what we can observe given our limited abilities? In regards to the latter, that applies to everything.
@CesarPhilosophe In any absolute sense yes, nothing really has been observed because science is continually advancing. Newton thought he understood gravity (as did Aristotle) as did Einstein, and now as do people like Krauss who are proposing new theories of gravity. It is unknown as to the true nature, or even if there is one one - all science can do is attempt to explain simply what we have observed to date.
@CesarPhilosophe The real ironic part is that right now in evolutionary biology there is another revolution as it is now known that there are quite a few evolutionary mechanisms in addition to mutation + natural selection and this is so fundamental (there are non genetic heredity pathways) that even the fundamental definition of evolution (change in gene frequency over time) is likely to soon be changed. This again is the nature of science, knowledge is not absolute but incremental.
@CesarPhilosophe If you really want to note the absurdity here, consider that by the same logic - Gravity has never been observed. The "gravityists" can not agree as to how it is defined. This is indeedl true, there are five generally utilized descriptions of Gravity and it is currently unknown which (if either) is the true nature - thus Gravity has never been observed (you can of course extend this nonsense to practically every scientific model and conclude science has never observed anything).
@karamarouge "YOU CAN SAY THIS FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!"
Yes, there are over one hundred thousand peer reviewed journal articles on evolutionary theory, experiment and application. What do you actually think an experimental evolutionary biologist does if not experiments on evolutionary biology?
Then sir, it should be really, really easy for you to find just two experiments done by all these biologists that provide evidence to help prove the theory of evolution.
Ps.. If you intend to post experiments showing variation within a species, then dont waste both our time.
just trot along in the bliss of ignorance you espouse so well.
After reading the previous commentary on this subject, i fully suspect that you are going to come back with some pathetic comments on "drug resistant bacteria" or "mutant fruit flies" and pretend that this is evidence for evolution.
Its nothing but evidence for variation or micro evolution where by there is absolutely no new information added to the genome but rather, it has either been destroyed, or duplicated to form an organism that would still indicate an evolutinary dead end
@karamarouge Two questions, what exactly are you looking for as evidence of evolution, being very specific, and second how are you defining the term - evolution? Further, how are you defining "new information", again being specific.
@CliffStamp Specifically, what about an example of a single celled animal evolving into a multi-cellular animal,
how about some proof that mutation can lead to the development of NEW, novel features? How about any fossil of an animal with a half wing or half leg? How about any proof/experimentation to show that multiple mutations can possibly produce a living offspring with even one advantage over its parents?
@karamarouge "how about some proof that mutation can lead to the development of NEW, novel features"
Nylonase.
"How about any fossil of an animal with a half wing or half leg?"
Tiktaalik has a number of half-fish and half-tetrapod features, as well as a number of pure fish and pur tetrapod features (it is an intermediate between fish and tetrapods).
"mutations can possibly produce a living offspring with even one advantage"
@CliffStamp Nylonase, has no "new novel" features. Do you honestly think i wrote that without knowing your favorite little darwinist fairy tale? Enzymes never have and never will be defined as "novel features" And to kill that bogus argument, let me specify what i mean by "novel feature" instead of assuming you would use common sense to figure this out.
I mean an eye, a limb, gills, ear drum, something of a a physical nature not an enzyme produced by an already existing mechanism
@karamarouge Define "novel feature", aside from giving examples, and to be clear in order for you to accept this as evidence for evolution you want this "novel feature" to be produced under direct observation (i.e. all generations are directly countable).
@karamarouge "i already defined what I define a novel feature to be."
No, you gave examples, being specific, using state your hypothesis in a manner which is both able to be demonstrated and falsified, and to be complete, the ways in which each can be performed.
@karamarouge "Enzymes never have and never will be defined as "novel features" "
This does not count as support for evolution because why exactly? Again, how exactly are you defining evolution and where is your peer reviewed source for that definition.
AN ENZYME IS NOT A NOVEL FEATURE!!! If you have even one scientist making such a claim, then sir post the proof. Name the scientist and provide a link to the paper he wrote making such and absurd claim!
tiktaalik? you mean, the fish/mammal that replaced Acanthostega as the missing link, and before that the famous coelacanth?
Let me ask you this, do you think that darwinists should be granted a blank check to make bogus claims continuously changing their story as soon as the previous lie is exposed?
Isnt the the very description of an unfalsifiable theory? How long should we accept this until you lot come up with another story?
@karamarouge "Isnt the the very description of an unfalsifiable theory?"
No, all theories are modified and at some point shown to be at best partial explanations which are true only in particular constraints. This happens in all of science, Newtonian Mechanics for example had the theory completely rewritten by Relativity and later still by Quantum Theory and likely again soon as there are three large unification theories in development.
@CliffStamp This is evolution theory we are talking about. Try not to compare it to other theories. And no matter what you say, it still boils down to one thing, the theory is simply not falsifiable, not only does existing fossil evidence contradict the theory, new scientific capabilities like bio genetics and rendered key aspects of the theory like the "tree of life" obsolete as complete fabrications of the fertile minds of darwinists. And yet you want us to believe its falsifiable
@karamarouge "the theory is simply not falsifiable"
Again, define your current understanding of the evolutionary theory, with a peer reviewed citation. Note you can also show mathematically that theory is unfalsifiable, so by all means demonstrate that as well.
