can you please link the evidence for macro evolution? i searched the species you mentioned in sciencedaily and sciencemag and i didnt get any result..
@IvanderHaisley nature doesn't discriminate between groups of related individuals. (species) if some get the chance to survive, then good for them. if another learns to avoid being eaten, that's also good. even if other "groups" of life forms die. they just weren't fast enough.
so it's possible, though improbable, to have a lethal virus evolve against us. but we're likely to evolve at a proportional speed and escape the threat.
it's a never-ending contest of reproduction. that's life.
@IvanderHaisley if you want an example of good mutation in human being, one classical example is heterozygous trait for sickle cell and its relation to malaria. The other is mutations on the receptors of T-cells that render certain human populations more resistance to HIV infection. These are all well-studied already, a simple google will give you more info.
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
How does a creature evolve into something else when they don't have any information in their genes to evolve, say from a reptile into a bird? Where do the genes get this information?
It does not have to do with adding information or removing information. That's all called "mutations". They happen when an organism is created. The existing information changes.
Don't even try to reason with the monkey people, they are not made in the image of God like we are! As a man thinketh so is he says God. So let them be the monkey people who are descended from monkeys, lower beings who lack the cognitive ability or desire to know and see God! Lower beings simply can not know God, only higher beings can do this. Poor things.
@hu150 I am not talking about a creature already alive, I'm talking about the simplest creature, the prime 'link' if you will, it is necessary that this creature have all the necessary DNA for life, you may be right about what happens after a creature is alive, DNA may sit around and not be harmful, but for the first creature all must be at one time, which mathematically impossible.
CDK007, I love your video's, but you may want to check out a different free video editor to get that watermark off of your vids. CNET gave this one a great review yesterday: PhotoStage Slideshow Producer. Please keep up the great work.
In reality you only have examples of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution which is the most controversial and impossible. Your reason number seven is inadequate as well. The steps idea has some credence. However, you cannot say that one piece of DNA is beneficial so its just sitting around surviving all alone, neither two pieces, or three, they must appear at once (at least to a certain level of complexity) they cannot appear in steps, they will not be a living being. I could go on, but alas...
@MrThomaswill But alas you'd be wrong. DNA can exist and do nothing as long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on teh chances of an animal surviving to have offspring so it is perfectly possible for a genetic mutation to occur and not be any more "useful" until other mutations occur - and this has been demonstrated.
You brought up the issue that the supposed 'examples' of evolution are in fact the specification of the same 'kinds'. Your only response was extremely inadequate, that "well kinds change". The reality is that we have considered monkeys to be monkeys since we first heard of monkeys and we don't call them "quibbles" (or any other name) just because we learn new things about them.
thats right , but: It was a gradual chance? or drastic changes took place, and how? Evolutionism doest really explains it all, sorry. and if you want to be called "evolutionist" like a great thing or fashion, its your problem . I try not to be a cosed minded a follower and fanatic.
@PQUINTA6 they're not just drawings... They exist, just look em up. Even if there weren't any fossils, evolution would stand up with genetic evidence, geological evidence, many different methods of radiometric dating, vestigial structures etc...
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION. ONLY MICRO-EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE IN NATURE, BUT NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION. WHY? TO FIND OUT WHY, PLEASE READ MY INTERNET ARTICLE ON RUSSIA'S PRAVDA NEWS: "WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!" JUST GOOGLE THE TITLE. I DISCUSS NATURAL SELECTION, GENETICS, MUTATIONS, FOSSILS, THE ISSUE OF GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SPECIES. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU.
why do u jump over in the first place? cause u have no answer. where did the musicians came from?,i like Ur analogy kkk , if there is no energy there is no universe! where did that energy came from? ur evolution is by itself is highly dependent on cause and effect, if there is no cause for the existence of the universe there is no cause for the existence of evolution!!!!!
Fascinating. Those people who believe in mythological accounts of creation won't accept any level of evidence that contradicts their position, but the only hurdle they need to mentally clear to ground their entire set of beliefs on is that it was written in ancient times and adopted by their progenitors as fact when science and evidence-gathering was in its infancy.It's mentally embracing ignorance as an ethos!
@zzrich5 everything in science is a fact, and if you think that it's all guess work then go ahead, but remember that it was "guess work" that allowed you to make that comment on your computer. the reality is that science is based on the observable and testable: FACTS.
@Mr12345EGGNOG Even Richard Feynman clearly stated that all science starts with a guess. Maths too starts with a guess to common problems. Simple harmonic motion for example. Modern science is data driven and then try and make sense of it afterwards.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. Mutations do not drive the engine of evolution. It is a fairy tale.
(continued) land-to-sea transitions and something that defies the crocoduck myth. stop closing your eyes to the evidence around you, don't say that something is wrong simply because you don't understand or know enough about it.
@MySpaige good mutations are good for the survival of the animal that inherited the mutation. the mutation that makes HIV resistant to drugs is good for HIV, and that's why it is beneficial.
@TalmageMacGoulagher what are you talking about? both micro and macro evolution have been observed in the lab and in nature, and DNA backtracking has shown that several animals share common ancestors. darwins theory is well supported by the fossil record as the fossil record is almost complete, including
@TheLogic1010 my sources for the complete fossil record include talkorigins, wikipedia, the greatest show show on earth (a book), as well many others. and the fossil record i'm talking about is that of all of the life predicted in darwins theory. the main ones that are missing are the first form of life, a crocodile/bird transition (although there is some evidence that they share a common ancestor), and the transition between reptiles and the great apes.
@Mr12345EGGNOG I've just returned from Oxford and looked at the section dealing with Darwinism in the Ashmolean musuem and it stated on the information broad, " No complete fossil record."
@TheLogic1010 I've not been and so do not know the context of the sign. However it is true that we have to rely on the fossils we find and, as fossilisation is rare, there are gaps. But of course those gaps continue to shrink.
We all know what a triceratops is but we have never found a complete one.
Google 'How Complete Is The Fossil Record' and see don-lindsay-archive for a brief explanation of the situation.
Even though this video is rather old, the info is just as valid and relevant today. It's factual and demonstrates that not only are Creationists wrong, their attempts to discredit Evolution is intentionally deceptive, and they lie non-stop!
The people who are guilty of lying and using subterfuge, are the people who are educated on the subject enough to know Evolution is a valid scientific discipline but actually lie to their own people to hide the truth. These "Xians" have no honor, no integrity
That last quote pisses me off. There is no evidence for evolution. You gave no sources of any information in this video, and I can prove everything you talked about to be incorrect.
Though I agree with everything said up to that point, I don't understand how these three examples can be described as 'good mutations! Those are 3 of the worst case scenarios of something mutating into something worse. Any disease, or carrier of disease, which mutates to make a therapy ineffective isn't 'good' in my opinion.
@Kingscrib They're "good" mutations from the point of view of the evolving organism.
Whilst it's "bad" for us that they have developed resistance to our means of exterminating them, it's "good" for them, as these adaptations improve their survival chances.
Really, this is why we shouldn't really use such loaded words as "good" and "bad" - but the terminology here is defined by the creationists. They're the ones talking of "good" mutations and the answer is just framed in their language.
