I don't know about you, but I have no reason to not believe theories that I cannot disprove. I know this logic doesn't make sense to you, but hey, that's the entertainment that most of are after. Thanks for supplying it. We couldn't have done it without you!
genetic systems...being controlled by the internal environment of cell to sensory input from external environment produces calculated leaps forward in evolution. This contradicts the idea of genetic determinism and random mutation. Random mutation accounts for a few adaptations, natural genetic engineering coupled with symbiogenesis and other hypotheses accounts for a calculated non-random source of new information. In other words, your entire argument is now a mute point in light of evidence.
The diversity of the biosphere is a FACT. Common ancestry is strongly suggested. Evolution is not a theory, it's a model. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory. The mechanism for said theory is mutation/selection/replication. Said mechanism is insufficient to account for the data. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory. Said theory lacks a convincing mechanism, although it does allude to the environments larger role. The Third Way (Shapiro) is a theory. Said theory puts forth genetic systems....
Evolution is a theory though. If a better theory fits the facts then that becomes the leading theory. There are numerous facts that this theory explains, but this does not make evolution a fact. Any scientist who thinks different is a pretty bad scientist. Evolution is the best current explanation for the observable facts we see before us, but once we start trying to fit facts to the theory it is no longer science, it is religion.
3) By the type of logic you use any true statement in any religion or religious texts could be used to validate that specific religion. Do you not see that? An animal being dead or an animal developing fur or some other characterization while still maintaining its species designation CANNOT be used to validate evolutionary theory as that is NOT the basic concept of the idea. If you cant see that then you are as lost as any 'brainwashed' theist, but much more pitiful...
@RabidApe Now tell me what does the basic concept of evolution have to do with/how does it enhance the study of resistivity? And are you somehow implying that scientists are unable to understand this resistance based solely on a lack of understanding of this basic concept - which is basically speciation. Yes, by studying ANY field (including religious ideas) you will make discoveries that can help you in another area. Thats not the argument...
This is actually a good vid. Evolution is STILL only a theory, as well there could and are several different theories that try to sum up all of the facts surrounding origin. The theory of gravity is VERY different from the theory of evolution. The force gravity was observed for thousands of years by humans before there was a theory, then reproduced and tested. The force, or response, evolution was not! Arguably it is still not witnessed, observed or reproduced. Gravity=emperical Evo=conjecture
@hitikan LoL, Im sure you're joking but I'll reply anyway. Dogs are all of the same species and fully capable of breeding with each other in any combination they please. Change within the same 'type' of animal is a non-disputed fact. Change that leads to the speciation we see today is still debated, and with good reason. It may make sense, but for something to be accepted as fact it needs to do much more than make sense. It HAS to be studied, reproduced and observed. Otherwise its opinion!
@1n354a The type of interspecies evolution, as explained by evolution theory, has NOT been studied, reproduced or observed. By that I mean that it has not been witnessed that single celled organisms could and do evolve to the complexity of a fish or any other higher evolved animal. Now like I said that doesnt mean the theory is false. But it does mean that if you say evolution is fact that is your personal opinion based on YOUR interpretation of the observations being made. Relative/conjecture
really? so nobody has studied speciation? That is funny...there are entire departments of universities in just about every nation around this globe which are focused on evolutionary biology...I wonder what they are studying, if not speciation. that you have not witnessed a single cell evolve into a fish has no bearing on anything. in fact if you did see that, evolutionary theory would be out the window...evolution take millions/billions of years to do something like that. evolution is a fact AND
(cont) at the same time a theory. Confusing, eh? well that is the way of things. not only is evolution an observable phenomenon (fact) but how it takes place is explained best by the theory of evolution. see? it wasn't really all that confusing, I was just pulling your leg!
@1n354a so basically what you're saying is that Evolution, as describes by the Theory of Evolution has NOT been tested and reproduced? So you're completely agreeing with what I said? Then why do you feel the need to argue? I didnt say Evolution, as described by Evolution Theory is impossible, or even implausible. I simply stated that it had been put under the same rigors as many other ideas. Again, I am referring only to the basic concept: Speciation.
@psford1 I think that your reading comprehension needs some polishing up. I do not agree with your ridiculous claims regarding evolution. Ever heard of an evolutionary biologist? Regarding your delusion as to whether or not speciation has been studied, I recommend going to pubmed (dot) org and searching for evolution or speciation. That should give you an idea as to how much research is actually being done regarding evolutionary biology. I think you might be surprised.
@1n354a And what I think is that I've been to the sites, read the articles, done the homework. Its not that evolution is not plausible, or not that it doesnt make the most sense. Evolution will never and can never be regarded as fact by a lot of people. No matter how much sense it makes you can not show empirically that all animals evolved from a common ancestor, period. So it may make sense but you're not asking us to look at the info, you're asking us to believe in the idea! Unscientific
@psford1 I know that evolution can not be regarded as fact by some people, but that does not change reality.
and considering our knowledge of genetics and our ability to tell how much commonality there is between a clover and a bird, it is not impossible to show common ancestry, do you accept the science behind paternity tests? if yes then you accept common ancestry (whether you admit it or not).
I'm not asking you to believe anything...science requires no belief.
3) If you really want people to accept evo stop arguing against creationism and accept that people will have differing viepoints. I mean after all, even if evo is true, it is still a useless theory as it can not be applied to solve any problem or make any prediction in the future. Again, only talking the basic concept of evolution. You cannot make a valid falsifiable prediction with your understanding of the basic principle in evolutionary theory can you? I'll wait, if you cant then stop talking
@psford1 ROFL! Evolution cannot be applied to anything beneficial? You mean something beneficial like treating viral/bacterial infections? Yeah that isn't beneficial at all....who the hell needs that sort of help? since we are challenging each other, tell me a real-world benefit of creationism. what can we gain from the story of a god magicing us into existence? falsifiable prediction - show me a fossil of a poodle in the cretaceous period. ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,, ,, ? well? ? ? ??? ?
@1n354a No sir, treating infections is NOT an example of a falsifiable prediction based on your understanding of the basic concept of evolutionary theory. Just try and calm down for a second and seriously think about what I am asking. For ANY theory to be useful it needs to be able to be used to make predicitions of some future event. Now, try again. Finish this statement about the basic idea of evo: 'If evolution is right, in the future ___ ___ ___ should/will happen'. Can you?
@psford1 are you really pulling a shock of god approach on this one? that is sad.
the treatment of unknown bacterial/viral infections is a utilitarian use of evolutionary theory, contrary to your claims that there are none. it has nothing to do with the theory being falsifiable .. . . and yet it does...but anyway.
evolutionary theory is falsifiable very easily if you provide me with a fossil of a cretaceous poodle.
@1n354a You fail. Apparently it cannot be done. Are you admitting that it is impossible to make a valid, falsifiable prediction of some future event based on the basic concept of evolutionary theory? Is your prediction that no one will ever find a modern 'style' poodle dating back to the cretaeous period? That is almost a valid prediction, here's why: Prove it! Falsify it! You cant. So once again, will you make a valid, testable, falsifiable prediction based on evolution?
@psford1 If you are asking how one can falsify evolutionary theory, I put forth that one need only find a cretaceous poodle. what is so complicated about that?
as for predictions, using our knowledge of how life evolves we can predict how virus' will mutate year to year and create vaccines to counteract them before we even encounter them. we can also use our understanding of how life evolves to treat unknown viruses (sequence, drop in 'tree of life', discover common ancestors, treat accordingly
@1n354a There is not necessarily a real-world benefit from Creationism! But thats fine, and I'm glad you brought that up. That shows yet another correlation between the two ideas (creationism and evolution). Neither will ever be scientifically, empirically proven unless the forces show themselves, and neither of the basic concepts can be used to make a valid, falsifiable, testable prediction. The same can be said of abiogenesis and the big bang. Do you get it now???
@psford1 those are real world situations in which our understanding of evolution benefit our quality of life. when it comes to creationism however, by your own admission there is no real-world benefit; it is a child's story told by ignorant people. there is no correlation between the two...one is useful, one is useless.
evolution is an observed phenomenon - we don't need to prove anything, rather attempt to understand why it occurs and evolutionary theory is our best explanation of said event.
@1n354a And if you would just address the hypothetical i put forth directly you would see that you STILL havent given me a falsifiable, testable prediction based on your understanding of the BASIC concept of evolutionary theory. Basic concept of evo: small adaptations over time leads to speciation. Please make a prediction based on that. Im not really trying to draw you into an no win argument. I already know that such a prediction is impossible so far. But thats the point I'm trying to make...
@psford1 (cont 1)..the story is completely useless while the theory has real-world benefits. Why would we teach that both are equally possibly, when we know for a fact that they are not?
And as for your 'basic concepts of evolutionary theory' claim, you are pulling a shockofgod here as you know you already lost (since I have shown evolutionary theory to be predictive and falsifiable), so you are narrowing how you define evolution as if that is going to help you out. Unfortunately, evolutionary
@psford1 (cont 2) theory is not confined to your dishonest definitions. We'll play though....let's see I predict that a land mammal could evolve into an ocean dwelling animal through gradual steps if it lived in the correct environment. Realizing that this environment existed 60mil years ago in modern day Pakistan, we can go look in that region for fossil evidence supporting this prediction. OMG! Look what we found! Sinonyx to Dorudon in about 20mil years! It appears that our prediction that
@1n354a And as for my definitions being dishonest you need to look again. I lift my defn's straight from Merrian-Webster and atheists sites. I dont need to be dishonest or strawman to prove this point. The theory does that for me. And furthermore with your 'prediction' what have you found? You found a dead animal and by opinion and conjecture you made a decision that it was a direct descendant of some other animal. That is not science! Where is the empirical evidence? YOU DONT HAVE ANY!
@psford1by opinion and conjecture, eh? do you have another explanation as to how a person pinpointed exactly where certain fossils of animals which show a progression from land to water animal could be found? perfectly placed in the right strata to fall in line with evolutionary predictions? Perhaps you could rewrite everything? Maybe you'll go with ... .. umm... "god was testing our faith so he buried those fossils" . .... ? LOL please amuse....I mean enlighten us all!!