@gregrutz that is is a total lie. There is no such thing as the "dna tree of life". That is a complete total fabrication on your part!!!! There is no single scientist that has ever even claimed existence of anything remotely close to that. Matter of fact every single geneticist will tell you DNA studies rendered darwin's tree of life a obsolete..
iT IS SIMPLY A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. DNA STUDIES PROVED THAT RELATEDNESS OF ANIMALS IS MORE WEBLIKE AND NOTHING LIKE THE DARWINS TREE OF LIFE
@gregrutz LOL.. Why does it have to be a bunny? Why not a horse crab? is a bunny any more superior than a horseshoe crab? Why not the jelly fish? they all appear clearly in the cambrian and are alive today completely unchanged. proof that animals do not change with evolution, there are also no fossil ancestors of the horseshoe crab ever found.
@CliffStamp "myostatin blockers" Could you really be that stupid? Right now i feel like John stewart exposing another of Bill Oreilly's incredibly dumb statements.
i wont even waste my time commenting on how stupid you are to think that I would waste time debating this with you after you obviously edited my statement and cut out key words to sell this bull shit argument.
I use strong terms because nothing else would suffice in this pathetic attempt from you.
@karamarouge "I use strong terms because nothing else would suffice in this pathetic attempt from you."
Register on debate.org, send me your user name and we can have a public debate on this topic, you can make the resolution contending evolution, by all means use all the ad hominems you want.
Evolution theory a fake science belief system will one day be history. When that day comes, a new breed of scientists will promote a true scientific theory that has standing and respect. We can only wait!
TheLogic1010 3 months ago
First I saw this and I was like what, how can you be so wrong?
Then i realised, simple misunderstanding, Natural seletion is the engine of evolution, random mutations are the means from which this can occur.
Natural selection is how you can make something "better" through evolution.
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
I would love to see David with long hair, a beard, and John Lennon glasses.
Entropy56 3 months ago
As before in this searies, Berlinski takes an _overly_ simplified example of mutating computer software.
Also, the evidence he is basicly asking for would take thousands of years to produce. Yes, we have millions of species to look at, but are we really, and have we, been measuring DNA mutations in most of them ever since DNA was thought to matter in these things (last 50 years or so)? I would not think so. I'm not familiar with current data, but it sure is going to be better in just 10 years.
ttcmp0 4 months ago
Random mutations are the engine of evolution. Not natural selection which can only select from existing information.
Markus77x7 5 months ago
@Markus77x7 Yes, evolution requires variation [random mutations] and Natural Selection to work, thanks for pointing that out.
gregrutz 5 months ago
Because Mutations are not the ''engine of evolution'' That is only one part. Creatards can't put 2+2 together and understand evolution.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@gregrutz
Do you freaking know what an engine is? he didn't say mutations ARE evolution, he said mutations are the ENGINE of evolution. He was a post doctorate fellow in Molecular biology at Columbia University, what are your qualifications since you aspire to instruct him?
Finally he isn't a creationist, he is a universal skeptic and a secular Jew.
Onieracraft 3 months ago
@Onieracraft So Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species by means of mutations'' Mutation provide the variation in species, Natural selection is the 'engine of evolution''
Mr. Butinski is paid by the Discovery Inst. to make up crap. He has never had a job as a scientist.
gregrutz 3 months ago
These short videos are effective IMO.
Ear4Beauty 6 months ago
some would argue that Windows XP is already useless...
limballer 6 months ago
"We share less DNA with a plant because we were the same life 1000 million years ago."
This is perhaps the dumbest thing I have seen an a stupid darwinist claim. If you pick up any book on evolution any where on earth, not a single scientist claims life on earth beyond 500 million years ago (because there is simply no proof)
Yet here this moron lies about how plant and animal dna were the same 1000 million years go...
Am sorry what idiot school did you go to?
karamarouge 7 months ago
Mr. Butinski really doesn't understand evolution. He is not a scientists.
Dawin wrote. 'Origin of Species through Natural Selection.'
Not through ''random chance''
Not 'the origin of life''
Not how the universe 'exploded''
That's what happens when a math teacher does Biology.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Funny how Darwin didn't even know about mutations and stll showed how evolution works! Natural Selection is not random.
gregrutz 7 months ago
The theory of evolution gets weaker every day. Why is this belief system still with us. Why hasn't science gone back to the drawing broad and come up with a true science instead of a system based purely on faith?
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Right, please let us know when it it no longer studied in all universities and taught as fact.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Like one professor said to me once, don't believe everything that is written in university textbooks, just because it's taught at iniversity doesn't mean much. The fact is after over 150 years questions are still being asked about ToE. Gravity also a theory is well accepted, but there are still many mysteries about this force. With ToE it's to science a done deal, no question! It has no laws, no equations. I think we're not too far away from blowing this fantasy out.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Let us know when they come up with a better Theroy to explain the fossil record and why you are an Ape.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz You mean a scientific theory and not like ToE a belief system? Whoever said we are from apes? The missing link will never be found because there isn't one.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 Biology is a science, dummy. You are classified as a Great Ape, do you think you are a plant? They found all the 'missing links'', try and keep up.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Ok Biology is a natural science. My view is that we are not connected to apes. The missing links have not been ALL been found. If I'm wrong then provide genuine scientific sources to confirm this.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 learn how we are classified and why>> watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz As in this video when anyone states evolution has been proven, the alarm bells ring so loud it's deafening. I still maintain as of my own opinion, we do not descend from apes. When the missing link half ape / half man is evidented, then I will agree. But until then will differ.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 There is no half-man half-ape. You are 100% Human, 100% Ape, 100% mammal, 100% vertebrate, 100% animal. Learn what evolution says. Humans and Chimps are apes and share a common ancestor.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz LOL.... If man is 100% human, 100% mammal, !00% vertebrate then explain why he shares half the genes of a banana....Lol..that would make him 100% banana, 100% fruit 100% plant as well now wouldnt it?
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge The fact the we share DNA with a banana proves we share a common ancestor with bananas. Evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Um that was not my question. My question was what % are we banana and what % are we human?