Those "good" mutations are actually examples of bad mutuations. How is HIV becoming resistant to drugs good? That makes it harder to treat, which is just fantastic if you have HIV! lol. And how is bacteria becoming resistant to drugs good? That just creates a need for more drugs and also makes diseases harder to treat, once again that's just great for the sufferers, knowing that evolution is so good and all. Lol. But you have good taste in music!
I also noticed that in his examples these mutations were bad for us, but you probably realize his point is that these mutations were good for the organisms that have them. The whole point is that evolution through natural selection allows organisms to become better adapted to their environments.
@VirologistTim You're right. I was loking at it from the wrong perspective. Evolution is about the organism adapting. And adapt they did. Thanks I needed that! :)
@MySpaige The mutation is good for the bacteria. This is a simple example of a positive trait, but it is easy to document and observe, because bacteria are such simple organisms and antibiotic resistance happens all the time.
As a creationist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses..
As a creationist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses.
@accident777 - Please, by all means, point out what you think is wrong & why . I would be glad to correct your misunderstandings & show you what's wrong with your thinking ...
...well as far as proving a theory to be true, the scientific method, for the allowance of our human lack of infinite wisdom, will never deem a hypothesis turned theory turned very plausible theory, fact but will induct it into what we can call the theoretical hall of fame and declare it a law like the Law of Gravity or of Thermodynamics, etc. This is not to say there is no such thing as scientific truth, but merely that we humans are sort of arse-backing our way and don't grasp it all at once.
@WhinterSong - Do you understand that in terms of a "hierarchy of truth" , a theory takes a higher place than a fact ? A theory is a composition ... A theory is composed entirely of facts.
@MaitreyaRocket A theory is still subject to change and tweaking whereas a fact is an absolute truth that we can definitively stack a house of cards on. I will grant that there are great advantages to theories, that these awesome assumptions can help us, but let's not take it to the extreme that a theory is in some way 'more true' than a fact. A theory, after all, can be wrong in whole or in part. A fact is a definite that cannot be altered. We use facts to disprove/alter theories.
@WhinterSong -Facts are by no means absolute. The only absolute truths are logical absolutes. It is the application of this logic applied to a number of facts that leads to a greater truth. Facts are the constituent parts of theories. Facts consist merely of raw data. The greater truth is only to be found in theories. Theories are not "grand assumptions". They are the greater truth that allows to see further beyond the raw data of facts ...
@MaitreyaRocket Are you arguing that there're no absolutes? (absolutely none?) Like, the apple may not have fallen from the tree and hit Newton in the head? If it did, then=fact. What we can infer from it (theory) is gravity (Yay!). If it did not, that'd be a fact too but wouldn't mean anything at all, except Newton probably wouldn't have a gravity tale. Hey, theories=good. I like theories, but again, facts are definite lines in the sand that help corral the wandering ideas and make 'em better.
@garyzenuf I see your point, but I do not agree that it's that black and white. No theories are false once they are disproved, they were simply replaced by a more true theory. Take the newton Einstein example... Newton's theory was true in how it was applied, but simply did not work at speeds approaching that of light, or at the atomic scale. This does not make his theory false, but simply makes relativity and quantum mechanics more true. Not everything is either true or false, grey areas exist
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
The ultimate goal of any theory is when applying the true scientific method it withstands such vigorous scrutiny and as a result, becomes accepted FACT!
Thus your statement demonstrates that you are of the company who are simply enamored and satisfied with a given theory and therefore remain stuck in the theoretical.
Theories are a dime a dozen, it's the FACTS that count for tangible progress!
Not really. We don't seek to actively disprove God. We don't give a fuck, really. We just don't believe in any god because of the total lack of evidence for anything supernatural. But even if we're wrong about that, evolution still happens.
@quasarsphere very good point sir! evolution still happens everyday, any logical person would say that. However as i always say, we could be wrong about certain early evolution elements.
@EvolvedSkeptic Re-read your remarks with as much honesty as you can muster (which I know will be extremely little) and you'll see why you're an "AVOID" clown. You lie through your teeth! You're hostile and mocking and yet you claim "isolation" from me? Such arrogant deceit. You're an ass and a liar. I've convinced you of NOTHING. You're a mocker and a fool and you relish conflict instead of understanding. Live in your delusion; you don't have enough character for anyone to enjoy an exchange.
Lol. All the picture this person showed were of different species. everything shown was different species only with fairly similar features. What us Christians need is a slow transitioning record with small changes(not fabricated). Plus you guys gotta disprove the flood of noah otherwise your fossil record would be a giant graveyard dating back to roughly 4400 years ago.
@EvolvedSkeptic You've already proven Scriptures true: Pro 9:7 He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.
It's a shame that you don't have the investigative skills to distinguish the difference between "scientific knowledge," lies, religious nonsense and a con because you call them all "the entire body of scientific knowledge."
Your playing the fools will cost us all more than you realize.
@911dispatcher LOL you post this scripture about correcting a scoffer gets you dishonor ..then you go and do it LOL you post And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. then you insult the guy when he reproved you.
LOL talk about missing the point maybe you should pick another book...Classic just classic.
Good video. But I dont completely understand the first law of thermodynamics arguments. THe first law states that the change in internal energy = work done on system + transfer of heat in and out of the system. How to creationists try to claim evolution violates this?
@forteandcompany They use a simplified version of the 1st Law, making it "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." They then claim that evolution requires the creation of new organs, tissues or "information" out of nothing.
All in all, it is a horribly worded straw man based on a complete lack of study of biology and physics. It doesn't make sense to anyone with any form of scientific background, so I'm sorry if my attempt to explain their horrible argument only lead to more confusion.
It's not about if you don't have it you die. At the beginning, no cell had developed the mecanism to analyse light. Some had the ability to take light and produce energy without using photosynthesis. Many bacterias had this mechanism. Genes can be kept dormant within the genome and not being used. However if a mutation occurs in the operon region of some proteins, this may be sufficient for the cell to start producing the dormant gene. And if it happens to be light receptors, then you get an eye
so how do we know for sure that all these examples of evolution are not actually fully formed species of their own and not a link in a chain? and the probability of winning the lottery...you forget that if you do not get it right the first time then you die...and the photo sensitive cell, you cant start with the fully formed cell to make the eye you have to start with the pieces of that cell or explain how the cell evolved to know the difference of light and dark....
@courtneybelcher Bacteriodopsins. Awesome little proteins that use light and produce energy. They actually happen to be fairly close to other opsins, like rodopsin, which is the protein that causes the cid-trans modification of retanoic acid in your eye.
Cells with lots of these are what let you see. The difference is that in one case the bacteria uses it for energy, when in the other case its produced by a neuron cell, allowing a chemical change to be produced within the cell.
@courtneybelcher if all the transitional fossils we found were their own species there would be an uncomprehensible amount of species on the planet in the begining. something like 100,000 times as many species there are now. plus how come we dont find any modern animals in the ancient fossil record?
Illogical video. Mutations are copying errors, mistakes. Complex information system are not improved by copying errors. Secondly, in real life genomes contain genes that repair mutations to keep them from debilitating the offspring. If the Primary Axiom, mutations plus natural selection to improve the species was correct, this safeguard against mutations would not be needed. The video is a joke.