@1n354a Yeah I have another explanation. It was a guess! LoL, you dont get it. EMPIRICALLY, it doesnt matter if you find an animal that fits with EVERY single 'prediction' you can come up with. That is still not empirical and can not be used alone to validate the idea. Yes, evolution as described by evolutionary theory makes perfect sense. But that is my opinion and is not good enough. In science, you can ONLY base facts on what is observed and readily reproduced.
@psford1 (cont 3) small adaptations over time leads to speciation as we went from a land dwelling animal to a fully aquatic animal. See? Isn't that just spectacular?!?
So now you have been shown that evolution is falsifiable , utilitarian and that it has predictive 'powers'! I assume though that you covered your eyes for all this and are still going to claim that none of this ever happened....
@1n354a Dude you are incompetent at debate. Do you not know what a prediction is? A prediction is a forecast or a statement of how things will happen in the future. ANY theory can have utilitarian contributions derived from it. But that does not make the theory itself it valid or useful. Evolutionary theory is USELESS. But the study of evolution certainly has led to other discoveries. Such as the studying of religion. BOTH theories are somewhat useless but by studying either we've been helped.
@psford1 Good god you are dense. Three predictions made: 1) flu virus will change X so we'll make a vaccine to counter that change. 2) unknown infection - DNA analysis - compare to related virus' - treat accordingly (it works) 3) if whales evolved from land mammals we would be able to find evidence in certain locations; we found them. Talk about being a horrible debater - you have refuted none of these points. How are these useless? Let's compare....'God did it'....hmmm...yeah so useful!!
@1n354a I didnt say those occurrences were useless. What I said is that they are not predictions based on the BASIC concept of evolutionary theory which states that small adaptations over time lead to speciation. Theres no need to compare to a specific religion, as I have not endorsed one. Look again at your 3rd 'prediction'. What evidence do you have that it was confirmed? You find animals in certain areas. There is nothing about the fossils that tell you empirically how it got there.
@psford1 What evidence do I have that whales evolved in that region? Well you have a series of fossils in older to younger layers of rock having body types of a land animal to a land/water animal to an aquatic animal. It is clear evidence that small changes over time leads to speciation.
Yeah there is no need to compare to the religious side because you know that you couldn't support your 'god did it' assertions to save your life. Best keep those off the table!
@1n354a STOP trying to strawman me! When have I said God did it? When have I used a specific religion in this debate? What intelligent design assertion have I made? None. Instead I've CLEARLY shown you that your theory cannot be used to make a valid prediction and is useless. And I have refuted EVERY 'prediction' you've made and even given you an example of a valid one. With the whales you dont have evidence of speciation. You have evidence of some animals being dead. THAT'S IT! ---->
@psford1 you have clearly shown that evolutionary theory can not be used to make a valid prediction? are you kidding me? I have shown you three predictions - and you think that just ignoring them is a way of refuting them? Do you get your flu shot each year? If you got a viral infection would you get medicine from a doctor? If yes to either then you may not verbally accept that evolutionary theory is beneficial but you base your life on it. As for the whales, you have evidence of small changes..
@psford1 over time leading to speciation; exactly as evolutionary theory predicts.
It is apparent that you do not see evolutionary theory being the best explanation for how life evolves. I assume that this means that you have a better explanation as to how this occurs? Because if you just don't like evolutionary theory but have no better answer, nobody cares. If you have a better explanation, based on all available evidence, then let us hear about it. Explain away.
@1n354a 2) Having the remains of an animal can in NO WAY be used to verify that they were evolved from a common ancestor. No matter the similarities. It is not empirical to conclude that this animal must have evolved from this animal. It is opinion. No matter how much sense it may make it is still opinion and conjecture. And there is no room for either in science. That is the type of circular logic I would expect from a theist, but it has no place in science. You are wrong and unscientific!
@1n354a 4) Also, even if by stroke of genius we were able to witness the evolution of ANY animal into its modern day relative - YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A USELESS THEORY! Even if evolutionary theory was empirically proven without a shadow of doubt true, you still would not be able to make a valid prediction of some future event or apply the concept to solve ANY problem. Why? Because evolution is not a force, it is a reaction. Abiogenesis is not a force. The Big Bang may not be a force.
@psford1 Regarding predictive capabilities....I repeat, do you accept medication to fight bacterial/viral infections? If you got sick, would you take medicine? If the first kind didn't work, and the doctor told you that the strain you have is one that evolved an immunity to the original medicine, would you tell him he is full of it? Or would you gladly accept the second medicine? Do you take your flu shot each year? If yes, you may not like to admit it, but you accept evolutionary theory.
@1n354a Furthermore, you are unable to make a testable, falsifiable prediction based on the basic concept of evolutionary theory because it is impossible. Here's an example of one: I predict that animal X will evolve into animal Y and have these features based on the stimulus it is receiving. See? I would accept a prediction like that. But like I said before I know that it's impossible to make such a call. You have a useless theory, as well as abiogenesis, big bang, and maybe intelligent design
@psford1 "I would accept a prediction like that" - "I know that it's impossible". So your requirements to accept a theory is for it to do the impossible? No wonder you gravitate to religion. Unfortunately, I have shown that the theory is falsifiable and that it can make utilitarian predictions - neither of which you have refuted.
ID is a theory? I think that you need to brush up on the definition of the word theory. Though your lack of understanding explains much of your argument.
@1n354a Cont'd Even if evolution turns out to be true relatively close to how it is understood today, it will still be a useless concept as it can NOT be applied to any real life situation or used to solve any problems. So as of now all it does is draw people apart (atheist vs. creationist). And what I'm saying is if you have two relatively useless theories EVERYONE should be more accepting of the others' viewpoints and stop trying to prove each other wrong when neither side can really win.
@psford1 I know that this may come off sounding a little harsh, but are you retarded? Do you have some learning disability that denies you basic reading comprehension? I only ask as I have several times now I have provided you with examples of how our understanding of evolution can be used to find solutions to real world problems, yet you just posted that it can NOT be applied. Do you need to go back and reread my older posts?
In this case you a theory (evolution) and a story (creationism)...
@1n354a 3) Im not saying that people shouldnt study evolution. People should study everything. Many great discoveries have come about while studying or researching for some other topic. That includes religious aspects. Whenever you study something, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, you have a better chance of a scientific breakthrough. So to limit our thinking to only what seems to 'make sense' does not help, especially when the only thing that makes sense is a useless theory...
@psford1 So you can go on and on about how evolution is garbage and useless, but the reality is that you enjoy the fruits of biological research that only makes sense if life evolves. How else do you explain germs gaining immunity to drugs/treatments? How else does it make sense if not for life's ability to gradually change? By all means give us a run-down on how this occurs and then book a flight to go collect your Nobel prize.....you will be a freakin' hero. Well? What is your explanation?
@1n354a Alright we'll agree to disagree. Bottom line, NO underlying concept derived from the study of evolutionary theory(ET) can be used to validate the idea, thats absurd. Such as the ideas used to create medicines and vaccines. That is NOT the basic concept of evolutionary theory and was merely discovered and understood better while studying ET. I do take medicine. But that doesnt somehow validate ET. I guess I'll leave this alone
@psford1 You keep taking your medicine and you enjoy all the fruits that were grown on the tree fed by our understanding of evolutionary theory. And if you are ever involved in a paternity case and your put your trust in the results reached by the test, do so knowing that our understanding of evolution is what got you there. Reality doesn't change just because you don't like how it tastes, mate.
don't get me going on what's being taught in schools...when they took phonics out of the schools and put in "sight reading" was the beginning of the end. They pushed kids back on their writing skills "just print children, it's good enough!" They took out memorizing addition and subtraction tables. If you can't read or write or do basic math? What DO they teach in schools?? Parents are up against all school theories. We're doomed anyhow by raising ignorant children.
Evolution is not called a theory because nobody was there to observe it. Certainly you woudn't argue that Gravitational Theory is a theory because nobody can observe it. A theory is always falsifiable. A theory is the explanation of why an observed phenomena happens or happened. The conclusion may not change, but the principles that lead to the conclusion may. Evolution has been tested and there have been numerous experiments conducted that demonstrate it. Do some research.
@psford1 how do you get from 'if evolution is' to 'supernatural forces at play' ? evolution is a natural process with no need of any supernatural entities...
@1n354a Basically, for natural causation and evolution to be true would mean that at some time the universe was not here. No matter, time or space. There is nothing in natural science that can create any of that. Some will make the argument that before the universe there was nothing so there would not have been any of the natural laws for the matter, time and space to abide by. If the universe is in fact finite, it MUST have been created at some time. Only a supernatural force could do that
@psford1 why could the universe not be eternal? why could there not be a situation in which the universe expands and contracts, so our 'big bang' is nothing special? why do you know that there had to be a beginning? and how do you know that there is no natural way for this to occur - do you think that we know all there is to know about the universe?
And what do you know about supernatural entities such that you can say that they are the only possible source?
@1n354a I dont know, I dont even like to come off as if I do know. But I do understand that the general consensus is that universe is finite (beginning and end). The Big Bang really wasnt that special in relation to the creation event (what ever caused it). The reason why I stick with the assumption that there must have been a supernatural force is acting is simply because we have natural laws that contradict the creation of matter, etc.
@psford1 the general consensus is that we have a good idea what happened in the past up to a certain point...prior to which we don't know anything about. there are plenty of ideas, but no hard data. as for claiming the universe will have an end, that would require the ability to tell the future (something we can not yet reliably do). As such, making any unsubstantiated claims regarding the existence of supernatural beings poofing things into existence is quite silly.