But since you brought it up, if we share a common ancestor with a banana so much so that there is only a 50% difference between us and the banana, shouldnt there be similarity of over 50% with a mouse for example, after all it is an animal or wouldnt it follow that we shared more dna with perharps a grouper, since darwinists claim we evolved from fish?
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge Correct, we share more DNA with our closer relitives. 98.6% the same as a Chimp and it get less the farther we are from a common ancestory. Glad you get it.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Um i didnt ask you about a chimp, I clearly asked you about dna of a mouse or even a grouper.
Unless you are telling me that man evolved from chimp and before that from the banana....lol
Thats the only logical conclusion one can form from your immensely stupid statement.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge You have no fucking idea how evolution works, do you?
We share more DNA with chimps because we were the same animal 10 million years ago.
We share less with mouse because we were the same mammal 100 million years ago.
We share less DNA with a plant because we were the same life 1000 million years ago.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Apparently you dont have a fucking idea how evolution works as well (I admit I dont because i cant find even two scientists who even agree on the story of evolution.
Actually the difference between human and mouse DNA was recently found to be less than 2.5% (google it bozo) Thats even closer than that of an ape by according to some scientists likeTim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, According to him dna of a mouse and a human is the same.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge Yes, humans and a mouse are both mammals, the same. Common ancestor.
More evidence of Evolution
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz but by the logic you posted just a few posts ago, one would assume that the mouse apparently is an ape as well being that the mouse has only 2.5% difference in dna with humans while the ape hovers around 4% difference (+/-2 depending on who you ask)
Unless you are implying that the humans had two ancestors, the ape like ancestor and the mouse like ancestor. Like it or not the dna evidence here proves evolution to be a bogus myth.
Explain that discrepancy.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge Why don't you learn how evolution works and it would be easier.
There is more difference between Humans and mice than there is between humans and chimps. We are apes just like chimps are apes. We are mammals just like mice are mammals.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@karamarouge ''Unless you are implying that the humans had two ancestors''
Yes, we did. Humans are Homo Sapians / Apes / monkeys / primates / mammals / tetrapods / cordates/...
They are all our ancestors.
gregrutz 6 months ago
@karamarouge No dummy, we are 98% the same as chimps and 92% the same as a mouse.
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Actually the difference between human and mouse DNA was recently found to be less than 2.5% (google it bozo) Thats even closer than that of an ape by according to some scientists likeTim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, According to him dna of a mouse and a human is the same.
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! SIMPLE AS THAT!!
Dont forget to explain your proof of life on earth 1000 million years ago.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@gregrutz Does that mean we are 98% chimp or that chimps are 98% human. Perhaps you could misrepresent what this means further by claiming that you are only 2% human.
PLScotland 6 months ago
@PLScotland No, we are 100% Human and we are 100% Ape. Chimps are 100% Chimp and 100% Ape, We are different Species of Ape with a common ancestory 7 Million years ago. Understand now?
We share a common ancestor with a mouse too, the first mammal.
gregrutz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "We share less with mouse because we were the same mammal 100 million years ago."
"We share more DNA with chimps because we were the same animal 10 million years ago."
Well then explain why human dna is closer to that of a mouse than a chimp. If the human/mouse ancestor was over 100 million years ago why are humans more similar to mice genetically than apes.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@TheLogic1010 you are wasting your time arguing with a complete nincompoop. Save your breath, the guy probably some agoraphobic retard too stupid to understand even the science he claims to believe in.
karamarouge 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLogic1010 ''It has no laws, no equations. '' Biology does not use a lot of math. Laws and equations apply only to math. DNA code and it's markers are the best proof of Evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz last I checked, religion is studied in all universities and I also believe, once upon a time it used to be taught as fact that the earth was the center of the universe.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge Yes, religion is studied in schools. They talk about how they all have creations stories and all have creator gods. And how all of them think they are the one true religion and the others are all wrong.
Science is also taught, biology class will teach you how evolution works. Geology will show you what has happened to the rocks for the last Billion years. Astonomy will teach you why there is no center of the universe.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Point you dont seem to understand is that just because something theoretical like religion or evolution theory does not mean its true. (btw that falls in the category of "theoretical science" in every university in the world so dont compare it to practical sciences like biology and geology) And especially in geology opposing points of view are readily accepted and fully considered unlike the religion of evolution where real science is rejected just to keep the myth alive.
karamarouge 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLogic1010 The theory of evolution gets weaker every day. NO, EVERYTHING SUPPORTS EVOLUTION.Why is this belief system still with us. BECAUSE IT HAS BEE PROVEN. Why hasn't science gone back to the drawing broad THE THEORY GET BETTER EVERY DAY and come up with a true science instead of a system based purely on faith? BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON FACTS NOT FAITH.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Darwin did not even know about mutations and had no problem proving evolution happens.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Okay Dave heres a couple.
Nylonese, the common flue virus(theres a reason why we have to modify our vaccines constantly), insects becoming resistant to pesticide, genetically enhanced(mutated) crops, human resistance to HIV(10% of the worlds population). Just to name a few, LOL!!!
baldurus1 10 months ago
@baldurus1 could you be so stupid that you actually think the man has never heard of the flu virus or nylanase? Let me ask you a question. When you type something like genetically enhanced crops, are you serious? It takes a special kind of retard to type out such incredibly dumb shit and then call oneself educated.
This is one thing i hate about evolutionists. They are some of the dumbest people alive but love to argue like they have the slightest inkling as to what the hell gibbering on about
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge If he has heard about them then why is he so stupid as to say theres no evidence for evolution? And furthermore why are you? Explain to me your inquietude towards my use of GMC as an example.
Now you seem to be pretty damn sure about your position, could you provide any evidence to back it up?