@achilles1974 Just because you can find this in answersingenesis doesn't make it logical, and it certainly doesn't make it science. You need to define both "information" and "improvement" and you also need to include the concept of "preferential selection" along with those "random errors". To argue about the idoneity of evolutionary theory, you need to represent it correctly, as it is actually postulated. Otherwise, you're simply imagining your own personal bogeyman for target practice.
@alfuentesev Are you saying that you do not understand what a copying error is or that you cannot grasp the concept of genes which repair mutations so that they are not passed onto offspring? If these concepts are too difficult to understand, get a good book on genetics, like Genetic Entropy by John Sanford of Cornell University. Learn the concepts and then perhaps you'll post something intelligible and coherent.
@achilles1974 Insulting people doesn't make you right, and says very little for your debating skills. You still don't define your terms (a basic tenet in science) such as what you mean by "information" and what you'd consider an "improvement". As for "concepts too difficult to understand", that's another failed argument - if you aren't capable of explaining your arguments simply and clearly, then perhaps you yourself don't understand them (but simply cut and paste ideas from AIG). Adioooos.
There mere fact that animals and simple bacteria developed natural defenses against toxins proves evolution is possible. If evolution is the inheritance of traits then by definition this is evolution.
@anothermishap For all of you organized religion types that think proper grammar is the best defensive argument in the world, figured I should state the fact I have noticed my typo by accidentally spelling 'The' as 'There.'
Nice comparison with the skulls to human skulls...know what else they look like even more than human skulls? Ape skulls! In your next video why don't you make the comparison between horse skulls and dog skulls? They are similar in appearance but completely different overall. You say creationists make assumptions without evidence? Making assumptions isn't scientific law. Same with the artists who gradually decrease the amount of hair on ancient apes to make them look more human. Assumption
code. show me one scientific example that shows a possible mutation that causes new genetic code to be written scientific model please thats what science is. its not saying because something is similar makes it related thats called guessing.
starts writting code to turn itself into a more complex cell and so on and so on until now but funny enough cant seem to use there all mighty science to go further awww. my point is that based on all the so called evidence that evolutionist put down today not one shows me that new genetic information wether it be mutationLOL or not can be written on its own for evolution to work (and prove me wrong on this) a single celled oranism would need to write a new piece of genetic ...continued....
actually it does you numb nuts evolutionists use evolution to describe how every thing came from the big bang how exploding stars evolve into dust disk and the dust groups together via gravity and stars form from the gases and the planets start rotating around the heavier objects then the planets form layers then the layers somehow allow for a piece of goo to turn into a cell then that cell ....continued....
Evolution deals with biological change. Anyone who bothered to actually read Darwin's "Origin of Species", any work on the neo-Darwinian Synthesis, or any work on EvoDevo would know that.
You are confusing evolution - which deals only with biological change - with naturalism, which would encompass everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of life to the evolution of life.
heres how evidence for evolution work. This is very simple stuff which anyone of you will understand but im sure you will still argue it. evolution says that one thing should evolve from something because as every scientist knows something cant come from nothing. if something had to evolve from something else then where do we start from??? its a paradox. the theory of evolution voids itself out. there would be no beginning because things would be evolving for infinity
@DNAunion dude just think about it if evolution was correct then where did the first thing come from you moron?!! if something wasnt created then how the frick did it get here to start evolving in the first place??hmmm hmmmm? and no i dont fuck tards
@Ruminati You havent learnt both "systems", You can only experience God by being a christian, the prayers god has answered for me, the times where hes comforted me in times of sadness. I KNOW hes real, do you really think the thousands of christians in this world are mad?
@markballantineboi Do you really think the thousands of believers in Allah in this world are mad? If you do, you are a hypocrite with the line you just used...laughable.
@Ruminati They are not christians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is a completely different belief!!!!!!! There not mad, just wrong, your an idiot to say i was a hypocrite! plz explain in wat way!? You have missunderstood wat i said obviously.
@markballantineboi Also, I was baptized at birth. Therefore, by your logic, I have once "experienced god." All I have to say that if there is a divine creator, it sure as hell isn't portrayed accurately by any religion I've ever heard of.
@Ruminati NO YOU HAVE NOT!!!!!!! By being baptized, does not mean you have experienced God, you are not a christian, therefore being baptized is just as good as taking a shower. Thats because its human nature to deny it and you probably havent read it.
@markballantineboi Sorry for butting in. I don't think thousands of Christians are mad. But I am sure that they shut off their logic and reasoning when they begin to talk/think about god. They apply it for every thing else in their life and work except for religion/god. That is why there are smart people who believe in dumb things. It is pretty much the same for all religions.
let me get this straight evolution is right because the worlds leading scientists all grouped together and decided that the theory of evolution is fact because they found fossils and took similarities from one and another and called it evidence?? hmm so a group of people calling something evidence makes it true?? sorry but best guess is all it is nothing more then that. i promise all of you that in 20 years the theories will change dramatically they always do.
1. Evolution is a slow process and it's gonna take quiet a bit of time to see any genuine changes in any animal. However, we have observed evolution on the micro level. Look it up.
Answer: Your understanding of evolution is fairly poor. You will never see a "mix" between one animal and another. We evolved from ape like ancestors. Look in the fossil record.
3. Evolution does not and has never attempted to explain how life originated. That's abiogenesis.
@NedamoHrvatskuI dont really care about the "micro level" animals cannot create stuff that make them better, that is what evolution is based on, they can "evolve" by losing stuff, this however is not evolving
I wasnt asking for a half camel half bear,i was asking y,if there are humans r ther still apes, Wat hapened to them, was theyre growth stunted or have i been misstaken and ther just realy hairy retard humans
U cant read because i clearly stated "do you beleive in the bigbang?" b4 the QU
Showing your ignorance of evolution.. KEEP IT UP!!!
Evolution does not have to be "progressive", with increasing complexity. Any change in allele frequencies in a population is evolution. Manatee ancestors and whale ancestors losing their hind limbs is evolution; cave fish losing functioning eyes is evolution; human ancestors losing their postanal tail is evolution.
You do accept them? So you accept that all of the numerous other adapatations that occurred in them (such as in the evolutionary origin of whales from 4-legged land mammals) also occured naturally ... right?
"i was asking y, if there are humans r ther still apes"
Good God man, you can't be serious! Not that stupid old question, which has been answered over and over again, and is so lame that only the completely idiotic could even think to ask it.
STFU until you know at least the bare minimum about evolution, okay, dumbass?
Why have you not answered my questions about manatee hipsockets and Archaeopteryx? Do you need me to post them again, or will you run from them again like you have so far?
these arguments i havent even heard of b4, there are millions of flaws in elevolution, the theory is adapted or changed to suit one arguement and then changed again to suit another. The bible has no flaws, i challenge you to try and find some. The bible is gods word, god is perfect, his book cant be wrong.
I have a few question btw,
Why are monkeys not evolving anymore?
Why are there no inbetween monkey and humans around?
Do you beleive in the big bang? if so how can life come from an explosion?