@1n354a As for claiming that animals will continue to evolve into more and more complex lifeforms requires the ability to tell the future. The future based on a past that we dont even fully understand. I havent said anything about supernatural beings doing ANYTHING. I simply stated that for a force, any force, to create time, matter, or space it HAS to be outside of any natural law, ie supernatural. How can you not understand what that word means? Never said 'God' or that evo was wrong
@psford1 what evidence do you have that time and space and matter were created to begin with - and what evidence do you have that they were created by a being? why could they not have come about by natural causes? until you have completely removed all natural processes I see no reason to start inventing magical men hiding in the clouds.....don't you agree?
@1n354a I dont have any evidence that they were created. All I have is the fact that its the general consensus, just as it is the genral consensus that animals evovled from a common ancestor. You cant pick and choose which consensus to agree with. The same people who accept evolution accept the finite universe theory. You may have to research that one. And again i never said any being did anything. I certainly never said anything about a man in the clouds - dont strawman dude
@psford1 I think that you are going a little far when you state that the same people who accept evolution (an observable phenomenon) also accept the 'finite universe theory'. Are you forgetting the Big Freeze. the Big Bounce, the Big Rip, the Multiverse theory, or the 'we don't know enough yet to make a theory' theory? we know how life evolves....we don't know how the universe will end (assuming it even will) nor do we know what happened before the Big bang. Again...no need for the supernatural.
This is also what Gould thinks of creation science:
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false." - Stephen Jay Gould
nicely done....nicely done. Im going to forward this to my friends wife. He explains this way better than what I tried to reason with her. My biggest pet pev with this argument that evolution is only a "theory" is that the echo chambers clearly don't have an understanding of what it is that constitutes a scientific theory vs something you just pull out of your ass.
there are COUNTLESS THEORIES that are constantly being either falsified or IMMENSELY modified. To say that just because gravity has been modified to what we know now, DOES NOT mean that evolution (from single cell to complex organisms) is AS VALID. To imply that would imply that all theories are accurate.
FACT: Facts can refer to truths known about past or present circumstances by actual experience or observation or events that are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.
So a FACT is provable.
SCIENCE as is described in the scientific METHOD can only FALSIFY Conjectures and Theories. Thus, Neither creationism nor evolution can be a FACT as we can not OBSERVE God Creating men, and we cannot OBSERVE creatures evolving. We're looking at a minor slice in time here.
If hominids have been evolving for 6 million years, why are hominid fossils the rarest on earth? Can you imagine how many bones there should be? 6 Million years is a long time. I dissagree with the 'science' and the "evolution of theory". How can so many "facts" be changed to "natural mistake". Can you also show to me any example of an increase of information evolving in a genome?
@jiminiflix Conditions for fossilisation to occur have to be very specific, making fossilisation an incredibly rare occurrence (varying between environments). The proportion of all life on Earth that has fossilised over the past 3.7 or so billion years is truly miniscule, naturally making fossils of a family existing within a timeframe of a few million years few and far between.
A mutation will change the information (resulting in new information) within the genome, and these are very common.
@FactThis Fossils don't take millions of years to happen. Wood can petrify in only years. Oil can be made in hours and how do fossil happen anyway? They have to be buried quickly and thats what we see in the fossil record. The fossil record proves evolution does not occur ( well not according to the dates "science" has placed on them) How can a 50 million years old turtle fossil look the same as turtle of today?. Mutations do happen, but not positive, they lead to death or sterilty .
@jiminiflix (p1) The speed at which things fossilise varies depending on the minerals involved, what's fossilising, and how (not all were buried by sediment; there are many other types of fossilisation). Wood can quite easily petrify within 100 years, but this has no bearing on other instances of fossilisation which happened under different conditions. We can also date the fossils and strata using radiometric dating methods. Oil can form in hours? Well that's the energy crisis sorted. (cont)
(p2) Not all organisms have necessarily changed greatly over time. Sharks and crocodilia are ancient orders and are found through many geological periods, whereas dogs and humans are relatively recent and are only found in the youngest. But do you know what we haven't found? Humans, rabbits, dogs and pigeons in the same strata as dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Why? Because these organisms did not exist during the same periods.
(p3) You will have around 100 or so mutations unique to you in your genome. The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral, with no positive or negative impacts. However, some are negative, but some are positive. It's the positive mutations that are selected by the environment (natural selection) and that help drive evolution. Known current examples of positive mutations in organisms include resistance/immunity to the HIV virus, antibiotic resistance and nylon digestion.
@FactThis None of these resistances are mutations, rather the transfer of information that already exists in the genome. Bacteria that digest nylon for instance has been proven for a fact to be just that. It is not evolution, rather as I have said. Look it up. Immunity , well thats not evolution either. Mutations occur, yes but so what they always have. These mutations are not evidence of evolution. The imaginary fairtale of evoltion has no evidence of increase info in the genome.
@jiminiflix Funny, what i have read from scientific papers claims that the informaation for a bacteria to digest nylon is that it cant exist in the genome prior to the mutation and it has ben proven using other bacteria.
@Sweddude If it wasn't already in the genome, the bacteria wouldn't digest the nylon. Why does this experiment of 1975 seem to be the only example of positive genetic mutation? Even though its not. Tell me how can you accept the simple LACK of evidence for evolution?
@jiminiflix Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry , Evidence from comparative anatomy, Evidence from paleontology, Evidence from geographical distribution, Evidence from observed natural selection, Evidence from observed speciation, Evidence from artificial selection, Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration, yeah no evidence huh?There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation.
@FactThis I think dating of fossils is mainly mans interpretation of data rather factual evidence of age. I believe the data is read wrong. On many accurances the processes used read different ages which shows either they are all wrong or we have to use a mean average. The concept of "billions" of year is ridiculous, even millions of years as we have no absolute accuracy to PROVE that. Of course if the dating methods are PROVEN unreliable past 10,000 yrs then evolution has even less to stand on
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes, and creationists would most likely dismiss the idea of the warping of space time as the cause of gravity. In my opinion, it would be much better, for the sake of them understanding, if the theory of germs was cited instead of gravity. No person that doesn't want to commit intellectual suicide would ever deny that microorganisms are what cause diseases.
@majoraswrath132 Exactly. Read Stephen Hawkins, the universe in a nutshell. It gives another theory to gravity. As you know nothing is really forever in science, every now and then old theories get replaced by newer better ones.
The fact that gravity exists is still true. Our understanding of it has changed. However our understanding of evolution is the same. Besides, this guy has fallible evidence.
@Kissimirri22 Yes, theory IS a theory, see theory of relativity for specifics as it expands upon Newtons theories. Scientific theory is not a theory as we would use the term in normal circumstances. A Scientific theory is testable, and ever expanding as well as subject to review and further idea's and testing thus prohibiting it from becoming scientific law. Hope that answered your question
I know that. I wrote my last comment for people who says "Evolution is JUST A THEORY" to show, what a word "theory" means. Maybe I should have put ;)p to end so others could have understood
It is true, also when you think about it, theory by it's very nature works by evolution because thoery has to evolve over time. Evolution is comon sense,,,
Evolutionism is a claim. Based on fraudulent evidence made up by evolutionists. No more. Creation is supported by all testable evidence we have today. Mitochondrial DNA, DNA, population numbers, historical accounts, logic, imperfection, natural laws, law of biogenesis, laws of inherited information, kinds [families ] of animals. Everything we have supports creation.
@warriorprince1010 Either you are lying or have been lied to, a lot. Please present one piece of evidence that supports Creationism and I will go away.
@labrat1807 You are free to go away anytime since you hate what God has created. Mitochondrial DNA, population numbers, families and kinds [evolution goes against any set families as they say we are all the same family] logic of design, law of abiogenesis.
@labrat1807 They're just words, not evidence. I need you to tell me what the material evidence is, and how it disqualifies evolution as a valid scientific theory. I should tell you that you have a very poor grasp of what the term 'family' means in biology. You have also made the usual creationist mistake and confused evolution with abiogenesis. They are not the same thing, nor are they anything but very faintly related to each other. Believe what you want, but base it on fact, not lies
@warriorprince1010 They're just words, not evidence. I need you to tell me what the material evidence is, and how it disqualifies evolution as a valid scientific theory. I should tell you that you have a very poor grasp of what the term 'family' means in biology. You have also made the usual creationist mistake and confused evolution with abiogenesis. They are not the same thing, nor are they anything but very faintly related to each other. Believe what you want, but base it on fact, not lies
@warriorprince1010 Everything we have also supports the existence of pink invisible unicorns! Nobody believes me when I tell 'em all the facts that prove the existence of unicorns! Facts like... Mitochondrial DNA, DNA, population numbers, historical accounts, logic, imperfection, natural laws, law of biogenesis, laws of inherited information, kinds [families ] of animals. UNICORNS FTW!!!!!
Evolution is a fact, there are theories that explain it (e.g. explanations for genetic mutations) and they may be wrong or right, but if you look at the progression of organisms over time - it's an undeniable fact. Similarly, gravity is a fact, there were different wrong theories in the past that explained it, but it was always a fact.
According to the theory of gravity whjat goes up must come down. As it is 'just a theory and not a fact' there should be instances when things are thrown into the auir and they levitate in mid air.
"Kills 99.99% of all bacteria!" which leaves 0.01% to survive and breed hyper-resistant strains of bacteria leaving all of us much more vulnerable. Thus does Nature have a joke on all of our GI tracts using our terror of infection and neuroses about cleanliness.
1. facts can change. therefore the facts aren't stable, and needs to be adjustet, to make them "facts" for instance, the "fact that the sun rise and sets, whould be false, if the earth moved away from it.
but heres another little thought. it's only a "theory" that god exist, since no one can truely prove it. yeah yeah, some dude wrote a book, but the facts over evolution are written in our genes.
Great video again, no off you go and clean the floor from apple shrapnels!
The problem with creationists is that they don't want to know anything else than what they already think they know. There is no creationist research center like CERN trying to connect with their god, and just a handful of idiots trying to find the 4000 years old wooden boat in the mountains of Turkey. They are not curious, they just want to be right, and so far they're never right so that's why they're getting nervous!
