@ o0zeroeffect0o "watch as they turn on dormant genes and have the embryo grow pointy teeth or a tail from its dinosaur ancestors..." No they haven't - that is what they want to do. Injecting cells into embryo's of a different species isn't a new thing, although it hasn't been done with dinosaur cells before. So... somewhere between your ignorance and the speed at which you shot your mouth off, I've actually missed the point as to why this is relevant to the discussion...
This sucks. Fuck that fishes. I wanna live and breath in the ocean, it's so much fun. Never mind, there's still a chance, I'll go swim around for millions of generation so that my future generations can turn into orca.
@Ryakki My comments have not promoted myself at all, nor are they "obviously" false (obvious to you maybe?). In fact, they have been born out of many years of study, and reflect the latest technical knowledge. Obviously this is not the place for debate or intense technical discussions - I have presented what I could in the space I have. You're just another person who is quick to attack yet offer no relevant information. Come back when you know something about the topic...
@ MomoTheBellyDancer You obviously have no technical knowledge about this topic; all you have managed to do is attack without offering anything to the discussion. Look at the context; the discussion is about macro-evolution (not the micro-evolution we observe) and my argument is framed on observed increase in genetic information which is required for your theory, but not proven. Read my posts and answer maturely if you can. And, btw, my information is not sourced from creation websites
You make things up which defies even the most basic understanding of the subject... or copy it from creationist websites. Either way, you refuse to learn about the subject, only spout ridiculous self-promoting, obviously false nonsense. If you go and learn a bit about the subject, and then make some intelligent comments, people might actually debate you, instead of brushing you aside.
@Vardy7 holy cow you're stupid. if you really want to know what evolution is look up the video "turning a chicken into a dinosaur" or dinosaur chicken. and watch as they turn on dormant genes and have the embryo grow pointy teeth or a tail from its dinosaur ancestors.
@CHAS1422 You also need to reconsider ring species as a 'modern understanding' of evolution. Ring species are an example of loss of genetic information, not evolution (which requires gain). Simply put, as living things mutate, they lose genetic information. There has never been an observed increase in information resulting from mutations. Just because certain types of salamanders can't interbreed, doesn't mean there is a new species being formed – they are still salamanders.
@Vardy7 "There has never been an observed increase in information resulting from mutations." Your information is simply wrong. Look up for example TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA.
"Simply put, as living things mutate, they lose genetic information."
No, this is not what happens. Why do you think we should care about your opinions about evolution, when you clearly don't know the slightest thing about it? Do some research, learn some stuff and then come back. Tip: don't get your information from creationist websites, lest you'll be making a fool of yourself like you're doing right now.
@ CHAS1422 Ernst Mayr (2001), the so-called Darwin of the 20th Century said this...“[re:evolution], one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants... Instead, he or she [the palaeontologist] finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” So much for phylogenetics & the continuity of fossil evidence! The phylogenetic charts themselves debunk evolution with all their gaps. And you call this an understanding of how modern evolution works?
@jbkgjbkg apparently when faced with a discussion beyond the intelligence of the species, a lesser evolved member will resort to mindless attacks via name calling, even to the detriment of a good discussion...
@smrphs33 oh, by the way, natural selection is also scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the (fantastical) ideas of beneficial mutation and common ancestry. Claiming that a theory is scientific gives it authority that is not deserved by diminishing the authority of science.
@smrphs33 Number, germ, and gravity theory are all examples of scientific theory - they are all falsifiable. Evolution fails the requirement for falsifiability and is therefore not scientific theory. You should look up what scientific theory is. Empirical evidence gives science credibility. Typically, scientific theory is hypothetico-deductive. Research observations for evolution neither support or challenge observations. Evolution can't be proved right or wrong = not scientific theory.
@Vardy7 You are correct, even the famous Rabbit found in th Pre-Cambrian doesn't falsify evolution. Evolutionist would just claim it evolved earlier than originally thought. The number of discoveries that have destroyed evolution are legion. Yet every time they come up with some explanation and the faithful lap it up. One of the best is is their explanation of how monkees ended up in South America. The actually believe they took rafts. I can't make this stuff up.
@Vardy7 Phylogenetics is fully falsifiable (i.e. inter-relatedness based on molecular evidence), "ring species" is fully falsifiable, and both are modern understandings of how evolution works. There are many other tenets that have passed the test. Every generation is invariably genetically different than the parent generation. This is also falsifiable. The continuity of the fossil record is evidence. Claiming an assertion based on ignorance is a pathetic fail.
@gregrutz "... he had no problem proving evolution...". Hate to burst yr bubble but it's still not proven - that's why it's called a theory. In this context (change in DNA giving rise to new species) you're getting 'new information' mixed up with 'new variant of species'. In reality, meiosis (replication, re-ordering, separation of the cell's genome) does not have the capacity to produce new information, the diversification is due to genes that are already there being changed - no new species
@Vardy7 Look up what a scientific theory is. You seem to think it means a "hunch", yet mathematics is a theory (number theory), the behaviour and existence of bacteria (germ theory) and the gravity theory. Everything which is the best explanation is a theory, but nothing is a completely unquestionable fact in science. Evolution has been proven time and time again, yet one bit of evidence and they have to review the entire theory. There has been no discoveries which contradict evolution so far.
@thediggy7 Yes, there is never new information (= no new species). For a single cell organism to evolve to a dog (eg), new complex ordered information (not random base pairs) would need to develop over time to code for new organs - a mutation of new information (because the information for these things just isn't there) and keep doing it. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn't code for anything then the amount of DNA added is useless and would not be helpful
@gregrutz OK, Natural Selection is the name of the process, mutation is the process - You want to labor on my parapraxis because you still misunderstand the point I am making, also evidenced by your next statement. Change is not always new e.g. Point Mutation (one letter change in the sequence), Inversion Mutation (reversing strand), Insertion Mutation, Deletion Mutation - in all of these, there is no addition of new information, only reordering of the existing information; no new species...
@Vardy7 based on the semantics you are using, there is never "new information.". There is only new mutations which can lead to subtle variations, like nylonase, which over a period of time leads to an organism so different from its ancient ancestor that science declares it a different species.
@TaiFerret. Still not getting it - I am talking about NEW information that wasn't already there, changing one species to another. The nylonase mechanism is simply an adaptation by protein replacement - similar to penicillin resistance - the gene simply produced two different proteins, which indicates adaptation (with a purpose) from pre-existing information. Mutation is not always about accident and chance.
@ Zhvri You misunderstood my point. We have known for years that species adapt to their environment; it's called mutation and, observably, has always involved a change or loss in DNA information (not to be confused with function - a gain in function can obviously be beneficial). As I said, show me proof where there has been a GAIN in information, and where this information is beneficial. Your malaria virus is what it is, and there will never be information added to it to make it grow an arm...
@Vardy7 "As I said, show me proof where there has been a GAIN in information, and where this information is beneficial."
There's a gain in beneficial information if a gene duplication happens and the copy changes and becomes beneficial. A well known example is the evolution of nylonase.
And why is there a lack of video's discussing evolution of gills to lungs? Because it isn't scientific, and fantastical video's like this do nothing more than showcase just how amazing the human imagination is. The scary thing is, people call this science! You called it an explanation. Excuse my proclivity for over simplification but I don't recall seeing the research that shows proof of that new DNA information can ever be added to an organism.