@DrMontague OHHHH TOUCHE no im not actually i have open ears to listen to evolutionists, i have and concluded that other creationist are right, how is that ignorant.
btw its very hard to research a thoery when the thoery keeps changing!
@DrMontague im not asking you to dance, HAHAHAHA i love that you keep comenting total crap, and you call youself a doctor!!! THE IRONY IS THAT A MONKEY IS SMARTER THAN YOU!!!
In order to intentionally plant fake evidence of evolution??? Do you worship the Great Deceiver?
MACROevolution explains the facts about manatees (and a slew of other "biological oddities") easily and in a non-ad hoc manner. But as you have just shown, you answer is completely ad hoc. That makes MACROevolution the better explanation.
@DNAunion God made them that way for a purpose, or just because he felt like it, There does not have to be an explanation. No I dont, who are we to question why he has done things the way there are!
People have created an explanation for manatees
The better explanation? who cares that it is better, its still not right. God made the world in a week, not in a million, trillion whatever years.. FACT
You are so stupid. I have given the Supreme Council of Magical Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns a bunch of carrots in the hopes that they will open your eyes and bless you with their infinite wisdom and truth.
@DNAunion What you have just stated is not evolution it is an example of degeneration, the manatee has not gained limbs, it has lost them.It is still a manatee. I can cut off my arm, but this is not evolution i am still a human.
1) It IS evolution, you are just too f'ing stupid to realize that. You obviously have no idea what evolution is: stop listening to f'tarded Creationists and start reading science.
2) Manatees didn't lose their legs, dumbass. Read what I wrote. Manatee ANCESTORS had 4 fullsize limbs; later, manatee ANCESTORS had 4 limbs but with the hind 2 reduced. There is no "still a manatee" about it. You are just parroting Creationist bull$h!t, merely filling in the blank.
can you please link the evidence for macro evolution? i searched the species you mentioned in sciencedaily and sciencemag and i didnt get any result..
adirtuval 4 days ago
Nope there have been none legit unquestioned intermediate human/monkey species found.
christiananswers(dot)net/q-aig/aig-c029(dot)html
this was the first site i saw... there are tons of others
seeheers 3 weeks ago in playlist Favourites
I liked this video better when it had the old music.
9009Hayden 1 month ago
Awesome, and its funny that you end the video with "think", cause I really doubt they would do that.
shadowknigth94 2 months ago
@shadowknigth94 Hahahaha I love you. I really think I love you.
elnoraemily 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
Examples of good mutation ....HIV becoming resistant to drugs .... o.O .. ..hmp...thats very.....good ?
IvanderHaisley 3 months ago
@IvanderHaisley It is good for HIV's survival.
SaudiPseudonym 2 months ago
@IvanderHaisley nature doesn't discriminate between groups of related individuals. (species) if some get the chance to survive, then good for them. if another learns to avoid being eaten, that's also good. even if other "groups" of life forms die. they just weren't fast enough.
so it's possible, though improbable, to have a lethal virus evolve against us. but we're likely to evolve at a proportional speed and escape the threat.
it's a never-ending contest of reproduction. that's life.
pcdsgh 2 months ago
@IvanderHaisley
for HIV, it's freaking awesome. although, virus' as a whole are in a weird spot since they arent technically alive.
pyr666 2 months ago
@IvanderHaisley
it is good for the HIV virus as we cant kill it with drugs
ageofkz 1 month ago in playlist evolution vs creationsim
This has been flagged as spam show
@IvanderHaisley if you want an example of good mutation in human being, one classical example is heterozygous trait for sickle cell and its relation to malaria. The other is mutations on the receptors of T-cells that render certain human populations more resistance to HIV infection. These are all well-studied already, a simple google will give you more info.
Casshyr 1 month ago
Wow! You rock man! Nice video! You have helped me counter creationist nonsense easily! Thanks a lot again!
pleasantleethedragon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennisAnnalyst you should feel bad becouse your Imaginary gone whith the wind. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits
this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail,
whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and
over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of
one group
There is no Evolution, ((but)) that does not means that the Bible is true
Findsomthingright 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
achilles197474 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
Comment removed
renski1792 4 months ago
Comment removed
renski1792 4 months ago
Comment removed
renski1792 4 months ago
How does a creature evolve into something else when they don't have any information in their genes to evolve, say from a reptile into a bird? Where do the genes get this information?
Kurio71 4 months ago
@Kurio71 The information isn't taken from somewhere else. The existing information is changed.
Hannaitlyn 4 months ago
@Kurio71
It does not have to do with adding information or removing information. That's all called "mutations". They happen when an organism is created. The existing information changes.
justforflag2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't even try to reason with the monkey people, they are not made in the image of God like we are! As a man thinketh so is he says God. So let them be the monkey people who are descended from monkeys, lower beings who lack the cognitive ability or desire to know and see God! Lower beings simply can not know God, only higher beings can do this. Poor things.
tot792 4 months ago
Excellent video. Excellent music. Please continue the good work. One day it will pay off.
notnilccm 4 months ago
@hu150 I am not talking about a creature already alive, I'm talking about the simplest creature, the prime 'link' if you will, it is necessary that this creature have all the necessary DNA for life, you may be right about what happens after a creature is alive, DNA may sit around and not be harmful, but for the first creature all must be at one time, which mathematically impossible.
MrThomaswill 4 months ago
CDK007, I love your video's, but you may want to check out a different free video editor to get that watermark off of your vids. CNET gave this one a great review yesterday: PhotoStage Slideshow Producer. Please keep up the great work.
Firmanator09 5 months ago
In reality you only have examples of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution which is the most controversial and impossible. Your reason number seven is inadequate as well. The steps idea has some credence. However, you cannot say that one piece of DNA is beneficial so its just sitting around surviving all alone, neither two pieces, or three, they must appear at once (at least to a certain level of complexity) they cannot appear in steps, they will not be a living being. I could go on, but alas...
MrThomaswill 5 months ago
@MrThomaswill that's it, your comment proves the flying spaghetti monster, hail!!!
Silkenos 4 months ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
@MrThomaswill But alas you'd be wrong. DNA can exist and do nothing as long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on teh chances of an animal surviving to have offspring so it is perfectly possible for a genetic mutation to occur and not be any more "useful" until other mutations occur - and this has been demonstrated.
hu150 4 months ago
You brought up the issue that the supposed 'examples' of evolution are in fact the specification of the same 'kinds'. Your only response was extremely inadequate, that "well kinds change". The reality is that we have considered monkeys to be monkeys since we first heard of monkeys and we don't call them "quibbles" (or any other name) just because we learn new things about them.
MrThomaswill 5 months ago
thats right , but: It was a gradual chance? or drastic changes took place, and how? Evolutionism doest really explains it all, sorry. and if you want to be called "evolutionist" like a great thing or fashion, its your problem . I try not to be a cosed minded a follower and fanatic.
PQUINTA6 5 months ago
no transsitional forms have been foun in the fosil record I mean FACTS, not drawings.
PQUINTA6 5 months ago
@PQUINTA6 they're not just drawings... They exist, just look em up. Even if there weren't any fossils, evolution would stand up with genetic evidence, geological evidence, many different methods of radiometric dating, vestigial structures etc...