Fantastic video sir, I hope it illuminates the minds of some of the stubbornly and wilfully ignorant...the "it's only a theory" crowd, hell-bent on not understanding what it actually means.
nice video some people cant get theorys through theyre head like as u said people say theorys arnt facts.Wrong facts are unsure possibilitys.this reminds me of the continental drift theory years after research alot of people got proved wrong and alfred wegener was correct
A theory is fact, a hypothesis is not always fact, you misunderstand. It's also not 'general theory of relativity' it's 'theory of general relativity'. Its general because it applies to gravity and acceleration unlike his first attempt.
@altonator91 Actually, that's wrong. No matter how much empirical evidence you support a theory with it never becomes a fact as it is never becomes data itself. A hypothesis is, again, different from a theory as it requires no evidence to be valid. It is a prediction of causal effect, it is NOT an explanation of that effect.
By the way, I think the theory of evolution is true, I just thought I'd correct you on that.
@altonator91 Listen, I know evolution happens, I'm studying Biology at the University of Aberdeen and I appreciate anyone who has the sense to be critical. What I do not appreciate and what me and many of my peers will never stand for is the misrepresentation of science.
In this case, the theory and the fact are called the same thing, simply because it's a single phenomenon explained by one theory.
Evolution is an indisputable fact.
The theory of evolution is well established, but not fact.
I’m an evolutionist, but comparing gravitation to evolution is a stretch. It’s easy to observe an object falling, and math can predict impact time. This is not as easy in evolution. Evolution is an umbrella for microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, natural selection, etc. In my experience it is speciation that catches the most flack. Sure the moths are black now, but they are still moths. Speciation is just accepted on its necessity, but actual specific research in this field is very slim.
You forgot to explain the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, hypothesis go through excrutiating attacks as it must hold up against peer review before it can be considered a theory. If it makes it through peer review and then it can be considered a theory, its not a theory like in every day life, but one that has empirical evidence and has gone through repeatable testing that has shown strong correlations and proven the point time and time again, unlike religions round theory...
Searching for this 'fact of evolution' for some time, all i find are plenty of theories put forward by darwinists, with so called 'evidence'. So now i believe there are no 'facts of evolution' whatsoever! Only recycled darwinist theories & hypothesis. That makes darwinism a religion, darwinists producing fragments of bones (as evidence of their belief) is no more evidence than a theist producing a religious scripture as evidence. At heart, both are nothing more than mere beliefs.
To some, God explains the universe. If you're an evolutionist, your beliefs are based on a Big Bang Theory that begs the impossible odds of an orderly universe forming from an explosion, plus the impossible odds of life forming of it's own fruition and living long enough to feed off of itself to evolve into what we see today. Therefore, a God believer is no more a 'freak' for believing in God than an evolutionist is for believing in a huge mathematical improbability.
@potjhm1 Wrong on so many levels but the main failures of your comment are that you think evolution is synonymous with atheism and you're assuming that the big bang and abiogenesis are part of the theory of evolution!
@potjhm1 You are confusing 'impossible' with 'improbable'. You cannot have 'impossible' odds, only increasingly improbable ones. Also, since the universe and life already exists, the probability of both coming into existence is exactly 1:1.
An invisible being existing outside the universe creating everything? Now THAT is impossible.
@potjhm1 Order in the Universe doesn't require more divine intervention than a Universe with no order. It's a PROPERTY of the Universe, it's how it BEHAVES. And the Big Bang is NOT an explosion, that is a misconception too many people have. The Big Bang is a dilatation. And the 'huge mathematical improbability" only comes from OUR PERCEPTION of the Universe, they're just numbres to REPRESENT to ourselves what is going on.
There aren't any facts of evolution just made up theories,conjecture, bogus illustrations by Darwinists of how so & so evolved into so & so, usually made from tiny fractions of bones & shown as full size creatures as if it's all fact when in reality it's anything but. That does not make darwinism a fact, it is no more a fact than anyother BELIEF system.
@19Lion8 then you cant read there are many facts and we atheists dewode our lifes for the truth if there is a god then we will find out, the bible is not a prove, its a 2000 years old dusty book and you have nothing else we have facts,prove,evidense, and the list goes on and on there will be not stupid religious freak left in the world in aboud 200 years, then the mankind will step in to an golden age oo i only wiched that i would be alive then what a world that will be.
@TheIcelandicPatriot Darwinists believe evolution is blind, there is no designer to direct evolution, it's by chance. Can they explain how the random, bilnd evolution designed the kidney, an organ WAY superior than any dyalisis machine made today? At what point did the blind, unconcious nothingness Darwinists call 'the evolution process' observe , hypothesised & concluded humans needed such an an organ & DECIDED to 'evolve' it, all the while being blind & UNCONCIOUS? That's a freaky belief!
@19Lion8 You are talking about an argument that people often use called 'irreducible complexity'. You obviously don't know, that organs that currently serve one function, previously performed many, entirely different functions throughout the evolutionary process of an organism. If you actually researched this and understood how it worked, and the evidence we have of this occurring, you wouldn't be ignorantly complaining about something you clearly don't properly understand.
@joshie92 Research what? Darwinist books full of conjecture, bogus scenarious, dreamed up illustrations & take it as evidence? As for 'organs evolving through' evolutionary process' into something as complex as a kidney, is akin to saying a pen, ink & a book evolved, then through time wrote the Enclyclopedia! Blind & random unconcious evolution creates NOTHING! Unless darwinists secretly believe evolution it is an all seeing, assesing, observing, concluding, designing concious entity.
@19Lion8 No, evolution is not "blind and random", and your pen analogy is ridiculous, that is not how evolution works at all. You clearly have no understanding of how the basic concepts of random genetic mutation, and natural SELECTION work. Go and take a course in evolutionary biology before you insult the life's work of hundreds of scientists with your ignorant bullshit.
@19Lion8 You think Darwin just wrote down the first idea that came to his head, and called it a fact? Sorry, but that is the sort of thing that only religion does. I suggest you read 'the origin of species' before you go claiming that evolution is just "made up theories". The theory of evolution is the collection of over a century of research done using the scientific method, the very same scientific method which is responsible for almost everything you use daily, your car, computer, tv, etc...
Its funny how some discoveries that prove to be facts, have to be changed due to new conflicting discoveries. Many facts are still only theories because of how we see them. Facts are usually just theories subject to change.
@virtualguitarist Another one that has no clue about Facts, Theories and Laws, mate, there are loads of vids on YT that explain them. Go watch a few so you understand and then you will see just how wrong your understanding is.
@AgCCannonFodder You think i was born yesterday? If i wanted to learn something, i would not rely on youtube for schooling. There is to many credible sources out there to learn from without having to resort to a secular website that is full of blind fools. In due time you will understand why they call "deception, deception."
Well, no. The theory of gravity has at it's core a mechanism we don't understand. The theory of evolution has no such missing mechanism. We understand evolution far better than we do gravity. In the end, the mechanism for gravity might as well be invisible elastic bands (right now) but evolution is incredibly well understood, with the exact mechanism being clearly pinpointed.
Very enjoyable thank you
MrBrucebracey 1 week ago
some really good stuff here
thejameskan 1 week ago
I don't know about you, but I have no reason to not believe theories that I cannot disprove. I know this logic doesn't make sense to you, but hey, that's the entertainment that most of are after. Thanks for supplying it. We couldn't have done it without you!
srexob715 1 week ago
It's a theory like the germ theory, or the theory of atomic physics, etc.
brisketslapper 1 month ago
Look at my species formation theory, it is the best, the clip is my cont
54eriks 2 months ago
genetic systems...being controlled by the internal environment of cell to sensory input from external environment produces calculated leaps forward in evolution. This contradicts the idea of genetic determinism and random mutation. Random mutation accounts for a few adaptations, natural genetic engineering coupled with symbiogenesis and other hypotheses accounts for a calculated non-random source of new information. In other words, your entire argument is now a mute point in light of evidence.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
The diversity of the biosphere is a FACT. Common ancestry is strongly suggested. Evolution is not a theory, it's a model. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory. The mechanism for said theory is mutation/selection/replication. Said mechanism is insufficient to account for the data. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory. Said theory lacks a convincing mechanism, although it does allude to the environments larger role. The Third Way (Shapiro) is a theory. Said theory puts forth genetic systems....
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
Evolution is a theory though. If a better theory fits the facts then that becomes the leading theory. There are numerous facts that this theory explains, but this does not make evolution a fact. Any scientist who thinks different is a pretty bad scientist. Evolution is the best current explanation for the observable facts we see before us, but once we start trying to fit facts to the theory it is no longer science, it is religion.
flyattic 2 months ago
What an excellent video. Well put sir!
4aceentertainment 2 months ago
3) By the type of logic you use any true statement in any religion or religious texts could be used to validate that specific religion. Do you not see that? An animal being dead or an animal developing fur or some other characterization while still maintaining its species designation CANNOT be used to validate evolutionary theory as that is NOT the basic concept of the idea. If you cant see that then you are as lost as any 'brainwashed' theist, but much more pitiful...
psford1 3 months ago
Comment removed
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1
"How does the basic concept of either of these theories possibly help anyone? "
how about understanding bacterial resistance to antibiotics?
RabidApe 4 months ago
@RabidApe Now tell me what does the basic concept of evolution have to do with/how does it enhance the study of resistivity? And are you somehow implying that scientists are unable to understand this resistance based solely on a lack of understanding of this basic concept - which is basically speciation. Yes, by studying ANY field (including religious ideas) you will make discoveries that can help you in another area. Thats not the argument...
psford1 4 months ago
virus of flu evoluate all the time,fast becouse it live short,that's why we need new vaccinate every year for the same disease
DARKMATTERTIME 4 months ago
This is actually a good vid. Evolution is STILL only a theory, as well there could and are several different theories that try to sum up all of the facts surrounding origin. The theory of gravity is VERY different from the theory of evolution. The force gravity was observed for thousands of years by humans before there was a theory, then reproduced and tested. The force, or response, evolution was not! Arguably it is still not witnessed, observed or reproduced. Gravity=emperical Evo=conjecture
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 like dogs?where did all those breeds come from?empirical evidence for evolution,BiyacTh!
hitikan 4 months ago
Comment removed
psford1 4 months ago
@hitikan LoL, Im sure you're joking but I'll reply anyway. Dogs are all of the same species and fully capable of breeding with each other in any combination they please. Change within the same 'type' of animal is a non-disputed fact. Change that leads to the speciation we see today is still debated, and with good reason. It may make sense, but for something to be accepted as fact it needs to do much more than make sense. It HAS to be studied, reproduced and observed. Otherwise its opinion!