@AndyG792 Observation and interpretation work together, when you look at an everyday object you interpret without even realizing it. Technically he was there, there is here, and we can interpret through observation of what has happened in the past. Evolution is a fact in the term of micro evolution, but that term is only used by Creationists. The theory has been proven in biology since micro evolution has no boundary and turns macro after an extended amount of time.
How do you know what the first microbes did? Have you seen this happening with beginning microbes? If not observed, no one can say what took place the same goes with everything else you state that took place without observing it and having not testable experiment. You are making statements with no scientific foundation.
Being unable to directly observe something does not mean that therefore there's a lack of evidence.
Your argument is based off of "If someone wasn't there to see it, then we can't know". Um, evolution can make predictions based on what we know about it, it's not just blind faith like the Bible. We can actually calculate the process that took place.
For example, we can predict that Pluto has been revolving around the sun every 248yrs but we haven't observed it directly yet.
@shaneclone15 Both the Bible version and the evolution version are 'Faith Based' Neither can be proved and both based on faith. The biggest difference between them is that testable, repeatable, falsifiable and observable indicate that evolution did not take place. Outside of that, it is wishful and hopeful statements that can not be verified outside the minds of the people purporting it. The Bible does prophesy that in the end times, people will worship the creation rather than the creator and
@AndyG792 No there is a big difference. The bible claims supernatural powers. You cant prove the supernatural. You can prove the naturla though which is evolution. And we have observed evolution, some italian wall lizard was relocated to an island 40 years ago, now the descendants from those lizard have a new organ to help digest the new diet, and bigger heads with stronger bites.
This video gives one of the main points of evoloution.....but like everything else we think we know it all. Evoloution is so much more complex than we understand know but it doesn't take a genius too know that everything is evolving around us in infinate ways and on infinate levels. Our solar system evolved from a nebula of gasses. so if we didnt evolve like our solar system then WERE THE FUCK DID ALL THE LIFE ON IT COME FROM? Was there grass and fishes floating about the gasses in space???
So fish saw food on land, and crawl out of the water... what food, now there's no animals on land yet? So vegetation made its way to the land first? Not enough food in the ocean?
there was a problem, so a solution presented itself....that seems to be your formula. This doesnt even make sense in terms of natural selection. words, words, words, but boiled down to idiocy. This video doesn't describe the 'how' of anything. It simply offers what would be a chronology if the claims made any sense.
Didn't lungs evolve out of the swimming bladder? I know some fish transformed their swimming bladder into a lung that they use when hibernating; like if a tide comes in, and there's no water, they bury into the ground and 'turn on' their lung;
@irishbreakfast you'll be dead long before those things evolve into anything; that's if they still get the chance to evolve.... with all the human interference....that might not happen;
@bbphnix im forced to agree.even the bible says well be the last living things left.after the atmoshpere is gone,the oceans dry up,the moon snaps away,and our star blows off its gases,well still be here.well 'evolve' along with the planet,but nothing else can.so no matter what you beleive,the end will be excatly the same!
@bbphnix How long did these loaches, mudskippers, etc. existed and how long would it take for these animals to be evolving to land animals, or do these animals survive evolution? Coelacanth live in the ocean for 400 myrs and did not evolve one bit.
why are religious debates are always in these evolution videos. I used to reject evolution a long time ago. But now i accept evolution. Just ignore the creationists who come here saying that evolution is false. Usually when you start arguing with them, a long argument occurs, people bash each others beliefs, and no one wins. So just ignore them.
hmm did scietntists put these fishes in a place where "there are no predators" and noticed these animals evolving into humans? im ok, they can let this experiment take as many years as they want and if THAT happens (which it never will cuz Allah who created a fish can create millions of different looking and similar looking species just that wasy) then u can have a proof :). not by immagination cuz immagination can take u anyway YOU want to go
@123456789d123456789g You show such ignorance as all do who rely on stone age myths to educate them.
Gods are in the imagination. If yours brings you succur that's great but don't prosthelytize and not expect a rebuke from someone who does not live by superstition alone.
@Huttate1 Honney, as a proof of who is the ignorant here, those "stone age myth" ( im feeling ur refering to statements from the Quoran) that were more than 1400 years old, are just NOW been discovered. that been said, can you tell me who in a time where technology did not exist would have known that people were created from clay, the existing of microscopic life, the miracles of honey, the creation of human beings from water. Still unsure that these and much more were mentioned in the Quoran?
@123456789d123456789g The Qu'ran is simply a rehash of the OT Bible, which transcribed c500BC from stone age myths and and a little history. Show me one scientific theory or fact in either book that has been discovered as true only since they were written.
"And He creates other things you do not know" does not = microscopic life!
People were not created from clay or water!
There are 10,000 year old rock paintings of honey collectors. Humans knew all about honey long before 500BC!
unfortunatly you dont seem to understand evolution. these fish didnt "need " anyting, and the was no response to growing "energy needs".. there is no purpose
It is "soon" in the sense that it is just within a feaction of evolutionary timespan. Kind of like "soon after homo sapiens invented fire, they developed space travel and time machines" ;)
DONT use the phrase "SOON (after)" like in this video. It is confusing, misleading and borderline incorrect. More than this, it is watter on the mills of IDiots.
What is referred to here as "soon" is really thousands (maybe millions) of generations. I know that you know this, but the people who need to learn this, might not.
Nothing evolves. There are no vestigial structures. Mudpuppies or waterdogs do not show evolution of fish into land creatures. They are a completely separate creation. They did not evolve. I can go buy some at the pet store. They will never grow any feet. This video is completely false.
@Codenamelumiere That is your argument? That the changes never take place within the same organisim?"well my fishie didnts grow any feets.Evilution gots to be false." look if you don't know much about a subject,DON'T argue with it. I'm serious, save yourself from embarrassment. Plus "nothing evolves" is false.Why do you think we change flu vaccines every year? What other scientific facts do you dissagree with? Do you pray INSTEAD of going to the doctor too?!
@Codenamelumiere Go buy a lot of tangerines with seeds, then swallow all the seeds. When you're back from the hospital, tell me there are no vestigial organs.
@Codenamelumiere- Wow, way to expose your ignorance of the subject and wave it around in front of everyone. So tell me, is this what passes for a good argument in creationist circles or are even they embarrassed for you? Did you pay attention to the beginning of the video at all? Evolution is not like Pokemon; a single individual can't evolve. Evolution is, by definition, a phenomenon of population genetics which means that it must happen over numerous generations.
(cont'd)- We've actually OBSERVED speciation using creatures such as bacteria and fruit flies. The reason we used them is because you get a ton of generations within a very short period and thus changes are easier to observe. What you CAN'T do is buy a fully aquatic fish, plop it on land, and expect its genes to completely change so that it grows legs and lungs instantly. Something like that happening would actually DISPROVE our current understanding of evolutionary biology.
What this video in principle says is that whatever is needed for survival, organisms can somehow intuitively understand, intuitively aim at and gradually construct within themselves, no matter how complicated those constructions may be. That is nothing but a ridiculous assumption. There are no such transitional details to be found in the fossil record that can completely support the idea of a fish gradually evolving into land-living creature.
@mikilavush what?! he says nothing like that, stop putting words in his mouth. THERE ARE THOUSANDS of transitional species available for study, why do you people always say there aren't any fossils?! It's a miracle that we even have these fossils considering how rare the right environment is for a proper formation of a fossil. Go back to reading the bible.