Richy15251 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION. ONLY MICRO-EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE IN NATURE, BUT NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION. WHY? TO FIND OUT WHY, PLEASE READ MY INTERNET ARTICLE ON RUSSIA'S PRAVDA NEWS: "WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!" JUST GOOGLE THE TITLE. I DISCUSS NATURAL SELECTION, GENETICS, MUTATIONS, FOSSILS, THE ISSUE OF GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SPECIES. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU.
Mogley52 5 months ago
I dont like the term "Evolutionist", its like "gravatationist" , "QuantumChromodynamicist" or "Atomist"
Evolution, accepted by >90% of Scientists.
QuantumOverlord 6 months ago
@QuantumOverlord
I like the "gravitationist" term. I will now describe myself as a evolugravitationist. Thanks for the idea.
fwine19 5 months ago
Point #10 is just a straw man made by ID supporters.
"Energy can never be created or destroyed"----->Well, then it's actually God that violates the 1st law, not evolution.
P.S. no meaningful / fruitful discussions can be engaged if one lacks the basic knowledge of science
AkasakaS2000 6 months ago
why do u jump over in the first place? cause u have no answer. where did the musicians came from?,i like Ur analogy kkk , if there is no energy there is no universe! where did that energy came from? ur evolution is by itself is highly dependent on cause and effect, if there is no cause for the existence of the universe there is no cause for the existence of evolution!!!!!
smaklilu90 6 months ago
@smaklilu90 The energy came from a singularity but that's a whole other subject.
SuperMrAtheist 4 months ago
@zzrich5
Everything is a guess, dumbass. Some guesses are just more informed than others. In the case of evolution, it's a guess with overwhelming evidence.
taicleis 7 months ago
Fascinating. Those people who believe in mythological accounts of creation won't accept any level of evidence that contradicts their position, but the only hurdle they need to mentally clear to ground their entire set of beliefs on is that it was written in ancient times and adopted by their progenitors as fact when science and evidence-gathering was in its infancy.It's mentally embracing ignorance as an ethos!
donfishmaster 8 months ago
@zzrich5 everything in science is a fact, and if you think that it's all guess work then go ahead, but remember that it was "guess work" that allowed you to make that comment on your computer. the reality is that science is based on the observable and testable: FACTS.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG Even Richard Feynman clearly stated that all science starts with a guess. Maths too starts with a guess to common problems. Simple harmonic motion for example. Modern science is data driven and then try and make sense of it afterwards.
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
WRONG! Science in only an educated GUESS. The key word is guess. All your "Facts" are guesses. Man you people are retarded.
zzrich5 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
@achilles197474 I wonder why so many other scientist disagree with that. Like 99.8% of all scientists. lol
SuperMrAtheist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. Mutations do not drive the engine of evolution. It is a fairy tale.
achilles197474 9 months ago
(continued) land-to-sea transitions and something that defies the crocoduck myth. stop closing your eyes to the evidence around you, don't say that something is wrong simply because you don't understand or know enough about it.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@MySpaige good mutations are good for the survival of the animal that inherited the mutation. the mutation that makes HIV resistant to drugs is good for HIV, and that's why it is beneficial.
@TalmageMacGoulagher what are you talking about? both micro and macro evolution have been observed in the lab and in nature, and DNA backtracking has shown that several animals share common ancestors. darwins theory is well supported by the fossil record as the fossil record is almost complete, including
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG What is your source to state that the fossil record is complete. Which fossil record and what is missing?
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 my sources for the complete fossil record include talkorigins, wikipedia, the greatest show show on earth (a book), as well many others. and the fossil record i'm talking about is that of all of the life predicted in darwins theory. the main ones that are missing are the first form of life, a crocodile/bird transition (although there is some evidence that they share a common ancestor), and the transition between reptiles and the great apes.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG I've just returned from Oxford and looked at the section dealing with Darwinism in the Ashmolean musuem and it stated on the information broad, " No complete fossil record."
TheLogic1010 8 months ago
@TheLogic1010 I've not been and so do not know the context of the sign. However it is true that we have to rely on the fossils we find and, as fossilisation is rare, there are gaps. But of course those gaps continue to shrink.
We all know what a triceratops is but we have never found a complete one.
Google 'How Complete Is The Fossil Record' and see don-lindsay-archive for a brief explanation of the situation.
Huttate1 7 months ago
Why does this music remind me of Final Fantasy boss themes?
BigLundi 9 months ago
Even though this video is rather old, the info is just as valid and relevant today. It's factual and demonstrates that not only are Creationists wrong, their attempts to discredit Evolution is intentionally deceptive, and they lie non-stop!
The people who are guilty of lying and using subterfuge, are the people who are educated on the subject enough to know Evolution is a valid scientific discipline but actually lie to their own people to hide the truth. These "Xians" have no honor, no integrity
Cootabux 10 months ago
That last quote pisses me off. There is no evidence for evolution. You gave no sources of any information in this video, and I can prove everything you talked about to be incorrect.
TalmageMacGoulagher 10 months ago
@TalmageMacGoulagher Go on then.
maxi6116 10 months ago
@maxi6116 If you want to hear it all, send me a message. The character limit frustrates me when I'm trying to argue and I can't write anything else.
TalmageMacGoulagher 10 months ago
At the end are examples of good mutations:
1 - HIV becoming resistant to drugs
2 - Bactieria becoming resistant to antibiotics
3 - Insects becoming resistant to DDT
Though I agree with everything said up to that point, I don't understand how these three examples can be described as 'good mutations! Those are 3 of the worst case scenarios of something mutating into something worse. Any disease, or carrier of disease, which mutates to make a therapy ineffective isn't 'good' in my opinion.
Kingscrib 10 months ago
@Kingscrib They're "good" mutations from the point of view of the evolving organism.
Whilst it's "bad" for us that they have developed resistance to our means of exterminating them, it's "good" for them, as these adaptations improve their survival chances.
Really, this is why we shouldn't really use such loaded words as "good" and "bad" - but the terminology here is defined by the creationists. They're the ones talking of "good" mutations and the answer is just framed in their language.
KlaxonCow 10 months ago
Those "good" mutations are actually examples of bad mutuations. How is HIV becoming resistant to drugs good? That makes it harder to treat, which is just fantastic if you have HIV! lol. And how is bacteria becoming resistant to drugs good? That just creates a need for more drugs and also makes diseases harder to treat, once again that's just great for the sufferers, knowing that evolution is so good and all. Lol. But you have good taste in music!
MySpaige 10 months ago
@MySpaige
I also noticed that in his examples these mutations were bad for us, but you probably realize his point is that these mutations were good for the organisms that have them. The whole point is that evolution through natural selection allows organisms to become better adapted to their environments.
VirologistTim 10 months ago
@VirologistTim You're right. I was loking at it from the wrong perspective. Evolution is about the organism adapting. And adapt they did. Thanks I needed that! :)
Kingscrib 10 months ago
@MySpaige The mutation is good for the bacteria. This is a simple example of a positive trait, but it is easy to document and observe, because bacteria are such simple organisms and antibiotic resistance happens all the time.
godlynessdog 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a creationist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses..
accident777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a creationist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses.
accident777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a creatonist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses.
accident777 11 months ago
Solid state overdrive tones suck ... Hence, so does "Boston" ... (not the city, Boston, MA ROCKS!!!)