You would be the first person ever to do so.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 Thats the point you ignoramus. An accomplished man like that would not be so stupid that he didnt hear about the most common of flu viruses. I know objective thinking is something impossible for dumb people such as yourself. The sad thing is that you actually think your flu virus revelation is actually some mind blowing answer that he some how completely missed.
Here is a hint you bozo, flu viruses ARE NOT PROOF OF EVOLUTION YOU MORON!!!
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Yay, more name calling and no answers. Hmmm... wonder why?
Berlinski said there are no beneficial mutations and i gave a list of them, then you call me names for listing them. When i ask you to refute them you spout more profanities.
Now put up or shut up.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 The whole point is to get you to do some basic freakin research before you run your mouth using incredibly obvious but stupid answers that any tom dick and harry could stumble upon. A normal person would think to themselves. "hmm, that is such an obvious answer, how come this man never heard of it" A sane person would say to themselves "let me look it up and see if it really proof of a beneficial mutation" But not you... You are definitely too stupid to do this
karamarouge 9 months ago
@baldurus1 Rather you prefer to go on about how "genetically altered" crops are proof of beneficial mutation. Seriously that answer takes the cake! And I am not name calling when I say you suffer from a serious mental retardation. It takes a special kind of stupidity to claim that genetically altered crops are proof of beneficial mutations...Prove you are not stupid. Go do some basic googling to find out why I am calling you especially stupid for making such a claim!
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Pest resistance is a beneficial mutation to that plant, if it's beneficial to the person eating it is irrelevant. And you still have not been able to provide any evidence against evolution or for creationism.
Now tell me who's the idiot?
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 Wait on second, are you now revising your answer from genetically altered crops to pest resistance? Because one would think you are just throwing shit against a wall hoping something will stick. Leaping from Genetically altered crops by a human no less in a lab, with absolutely no mutation any where in the picture to pest resistance. The question has to be asked do you really have any freakin clue as to what you are talking about?
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Hahahahahaha... A plant modified in a lab to become resistant to pests is by definition mutated. Whether it's in a lab or not doesn't make it any less mutated. A GENETICALLY ALTERED plant ALTERED to become resistant to insects and pests is GENETICALLY ALTERED. And yes there are mutations, thats the whole point with GENETICALLY ALTERING plants. You obviously do not have a freaking clue what I'M talking about and furthermore you have no freaking clue as how evolution works.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 lol.. boy are you stupid!!! this is quite comical indeed. HEY BOZO, GET IT IN YOUR HEAD. A GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANT IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH MUTATION YOU BABBLING BUFFOON!!!! Genetically altered plants have had genes from another plant implanted into them. THEY HAVE NOT UNDERGONE ANY MUTATION YOU FREAKIN MORON!!!!!
this is the stupidity that practically all evolutionists espouse. your comments are indicative of your stupidity.
Tell us more about those HIV resistant mutated humans.lol
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Mutation= changes in genome. They take take most resistant plants and "breed" them with other plants with a high level of germicide and pesticide resistance to get an even more resistant plant.
What you're thinking of when you here mutation is something from sci-fi movies.
Thats not how evolution works.
What they do in the lab is what nature does, they just do it a lot faster.
Most of the people in Scandinavia have a mutation that won't allow the HIV virus to attach itself.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 the most resistant plants are artificially cross bred with other plants. Or some times their genes are simply artificially transferred into other plants.
NONE THE LESS YOU BOZO THESE ARE ARTIFICIAL PROCESSES THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE! THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION YOU MORON.
SECONDLY, EXCHANGING GENETIC MATERIAL IS NOT EVOLUTION. THE GENETIC INFORMATION ALREADY EXISTS IN THE RESISTANT PLANT. IT IS TRANSFERRED FROM THAT PLANT TO OTHER PLANTS. THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF INFO TO THE OFFSPRING
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Show me wrong please, show me what i got wrong and we can settle this "debate" once and for all.
I have asked you to do this 6 times now, and yet nothing.
The reason for this is that you have nothing to come with.
Now for the last time do you have ANYTHING to bring to this discussion other than infantile remarks?
My guess is no, prove me wrong.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1
BREEDING A PLANT THAT ALREADY HAS RESISTANCE TO A PESTICIDE WITH OTHER PLANTS THAT DONT HAVE IT IS NOT EVOLUTION. THE PESTICIDE RESISTING QUALITY ALREADY EXISTS. THAT IS LIKE SAYING BIRDS INHERITED THE ABILITY TO FLY FROM BREEDING WITH BIRDS THAT COULD ALREADY FLY...
THAT IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF EVOLUTION.. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT..
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Evolution is when dinosaurs evolve feathers and hollow bones, etc.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@karamarouge C-C chemokine receptor type 5 also known as CCR5 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the CCR5 gene. CCR5 is a member of the beta chemokine receptors family of integral membrane proteins.
The CCR5 gene location is on the short (p) arm at position 21 on chromosome 3. Certain populations have inherited the Delta 32 mutation resulting in the genetic deletion of a portion of the CCR5 gene. Homozygous carriers of this MUTATION are resistant to M-tropic strains of HIV-1 infection.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 Like i said you are a half educated fool who cant grasp what he reads. If the mutation resulted in the deletion of a portion of CCR5 gene that is the FUCKIN DEFINITION OF DELETERIOUS NUMBNUTS!!!
JESUS H CHRIST YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! IF A PORTION OF THE GENE HAS BEEN DELETED BY DEFINITION THAT CANT BE EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION BY DELETION OF GENETIC INFORMATION IS IMPOSSIBLE YOU MORON!!!! THERE MUST BE A NET GAIN OF INFORMATION FOR EVOLUTION TO BE POSSIBLE..