@SunWooz ~ Obviously I did not put anything in his mouth. I wrote about what he IN PRINCIPLE says, that is to say what I consider the content, the meaning, the application of what he says. Neither did I say that there are no fossils. What I obviously meant was that in the fossil record there is such countless an amount of missing links that the idea of a fish evolving into amphibious creature and further on into land-living creature is far from having enough support in the fossil record.
@mikilavush You are right that the way he describes it, make it sound like animals evolve things for a purpose. But I'm sure he didn't intend that, I'm sure he understands that evolution and natural selection doesn't have any "purpose". : )
@winterstellar ~ The recognized concept of evolution is that it is a complex process involving random mutations, struggle for survival and natural selection. Evolutionists in general assume that unfavourable conditions force organisms to find evolutionary solutions to their survival probems, and that is also what this video is about. In my view, however, it is not organisms that change themselves but it is God's omnipresence that makes changes, and those changes never lead to new species.
@mikilavush It isn't governed or directed by anything, it's just shit that happens. And you will not find many leading scientists who believe in your precious god or allah anymore.
@mikilavush God MAY have intended directly on the genetic level, but whether there is a good reason to assume this, I don't know. I'm a bit "in to" genetics and biology, and I don't KNOW of a good reason to think God does. However, there might be some debate on whether the mutations required for modern day complex system, never could have come about given the age of the earth and life itself. This is an intriguing possibility, though it's just speculation... I've not seen this argument proven.
@Stinukli ~ In my christian view, nothing works by itself. Everything from microcosmos to macrocosmos is controlled and moved by God. God moves things mainly in accordance with natural laws, but if necessary in supernatural way aswell. Even Satan is controlled by God, so nothing bad can happen without God allowing it. Consequently, microevolution is always a work of God, while macroevolution is a lie, since all species were created supernaturally together with everything else 6245 years ago.
@mikilavush I am also a Christian, mikilavush. Actually, I am a theistic evolutionist, and I find God's creation via evolution, intriguing. :-) Don't be afraid of evolution not being coherent with Scripture, because in my opinion, it IS coherent with it. There are many reason to consider the story of creation in the Bible symbolic.
@Stinukli ~ You Christian?! I rather suspect you of being a secret antichrist who serves the poison of evolution saying: "Don't be afraid to swallow it." What Christianity is can be defined only by the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son within humans and by the Bible. The Bible mainly contains God's word, and apparently the whole Bible deals with the story of creation in a literal sense. The whole biblical concept of sin and salvation is based on the story of creation being literally true.
@mikilavush What was that for an answer...? Really: Do you think I'm out for deceiving you? You wrote: "The whole biblical concept of sin and salvation is based on the story of creation being literally true." Can you please try to document this claim by citing a biblical passage? It's your subjective understanding of what the Bible says. It doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For example, "the first Adam" can refer to me and you when we were sinful, not cleansed in the blood of Jesus.
@Stinukli ~ After your last reply I do not any longer suspect you of being a secret antichrist. Instead I consider it likely that you are a secret antichrist. Besides, as a Christian I should not argue with anyone, particularly not with such people who do not care about properly reading, understanding and obeying God's word, so this is my last answer to you.
@mikilavush What an incredibly arrogant way of answering... Even IF my symbolic interpretation of the biblical creation turns out to be wrong, Paulus warned us that we "understand partly and prophecy partly".
@mikilavush Tell me: You actually think God literally BLEW in a literally Adams nose, that the four beasts in the book of Daniel with bird wings, iron teeth, etc., were literally, and that the Kingdom of God literally is a leaven...?
how bout if planet earth created us through water and water mautating through masive years of time like 100thousand years or so ti make a luving organism from water
Creationists are the dumb fucks. You concentrate more on Religeon than Reality. Because Evolutionists are humans too vagina face. Creationists need to shut the fuck up.
@lackrome wtf? you believe that evolution is science? its religion cause you believe in something that cant be tested because it happened millions of years ago.... dude... you also believe in ... oh wait... you believe we come from a rock that came from an explosion that came from nothing...
Yes. Atheism is religion just as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or not smoking can be called a habit. Dumb fuck. Evolution has been observed and proved. You can see it in drug resistant bacteria.
Watch the video How nothing created everything.
Evolution is science! IT'S PROVEN! IT'S REAL! AND IT'S HAPPENING!
Jesus you fucking moron. You can be Evolutionist AND religious. Just like my parents.
@lackrome resistant bacteria?! ill give you an example: a policeman comes to handcuff everyone, but you dont have any arms. OH your resitant! not a gain of DNA but a LOSS, never observed a gaining of DNA, therefore evolution is a religion. and you should stop eating pudding and drink more carbon dioxide:P
Religion is a belief in a god or supernatural entity. Evolution is real... God you retard. I'm LMAOing right now so hard that I'm showing this to my friends. Good job making yourself look like an idiot. Evolution is genetic science, which I am currently studying. You obvously don't know what you're talking about. Evolution has evidence and proof. God has none.
@lackrome the earth couldnt possibly be more then 30 000 years old because the worlds C14 level yet hasnt reached equlibrium. planet Saturns rings continue to break down. they wouldt of been there now if the earth was millions of years old give me your arguments. oh wait! you have none! oh your showing your friends. ok? wtf? i care`? stop humiliating yourself.
C14 has reached equilibrium. The decay rates are roughly equal to the generation rates in the atmosphere. Ice cores are used to test atmosphere from earlier ages. Saturn's rings are building, not breaking down. Dust and small space rocks continue to accrete in its orbit from the solar system at a greater rate than they fall into the planet. Your ignorance does not constitute an argument. Your denial is not equivalent to evidence.
You might be interested to know that duplication and insertion both cause a gain in DNA and the process has been observed. You can cause it, watch it, measure it, and reproduce it.
@rkyeun give me an example. let me give you another: If you have 52 cards you can make a number of sequenses but you will never(never ever) be able to make a sequense where a card that is not in the stack is present. Are you trying to be dumb or does it just happen naturally?
There are not 52 different base pairs with each card in a deck representing a different base pair. There are 4 "suits" which are the different base pairs. The length of a DNA strand is not fixed like a standard deck of cards, but can grow and shrink like someone carelessly throwing away cards from the pile or sticking new ones in from other decks. If you want to argue against something, you should at least learn what it is first.
@rkyeun stick in from other decks? You just proved my point. There are no other decks! So dont give me that shitt that I dont know what it is, when you dont have a clue.
Okay, we'll drop the analogies entirely, since simple abstraction is beyond your grasp.
There are four kinds of base pairs. ATCG. They can be arranged in any order in the DNA, with arbitrary length. Insertions take a free floating base pair not from the DNA and place it inside the DNA, making the DNA longer. Duplications copy a section of the DNA and stick it in somewhere, making the DNA longer. Your claim that DNA can't be gained is wrong.
@MusiruneProductions possible with only an an infinitesimal probabilty of being possible ... meaning its so close to impossible it may as well be impossible.
@Oddessuss Well, at least you know it could be possible! ;-)
A good statement, but personally I don't think we know enough about the universe to say that. I highly doubt that "God" is "Some old guy in the sky with magical powers," but God could be a knowledgeable force without a gender, and without any recognizable features whatsoever. I do respect that what you say is indeed likely, however, but, as I always say "I believe there's something out there, and I call it 'God'"
@MusiruneProductions Good old god of the gaps ... the gaps are getting smaller and smaller dude. AS to "skydaddy" reference, there isn't any evidence for a supernatural cause let alone one particular "sky daddy" ... but as to which supernatural cause there are an infinite number of possibilities ... hence an infinitesimal probability of ONE supernatrural cause. If you "believe there is something out there" its still a gap theory, but I apprecite you not saying that it must be god of d bible ;)
Actually, new evidence strongly suggests that we already had legs when we came out of the water. We used them like aquatic salamanders still do today.