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 so you are saying that evolution has not been studied, reproduced or observed? ever? anywhere? by anyone? are you sure of that....?
1n354a 3 months ago
Comment removed
psford1 3 months ago
@1n354a The type of interspecies evolution, as explained by evolution theory, has NOT been studied, reproduced or observed. By that I mean that it has not been witnessed that single celled organisms could and do evolve to the complexity of a fish or any other higher evolved animal. Now like I said that doesnt mean the theory is false. But it does mean that if you say evolution is fact that is your personal opinion based on YOUR interpretation of the observations being made. Relative/conjecture
psford1 3 months ago
really? so nobody has studied speciation? That is funny...there are entire departments of universities in just about every nation around this globe which are focused on evolutionary biology...I wonder what they are studying, if not speciation. that you have not witnessed a single cell evolve into a fish has no bearing on anything. in fact if you did see that, evolutionary theory would be out the window...evolution take millions/billions of years to do something like that. evolution is a fact AND
1n354a 3 months ago
(cont) at the same time a theory. Confusing, eh? well that is the way of things. not only is evolution an observable phenomenon (fact) but how it takes place is explained best by the theory of evolution. see? it wasn't really all that confusing, I was just pulling your leg!
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a so basically what you're saying is that Evolution, as describes by the Theory of Evolution has NOT been tested and reproduced? So you're completely agreeing with what I said? Then why do you feel the need to argue? I didnt say Evolution, as described by Evolution Theory is impossible, or even implausible. I simply stated that it had been put under the same rigors as many other ideas. Again, I am referring only to the basic concept: Speciation.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 I think that your reading comprehension needs some polishing up. I do not agree with your ridiculous claims regarding evolution. Ever heard of an evolutionary biologist? Regarding your delusion as to whether or not speciation has been studied, I recommend going to pubmed (dot) org and searching for evolution or speciation. That should give you an idea as to how much research is actually being done regarding evolutionary biology. I think you might be surprised.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a And what I think is that I've been to the sites, read the articles, done the homework. Its not that evolution is not plausible, or not that it doesnt make the most sense. Evolution will never and can never be regarded as fact by a lot of people. No matter how much sense it makes you can not show empirically that all animals evolved from a common ancestor, period. So it may make sense but you're not asking us to look at the info, you're asking us to believe in the idea! Unscientific
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 I know that evolution can not be regarded as fact by some people, but that does not change reality.
and considering our knowledge of genetics and our ability to tell how much commonality there is between a clover and a bird, it is not impossible to show common ancestry, do you accept the science behind paternity tests? if yes then you accept common ancestry (whether you admit it or not).
I'm not asking you to believe anything...science requires no belief.
1n354a 3 months ago
3) If you really want people to accept evo stop arguing against creationism and accept that people will have differing viepoints. I mean after all, even if evo is true, it is still a useless theory as it can not be applied to solve any problem or make any prediction in the future. Again, only talking the basic concept of evolution. You cannot make a valid falsifiable prediction with your understanding of the basic principle in evolutionary theory can you? I'll wait, if you cant then stop talking
psford1 3 months ago
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a No sir, treating infections is NOT an example of a falsifiable prediction based on your understanding of the basic concept of evolutionary theory. Just try and calm down for a second and seriously think about what I am asking. For ANY theory to be useful it needs to be able to be used to make predicitions of some future event. Now, try again. Finish this statement about the basic idea of evo: 'If evolution is right, in the future ___ ___ ___ should/will happen'. Can you?
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 are you really pulling a shock of god approach on this one? that is sad.
the treatment of unknown bacterial/viral infections is a utilitarian use of evolutionary theory, contrary to your claims that there are none. it has nothing to do with the theory being falsifiable .. . . and yet it does...but anyway.
evolutionary theory is falsifiable very easily if you provide me with a fossil of a cretaceous poodle.
try and keep those separate please.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a You fail. Apparently it cannot be done. Are you admitting that it is impossible to make a valid, falsifiable prediction of some future event based on the basic concept of evolutionary theory? Is your prediction that no one will ever find a modern 'style' poodle dating back to the cretaeous period? That is almost a valid prediction, here's why: Prove it! Falsify it! You cant. So once again, will you make a valid, testable, falsifiable prediction based on evolution?
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 If you are asking how one can falsify evolutionary theory, I put forth that one need only find a cretaceous poodle. what is so complicated about that?
as for predictions, using our knowledge of how life evolves we can predict how virus' will mutate year to year and create vaccines to counteract them before we even encounter them. we can also use our understanding of how life evolves to treat unknown viruses (sequence, drop in 'tree of life', discover common ancestors, treat accordingly
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a There is not necessarily a real-world benefit from Creationism! But thats fine, and I'm glad you brought that up. That shows yet another correlation between the two ideas (creationism and evolution). Neither will ever be scientifically, empirically proven unless the forces show themselves, and neither of the basic concepts can be used to make a valid, falsifiable, testable prediction. The same can be said of abiogenesis and the big bang. Do you get it now???
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 those are real world situations in which our understanding of evolution benefit our quality of life. when it comes to creationism however, by your own admission there is no real-world benefit; it is a child's story told by ignorant people. there is no correlation between the two...one is useful, one is useless.
evolution is an observed phenomenon - we don't need to prove anything, rather attempt to understand why it occurs and evolutionary theory is our best explanation of said event.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a And if you would just address the hypothetical i put forth directly you would see that you STILL havent given me a falsifiable, testable prediction based on your understanding of the BASIC concept of evolutionary theory. Basic concept of evo: small adaptations over time leads to speciation. Please make a prediction based on that. Im not really trying to draw you into an no win argument. I already know that such a prediction is impossible so far. But thats the point I'm trying to make...
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 (cont 1)..the story is completely useless while the theory has real-world benefits. Why would we teach that both are equally possibly, when we know for a fact that they are not?
And as for your 'basic concepts of evolutionary theory' claim, you are pulling a shockofgod here as you know you already lost (since I have shown evolutionary theory to be predictive and falsifiable), so you are narrowing how you define evolution as if that is going to help you out. Unfortunately, evolutionary
1n354a 3 months ago
@psford1 (cont 2) theory is not confined to your dishonest definitions. We'll play though....let's see I predict that a land mammal could evolve into an ocean dwelling animal through gradual steps if it lived in the correct environment. Realizing that this environment existed 60mil years ago in modern day Pakistan, we can go look in that region for fossil evidence supporting this prediction. OMG! Look what we found! Sinonyx to Dorudon in about 20mil years! It appears that our prediction that
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a And as for my definitions being dishonest you need to look again. I lift my defn's straight from Merrian-Webster and atheists sites. I dont need to be dishonest or strawman to prove this point. The theory does that for me. And furthermore with your 'prediction' what have you found? You found a dead animal and by opinion and conjecture you made a decision that it was a direct descendant of some other animal. That is not science! Where is the empirical evidence? YOU DONT HAVE ANY!
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1by opinion and conjecture, eh? do you have another explanation as to how a person pinpointed exactly where certain fossils of animals which show a progression from land to water animal could be found? perfectly placed in the right strata to fall in line with evolutionary predictions? Perhaps you could rewrite everything? Maybe you'll go with ... .. umm... "god was testing our faith so he buried those fossils" . .... ? LOL please amuse....I mean enlighten us all!!
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Yeah I have another explanation. It was a guess! LoL, you dont get it. EMPIRICALLY, it doesnt matter if you find an animal that fits with EVERY single 'prediction' you can come up with. That is still not empirical and can not be used alone to validate the idea. Yes, evolution as described by evolutionary theory makes perfect sense. But that is my opinion and is not good enough. In science, you can ONLY base facts on what is observed and readily reproduced.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 (cont 3) small adaptations over time leads to speciation as we went from a land dwelling animal to a fully aquatic animal. See? Isn't that just spectacular?!?
So now you have been shown that evolution is falsifiable , utilitarian and that it has predictive 'powers'! I assume though that you covered your eyes for all this and are still going to claim that none of this ever happened....
... willful ignorance is such a tragedy.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Dude you are incompetent at debate. Do you not know what a prediction is? A prediction is a forecast or a statement of how things will happen in the future. ANY theory can have utilitarian contributions derived from it. But that does not make the theory itself it valid or useful. Evolutionary theory is USELESS. But the study of evolution certainly has led to other discoveries. Such as the studying of religion. BOTH theories are somewhat useless but by studying either we've been helped.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 Good god you are dense. Three predictions made: 1) flu virus will change X so we'll make a vaccine to counter that change. 2) unknown infection - DNA analysis - compare to related virus' - treat accordingly (it works) 3) if whales evolved from land mammals we would be able to find evidence in certain locations; we found them. Talk about being a horrible debater - you have refuted none of these points. How are these useless? Let's compare....'God did it'....hmmm...yeah so useful!!
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a I didnt say those occurrences were useless. What I said is that they are not predictions based on the BASIC concept of evolutionary theory which states that small adaptations over time lead to speciation. Theres no need to compare to a specific religion, as I have not endorsed one. Look again at your 3rd 'prediction'. What evidence do you have that it was confirmed? You find animals in certain areas. There is nothing about the fossils that tell you empirically how it got there.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 What evidence do I have that whales evolved in that region? Well you have a series of fossils in older to younger layers of rock having body types of a land animal to a land/water animal to an aquatic animal. It is clear evidence that small changes over time leads to speciation.
Yeah there is no need to compare to the religious side because you know that you couldn't support your 'god did it' assertions to save your life. Best keep those off the table!