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
As a creatonist, I think this guy has some interesting points. The problem though is that he's clearly living in fairy land as the video progresses.
accident777 11 months ago
@accident777 - Please, by all means, point out what you think is wrong & why . I would be glad to correct your misunderstandings & show you what's wrong with your thinking ...
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
...well as far as proving a theory to be true, the scientific method, for the allowance of our human lack of infinite wisdom, will never deem a hypothesis turned theory turned very plausible theory, fact but will induct it into what we can call the theoretical hall of fame and declare it a law like the Law of Gravity or of Thermodynamics, etc. This is not to say there is no such thing as scientific truth, but merely that we humans are sort of arse-backing our way and don't grasp it all at once.
WhinterSong 11 months ago
@WhinterSong - Do you understand that in terms of a "hierarchy of truth" , a theory takes a higher place than a fact ? A theory is a composition ... A theory is composed entirely of facts.
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket A theory is still subject to change and tweaking whereas a fact is an absolute truth that we can definitively stack a house of cards on. I will grant that there are great advantages to theories, that these awesome assumptions can help us, but let's not take it to the extreme that a theory is in some way 'more true' than a fact. A theory, after all, can be wrong in whole or in part. A fact is a definite that cannot be altered. We use facts to disprove/alter theories.
WhinterSong 11 months ago
@WhinterSong -Facts are by no means absolute. The only absolute truths are logical absolutes. It is the application of this logic applied to a number of facts that leads to a greater truth. Facts are the constituent parts of theories. Facts consist merely of raw data. The greater truth is only to be found in theories. Theories are not "grand assumptions". They are the greater truth that allows to see further beyond the raw data of facts ...
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Are you arguing that there're no absolutes? (absolutely none?) Like, the apple may not have fallen from the tree and hit Newton in the head? If it did, then=fact. What we can infer from it (theory) is gravity (Yay!). If it did not, that'd be a fact too but wouldn't mean anything at all, except Newton probably wouldn't have a gravity tale. Hey, theories=good. I like theories, but again, facts are definite lines in the sand that help corral the wandering ideas and make 'em better.
WhinterSong 11 months ago
@WhinterSong - No, I'm only saying the only absolutes are logical absolutes .
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
@garyzenuf I see your point, but I do not agree that it's that black and white. No theories are false once they are disproved, they were simply replaced by a more true theory. Take the newton Einstein example... Newton's theory was true in how it was applied, but simply did not work at speeds approaching that of light, or at the atomic scale. This does not make his theory false, but simply makes relativity and quantum mechanics more true. Not everything is either true or false, grey areas exist
Indiecrafter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
themiraclesonearth 11 months ago
@garyzenuf ...just a fact...
The ultimate goal of any theory is when applying the true scientific method it withstands such vigorous scrutiny and as a result, becomes accepted FACT!
Thus your statement demonstrates that you are of the company who are simply enamored and satisfied with a given theory and therefore remain stuck in the theoretical.
Theories are a dime a dozen, it's the FACTS that count for tangible progress!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
@cdk007................Gravity is a theory?
You will lose most people in the very beginning of your video! Gravity is a Fact!
Not a theory anymore!
hayomtov7 1 year ago
atheists still mad that their proof can't touch god, what else is new?
Pigziggy 1 year ago
@Pigziggy
Not really. We don't seek to actively disprove God. We don't give a fuck, really. We just don't believe in any god because of the total lack of evidence for anything supernatural. But even if we're wrong about that, evolution still happens.
quasarsphere 9 months ago
@quasarsphere very good point sir! evolution still happens everyday, any logical person would say that. However as i always say, we could be wrong about certain early evolution elements.
cgholds 9 months ago
@quasarsphere Thanks for your reply to @Pigziggy. You hit the nail on the head.
ndrthrdr1 8 months ago
@EvolvedSkeptic Re-read your remarks with as much honesty as you can muster (which I know will be extremely little) and you'll see why you're an "AVOID" clown. You lie through your teeth! You're hostile and mocking and yet you claim "isolation" from me? Such arrogant deceit. You're an ass and a liar. I've convinced you of NOTHING. You're a mocker and a fool and you relish conflict instead of understanding. Live in your delusion; you don't have enough character for anyone to enjoy an exchange.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Lol. All the picture this person showed were of different species. everything shown was different species only with fairly similar features. What us Christians need is a slow transitioning record with small changes(not fabricated). Plus you guys gotta disprove the flood of noah otherwise your fossil record would be a giant graveyard dating back to roughly 4400 years ago.
wertguy12000 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic You've already proven Scriptures true: Pro 9:7 He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.
It's a shame that you don't have the investigative skills to distinguish the difference between "scientific knowledge," lies, religious nonsense and a con because you call them all "the entire body of scientific knowledge."
Your playing the fools will cost us all more than you realize.
You're blocked.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher LOL you post this scripture about correcting a scoffer gets you dishonor ..then you go and do it LOL you post And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. then you insult the guy when he reproved you.
LOL talk about missing the point maybe you should pick another book...Classic just classic.
alltiedup217 1 year ago
@EvolvedSkeptic Proof of the pudding...
Pro 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Pro 14:6 A scoffer seeks wisdom, and finds none, But knowledge is easy to him who has understanding.
Pro 15:12 A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, He will not go to the wise.
Pro 21:24 "Proud," "Haughty," "Scoffer," are his names, Who acts with insolent pride.
Pro 24:9 The devising of folly is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Good video. But I dont completely understand the first law of thermodynamics arguments. THe first law states that the change in internal energy = work done on system + transfer of heat in and out of the system. How to creationists try to claim evolution violates this?
forteandcompany 1 year ago
@forteandcompany They use a simplified version of the 1st Law, making it "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." They then claim that evolution requires the creation of new organs, tissues or "information" out of nothing.
All in all, it is a horribly worded straw man based on a complete lack of study of biology and physics. It doesn't make sense to anyone with any form of scientific background, so I'm sorry if my attempt to explain their horrible argument only lead to more confusion.
lhvinny 1 year ago
this is garbage
Pitzikata 1 year ago
You've actually left out the #1 reason. It is:
1. Because we don't want to face God because we don't want to be accountable for our behavior.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
nicely done.
carllarsen 1 year ago
wolves to dogs
gHostHeroin 1 year ago
Imagine a world where only the creatonists point of view got shown.Would we all end up believing their crap,scary thought.
Whatever4690 1 year ago
Most fool-proof, direct and to-the-point video I've seen on the topic, which is exactly what you need when dealing with foolish questions...
seekhtruth 1 year ago
@seekhtruth Don't forget the excellent music and visualizations.