Since fish are more complex than insects in terms of homology and came first, how or rather why did a fish evolve into a Centipied, which fish eat -.- i cant imagine a fish evolving into a bug. dont say they became amphibians because science says that centepieds were the oldest land animals not fish, yet fish evolved into them. ?
@zepeterinma There is a whole section on wikipedia on the evolution of insects. It's a good place to start if you'd like to know more about how they evolved.
@zepeterinma Insects, being invertebrates, existed before fish. To crack open my science textbook...Platyhelminthes, Mollusca, Nemertea, Annelida, Tardigrada, Nematoda, Arthropoda, and Echinodermata all exhibit marine and terrestrial organisms. Some even have amphibious lifestyles, some invade other organisms by water and hence exist in their host.
Not even getting into specific steps in the evolutionary processes such as moist skin for diffusion.
@zepeterinma fish did not evolve into centipedes... they diverged far before that. Centipedes evolved from arthropods while fish evolved from notochords.
About the dinosaur tissue, you can youtube search "Dino Autopsy" for a National Geographic documentary on it. The dinosaur tissue is permineralized tissue from around 67 millions year ago. Not really organic tissue of something like a frozen mammoth from 10 thousands years ago.
Darwin started the theory of evolution. I have no comment for a nigga that will listen to this shit, darwin also had a hand in slavery and the american birth control league which became planned parenthood
I find it interesting that your video went into such depth. One problem was when you got to the main focus of this video the lung you just glanced over it such as to say then the lung formed. The problem is that you give an account like it was such an easy task to convert but it is not and there is a mountain of evidence that says it is nearly impossible to have this happen and also have mates that would form male and female portions so it still leaves the audience with more questions.
'life is hard, i know i'll devolp some gills'...'it's pretty nice up here. would be handy if i had some skin around my gills though'. wake up you guys, this is ridiculous.
"This is boring, I think I'll make a universe"..."This universe is empty. It would be nice to have some living things." wake up you guys, this is ridiculous.
It doesn't work like that so don't feign ignorance.
By random variation one animal's DNA causes it to grow a tiny vein which allows it to extract oxygen just a little better than its fellows. This animal has an advantage which makes it survive and reproduce better than its fellows. Its offspring are more numerous, survive better and reproduce better.
It's so bloody obvious I can't understand why some people have such a problem with it.
You are sleepy.
freandwhickquest 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ o0zeroeffect0o "watch as they turn on dormant genes and have the embryo grow pointy teeth or a tail from its dinosaur ancestors..." No they haven't - that is what they want to do. Injecting cells into embryo's of a different species isn't a new thing, although it hasn't been done with dinosaur cells before. So... somewhere between your ignorance and the speed at which you shot your mouth off, I've actually missed the point as to why this is relevant to the discussion...
Vardy7 1 week ago
This sucks. Fuck that fishes. I wanna live and breath in the ocean, it's so much fun. Never mind, there's still a chance, I'll go swim around for millions of generation so that my future generations can turn into orca.
archilles1195 1 month ago
@Ryakki My comments have not promoted myself at all, nor are they "obviously" false (obvious to you maybe?). In fact, they have been born out of many years of study, and reflect the latest technical knowledge. Obviously this is not the place for debate or intense technical discussions - I have presented what I could in the space I have. You're just another person who is quick to attack yet offer no relevant information. Come back when you know something about the topic...
Vardy7 1 month ago
@ MomoTheBellyDancer You obviously have no technical knowledge about this topic; all you have managed to do is attack without offering anything to the discussion. Look at the context; the discussion is about macro-evolution (not the micro-evolution we observe) and my argument is framed on observed increase in genetic information which is required for your theory, but not proven. Read my posts and answer maturely if you can. And, btw, my information is not sourced from creation websites
Vardy7 2 months ago
@Vardy7
You make things up which defies even the most basic understanding of the subject... or copy it from creationist websites. Either way, you refuse to learn about the subject, only spout ridiculous self-promoting, obviously false nonsense. If you go and learn a bit about the subject, and then make some intelligent comments, people might actually debate you, instead of brushing you aside.
Ryakki 1 month ago
@Vardy7 holy cow you're stupid. if you really want to know what evolution is look up the video "turning a chicken into a dinosaur" or dinosaur chicken. and watch as they turn on dormant genes and have the embryo grow pointy teeth or a tail from its dinosaur ancestors.
o0zeroeffect0o 2 weeks ago
@CHAS1422 You also need to reconsider ring species as a 'modern understanding' of evolution. Ring species are an example of loss of genetic information, not evolution (which requires gain). Simply put, as living things mutate, they lose genetic information. There has never been an observed increase in information resulting from mutations. Just because certain types of salamanders can't interbreed, doesn't mean there is a new species being formed – they are still salamanders.
Vardy7 2 months ago
@Vardy7 "There has never been an observed increase in information resulting from mutations." Your information is simply wrong. Look up for example TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@Vardy7
"Simply put, as living things mutate, they lose genetic information."
No, this is not what happens. Why do you think we should care about your opinions about evolution, when you clearly don't know the slightest thing about it? Do some research, learn some stuff and then come back. Tip: don't get your information from creationist websites, lest you'll be making a fool of yourself like you're doing right now.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago 3
@ CHAS1422 Ernst Mayr (2001), the so-called Darwin of the 20th Century said this...“[re:evolution], one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants... Instead, he or she [the palaeontologist] finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” So much for phylogenetics & the continuity of fossil evidence! The phylogenetic charts themselves debunk evolution with all their gaps. And you call this an understanding of how modern evolution works?
Vardy7 2 months ago
Where did you get the original footage from 2:00, could you please post the link? thanks
supaman890 2 months ago
@supaman890 I believe it is from the series "Life" narrated by Oprah Winphrey (excuse me if I spelled her name wrong) the episode titled Fish
TheWizardOfOsborne 2 months ago
@jbkgjbkg apparently when faced with a discussion beyond the intelligence of the species, a lesser evolved member will resort to mindless attacks via name calling, even to the detriment of a good discussion...
Vardy7 3 months ago
@philackey lol - they need to call evolution a religion...
Vardy7 3 months ago
I'm so happy. My car got impounded.
Period0fAltering 3 months ago
@smrphs33 oh, by the way, natural selection is also scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the (fantastical) ideas of beneficial mutation and common ancestry. Claiming that a theory is scientific gives it authority that is not deserved by diminishing the authority of science.
Vardy7 3 months ago
@Vardy7
"Evolution differs from natural selection"
You, sir, indeed ARE an idiot.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@smrphs33 Number, germ, and gravity theory are all examples of scientific theory - they are all falsifiable. Evolution fails the requirement for falsifiability and is therefore not scientific theory. You should look up what scientific theory is. Empirical evidence gives science credibility. Typically, scientific theory is hypothetico-deductive. Research observations for evolution neither support or challenge observations. Evolution can't be proved right or wrong = not scientific theory.