LOL..
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge You're a lost cause, you're grasping at straws. I feel sorry for you.
Goodbye.
Come back when you grow a brain.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1
LOL... THE IDIOT POSTS ABOUT THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF MUTATION TO CAUSE HIV IMMUNITY IN HUMANS THEN HE COMES HERE BOASTING ITS PROOF OF EVOLUTION!! lol...
i guess you missed the part in the video where Berlinski says ALMOST ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS!!!
HOW F#$KING RETARDED CAN YOU BE TO POST AN EXAMPLE OF A DELETION TO A GENE AND THEN BRAG YOU HAVE PROVEN HIM WRONG..
HOW STUPID CAN ONE BE?
BRO YOU JUST PROVED YOU ARE AN ILLITERATE RETARD THAT CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Any change in a gene is a ''mutation'', changes happen all the time. New Information !
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Only a fool would claim that change= new information. And you have to be doubly stupid to think that complexity in a genome can be increased by deletion of parts of the gene.
If you cant understand that simple concept, then your level of stupidity is simply beyond my ability to fix and I will not attempt to do so. I would encourage you to proceed in your ignorance and abject stupidity.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@karamarouge You talk like you don't know evolution was proven 150 years ago, LOL.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Um ya, big blue monkeys shading hair are the reason the sky is blue. This was proven 300 years ago.
See even I can make completely stupid statements and claim them to be true.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@gregrutz Um ya, big blue monkeys shading hair are the reason the sky is blue. This was proven 300 years ago.
See even I can make completely stupid statements and claim them to be true.
perharps you should tell us of the mythical scientist who "proved" evolution and may be take about his "proof" of evolution was.
I am dying to see it as I am very interested in this topic.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@karamarouge You do realize that some pesticides also kills plants, you do know that right?
If the plant isn't resistant to those pesticides then they will die. Thats why i'm talking about pesticides and herbicides. Go back and finish high-school before you start "educating people about shit you know nothing about.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@baldurus1 Secondly my reason for posting is not to provide any evidence for anything. It is to point out to you that your answers are completely bogus incorrect fabrications that in some case dont even have anything to do with the question asked in the video.
dont try to change the subject because you are being exposed for the typical evolutionist ignoramus who doesnt even have the most basic grasp of biology.
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Well if your understanding of biology is so much better than mine then you wouldn't mind teaching me and converting me to a creationist.
Heres your chance to show thousands of evolutionists how wrong they are, just by providing evidence for creationism or against evolution.
Will you be the champion of all creationists by finally demonstrating the errors in evolution theory?
I'm holding my breath for your enlightened answers.
baldurus1 9 months ago
@karamarouge hey shit for brains. Evolution was proven 150 years ago, try and keep up.
Calling people morons is not a great come back.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz lol...its really funny when an obviously retarded semi illiterate person tries to pass themselves off as educated. All the while proving exactly how stupid they are and how little they know. HEY BOZO IF YOUARE GOING TO CLAIM THE THEORY PICK UP A FeRKING BOOK AND EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE SUBJECT!
Evolution was not proven 150 years ago you freaking moron! The theory may have been proposed and publicised 150 years ago but proposing a theory is not the same as proving it you ignorant ape!
karamarouge 8 months ago
@karamarouge Pick up a book and educate yourself on these things before you run your mouth like a fool!
Talking about genetically altered crops? It takes a special kind of retard to claim that crops altered in a lab using processes nature never can and have has the ability to replicate can be proof of evolution. That is as stupid as saying people with prosthetic limbs are proof of evolution.
karamarouge 9 months ago
@karamarouge Like a virus MUTATING to become resistant to vaccines? Is that also impossible for the virus to do this by itself? Or does the virus need a lab to mutate? Like weeds becoming resistant to pesticide and herbicide? Or did the farmers genetically enhance the weeds to become harder to kill?
You are an idiot, seriously.
And you STILL haven't given a SINGLE argument AGAINST evolution or FOR creationism.
Last chance little boy, if i'm wrong then it should be very simple for you to show it.
baldurus1 9 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz I had a feeling that this would be your response after exposing you for a baboon stupid enough to believe that advancing a theory equates to proving it.
That is not surprising at all. Any one who has met the average darwinist knows that you lot are perharps som of the dumbest illiterate baboons on this planet
karamarouge 8 months ago
@karamarouge Evolution is a fact, get over is butt hole.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@karamarouge Some people are so fucking stupid they will never understand evolution.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz AND YOU SIR ARE THE GREAT INTERNET GENIUS STUPID ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION WAS PROVEN 150 YEARS AGO..
LOL....
WE BOW DOWN TO YOUR IMMENSE INTELLIGENCE.
karamarouge 8 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 8 months ago
@karamarouge Go to any school dummy and see what they are studying.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz aw shut up with your dumb one liners. Its enough that you are stupid enough to think that because Darwin published his theory 150 years ago then that is the equivalent of proving it...lmao.
(never mind the fact that all his arguments have been proven false and unscientific because the man knew nothing of genetics) but preach on...brother, after all thats what every religious extremist does.
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge You are the religious dip shit who is home schooled, not me.
DNA is now the best proof FOR Evolution, dummy. Get an education.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz and now the same baboon who wanted to sell a the immensly stupid lie that evolution theory was proven 150 years ago wishes to leap to a new argument. That DNA is the best proof for evolution lol..
I said this guy was stupid and his stupidit will always be constantly proven by the words he writes. Stupid people cant escape their own words. Only a complete moron would claim DNA has proven evolution. DNA is from living animals. IT WILL NEVER EVER PROVE EVOLUTION DUMBASS!
karamarouge 7 months ago
@karamarouge ''DNA is from living animals'' The same DNA is in plants too, dummy.