RevonZZ 1 year ago
549 people are willfully stone cold stupid.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
549 people are stone-cold-stupid.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
God damn that original version fo corn sure looks revolting
d3p3ch3mod3 1 year ago
It's not about if you don't have it you die. At the beginning, no cell had developed the mecanism to analyse light. Some had the ability to take light and produce energy without using photosynthesis. Many bacterias had this mechanism. Genes can be kept dormant within the genome and not being used. However if a mutation occurs in the operon region of some proteins, this may be sufficient for the cell to start producing the dormant gene. And if it happens to be light receptors, then you get an eye
Flem1337 1 year ago
Thank you for these videos!
Jcm9991 1 year ago
great post!
orbitalsatellite 1 year ago
so how do we know for sure that all these examples of evolution are not actually fully formed species of their own and not a link in a chain? and the probability of winning the lottery...you forget that if you do not get it right the first time then you die...and the photo sensitive cell, you cant start with the fully formed cell to make the eye you have to start with the pieces of that cell or explain how the cell evolved to know the difference of light and dark....
courtneybelcher 1 year ago
@courtneybelcher Bacteriodopsins. Awesome little proteins that use light and produce energy. They actually happen to be fairly close to other opsins, like rodopsin, which is the protein that causes the cid-trans modification of retanoic acid in your eye.
Cells with lots of these are what let you see. The difference is that in one case the bacteria uses it for energy, when in the other case its produced by a neuron cell, allowing a chemical change to be produced within the cell.
Flem1337 1 year ago
@courtneybelcher if all the transitional fossils we found were their own species there would be an uncomprehensible amount of species on the planet in the begining. something like 100,000 times as many species there are now. plus how come we dont find any modern animals in the ancient fossil record?
D4K0T4375 1 year ago
Comment removed
kerriandkids 1 year ago
Comment removed
kerriandkids 1 year ago
Comment removed
kerriandkids 1 year ago
Illogical video. Mutations are copying errors, mistakes. Complex information system are not improved by copying errors. Secondly, in real life genomes contain genes that repair mutations to keep them from debilitating the offspring. If the Primary Axiom, mutations plus natural selection to improve the species was correct, this safeguard against mutations would not be needed. The video is a joke.
achilles1974 1 year ago
@achilles1974 Just because you can find this in answersingenesis doesn't make it logical, and it certainly doesn't make it science. You need to define both "information" and "improvement" and you also need to include the concept of "preferential selection" along with those "random errors". To argue about the idoneity of evolutionary theory, you need to represent it correctly, as it is actually postulated. Otherwise, you're simply imagining your own personal bogeyman for target practice.
alfuentesev 1 year ago
@alfuentesev Are you saying that you do not understand what a copying error is or that you cannot grasp the concept of genes which repair mutations so that they are not passed onto offspring? If these concepts are too difficult to understand, get a good book on genetics, like Genetic Entropy by John Sanford of Cornell University. Learn the concepts and then perhaps you'll post something intelligible and coherent.
achilles1974 1 year ago
@achilles1974 Insulting people doesn't make you right, and says very little for your debating skills. You still don't define your terms (a basic tenet in science) such as what you mean by "information" and what you'd consider an "improvement". As for "concepts too difficult to understand", that's another failed argument - if you aren't capable of explaining your arguments simply and clearly, then perhaps you yourself don't understand them (but simply cut and paste ideas from AIG). Adioooos.
alfuentesev 1 year ago
Brilliant and so true. The sooner we get rid of religion the better off mankind.
stevjen1 1 year ago
Thanks, helped with a report.
ntv2104 1 year ago
There mere fact that animals and simple bacteria developed natural defenses against toxins proves evolution is possible. If evolution is the inheritance of traits then by definition this is evolution.
anothermishap 1 year ago
@anothermishap For all of you organized religion types that think proper grammar is the best defensive argument in the world, figured I should state the fact I have noticed my typo by accidentally spelling 'The' as 'There.'
vphokis 1 year ago
For the Tetrapod evolution, do you mind using actual pictures instead of drawings?
Thanks.
repticman123 1 year ago
Nice comparison with the skulls to human skulls...know what else they look like even more than human skulls? Ape skulls! In your next video why don't you make the comparison between horse skulls and dog skulls? They are similar in appearance but completely different overall. You say creationists make assumptions without evidence? Making assumptions isn't scientific law. Same with the artists who gradually decrease the amount of hair on ancient apes to make them look more human. Assumption
jp284008 1 year ago
@jp284008
Humans are apes.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
code. show me one scientific example that shows a possible mutation that causes new genetic code to be written scientific model please thats what science is. its not saying because something is similar makes it related thats called guessing.
meh5meh 1 year ago
@meh5meh
‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Comment removed
meh5meh 1 year ago
starts writting code to turn itself into a more complex cell and so on and so on until now but funny enough cant seem to use there all mighty science to go further awww. my point is that based on all the so called evidence that evolutionist put down today not one shows me that new genetic information wether it be mutationLOL or not can be written on its own for evolution to work (and prove me wrong on this) a single celled oranism would need to write a new piece of genetic ...continued....
meh5meh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meh5meh
Two of several natural processes that can add new genetic information to genomes are:
(1) gene or segmental duplication followed by divergence
(2) exon (or domain) shuffling
Educate yourself.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@meh5meh ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.
We see new information in microbes daily.
gamesbok 1 year ago
actually it does you numb nuts evolutionists use evolution to describe how every thing came from the big bang how exploding stars evolve into dust disk and the dust groups together via gravity and stars form from the gases and the planets start rotating around the heavier objects then the planets form layers then the layers somehow allow for a piece of goo to turn into a cell then that cell ....continued....
meh5meh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meh5meh
Nope. wrong.
Evolution deals with biological change. Anyone who bothered to actually read Darwin's "Origin of Species", any work on the neo-Darwinian Synthesis, or any work on EvoDevo would know that.
You are confusing evolution - which deals only with biological change - with naturalism, which would encompass everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of life to the evolution of life.
DNAunion 1 year ago
heres how evidence for evolution work. This is very simple stuff which anyone of you will understand but im sure you will still argue it. evolution says that one thing should evolve from something because as every scientist knows something cant come from nothing. if something had to evolve from something else then where do we start from??? its a paradox. the theory of evolution voids itself out. there would be no beginning because things would be evolving for infinity
meh5meh 1 year ago
@meh5meh
You are quite the fucktard, aren't you.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion dude just think about it if evolution was correct then where did the first thing come from you moron?!! if something wasnt created then how the frick did it get here to start evolving in the first place??hmmm hmmmm? and no i dont fuck tards
meh5meh 1 year ago
@meh5meh
Evolution doesn't deal with "where did the first things come from".
An education could do wonders for you.
DNAunion 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ruminati 1 year ago
@Ruminati You havent learnt both "systems", You can only experience God by being a christian, the prayers god has answered for me, the times where hes comforted me in times of sadness. I KNOW hes real, do you really think the thousands of christians in this world are mad?
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi Do you really think the thousands of believers in Allah in this world are mad? If you do, you are a hypocrite with the line you just used...laughable.
Ruminati 1 year ago
@Ruminati They are not christians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is a completely different belief!!!!!!! There not mad, just wrong, your an idiot to say i was a hypocrite! plz explain in wat way!? You have missunderstood wat i said obviously.
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi Also, I was baptized at birth. Therefore, by your logic, I have once "experienced god." All I have to say that if there is a divine creator, it sure as hell isn't portrayed accurately by any religion I've ever heard of.