Vardy7 3 months ago
@Vardy7 You are correct, even the famous Rabbit found in th Pre-Cambrian doesn't falsify evolution. Evolutionist would just claim it evolved earlier than originally thought. The number of discoveries that have destroyed evolution are legion. Yet every time they come up with some explanation and the faithful lap it up. One of the best is is their explanation of how monkees ended up in South America. The actually believe they took rafts. I can't make this stuff up.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey I know! I know how they got there! It's logical! We don't know how they got there therefor GODDIDIT.
aakesson1 2 months ago
@Vardy7 Phylogenetics is fully falsifiable (i.e. inter-relatedness based on molecular evidence), "ring species" is fully falsifiable, and both are modern understandings of how evolution works. There are many other tenets that have passed the test. Every generation is invariably genetically different than the parent generation. This is also falsifiable. The continuity of the fossil record is evidence. Claiming an assertion based on ignorance is a pathetic fail.
CHAS1422 2 months ago
@gregrutz "... he had no problem proving evolution...". Hate to burst yr bubble but it's still not proven - that's why it's called a theory. In this context (change in DNA giving rise to new species) you're getting 'new information' mixed up with 'new variant of species'. In reality, meiosis (replication, re-ordering, separation of the cell's genome) does not have the capacity to produce new information, the diversification is due to genes that are already there being changed - no new species
Vardy7 3 months ago
@Vardy7 Look up what a scientific theory is. You seem to think it means a "hunch", yet mathematics is a theory (number theory), the behaviour and existence of bacteria (germ theory) and the gravity theory. Everything which is the best explanation is a theory, but nothing is a completely unquestionable fact in science. Evolution has been proven time and time again, yet one bit of evidence and they have to review the entire theory. There has been no discoveries which contradict evolution so far.
smurphs33 3 months ago
@Vardy7 You sir, are an idiot.
jbkgjbkg 3 months ago
@thediggy7 Yes, there is never new information (= no new species). For a single cell organism to evolve to a dog (eg), new complex ordered information (not random base pairs) would need to develop over time to code for new organs - a mutation of new information (because the information for these things just isn't there) and keep doing it. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn't code for anything then the amount of DNA added is useless and would not be helpful
Vardy7 4 months ago
@Vardy7 Any change in the DNA is ''new information''. Darwin did not even know about DNA or mutations and had no problem proving evolution.
gregrutz 4 months ago 2
@gregrutz OK, Natural Selection is the name of the process, mutation is the process - You want to labor on my parapraxis because you still misunderstand the point I am making, also evidenced by your next statement. Change is not always new e.g. Point Mutation (one letter change in the sequence), Inversion Mutation (reversing strand), Insertion Mutation, Deletion Mutation - in all of these, there is no addition of new information, only reordering of the existing information; no new species...
Vardy7 4 months ago
@Vardy7 based on the semantics you are using, there is never "new information.". There is only new mutations which can lead to subtle variations, like nylonase, which over a period of time leads to an organism so different from its ancient ancestor that science declares it a different species.
thediggyk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TaiFerret. Still not getting it - I am talking about NEW information that wasn't already there, changing one species to another. The nylonase mechanism is simply an adaptation by protein replacement - similar to penicillin resistance - the gene simply produced two different proteins, which indicates adaptation (with a purpose) from pre-existing information. Mutation is not always about accident and chance.
Vardy7 4 months ago
Comment removed
Vardy7 4 months ago
@ Zhvri You misunderstood my point. We have known for years that species adapt to their environment; it's called mutation and, observably, has always involved a change or loss in DNA information (not to be confused with function - a gain in function can obviously be beneficial). As I said, show me proof where there has been a GAIN in information, and where this information is beneficial. Your malaria virus is what it is, and there will never be information added to it to make it grow an arm...
Vardy7 4 months ago
@Vardy7 "As I said, show me proof where there has been a GAIN in information, and where this information is beneficial."
There's a gain in beneficial information if a gene duplication happens and the copy changes and becomes beneficial. A well known example is the evolution of nylonase.
TaiFerret 4 months ago
@Vardy7 ''species adapt to their environment; it's called mutation'' NO, it is called Natural Selection.
Any change in DNA is ''new information''
gregrutz 4 months ago
And why is there a lack of video's discussing evolution of gills to lungs? Because it isn't scientific, and fantastical video's like this do nothing more than showcase just how amazing the human imagination is. The scary thing is, people call this science! You called it an explanation. Excuse my proclivity for over simplification but I don't recall seeing the research that shows proof of that new DNA information can ever be added to an organism.
Vardy7 4 months ago
i want to ask about evolution
how first creature accrued, how it get this ability
tamerakk 4 months ago
@tamerakk Darwin wrote, ''Origin of Species'' Not 'origin of life'
Evolution is about how life changes over time, not how life started. See Abiogenesis.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Comment removed
tamerakk 4 months ago
@tamerakk Read a science book.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz i have allready read a lot
tamerakk 4 months ago
Comment removed
tamerakk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz i didnt ask how life started, i asked how to start proliferation?
tamerakk 4 months ago
great video
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
Perhaps skeptics of intelligent design would care to comment on the following article. (Be sure to replace the DOT for a real dot)
Ideacenter(DOT)org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1113
Movies4Christ 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyG792 Saying Evolution is faith based and requires wishful thinking is simply false.
pat5168 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyG792 Observation and interpretation work together, when you look at an everyday object you interpret without even realizing it. Technically he was there, there is here, and we can interpret through observation of what has happened in the past. Evolution is a fact in the term of micro evolution, but that term is only used by Creationists. The theory has been proven in biology since micro evolution has no boundary and turns macro after an extended amount of time.
pat5168 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could you sound any more FUCKING PUMPED?!
pat5168 6 months ago
Now an't that nifty, evolution. Great vid, good tempo and i enjoyed it haha good job mate.
hikuai338 6 months ago
You didn't actually talk about the evolution of the lungs in any detail. I understood them to be a development of fish air sacks used for boyancy...
Also I seem to remember being told that gills migrated and become part of teh thyroid gland . . . ?
JonnyBoyMach2 6 months ago
How do you know what the first microbes did? Have you seen this happening with beginning microbes? If not observed, no one can say what took place the same goes with everything else you state that took place without observing it and having not testable experiment. You are making statements with no scientific foundation.
AndyG792 6 months ago
@AndyG792
Being unable to directly observe something does not mean that therefore there's a lack of evidence.
Your argument is based off of "If someone wasn't there to see it, then we can't know". Um, evolution can make predictions based on what we know about it, it's not just blind faith like the Bible. We can actually calculate the process that took place.
For example, we can predict that Pluto has been revolving around the sun every 248yrs but we haven't observed it directly yet.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
Bible version: you was made from dirt and woman from a rib of adam?
shaneclone15 6 months ago
@shaneclone15 Both the Bible version and the evolution version are 'Faith Based' Neither can be proved and both based on faith. The biggest difference between them is that testable, repeatable, falsifiable and observable indicate that evolution did not take place. Outside of that, it is wishful and hopeful statements that can not be verified outside the minds of the people purporting it. The Bible does prophesy that in the end times, people will worship the creation rather than the creator and
AndyG792 6 months ago
@AndyG792
It's like saying that because nobody else was there to observe the crime scene, that therefore no one can say what took place.