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a STOP trying to strawman me! When have I said God did it? When have I used a specific religion in this debate? What intelligent design assertion have I made? None. Instead I've CLEARLY shown you that your theory cannot be used to make a valid prediction and is useless. And I have refuted EVERY 'prediction' you've made and even given you an example of a valid one. With the whales you dont have evidence of speciation. You have evidence of some animals being dead. THAT'S IT! ---->
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 you have clearly shown that evolutionary theory can not be used to make a valid prediction? are you kidding me? I have shown you three predictions - and you think that just ignoring them is a way of refuting them? Do you get your flu shot each year? If you got a viral infection would you get medicine from a doctor? If yes to either then you may not verbally accept that evolutionary theory is beneficial but you base your life on it. As for the whales, you have evidence of small changes..
1n354a 3 months ago
@psford1 over time leading to speciation; exactly as evolutionary theory predicts.
It is apparent that you do not see evolutionary theory being the best explanation for how life evolves. I assume that this means that you have a better explanation as to how this occurs? Because if you just don't like evolutionary theory but have no better answer, nobody cares. If you have a better explanation, based on all available evidence, then let us hear about it. Explain away.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a 2) Having the remains of an animal can in NO WAY be used to verify that they were evolved from a common ancestor. No matter the similarities. It is not empirical to conclude that this animal must have evolved from this animal. It is opinion. No matter how much sense it may make it is still opinion and conjecture. And there is no room for either in science. That is the type of circular logic I would expect from a theist, but it has no place in science. You are wrong and unscientific!
psford1 3 months ago
@1n354a 4) Also, even if by stroke of genius we were able to witness the evolution of ANY animal into its modern day relative - YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A USELESS THEORY! Even if evolutionary theory was empirically proven without a shadow of doubt true, you still would not be able to make a valid prediction of some future event or apply the concept to solve ANY problem. Why? Because evolution is not a force, it is a reaction. Abiogenesis is not a force. The Big Bang may not be a force.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 Regarding predictive capabilities....I repeat, do you accept medication to fight bacterial/viral infections? If you got sick, would you take medicine? If the first kind didn't work, and the doctor told you that the strain you have is one that evolved an immunity to the original medicine, would you tell him he is full of it? Or would you gladly accept the second medicine? Do you take your flu shot each year? If yes, you may not like to admit it, but you accept evolutionary theory.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Furthermore, you are unable to make a testable, falsifiable prediction based on the basic concept of evolutionary theory because it is impossible. Here's an example of one: I predict that animal X will evolve into animal Y and have these features based on the stimulus it is receiving. See? I would accept a prediction like that. But like I said before I know that it's impossible to make such a call. You have a useless theory, as well as abiogenesis, big bang, and maybe intelligent design
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 "I would accept a prediction like that" - "I know that it's impossible". So your requirements to accept a theory is for it to do the impossible? No wonder you gravitate to religion. Unfortunately, I have shown that the theory is falsifiable and that it can make utilitarian predictions - neither of which you have refuted.
ID is a theory? I think that you need to brush up on the definition of the word theory. Though your lack of understanding explains much of your argument.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Cont'd Even if evolution turns out to be true relatively close to how it is understood today, it will still be a useless concept as it can NOT be applied to any real life situation or used to solve any problems. So as of now all it does is draw people apart (atheist vs. creationist). And what I'm saying is if you have two relatively useless theories EVERYONE should be more accepting of the others' viewpoints and stop trying to prove each other wrong when neither side can really win.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 I know that this may come off sounding a little harsh, but are you retarded? Do you have some learning disability that denies you basic reading comprehension? I only ask as I have several times now I have provided you with examples of how our understanding of evolution can be used to find solutions to real world problems, yet you just posted that it can NOT be applied. Do you need to go back and reread my older posts?
In this case you a theory (evolution) and a story (creationism)...
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a 3) Im not saying that people shouldnt study evolution. People should study everything. Many great discoveries have come about while studying or researching for some other topic. That includes religious aspects. Whenever you study something, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, you have a better chance of a scientific breakthrough. So to limit our thinking to only what seems to 'make sense' does not help, especially when the only thing that makes sense is a useless theory...
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 So you can go on and on about how evolution is garbage and useless, but the reality is that you enjoy the fruits of biological research that only makes sense if life evolves. How else do you explain germs gaining immunity to drugs/treatments? How else does it make sense if not for life's ability to gradually change? By all means give us a run-down on how this occurs and then book a flight to go collect your Nobel prize.....you will be a freakin' hero. Well? What is your explanation?
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Alright we'll agree to disagree. Bottom line, NO underlying concept derived from the study of evolutionary theory(ET) can be used to validate the idea, thats absurd. Such as the ideas used to create medicines and vaccines. That is NOT the basic concept of evolutionary theory and was merely discovered and understood better while studying ET. I do take medicine. But that doesnt somehow validate ET. I guess I'll leave this alone
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 You keep taking your medicine and you enjoy all the fruits that were grown on the tree fed by our understanding of evolutionary theory. And if you are ever involved in a paternity case and your put your trust in the results reached by the test, do so knowing that our understanding of evolution is what got you there. Reality doesn't change just because you don't like how it tastes, mate.
1n354a 3 months ago
don't get me going on what's being taught in schools...when they took phonics out of the schools and put in "sight reading" was the beginning of the end. They pushed kids back on their writing skills "just print children, it's good enough!" They took out memorizing addition and subtraction tables. If you can't read or write or do basic math? What DO they teach in schools?? Parents are up against all school theories. We're doomed anyhow by raising ignorant children.
skylilly1 4 months ago
Evolution is not called a theory because nobody was there to observe it. Certainly you woudn't argue that Gravitational Theory is a theory because nobody can observe it. A theory is always falsifiable. A theory is the explanation of why an observed phenomena happens or happened. The conclusion may not change, but the principles that lead to the conclusion may. Evolution has been tested and there have been numerous experiments conducted that demonstrate it. Do some research.
GoldenCrusader93 4 months ago
Evolution is proven to be real.
It has been witnessed in the real world.
Why is it still called just a theory?
They teach it in schools.
Is it because it disproves the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the talking snake and original sin?
If Evolution is real that would mean there was never a fall from grace.
It's not really just a theory; it is real.
legion1a 4 months ago
@legion1a If evolution is real then it means that there are certainly supernatural forces at play in our universe...just saying
psford1 4 months ago
@psford1 how do you get from 'if evolution is' to 'supernatural forces at play' ? evolution is a natural process with no need of any supernatural entities...
perhaps you could clarify.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a Basically, for natural causation and evolution to be true would mean that at some time the universe was not here. No matter, time or space. There is nothing in natural science that can create any of that. Some will make the argument that before the universe there was nothing so there would not have been any of the natural laws for the matter, time and space to abide by. If the universe is in fact finite, it MUST have been created at some time. Only a supernatural force could do that
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 why could the universe not be eternal? why could there not be a situation in which the universe expands and contracts, so our 'big bang' is nothing special? why do you know that there had to be a beginning? and how do you know that there is no natural way for this to occur - do you think that we know all there is to know about the universe?
And what do you know about supernatural entities such that you can say that they are the only possible source?
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a I dont know, I dont even like to come off as if I do know. But I do understand that the general consensus is that universe is finite (beginning and end). The Big Bang really wasnt that special in relation to the creation event (what ever caused it). The reason why I stick with the assumption that there must have been a supernatural force is acting is simply because we have natural laws that contradict the creation of matter, etc.
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 the general consensus is that we have a good idea what happened in the past up to a certain point...prior to which we don't know anything about. there are plenty of ideas, but no hard data. as for claiming the universe will have an end, that would require the ability to tell the future (something we can not yet reliably do). As such, making any unsubstantiated claims regarding the existence of supernatural beings poofing things into existence is quite silly.
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a As for claiming that animals will continue to evolve into more and more complex lifeforms requires the ability to tell the future. The future based on a past that we dont even fully understand. I havent said anything about supernatural beings doing ANYTHING. I simply stated that for a force, any force, to create time, matter, or space it HAS to be outside of any natural law, ie supernatural. How can you not understand what that word means? Never said 'God' or that evo was wrong
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 what evidence do you have that time and space and matter were created to begin with - and what evidence do you have that they were created by a being? why could they not have come about by natural causes? until you have completely removed all natural processes I see no reason to start inventing magical men hiding in the clouds.....don't you agree?
1n354a 3 months ago
@1n354a I dont have any evidence that they were created. All I have is the fact that its the general consensus, just as it is the genral consensus that animals evovled from a common ancestor. You cant pick and choose which consensus to agree with. The same people who accept evolution accept the finite universe theory. You may have to research that one. And again i never said any being did anything. I certainly never said anything about a man in the clouds - dont strawman dude
psford1 3 months ago
@psford1 I think that you are going a little far when you state that the same people who accept evolution (an observable phenomenon) also accept the 'finite universe theory'. Are you forgetting the Big Freeze. the Big Bounce, the Big Rip, the Multiverse theory, or the 'we don't know enough yet to make a theory' theory? we know how life evolves....we don't know how the universe will end (assuming it even will) nor do we know what happened before the Big bang. Again...no need for the supernatural.
1n354a 3 months ago
great video but i must ask you to stop using the "horrible default option for you text"
surely you can find better colors than blue and white.
pheonixwolfable 5 months ago
This is also what Gould thinks of creation science:
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false." - Stephen Jay Gould
ivasenko48 5 months ago
nicely done....nicely done. Im going to forward this to my friends wife. He explains this way better than what I tried to reason with her. My biggest pet pev with this argument that evolution is only a "theory" is that the echo chambers clearly don't have an understanding of what it is that constitutes a scientific theory vs something you just pull out of your ass.
nrgetick 5 months ago
there are COUNTLESS THEORIES that are constantly being either falsified or IMMENSELY modified. To say that just because gravity has been modified to what we know now, DOES NOT mean that evolution (from single cell to complex organisms) is AS VALID. To imply that would imply that all theories are accurate.
brok3nboy 6 months ago
FACT: Facts can refer to truths known about past or present circumstances by actual experience or observation or events that are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.