Ruminati 1 year ago
@Ruminati NO YOU HAVE NOT!!!!!!! By being baptized, does not mean you have experienced God, you are not a christian, therefore being baptized is just as good as taking a shower. Thats because its human nature to deny it and you probably havent read it.
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi Sorry for butting in. I don't think thousands of Christians are mad. But I am sure that they shut off their logic and reasoning when they begin to talk/think about god. They apply it for every thing else in their life and work except for religion/god. That is why there are smart people who believe in dumb things. It is pretty much the same for all religions.
hailtheempire 1 year ago
let me get this straight evolution is right because the worlds leading scientists all grouped together and decided that the theory of evolution is fact because they found fossils and took similarities from one and another and called it evidence?? hmm so a group of people calling something evidence makes it true?? sorry but best guess is all it is nothing more then that. i promise all of you that in 20 years the theories will change dramatically they always do.
meh5meh 1 year ago
@meh5meh HERE HERE thank you for that!
markballantineboi 1 year ago
1. Evolution is a slow process and it's gonna take quiet a bit of time to see any genuine changes in any animal. However, we have observed evolution on the micro level. Look it up.
Answer: Your understanding of evolution is fairly poor. You will never see a "mix" between one animal and another. We evolved from ape like ancestors. Look in the fossil record.
3. Evolution does not and has never attempted to explain how life originated. That's abiogenesis.
NedamoHrvatsku 1 year ago
@NedamoHrvatskuI dont really care about the "micro level" animals cannot create stuff that make them better, that is what evolution is based on, they can "evolve" by losing stuff, this however is not evolving
I wasnt asking for a half camel half bear,i was asking y,if there are humans r ther still apes, Wat hapened to them, was theyre growth stunted or have i been misstaken and ther just realy hairy retard humans
U cant read because i clearly stated "do you beleive in the bigbang?" b4 the QU
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
Showing your ignorance of evolution.. KEEP IT UP!!!
Evolution does not have to be "progressive", with increasing complexity. Any change in allele frequencies in a population is evolution. Manatee ancestors and whale ancestors losing their hind limbs is evolution; cave fish losing functioning eyes is evolution; human ancestors losing their postanal tail is evolution.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion OK then, so some things you have labelled as"evolution" i believe in. Yah!
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
You do accept them? So you accept that all of the numerous other adapatations that occurred in them (such as in the evolutionary origin of whales from 4-legged land mammals) also occured naturally ... right?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
"i was asking y, if there are humans r ther still apes"
Good God man, you can't be serious! Not that stupid old question, which has been answered over and over again, and is so lame that only the completely idiotic could even think to ask it.
STFU until you know at least the bare minimum about evolution, okay, dumbass?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion BAHAHAHAHA I was merely asking cuz ive never heard an answer, ok?
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
Why have you not answered my questions about manatee hipsockets and Archaeopteryx? Do you need me to post them again, or will you run from them again like you have so far?
DNAunion 1 year ago
PS human nature is to deny anything that is against what you believe, plz have an open mind and listen to creationists opinions.
markballantineboi 1 year ago
these arguments i havent even heard of b4, there are millions of flaws in elevolution, the theory is adapted or changed to suit one arguement and then changed again to suit another. The bible has no flaws, i challenge you to try and find some. The bible is gods word, god is perfect, his book cant be wrong.
I have a few question btw,
Why are monkeys not evolving anymore?
Why are there no inbetween monkey and humans around?
Do you beleive in the big bang? if so how can life come from an explosion?
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi You need to to research evolutionary theory because you are pig headed ignorant
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague OHHHH TOUCHE no im not actually i have open ears to listen to evolutionists, i have and concluded that other creationist are right, how is that ignorant.
btw its very hard to research a thoery when the thoery keeps changing!
ps whyd you block me, Scared?
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi I don't entertain retards.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague im not asking you to dance, HAHAHAHA i love that you keep comenting total crap, and you call youself a doctor!!! THE IRONY IS THAT A MONKEY IS SMARTER THAN YOU!!!
markballantineboi 1 year ago
Comment removed
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
Why do manatees - fully aquatic mammals with no hind limbs - have rudimentary pelvises and even vestigial hipsockets?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion If they do, and ill be honest im not a manatee expert, its because God made them that way.
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
WHY?
In order to intentionally plant fake evidence of evolution??? Do you worship the Great Deceiver?
MACROevolution explains the facts about manatees (and a slew of other "biological oddities") easily and in a non-ad hoc manner. But as you have just shown, you answer is completely ad hoc. That makes MACROevolution the better explanation.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion God made them that way for a purpose, or just because he felt like it, There does not have to be an explanation. No I dont, who are we to question why he has done things the way there are!
People have created an explanation for manatees
The better explanation? who cares that it is better, its still not right. God made the world in a week, not in a million, trillion whatever years.. FACT
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
Who are we to question? People who want to get as close to the truth as possible. If you prefer delusion, so be it.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion you are so blind, im praying for you
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
You are so stupid. I have given the Supreme Council of Magical Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns a bunch of carrots in the hopes that they will open your eyes and bless you with their infinite wisdom and truth.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
So you have no good explanation: just, "God did it this way, which perfectly mimics evolution"? So you worship The Great Deceiver.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
No, silly goose, the Genesis Creation Myth is scientifically refuted in at least 4 different ways.
Creation is not "FACT", far from it. It is ancienty mythology, developed by scientifically ignorant, vastly superstitious men
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion Evolution is ancienty mythology, developed by scientifically ignorant, vastly superstitious men
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
Now, add to those 2 evidences of the MACROevolutionary origin of manatees these facts.
3. We have found fossils of manatee ancestors that have 4 full-sized limbs.
4. We have found more-recent fossils of manatee ancestors that have 4 limbs, but where the hind 2 limbs were reduced in size.
5. We have found even-more-recent fossils where there are no hind limbs.
So why has your God gone out of His way to fake all of this evidence of manatees having evolved????
DNAunion 1 year ago
@DNAunion What you have just stated is not evolution it is an example of degeneration, the manatee has not gained limbs, it has lost them.It is still a manatee. I can cut off my arm, but this is not evolution i am still a human.
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
1) It IS evolution, you are just too f'ing stupid to realize that. You obviously have no idea what evolution is: stop listening to f'tarded Creationists and start reading science.
2) Manatees didn't lose their legs, dumbass. Read what I wrote. Manatee ANCESTORS had 4 fullsize limbs; later, manatee ANCESTORS had 4 limbs but with the hind 2 reduced. There is no "still a manatee" about it. You are just parroting Creationist bull$h!t, merely filling in the blank.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi
By the way, then you have no problem with manatees "arising" (I won't use the word evolve here) from their 4-legged land-mammal ancestors.
Then you should not have a problem with whales and dolphins having arisen from their 4-legged land-mammal ancestors.
And you should have no problem with snakes having arisen from their 4-legged lizard ancestors.
Right?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@markballantineboi Proof of these claims?
Btw, books are not proof. If the bible is proof, then Harry Potter is proof of wizards.
Aecial 1 year ago