Direct observation is not a requirement.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@AndyG792 No there is a big difference. The bible claims supernatural powers. You cant prove the supernatural. You can prove the naturla though which is evolution. And we have observed evolution, some italian wall lizard was relocated to an island 40 years ago, now the descendants from those lizard have a new organ to help digest the new diet, and bigger heads with stronger bites.
coopmuch56 5 months ago
@coopmuch56 Yea thx for that i love the story :) I looked up for it and there it is.
watch?v=b2-4VpmXqmU
Mickr4 5 months ago
This video gives one of the main points of evoloution.....but like everything else we think we know it all. Evoloution is so much more complex than we understand know but it doesn't take a genius too know that everything is evolving around us in infinate ways and on infinate levels. Our solar system evolved from a nebula of gasses. so if we didnt evolve like our solar system then WERE THE FUCK DID ALL THE LIFE ON IT COME FROM? Was there grass and fishes floating about the gasses in space???
nihilityjoey 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So fish saw food on land, and crawl out of the water... what food, now there's no animals on land yet? So vegetation made its way to the land first? Not enough food in the ocean?
hisham031170 7 months ago
Comment removed
hisham031170 7 months ago
there was a problem, so a solution presented itself....that seems to be your formula. This doesnt even make sense in terms of natural selection. words, words, words, but boiled down to idiocy. This video doesn't describe the 'how' of anything. It simply offers what would be a chronology if the claims made any sense.
Hayesmarkham 8 months ago
Didn't lungs evolve out of the swimming bladder? I know some fish transformed their swimming bladder into a lung that they use when hibernating; like if a tide comes in, and there's no water, they bury into the ground and 'turn on' their lung;
so.... is that the case at all?
bbphnix 8 months ago
@bbphnix Yes, exactly so. Your gills wound up in your ear, or the jaw in a snake. Lungs come from swim bladder, like in lung fish.
gamesbok 7 months ago
I CANT WAIT TO SEE WHAT ASIAN WEATHER LOACHES,MUDSKIPPERS,AND AFRICAN LUNGFISH EVOLVE INTO!!!
irishbreakfast 9 months ago
@irishbreakfast you'll be dead long before those things evolve into anything; that's if they still get the chance to evolve.... with all the human interference....that might not happen;
bbphnix 8 months ago
@bbphnix im forced to agree.even the bible says well be the last living things left.after the atmoshpere is gone,the oceans dry up,the moon snaps away,and our star blows off its gases,well still be here.well 'evolve' along with the planet,but nothing else can.so no matter what you beleive,the end will be excatly the same!
irishbreakfast 8 months ago
@bbphnix How long did these loaches, mudskippers, etc. existed and how long would it take for these animals to be evolving to land animals, or do these animals survive evolution? Coelacanth live in the ocean for 400 myrs and did not evolve one bit.
hisham031170 7 months ago
@hisham031170 The ancient coelacanth was a fresh water fish.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@irishbreakfast You won't. You'll be millions of years dead before any noticable change occurs.
Boogers32150 8 months ago
i thought this video was very informative! thank you very much i really appreciated it!
Taxafolia 9 months ago
whoa charmeleon is not bulbasaur
cbarber666 9 months ago
why are religious debates are always in these evolution videos. I used to reject evolution a long time ago. But now i accept evolution. Just ignore the creationists who come here saying that evolution is false. Usually when you start arguing with them, a long argument occurs, people bash each others beliefs, and no one wins. So just ignore them.
bluemime86 10 months ago
yes.
123456789d123456789g 10 months ago
so the fishes never started off with gills
plant paradise meaning no predators must of had alot of carbon dioxide
um interesting i got bored of your fairytale ill go back to the big boy stuff now
itssaab 10 months ago
hmm did scietntists put these fishes in a place where "there are no predators" and noticed these animals evolving into humans? im ok, they can let this experiment take as many years as they want and if THAT happens (which it never will cuz Allah who created a fish can create millions of different looking and similar looking species just that wasy) then u can have a proof :). not by immagination cuz immagination can take u anyway YOU want to go
123456789d123456789g 10 months ago
@123456789d123456789g You show such ignorance as all do who rely on stone age myths to educate them.
Gods are in the imagination. If yours brings you succur that's great but don't prosthelytize and not expect a rebuke from someone who does not live by superstition alone.
Huttate1 10 months ago
@Huttate1 Honney, as a proof of who is the ignorant here, those "stone age myth" ( im feeling ur refering to statements from the Quoran) that were more than 1400 years old, are just NOW been discovered. that been said, can you tell me who in a time where technology did not exist would have known that people were created from clay, the existing of microscopic life, the miracles of honey, the creation of human beings from water. Still unsure that these and much more were mentioned in the Quoran?
123456789d123456789g 10 months ago
@123456789d123456789g The Qu'ran is simply a rehash of the OT Bible, which transcribed c500BC from stone age myths and and a little history. Show me one scientific theory or fact in either book that has been discovered as true only since they were written.
"And He creates other things you do not know" does not = microscopic life!
People were not created from clay or water!
There are 10,000 year old rock paintings of honey collectors. Humans knew all about honey long before 500BC!
Next!
Huttate1 10 months ago
@Huttate1 People are not created from clay or water?
123456789d123456789g 10 months ago
@123456789d123456789g Is that a serious question?
Huttate1 10 months ago
@123456789d123456789g nope. we are made out of carbon and oxigen. and who knows how many basic elements that you can find in store near you.
gooddarkjedi 9 months ago
@gooddarkjedi The constituent elements of you or me or any human being are also those of the earth or clay. Does that make sense to you now ?
123456789d123456789g 9 months ago
its boring\
dancer7691 11 months ago
unfortunatly you dont seem to understand evolution. these fish didnt "need " anyting, and the was no response to growing "energy needs".. there is no purpose
zenithar6666 11 months ago
decent video...although i thought the burning of fossil fuels produced CO not CO2
Iamthedinger 11 months ago
It is "soon" in the sense that it is just within a feaction of evolutionary timespan. Kind of like "soon after homo sapiens invented fire, they developed space travel and time machines" ;)
love n peace
farmandmao 1 year ago
DONT use the phrase "SOON (after)" like in this video. It is confusing, misleading and borderline incorrect. More than this, it is watter on the mills of IDiots.
What is referred to here as "soon" is really thousands (maybe millions) of generations. I know that you know this, but the people who need to learn this, might not.
farmandmao 1 year ago
but fishes was not the first animals to come on land
parsonman05 1 year ago
so a virgin actually gave birth?...
One thing I don't get, why not Allah, Apollo, Zeus, or any of a dozen others?
jjashmor 1 year ago
Nothing evolves. There are no vestigial structures. Mudpuppies or waterdogs do not show evolution of fish into land creatures. They are a completely separate creation. They did not evolve. I can go buy some at the pet store. They will never grow any feet. This video is completely false.
Codenamelumiere 1 year ago
@Codenamelumiere That is your argument? That the changes never take place within the same organisim?"well my fishie didnts grow any feets.Evilution gots to be false." look if you don't know much about a subject,DON'T argue with it. I'm serious, save yourself from embarrassment. Plus "nothing evolves" is false.Why do you think we change flu vaccines every year? What other scientific facts do you dissagree with? Do you pray INSTEAD of going to the doctor too?!