So a FACT is provable.
SCIENCE as is described in the scientific METHOD can only FALSIFY Conjectures and Theories. Thus, Neither creationism nor evolution can be a FACT as we can not OBSERVE God Creating men, and we cannot OBSERVE creatures evolving. We're looking at a minor slice in time here.
brok3nboy 6 months ago
You have CLARIFIED that your an idiot.
ebrak47 6 months ago
it would blow my mind if that apple fell upwards.
lucaspbbp 7 months ago
damn it I came here to troll... But this video was valid...
Dracanic 7 months ago 12
nice presentation ,simple and coherant..
woodenmajor 8 months ago
If hominids have been evolving for 6 million years, why are hominid fossils the rarest on earth? Can you imagine how many bones there should be? 6 Million years is a long time. I dissagree with the 'science' and the "evolution of theory". How can so many "facts" be changed to "natural mistake". Can you also show to me any example of an increase of information evolving in a genome?
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix Conditions for fossilisation to occur have to be very specific, making fossilisation an incredibly rare occurrence (varying between environments). The proportion of all life on Earth that has fossilised over the past 3.7 or so billion years is truly miniscule, naturally making fossils of a family existing within a timeframe of a few million years few and far between.
A mutation will change the information (resulting in new information) within the genome, and these are very common.
FactThis 8 months ago
@FactThis Fossils don't take millions of years to happen. Wood can petrify in only years. Oil can be made in hours and how do fossil happen anyway? They have to be buried quickly and thats what we see in the fossil record. The fossil record proves evolution does not occur ( well not according to the dates "science" has placed on them) How can a 50 million years old turtle fossil look the same as turtle of today?. Mutations do happen, but not positive, they lead to death or sterilty .
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix (p1) The speed at which things fossilise varies depending on the minerals involved, what's fossilising, and how (not all were buried by sediment; there are many other types of fossilisation). Wood can quite easily petrify within 100 years, but this has no bearing on other instances of fossilisation which happened under different conditions. We can also date the fossils and strata using radiometric dating methods. Oil can form in hours? Well that's the energy crisis sorted. (cont)
FactThis 8 months ago
(p2) Not all organisms have necessarily changed greatly over time. Sharks and crocodilia are ancient orders and are found through many geological periods, whereas dogs and humans are relatively recent and are only found in the youngest. But do you know what we haven't found? Humans, rabbits, dogs and pigeons in the same strata as dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Why? Because these organisms did not exist during the same periods.
FactThis 8 months ago
(p3) You will have around 100 or so mutations unique to you in your genome. The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral, with no positive or negative impacts. However, some are negative, but some are positive. It's the positive mutations that are selected by the environment (natural selection) and that help drive evolution. Known current examples of positive mutations in organisms include resistance/immunity to the HIV virus, antibiotic resistance and nylon digestion.
FactThis 8 months ago
@FactThis None of these resistances are mutations, rather the transfer of information that already exists in the genome. Bacteria that digest nylon for instance has been proven for a fact to be just that. It is not evolution, rather as I have said. Look it up. Immunity , well thats not evolution either. Mutations occur, yes but so what they always have. These mutations are not evidence of evolution. The imaginary fairtale of evoltion has no evidence of increase info in the genome.
jiminiflix 8 months ago
@jiminiflix I'm sending you a PM as there simply isn't enough room here to explain things in any comprehensive detail.
FactThis 8 months ago
@jiminiflix Funny, what i have read from scientific papers claims that the informaation for a bacteria to digest nylon is that it cant exist in the genome prior to the mutation and it has ben proven using other bacteria.
Perhaps you could cite your source?
Sweddude 7 months ago
@Sweddude If it wasn't already in the genome, the bacteria wouldn't digest the nylon. Why does this experiment of 1975 seem to be the only example of positive genetic mutation? Even though its not. Tell me how can you accept the simple LACK of evidence for evolution?
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@jiminiflix Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry , Evidence from comparative anatomy, Evidence from paleontology, Evidence from geographical distribution, Evidence from observed natural selection, Evidence from observed speciation, Evidence from artificial selection, Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration, yeah no evidence huh?There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation.
Sweddude 7 months ago
@Sweddude Thats right. In all those subjects there is substantial evidence to equally disprove evolution. Its not hard to either.
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@jiminiflix Ok, explain just how to dissprove those evidence.
Sweddude 7 months ago
@jiminiflix You need to give me a subject.
jiminiflix 7 months ago
@FactThis I think dating of fossils is mainly mans interpretation of data rather factual evidence of age. I believe the data is read wrong. On many accurances the processes used read different ages which shows either they are all wrong or we have to use a mean average. The concept of "billions" of year is ridiculous, even millions of years as we have no absolute accuracy to PROVE that. Of course if the dating methods are PROVEN unreliable past 10,000 yrs then evolution has even less to stand on
jiminiflix 8 months ago
It's just a theory.
Like gravity.
majoraswrath132 8 months ago 17
@majoraswrath132 That's fallacious. The Gravity that you are describing is a law. I much better comparison is:
"It's just a theory.
Like Germs."
Ye4hBuddy 7 months ago
@Ye4hBuddy
Gravity is both a theory and a law. A law is described more exact as an equation: something that is universally true.
The law of gravity states that a falling object, regardless of mass, will fall at a certain exponential rate.
The theory of gravity just describes what gravity is, what causes it and how it works etc.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 6 months ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Yes, and creationists would most likely dismiss the idea of the warping of space time as the cause of gravity. In my opinion, it would be much better, for the sake of them understanding, if the theory of germs was cited instead of gravity. No person that doesn't want to commit intellectual suicide would ever deny that microorganisms are what cause diseases.
Ye4hBuddy 6 months ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW .........and that our interaction/observation of gravity is relative to space and time.
nrgetick 5 months ago
@majoraswrath132 Exactly. Read Stephen Hawkins, the universe in a nutshell. It gives another theory to gravity. As you know nothing is really forever in science, every now and then old theories get replaced by newer better ones.
aelix56 7 months ago
@aelix56
The fact that gravity exists is still true. Our understanding of it has changed. However our understanding of evolution is the same. Besides, this guy has fallible evidence.
majoraswrath132 7 months ago
@majoraswrath132 which is also a fact.
Lateralusmaster 5 months ago
so is gravity just a theory
Kissimirri22 8 months ago
@Kissimirri22 Yes, theory IS a theory, see theory of relativity for specifics as it expands upon Newtons theories. Scientific theory is not a theory as we would use the term in normal circumstances. A Scientific theory is testable, and ever expanding as well as subject to review and further idea's and testing thus prohibiting it from becoming scientific law. Hope that answered your question
redwolf602 8 months ago
@redwolf602
I know that. I wrote my last comment for people who says "Evolution is JUST A THEORY" to show, what a word "theory" means. Maybe I should have put ;)p to end so others could have understood
Kissimirri22 8 months ago
Thanks for making it so clear. I hope this will help people to understand what they claim is wrong without even knowing what they are talking about.
xmaneater 10 months ago
It is true, also when you think about it, theory by it's very nature works by evolution because thoery has to evolve over time. Evolution is comon sense,,,
bloty02 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek There is no scientific community, just data. Data supports creation at all times.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
But the bible is just a testament.
roysanjuro 11 months ago
Evolutionism is a claim. Based on fraudulent evidence made up by evolutionists. No more. Creation is supported by all testable evidence we have today. Mitochondrial DNA, DNA, population numbers, historical accounts, logic, imperfection, natural laws, law of biogenesis, laws of inherited information, kinds [families ] of animals. Everything we have supports creation.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Either you are lying or have been lied to, a lot. Please present one piece of evidence that supports Creationism and I will go away.
labrat1807 11 months ago
@labrat1807 You are free to go away anytime since you hate what God has created. Mitochondrial DNA, population numbers, families and kinds [evolution goes against any set families as they say we are all the same family] logic of design, law of abiogenesis.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
@labrat1807 They're just words, not evidence. I need you to tell me what the material evidence is, and how it disqualifies evolution as a valid scientific theory. I should tell you that you have a very poor grasp of what the term 'family' means in biology. You have also made the usual creationist mistake and confused evolution with abiogenesis. They are not the same thing, nor are they anything but very faintly related to each other. Believe what you want, but base it on fact, not lies
labrat1807 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warriorprince1010 They're just words, not evidence. I need you to tell me what the material evidence is, and how it disqualifies evolution as a valid scientific theory. I should tell you that you have a very poor grasp of what the term 'family' means in biology. You have also made the usual creationist mistake and confused evolution with abiogenesis. They are not the same thing, nor are they anything but very faintly related to each other. Believe what you want, but base it on fact, not lies
labrat1807 11 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Everything we have also supports the existence of pink invisible unicorns! Nobody believes me when I tell 'em all the facts that prove the existence of unicorns! Facts like... Mitochondrial DNA, DNA, population numbers, historical accounts, logic, imperfection, natural laws, law of biogenesis, laws of inherited information, kinds [families ] of animals. UNICORNS FTW!!!!!
xmaneater 10 months ago
Evolution is a fact, there are theories that explain it (e.g. explanations for genetic mutations) and they may be wrong or right, but if you look at the progression of organisms over time - it's an undeniable fact. Similarly, gravity is a fact, there were different wrong theories in the past that explained it, but it was always a fact.
uarurdusa 11 months ago
According to the theory of gravity whjat goes up must come down. As it is 'just a theory and not a fact' there should be instances when things are thrown into the auir and they levitate in mid air.
usernameofnobody 11 months ago
"Kills 99.99% of all bacteria!" which leaves 0.01% to survive and breed hyper-resistant strains of bacteria leaving all of us much more vulnerable. Thus does Nature have a joke on all of our GI tracts using our terror of infection and neuroses about cleanliness.
NixonisLord 11 months ago 6
Yeah, but God, Heaven, Hell and Eternal bliss are not even close to be theories.