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago, you don't know shit.
gregrutz 7 months ago
go back to sleep
zenithar6666 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
go back to sleep freind, your better off
zenithar6666 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
I am aware of yor existence
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@karamarouge Evolution was proven 150 years ago. Try and keep up.
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge AND YOU SIR ARE THE GREAT INTERNET GENIUS STUPID ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION WAS PROVEN 150 YEARS AGO..
LOL....
WE BOW DOWN TO YOUR IMMENSE INTELLIGENCE
karamarouge 7 months ago
@gregrutz AND YOU SIR ARE THE GREAT INTERNET GENIUS STUPID ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION WAS PROVEN 150 YEARS AGO..
LOL....
WE BOW DOWN TO YOUR IMMENSE INTELLIGENCE. ...NOT!!!!
karamarouge 8 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz lol... If you are educated and you run around saying completely dumbshit like evolution was proven 150 years ago, i think I will decline your offer.
I dont want to become the dim wit educated fool like you are.
karamarouge 8 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 8 months ago
@karamarouge ''I dont want to become the dim wit educated fool like you are.''
STAY STUPID THEN. Stay on youtube and show the world what an IDiot you are.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz lol... I see where you deleted the previous dumbshit comments that you made!
lol nice try MR EDUCATED GENIUS" you are one daft idiot and deleting your words wont make you smarter, it still leaves you a complete half educated buffoon and if you are to be judged as the educated one I would sooner prefer to be judged as the un-educated idiot.
At least I dont go making asinine statements on youtube then deleting them like a daft nine year old.
lmao..
nice try bastard!!!
karamarouge 7 months ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 7 months ago
@karamarouge It sounds like you are a little intimidated by people who are educated and/or smarter than you.
gregrutz 7 months ago
No evidence, hahahahahahaha. OMG! That was the funniest thing ever.
baldurus1 10 months ago
Berlinski is an idiot.
jib1000 10 months ago
Comment removed
murfleblurg 11 months ago
Comments like "this has already been proven" are laughable, many scientific theories were believed to have been "proven" which after a great deal of time and more information becoming available disproved the theory originally believed to be true. The theories evolved, and it is highly possible that this same process will prove true with Darwin. This closed-minded view point is normally reserved for fundamentalists, not science. Flat earth, anyone?
lankeedada 11 months ago
Yes, my mom was an ape, my dad was an ape, all my ancestors were apes. Humans didn't stop being apes when they became humans.
Just like they didn't stop being mammals when they became human.
gregrutz 11 months ago
David Berlinski was raised in New York City, educated at Columbia College [founded by the church of England] and recieved his Ph.D in philosophy from Princeton University. And Never studied Evolution.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz And yet he seems to provide such strong scientific arguments against the theory to which you are yet to provide even one coherent scientific argument.. (And just so you know, blabbing on about peered reviewed papers, books, and numbers of "believers in the myth of evolution" does not work as a valid scientific argument.
YES SIR, YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE.. YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED A SINGLE ONE OF THE VALIDE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS PAUSED TO YOU. NOT ONCE!!1
karamarouge 11 months ago
Mutation is only part of evolution, what an IDiot. Darwin didn't even know about mutations and still showed the 'driving force'' of evolution, Natural Selection. Mr. Butinski is Paid by the Discovery Institute to Bullshit people.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz natural selection can not and does not add any new information to the genome! That is a statement of fact.
learn some basic science before you run your mouth!
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge I never said NS added new information. Natural Selection selects, mutations add the new information.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Once again selling silly myths as fact? Then you have the audacity to ask me why people accept evolution as fact? It is because many like you sell this half baked non scientific gibberish and actually believe it.
Mutation never has and never will lead to the addition of any new, meaningful information to the genome of a species. If you or any scientists have done some lab work proving otherwise, name peer reviewed paper, experiment, species and the name of the new gene added.
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge One has to wonder, if you both blind and deaf!!! Did you hear what Berlinski says in this very video? There is simply no evidence!
You cant just come in here and claim "acceptance" of a theory as your greatest argument for its validity instead of addressing the huge contradictory tangible facts..(some of which are still living today, unchanged from the earliest known fossils on earth like the horse shoe crab. (No surprise there that you dont want to talk about that issue)
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
Get over it. Mr. Butinski is paid to make shit up.
Why do you think ''living fossils' prove evolution wrong, it does not. Sharks have not change much, so what?
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Evolution is not the backbone of biology!!! once again you expose your ignorance and stupidity on the subject. Biology is the study of living things. Every single principle of biology can stand completely independent of the theory of evolution. But then again you are the same idiot who doesnt even understand the most basic description of what science is. I wouldnt be surprised that you would post this nonsense.
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamaroug 99.98% of scientists and educated people accept evolution because of the mountain of evidence that supports it. Evolution has withstood 150 years of crationists attacks. Paleontologists are biologists.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Again with this nonsensical argument!! Science IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD!!! It does not matter how many scientists believe in your magic "DNA tree of life", that will not change the fact that its a figment of your imagination!
Instead of wasting your time listing the numbers of scientists who apparently believe in the theory, how about you post some actual scientific evidence...
Oh wait! You did... the magic "dna tree of life" lmao
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Why don't you look at the scientific evidence, it has already been proven.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@karamarouge Any and all changes in DNA is 'new information'' Darwin didn't even know about mutations and had no problem showing how evolution works.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz "Any and all changes in DNA is 'new information''.. I am glad that all humans who suffer from genetic diseases, due to missing or corrupted portions of their dna, do not depend on idiots like you for their health care.
That comment is so stupid, i wont even waste my time on it!