Jupiterx5 1 year ago
@Codenamelumiere Go buy a lot of tangerines with seeds, then swallow all the seeds. When you're back from the hospital, tell me there are no vestigial organs.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
@Codenamelumiere- Wow, way to expose your ignorance of the subject and wave it around in front of everyone. So tell me, is this what passes for a good argument in creationist circles or are even they embarrassed for you? Did you pay attention to the beginning of the video at all? Evolution is not like Pokemon; a single individual can't evolve. Evolution is, by definition, a phenomenon of population genetics which means that it must happen over numerous generations.
califoniania 10 months ago
(cont'd)- We've actually OBSERVED speciation using creatures such as bacteria and fruit flies. The reason we used them is because you get a ton of generations within a very short period and thus changes are easier to observe. What you CAN'T do is buy a fully aquatic fish, plop it on land, and expect its genes to completely change so that it grows legs and lungs instantly. Something like that happening would actually DISPROVE our current understanding of evolutionary biology.
califoniania 10 months ago
@califoniania my bad dude i accidentaly clicked vote down :(
hiks45 10 months ago
@hiks45- No problems. Thanks for the honest apology though :)
califoniania 10 months ago
whats that weird green gas
flamethrower262 1 year ago
What this video in principle says is that whatever is needed for survival, organisms can somehow intuitively understand, intuitively aim at and gradually construct within themselves, no matter how complicated those constructions may be. That is nothing but a ridiculous assumption. There are no such transitional details to be found in the fossil record that can completely support the idea of a fish gradually evolving into land-living creature.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush what?! he says nothing like that, stop putting words in his mouth. THERE ARE THOUSANDS of transitional species available for study, why do you people always say there aren't any fossils?! It's a miracle that we even have these fossils considering how rare the right environment is for a proper formation of a fossil. Go back to reading the bible.
SunWooz 1 year ago
@SunWooz ~ Obviously I did not put anything in his mouth. I wrote about what he IN PRINCIPLE says, that is to say what I consider the content, the meaning, the application of what he says. Neither did I say that there are no fossils. What I obviously meant was that in the fossil record there is such countless an amount of missing links that the idea of a fish evolving into amphibious creature and further on into land-living creature is far from having enough support in the fossil record.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush You are right that the way he describes it, make it sound like animals evolve things for a purpose. But I'm sure he didn't intend that, I'm sure he understands that evolution and natural selection doesn't have any "purpose". : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar ~ The recognized concept of evolution is that it is a complex process involving random mutations, struggle for survival and natural selection. Evolutionists in general assume that unfavourable conditions force organisms to find evolutionary solutions to their survival probems, and that is also what this video is about. In my view, however, it is not organisms that change themselves but it is God's omnipresence that makes changes, and those changes never lead to new species.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush It isn't governed or directed by anything, it's just shit that happens. And you will not find many leading scientists who believe in your precious god or allah anymore.
winterstellar 1 year ago
@mikilavush God MAY have intended directly on the genetic level, but whether there is a good reason to assume this, I don't know. I'm a bit "in to" genetics and biology, and I don't KNOW of a good reason to think God does. However, there might be some debate on whether the mutations required for modern day complex system, never could have come about given the age of the earth and life itself. This is an intriguing possibility, though it's just speculation... I've not seen this argument proven.
Stinukli 1 year ago
@Stinukli ~ In my christian view, nothing works by itself. Everything from microcosmos to macrocosmos is controlled and moved by God. God moves things mainly in accordance with natural laws, but if necessary in supernatural way aswell. Even Satan is controlled by God, so nothing bad can happen without God allowing it. Consequently, microevolution is always a work of God, while macroevolution is a lie, since all species were created supernaturally together with everything else 6245 years ago.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush I am also a Christian, mikilavush. Actually, I am a theistic evolutionist, and I find God's creation via evolution, intriguing. :-) Don't be afraid of evolution not being coherent with Scripture, because in my opinion, it IS coherent with it. There are many reason to consider the story of creation in the Bible symbolic.
Stinukli 1 year ago
@Stinukli ~ You Christian?! I rather suspect you of being a secret antichrist who serves the poison of evolution saying: "Don't be afraid to swallow it." What Christianity is can be defined only by the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son within humans and by the Bible. The Bible mainly contains God's word, and apparently the whole Bible deals with the story of creation in a literal sense. The whole biblical concept of sin and salvation is based on the story of creation being literally true.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush What was that for an answer...? Really: Do you think I'm out for deceiving you? You wrote: "The whole biblical concept of sin and salvation is based on the story of creation being literally true." Can you please try to document this claim by citing a biblical passage? It's your subjective understanding of what the Bible says. It doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For example, "the first Adam" can refer to me and you when we were sinful, not cleansed in the blood of Jesus.
Stinukli 1 year ago
@Stinukli ~ After your last reply I do not any longer suspect you of being a secret antichrist. Instead I consider it likely that you are a secret antichrist. Besides, as a Christian I should not argue with anyone, particularly not with such people who do not care about properly reading, understanding and obeying God's word, so this is my last answer to you.
mikilavush 1 year ago
@mikilavush What an incredibly arrogant way of answering... Even IF my symbolic interpretation of the biblical creation turns out to be wrong, Paulus warned us that we "understand partly and prophecy partly".
Stinukli 1 year ago
Comment removed
Stinukli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikilavush Tell me: You actually think God literally BLEW in a literally Adams nose, that the four beasts in the book of Daniel with bird wings, iron teeth, etc., were literally, and that the Kingdom of God literally is a leaven...?
Ehh...???
Stinukli 1 year ago
how bout if planet earth created us through water and water mautating through masive years of time like 100thousand years or so ti make a luving organism from water
Madman66521 1 year ago
Interesting.,.
justrixx 1 year ago
are there any fish who have what we could compare to early lung developments?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Mudskippers and lungfish.
VideoHunter13 1 year ago
dude fucken sharks on land!
scaryyy!
LILHECTOR323 1 year ago
when i went to the U.S i saw a huge when of these with blue eyes
teddybear1829 1 year ago
this explains it. evolutionists are fish at heart...we can study fish to get a better understanding of them
maaruz1979 1 year ago
@maaruz1979
Creationists are the dumb fucks. You concentrate more on Religeon than Reality. Because Evolutionists are humans too vagina face. Creationists need to shut the fuck up.
lackrome 1 year ago
@lackrome wtf? you believe that evolution is science? its religion cause you believe in something that cant be tested because it happened millions of years ago.... dude... you also believe in ... oh wait... you believe we come from a rock that came from an explosion that came from nothing...
xXsakkelaoXx 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Yes. Atheism is religion just as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or not smoking can be called a habit. Dumb fuck. Evolution has been observed and proved. You can see it in drug resistant bacteria.
Watch the video How nothing created everything.
Evolution is science! IT'S PROVEN! IT'S REAL! AND IT'S HAPPENING!
Jesus you fucking moron. You can be Evolutionist AND religious. Just like my parents.
But I'm an atheist. And you're a moronic ass.
lackrome 1 year ago
@lackrome resistant bacteria?! ill give you an example: a policeman comes to handcuff everyone, but you dont have any arms. OH your resitant! not a gain of DNA but a LOSS, never observed a gaining of DNA, therefore evolution is a religion. and you should stop eating pudding and drink more carbon dioxide:P
xXsakkelaoXx 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Religion is a belief in a god or supernatural entity. Evolution is real... God you retard. I'm LMAOing right now so hard that I'm showing this to my friends. Good job making yourself look like an idiot. Evolution is genetic science, which I am currently studying. You obvously don't know what you're talking about. Evolution has evidence and proof. God has none.