Pox45 11 months ago
Comment removed
jonesliza291 1 year ago
Comment removed
jonesliza291 1 year ago
1. facts can change. therefore the facts aren't stable, and needs to be adjustet, to make them "facts" for instance, the "fact that the sun rise and sets, whould be false, if the earth moved away from it.
but heres another little thought. it's only a "theory" that god exist, since no one can truely prove it. yeah yeah, some dude wrote a book, but the facts over evolution are written in our genes.
MrZergmeister 1 year ago
Great video again, no off you go and clean the floor from apple shrapnels!
The problem with creationists is that they don't want to know anything else than what they already think they know. There is no creationist research center like CERN trying to connect with their god, and just a handful of idiots trying to find the 4000 years old wooden boat in the mountains of Turkey. They are not curious, they just want to be right, and so far they're never right so that's why they're getting nervous!
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
Fantastic video sir, I hope it illuminates the minds of some of the stubbornly and wilfully ignorant...the "it's only a theory" crowd, hell-bent on not understanding what it actually means.
comanchio1976 1 year ago
great video. really refreshing.
allsmiles432 1 year ago
great video man!
Dustencumbie 1 year ago
nice video some people cant get theorys through theyre head like as u said people say theorys arnt facts.Wrong facts are unsure possibilitys.this reminds me of the continental drift theory years after research alot of people got proved wrong and alfred wegener was correct
spartan1327 1 year ago
A theory is fact, a hypothesis is not always fact, you misunderstand. It's also not 'general theory of relativity' it's 'theory of general relativity'. Its general because it applies to gravity and acceleration unlike his first attempt.
altonator91 1 year ago
@altonator91 Actually, that's wrong. No matter how much empirical evidence you support a theory with it never becomes a fact as it is never becomes data itself. A hypothesis is, again, different from a theory as it requires no evidence to be valid. It is a prediction of causal effect, it is NOT an explanation of that effect.
By the way, I think the theory of evolution is true, I just thought I'd correct you on that.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 In science a theory is a fact. It is commonly misused in language though but it is still a fact none the less.
altonator91 1 year ago
@altonator91 Listen, I know evolution happens, I'm studying Biology at the University of Aberdeen and I appreciate anyone who has the sense to be critical. What I do not appreciate and what me and many of my peers will never stand for is the misrepresentation of science.
In this case, the theory and the fact are called the same thing, simply because it's a single phenomenon explained by one theory.
Evolution is an indisputable fact.
The theory of evolution is well established, but not fact.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 my bad, was looking at it from physics
altonator91 1 year ago
@altonator91 No prob, that's probably more of a science than Biology is anyway XD
I understand theory's used differently in physics and maths.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 Nah, biology and physics are equal. Science ftw
altonator91 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 it would be simpler to say "Evolution is a fact" The explanation as to how it happened, that's the "Theory of Evolution".
:-)
DarkAngel182 1 year ago
I’m an evolutionist, but comparing gravitation to evolution is a stretch. It’s easy to observe an object falling, and math can predict impact time. This is not as easy in evolution. Evolution is an umbrella for microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, natural selection, etc. In my experience it is speciation that catches the most flack. Sure the moths are black now, but they are still moths. Speciation is just accepted on its necessity, but actual specific research in this field is very slim.
joenuevo 1 year ago
Keep up the good work man!
toasted311 1 year ago
where did the dirt come from,and the gravity, and why doesn't everything in the universe spin the same way
chefluigi100 1 year ago
Also you are off on a few things in the video..
MrBlightspeaker 1 year ago
You forgot to explain the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, hypothesis go through excrutiating attacks as it must hold up against peer review before it can be considered a theory. If it makes it through peer review and then it can be considered a theory, its not a theory like in every day life, but one that has empirical evidence and has gone through repeatable testing that has shown strong correlations and proven the point time and time again, unlike religions round theory...
MrBlightspeaker 1 year ago
"A structure of ideas that explains and interpret facts." Sounds kind of like Creationism to me, which is, in fact, just a theory
TheAbsractMind 1 year ago
Searching for this 'fact of evolution' for some time, all i find are plenty of theories put forward by darwinists, with so called 'evidence'. So now i believe there are no 'facts of evolution' whatsoever! Only recycled darwinist theories & hypothesis. That makes darwinism a religion, darwinists producing fragments of bones (as evidence of their belief) is no more evidence than a theist producing a religious scripture as evidence. At heart, both are nothing more than mere beliefs.
6blade7 1 year ago
@6blade7 hahahahah oh wow what is this
Rereversed 1 year ago
To some, God explains the universe. If you're an evolutionist, your beliefs are based on a Big Bang Theory that begs the impossible odds of an orderly universe forming from an explosion, plus the impossible odds of life forming of it's own fruition and living long enough to feed off of itself to evolve into what we see today. Therefore, a God believer is no more a 'freak' for believing in God than an evolutionist is for believing in a huge mathematical improbability.
potjhm1 1 year ago
@potjhm1 Wrong on so many levels but the main failures of your comment are that you think evolution is synonymous with atheism and you're assuming that the big bang and abiogenesis are part of the theory of evolution!
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@potjhm1 You are confusing 'impossible' with 'improbable'. You cannot have 'impossible' odds, only increasingly improbable ones. Also, since the universe and life already exists, the probability of both coming into existence is exactly 1:1.
An invisible being existing outside the universe creating everything? Now THAT is impossible.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@potjhm1 Order in the Universe doesn't require more divine intervention than a Universe with no order. It's a PROPERTY of the Universe, it's how it BEHAVES. And the Big Bang is NOT an explosion, that is a misconception too many people have. The Big Bang is a dilatation. And the 'huge mathematical improbability" only comes from OUR PERCEPTION of the Universe, they're just numbres to REPRESENT to ourselves what is going on.
Quartrez 1 year ago
Comment removed
potjhm1 1 year ago
There aren't any facts of evolution just made up theories,conjecture, bogus illustrations by Darwinists of how so & so evolved into so & so, usually made from tiny fractions of bones & shown as full size creatures as if it's all fact when in reality it's anything but. That does not make darwinism a fact, it is no more a fact than anyother BELIEF system.
19Lion8 1 year ago
@19Lion8 then you cant read there are many facts and we atheists dewode our lifes for the truth if there is a god then we will find out, the bible is not a prove, its a 2000 years old dusty book and you have nothing else we have facts,prove,evidense, and the list goes on and on there will be not stupid religious freak left in the world in aboud 200 years, then the mankind will step in to an golden age oo i only wiched that i would be alive then what a world that will be.
TheIcelandicPatriot 1 year ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot Darwinists believe evolution is blind, there is no designer to direct evolution, it's by chance. Can they explain how the random, bilnd evolution designed the kidney, an organ WAY superior than any dyalisis machine made today? At what point did the blind, unconcious nothingness Darwinists call 'the evolution process' observe , hypothesised & concluded humans needed such an an organ & DECIDED to 'evolve' it, all the while being blind & UNCONCIOUS? That's a freaky belief!
19Lion8 1 year ago
@19Lion8 You are talking about an argument that people often use called 'irreducible complexity'. You obviously don't know, that organs that currently serve one function, previously performed many, entirely different functions throughout the evolutionary process of an organism. If you actually researched this and understood how it worked, and the evidence we have of this occurring, you wouldn't be ignorantly complaining about something you clearly don't properly understand.
joshie92 1 year ago
@joshie92 Research what? Darwinist books full of conjecture, bogus scenarious, dreamed up illustrations & take it as evidence? As for 'organs evolving through' evolutionary process' into something as complex as a kidney, is akin to saying a pen, ink & a book evolved, then through time wrote the Enclyclopedia! Blind & random unconcious evolution creates NOTHING! Unless darwinists secretly believe evolution it is an all seeing, assesing, observing, concluding, designing concious entity.
19Lion8 1 year ago
@19Lion8 No, evolution is not "blind and random", and your pen analogy is ridiculous, that is not how evolution works at all. You clearly have no understanding of how the basic concepts of random genetic mutation, and natural SELECTION work. Go and take a course in evolutionary biology before you insult the life's work of hundreds of scientists with your ignorant bullshit.
joshie92 1 year ago
Comment removed
potjhm1 1 year ago
@19Lion8 Dude, that is one of the dumbest statements I've ever read, if that's what you think, then you really do need to go back to school.
AgCCannonFodder 1 year ago
@19Lion8 Spot on my friend!
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@19Lion8 You think Darwin just wrote down the first idea that came to his head, and called it a fact? Sorry, but that is the sort of thing that only religion does. I suggest you read 'the origin of species' before you go claiming that evolution is just "made up theories". The theory of evolution is the collection of over a century of research done using the scientific method, the very same scientific method which is responsible for almost everything you use daily, your car, computer, tv, etc...
joshie92 1 year ago
Time dilation is special relativity, not general relativity. But whatever.
gimmethegepgun 1 year ago
"But ma`am, you did yourself in 9 months"
ThePaleSun 1 year ago
Its funny how some discoveries that prove to be facts, have to be changed due to new conflicting discoveries. Many facts are still only theories because of how we see them. Facts are usually just theories subject to change.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist Another one that has no clue about Facts, Theories and Laws, mate, there are loads of vids on YT that explain them. Go watch a few so you understand and then you will see just how wrong your understanding is.
AgCCannonFodder 1 year ago
@AgCCannonFodder You think i was born yesterday? If i wanted to learn something, i would not rely on youtube for schooling. There is to many credible sources out there to learn from without having to resort to a secular website that is full of blind fools. In due time you will understand why they call "deception, deception."
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
Well, no. The theory of gravity has at it's core a mechanism we don't understand. The theory of evolution has no such missing mechanism. We understand evolution far better than we do gravity. In the end, the mechanism for gravity might as well be invisible elastic bands (right now) but evolution is incredibly well understood, with the exact mechanism being clearly pinpointed.
logic11isGod 1 year ago
an ad for hebrew scripture popped up. I LOL'd.
great vid
TooMuchToo0ften 1 year ago