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge There are many kinds and forms of dogs. There all came from the wolf, proving that there is plenty of variation in nature to allow natural selection to work. No 'new information' needed. It is already there.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz I have already exposed your stupidity and will do so yet again. A dog is still a dog. Of course there are many kinds of dogs. But they are still dogs. They didnt change into fish, or snakes. NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THE ISSUE OF VARIATION.
Secondly to the point of DNA and how ignorant you are about it. A dog for example, does not have DNA code for poison glands, or hollow fangs, or scales, or gills! It would need new DNA info to get this DNA..
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Get it in your thick ignorant head, that the first animal to "evolve" a skeleton would have to magically acquire DNA code for building skeletal features out of calcuim absorbed by the organism.
-NO SINGLE SCIENTIST HAS EVER PROVED THAT MUTATION CAN LEAD TO THE ADDITION OF THIS NEW INFORMATION. (FACT)
-EVEN IN A COMP SIMULATION (LET ALONE THE LAB) NO AMOUNT OF DNA SCRAMBLING HAS EVER BEEN SHOWN TO RESULT IN NEW GENETIC INFORMATION!! (FACT)
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge any mutation is new information.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@karamarouge yes dogs make dogs. that is why humans a are still apes. still mammals. Just as evolution predicts.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz LAst i checked, dogs breed with dogs. Unless your mom was an ape and your dad a human, and you are the result, i dont think it is accurate to claim human are apes. The two cant and dont breed.
And i hate to break this to you, but even the most fervent evolutionist who has "read a book" will tell you humans and apes have the same very distant ancestor. That ancestore was not an ape. Apes apparently have their own distinct lineage after "splitting from humans"
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Humans, Chimps and gorillas are all apes dummy, read a biology book. We all have a common ancestor, the first ape. Yes, we split from the other apes millions of years ago, that makes us apes.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz chimps and gorillas can not breed, I would say humans and chimps dont breed, (but you probably are the by product of the two),
All fertile dogs can breed with each other. A chimp cant breed with a gorilla.
You should read a book
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Wow, now you know what a species is. Good work you are learning some science. Humans, chimps and gorillas are seperate Species. They were once the same primate, same species but through evolution have changed into distinct species and can't breed now. Origin of Species. So glad you finally get it.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz "They were once the same primate, same species but through evolution have changed into distinct species and can't breed now. "
There were actually some experiments to create a human-chimp hybrid, they were never successful, but the hypothesis has not actually been disproven. Note there is distinct evidence that the two species however did have a multi-node cladistic linage which is extremely interesting as apparently they contintued to breed after the initial divergence point.
CliffStamp 11 months ago
@karamarouge'' humans and apes have the same very distant ancestor'' NO, humans and chimps have the same very distant ancestor, an ape. Apes make apes, so chimp and humans are both still apes.
'Ape' is a classificaion, like primate. Like mammal.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@karamarouge So how do you explain the fossil record? The cambrian marine animals. The dinosaurs. The rock layer exposed in the Grand Canyon?
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz How do i explain the fossil record? Again with these stupid questions. Have you still failed to muster the common sense to view the video you are commenting about? How about you start by watching the video
then see how stupid you sound asking me to explain the cambrian marine fossils.
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Can't answer the questions so you call the other person stupid. Grow up.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz How do i explain the fossil record? Again with these stupid questions. Have you still failed to muster the common sense to view the video you are commenting about? How about you start by watching the video
then see how stupid you sound asking me to explain the cambrian marine fossils.
Ps..I have to say i am no longer surprised by the stupid things that come out of your mouth, but you have to be exceptionally dumb to ask me to explain cambrian fossils to you!
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Evolution explains the fossil record, creatards have to pretend like it isn't there because it prove their silly religious stories wrong.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@CesarPhilosophe "Perhaps the phenomena "gravity" has been observed but not the theory the attempts to explain it."
A point of interest is we still are unsure as to exactly what is the nature of gravity, is it a distortion in four dimensional space, or is it a particle transfer or is it something else (quantum description). Are we observing the absolute nature or just what we can observe given our limited abilities? In regards to the latter, that applies to everything.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe In any absolute sense yes, nothing really has been observed because science is continually advancing. Newton thought he understood gravity (as did Aristotle) as did Einstein, and now as do people like Krauss who are proposing new theories of gravity. It is unknown as to the true nature, or even if there is one one - all science can do is attempt to explain simply what we have observed to date.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe The real ironic part is that right now in evolutionary biology there is another revolution as it is now known that there are quite a few evolutionary mechanisms in addition to mutation + natural selection and this is so fundamental (there are non genetic heredity pathways) that even the fundamental definition of evolution (change in gene frequency over time) is likely to soon be changed. This again is the nature of science, knowledge is not absolute but incremental.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe If you really want to note the absurdity here, consider that by the same logic - Gravity has never been observed. The "gravityists" can not agree as to how it is defined. This is indeedl true, there are five generally utilized descriptions of Gravity and it is currently unknown which (if either) is the true nature - thus Gravity has never been observed (you can of course extend this nonsense to practically every scientific model and conclude science has never observed anything).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
Bullshit!!! We can observe the effects of gravity, perform repeatable experiments and even formulate laws of physics.
YOU CAN SAY THIS FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "YOU CAN SAY THIS FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!"
Yes, there are over one hundred thousand peer reviewed journal articles on evolutionary theory, experiment and application. What do you actually think an experimental evolutionary biologist does if not experiments on evolutionary biology?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Oh there are hundreds?
Then sir, it should be really, really easy for you to find just two experiments done by all these biologists that provide evidence to help prove the theory of evolution.