Atheists-1
You and your moronic ass friends-Retarded, 0
lackrome 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lackrome the earth couldnt possibly be more then 30 000 years old because the worlds C14 level yet hasnt reached equlibrium. planet Saturns rings continue to break down. they wouldt of been there now if the earth was millions of years old give me your arguments. oh wait! you have none! oh your showing your friends. ok? wtf? i care`? stop humiliating yourself.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
C14 has reached equilibrium. The decay rates are roughly equal to the generation rates in the atmosphere. Ice cores are used to test atmosphere from earlier ages. Saturn's rings are building, not breaking down. Dust and small space rocks continue to accrete in its orbit from the solar system at a greater rate than they fall into the planet. Your ignorance does not constitute an argument. Your denial is not equivalent to evidence.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
You might be interested to know that duplication and insertion both cause a gain in DNA and the process has been observed. You can cause it, watch it, measure it, and reproduce it.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun give me an example. let me give you another: If you have 52 cards you can make a number of sequenses but you will never(never ever) be able to make a sequense where a card that is not in the stack is present. Are you trying to be dumb or does it just happen naturally?
xXsakkelaoXx 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
There are not 52 different base pairs with each card in a deck representing a different base pair. There are 4 "suits" which are the different base pairs. The length of a DNA strand is not fixed like a standard deck of cards, but can grow and shrink like someone carelessly throwing away cards from the pile or sticking new ones in from other decks. If you want to argue against something, you should at least learn what it is first.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun stick in from other decks? You just proved my point. There are no other decks! So dont give me that shitt that I dont know what it is, when you dont have a clue.
xXsakkelaoXx 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Okay, we'll drop the analogies entirely, since simple abstraction is beyond your grasp.
There are four kinds of base pairs. ATCG. They can be arranged in any order in the DNA, with arbitrary length. Insertions take a free floating base pair not from the DNA and place it inside the DNA, making the DNA longer. Duplications copy a section of the DNA and stick it in somewhere, making the DNA longer. Your claim that DNA can't be gained is wrong.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
No, that's a misbelief some theists have about several unrelated fields of science that disprove their storybooks.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@lackrome
Don't insult people who have vaginas for a face.
rkyeun 1 year ago
And this is how it happened not fish jumping out of water bullshit.
hivecluster5 1 year ago
this is stupid } for all u people who think this u need GOD
{im just sayin}
MegaShane85 1 year ago
@MegaShane85 Ah, but what if God created evolution? "Possible" is greater than "impossible," sir. Don't be close-minded.
MusiruneProductions 1 year ago
@MusiruneProductions possible with only an an infinitesimal probabilty of being possible ... meaning its so close to impossible it may as well be impossible.
Oddessuss 1 year ago
@Oddessuss Well, at least you know it could be possible! ;-)
A good statement, but personally I don't think we know enough about the universe to say that. I highly doubt that "God" is "Some old guy in the sky with magical powers," but God could be a knowledgeable force without a gender, and without any recognizable features whatsoever. I do respect that what you say is indeed likely, however, but, as I always say "I believe there's something out there, and I call it 'God'"
MusiruneProductions 1 year ago
@MusiruneProductions Good old god of the gaps ... the gaps are getting smaller and smaller dude. AS to "skydaddy" reference, there isn't any evidence for a supernatural cause let alone one particular "sky daddy" ... but as to which supernatural cause there are an infinite number of possibilities ... hence an infinitesimal probability of ONE supernatrural cause. If you "believe there is something out there" its still a gap theory, but I apprecite you not saying that it must be god of d bible ;)
Oddessuss 1 year ago
@Oddessuss Yes, I try to be a little skeptic on everything I can't see.
Haha, I enjoyed this conversation.
MusiruneProductions 1 year ago
@MusiruneProductions are you a Deist perchance?
Oddessuss 1 year ago
@Oddessuss Well, sort of, I'm a Christian who believes that god (should there be a God
) does not interfere unless completely necessary (which He/She/It doesn't probably need to that much, anyway).
MusiruneProductions 1 year ago
@Oddessuss Ah ... then my beef isn't with you cos we'd probably agree about most stuff :)
Oddessuss 1 year ago
arguing with a creationist: watch?v=TugslL45aXk
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
This is interesting, but you might try to sound a tad more enthusiastic about the subject.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Actually, new evidence strongly suggests that we already had legs when we came out of the water. We used them like aquatic salamanders still do today.
lardhat 1 year ago
Since fish are more complex than insects in terms of homology and came first, how or rather why did a fish evolve into a Centipied, which fish eat -.- i cant imagine a fish evolving into a bug. dont say they became amphibians because science says that centepieds were the oldest land animals not fish, yet fish evolved into them. ?
wierd...
zepeterinma 1 year ago
@zepeterinma There is a whole section on wikipedia on the evolution of insects. It's a good place to start if you'd like to know more about how they evolved.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
@zepeterinma Insects, being invertebrates, existed before fish. To crack open my science textbook...Platyhelminthes, Mollusca, Nemertea, Annelida, Tardigrada, Nematoda, Arthropoda, and Echinodermata all exhibit marine and terrestrial organisms. Some even have amphibious lifestyles, some invade other organisms by water and hence exist in their host.
Not even getting into specific steps in the evolutionary processes such as moist skin for diffusion.
onijester56 1 year ago
@zepeterinma fish did not evolve into centipedes... they diverged far before that. Centipedes evolved from arthropods while fish evolved from notochords.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@zepeterinma
*face palm*
LovelesEntertainment 1 year ago
how long would it take for humans to be able to breath underwater?
zxcvbnmjfjf 1 year ago
About the dinosaur tissue, you can youtube search "Dino Autopsy" for a National Geographic documentary on it. The dinosaur tissue is permineralized tissue from around 67 millions year ago. Not really organic tissue of something like a frozen mammoth from 10 thousands years ago.
Weedies11 1 year ago
This fishes are like cartoon caracters.
You like fish sticks? South Park.
nitroflesh 1 year ago
@nitroflesh Lol, Kanye West is a gay fish.
Weedies11 1 year ago
@Weedies11 hahahha thats a good one
nitroflesh 1 year ago
The topic is interesting, but your narration is putting me to sleep. You too, it seems.
DancingHorses26 1 year ago
take that you religious nut jobs!!!
aguteempasil 1 year ago
"and soon developed internal lungs" wow. dat is so informative backup proof -_-
elfy99803 1 year ago
Darwin started the theory of evolution. I have no comment for a nigga that will listen to this shit, darwin also had a hand in slavery and the american birth control league which became planned parenthood
bezzly 1 year ago
very intelligent design!
zmc33 2 years ago
I find it interesting that your video went into such depth. One problem was when you got to the main focus of this video the lung you just glanced over it such as to say then the lung formed. The problem is that you give an account like it was such an easy task to convert but it is not and there is a mountain of evidence that says it is nearly impossible to have this happen and also have mates that would form male and female portions so it still leaves the audience with more questions.
Thanks
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
'life is hard, i know i'll devolp some gills'...'it's pretty nice up here. would be handy if i had some skin around my gills though'. wake up you guys, this is ridiculous.
MB1206 2 years ago
"This is boring, I think I'll make a universe"..."This universe is empty. It would be nice to have some living things." wake up you guys, this is ridiculous.
conkt 2 years ago
you are judging the mind of God from your human perspective. this is just ignorance.
MB1206 2 years ago
'life is hard, i know i'll devolp some gills'
It doesn't work like that so don't feign ignorance.
By random variation one animal's DNA causes it to grow a tiny vein which allows it to extract oxygen just a little better than its fellows. This animal has an advantage which makes it survive and reproduce better than its fellows. Its offspring are more numerous, survive better and reproduce better.
It's so bloody obvious I can't understand why some people have such a problem with it.
mandolinic 2 years ago