Ps.. If you intend to post experiments showing variation within a species, then dont waste both our time.
just trot along in the bliss of ignorance you espouse so well.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
After reading the previous commentary on this subject, i fully suspect that you are going to come back with some pathetic comments on "drug resistant bacteria" or "mutant fruit flies" and pretend that this is evidence for evolution.
Its nothing but evidence for variation or micro evolution where by there is absolutely no new information added to the genome but rather, it has either been destroyed, or duplicated to form an organism that would still indicate an evolutinary dead end
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Two questions, what exactly are you looking for as evidence of evolution, being very specific, and second how are you defining the term - evolution? Further, how are you defining "new information", again being specific.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Specifically, what about an example of a single celled animal evolving into a multi-cellular animal,
how about some proof that mutation can lead to the development of NEW, novel features? How about any fossil of an animal with a half wing or half leg? How about any proof/experimentation to show that multiple mutations can possibly produce a living offspring with even one advantage over its parents?
I have so many i keep going all night.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "how about some proof that mutation can lead to the development of NEW, novel features"
Nylonase.
"How about any fossil of an animal with a half wing or half leg?"
Tiktaalik has a number of half-fish and half-tetrapod features, as well as a number of pure fish and pur tetrapod features (it is an intermediate between fish and tetrapods).
"mutations can possibly produce a living offspring with even one advantage"
Myostatin-blockers.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Nylonase, has no "new novel" features. Do you honestly think i wrote that without knowing your favorite little darwinist fairy tale? Enzymes never have and never will be defined as "novel features" And to kill that bogus argument, let me specify what i mean by "novel feature" instead of assuming you would use common sense to figure this out.
I mean an eye, a limb, gills, ear drum, something of a a physical nature not an enzyme produced by an already existing mechanism
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Define "novel feature", aside from giving examples, and to be clear in order for you to accept this as evidence for evolution you want this "novel feature" to be produced under direct observation (i.e. all generations are directly countable).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
I would advise you to scroll back, take a deep breath and read!!!! i already defined what I define a novel feature to be.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "i already defined what I define a novel feature to be."
No, you gave examples, being specific, using state your hypothesis in a manner which is both able to be demonstrated and falsified, and to be complete, the ways in which each can be performed.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@karamarouge "Enzymes never have and never will be defined as "novel features" "
This does not count as support for evolution because why exactly? Again, how exactly are you defining evolution and where is your peer reviewed source for that definition.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Another attempt at a red herring?
AN ENZYME IS NOT A NOVEL FEATURE!!! If you have even one scientist making such a claim, then sir post the proof. Name the scientist and provide a link to the paper he wrote making such and absurd claim!
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "AN ENZYME IS NOT A NOVEL FEATURE!"
Again, define "novel feature".
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp i already explained to you what i mean by "novel feature". Now you can choose to play the fool and claim i did not, but i clearly did.
Once again, debate.org, will not mask the dumb and repetitive questions you keep asking.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
tiktaalik? you mean, the fish/mammal that replaced Acanthostega as the missing link, and before that the famous coelacanth?
Let me ask you this, do you think that darwinists should be granted a blank check to make bogus claims continuously changing their story as soon as the previous lie is exposed?
Isnt the the very description of an unfalsifiable theory? How long should we accept this until you lot come up with another story?
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "Isnt the the very description of an unfalsifiable theory?"
No, all theories are modified and at some point shown to be at best partial explanations which are true only in particular constraints. This happens in all of science, Newtonian Mechanics for example had the theory completely rewritten by Relativity and later still by Quantum Theory and likely again soon as there are three large unification theories in development.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp This is evolution theory we are talking about. Try not to compare it to other theories. And no matter what you say, it still boils down to one thing, the theory is simply not falsifiable, not only does existing fossil evidence contradict the theory, new scientific capabilities like bio genetics and rendered key aspects of the theory like the "tree of life" obsolete as complete fabrications of the fertile minds of darwinists. And yet you want us to believe its falsifiable
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "the theory is simply not falsifiable"
Again, define your current understanding of the evolutionary theory, with a peer reviewed citation. Note you can also show mathematically that theory is unfalsifiable, so by all means demonstrate that as well.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@karamarouge The DNA tree of life is the same as Darwin's tree of life, proof of evolution.
Find a bunny fossil in the Cambrian Peoiod and you would falsify evolution.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz that is is a total lie. There is no such thing as the "dna tree of life". That is a complete total fabrication on your part!!!! There is no single scientist that has ever even claimed existence of anything remotely close to that. Matter of fact every single geneticist will tell you DNA studies rendered darwin's tree of life a obsolete..
iT IS SIMPLY A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. DNA STUDIES PROVED THAT RELATEDNESS OF ANIMALS IS MORE WEBLIKE AND NOTHING LIKE THE DARWINS TREE OF LIFE
karamarouge 11 months ago
@gregrutz LOL.. Why does it have to be a bunny? Why not a horse crab? is a bunny any more superior than a horseshoe crab? Why not the jelly fish? they all appear clearly in the cambrian and are alive today completely unchanged. proof that animals do not change with evolution, there are also no fossil ancestors of the horseshoe crab ever found.
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Don't you mean the theory that explains how evolution happenes gets better with each new fossil.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@CliffStamp "myostatin blockers" Could you really be that stupid? Right now i feel like John stewart exposing another of Bill Oreilly's incredibly dumb statements.
i wont even waste my time commenting on how stupid you are to think that I would waste time debating this with you after you obviously edited my statement and cut out key words to sell this bull shit argument.
I use strong terms because nothing else would suffice in this pathetic attempt from you.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge "I use strong terms because nothing else would suffice in this pathetic attempt from you."
Register on debate.org, send me your user name and we can have a public debate on this topic, you can make the resolution contending evolution, by all means use all the ad hominems you want.
CliffStamp 1 year ago