Evolution is not just a theory. It is an historical account of what happened over billions of years. So which is it, oh great and Holy Scientists!?!?! Is evolution a THEORY of life's history or is it actually our life's history? If it's a theory, then that's pretty ridiculous to believe it as historical... Just to clarify, there are not "theories" as to whether George Washington existed. That is fact. So do tell, evolutionists, is evolution a theory or a historical fact?
@tpstrat14 Get off your high horse and look up the definition of a scientific theory. It doesn't mean 'theory' in the colloquial sense. Germs, gravity and evolution are all theories.
The name title of this video is 'Creationism Dishonesty', yet he has shows a thumbnail of a hot chick to get people to come and watch his video. This technique is dishonest and manipulative, therefore how can we assume that anything else he says is not also dishonest and manipulative? Typical atheist B.S.
In this video, you say that Neanderthals weren't human. It's my understanding that they are a different species of human, Homo Neanderthalensis, and we are Homo Sapiens.
What are the 100s of transitional forms. This is often stated by evolutionists but is never actually addressed with details anywhere. I am aware of Australopithecus, Ambulocetus, Archaeopteryx, Thrinaxodon, and Tiktaalik. I don't necessarily agree that these are in fact transitional forms - it seems a bit more like wishful thinking, but I can see how these might be such. I am trying to put together a database of these transitional forms and other evidence of evolution.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
That hot horny chick wearing little clothing was placed in the exact middle of the clip so it would show that on the youtube sidebar, so more people would click on it and visit this site.
@kafkazinho my question for you is this ,God said He God made man in His image in Genesis ,and then God said that man was above all the creatures on earth, made in Gods image and God gave man dominion over all the earth and the creatures therein ,so today even after 6000 years we can visibly see that man has always held that place in the world,so therefore can you continue to refute this evidence and stay in your lies???????????
"...... The modern genus Giraffa evolved during the Pliocene epoch, and included a number of other long-necked species, such as Giraffa jumae, that do not survive today.[7]
"..... Later examples include the genera Palaeotragus and Samotherium, which appeared in the early-to-mid-Miocene. They were both tall at the shoulder, and had developed the simple, unbranched ossicones of modern giraffids, but still had relatively short necks.[7] From the late Pliocene onwards, the variety of giraffids drastically declined, until only the two surviving species remained......."
Ask Hitler ? Why? he was a Catholic who ordered the burning of Darwins book. He was also nuts, if that isn`t obvious. The Nazi`s had Gott Mit Uns as a slogan and Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he was doing God`s work. There are many transitional forms, freely available for your education on the Net. Any other misunderstandings you need cleared up ?
Holocaust? Where did that come from? Pick one topic please.
As for immorality, evolution turns man into an animal. Ask Hitler how easy it was to get men who think of themselves as amoral animals, to behave that way?
Evolution has no starting point, and a serious lack of intermediate species. If you are going to sell your soul, aim higher.
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
@daogdaog Scientists have already debunked piltdown man. Hell, no scientist ever believed it. NatGeo, which is not a peer reviewed journal, put it in their magazine before scientists had a chance to truly looked at it. The same with the dino bird. And it's not scietists' faults, it is the greedy people who will fake fossils for monetary gain.
@HimesInu That is exactly the point. Greedy people will not make fake fossils if there are so many transistional fossils around. Even wikipedia, could only show 2 or 4 supposedly transistional forms between species. For a specie to turn to another specie, there should be millions of transistions because evolution by natural selection is so slow and requires very long time.
@daogdaog And you're assuming the Earth is 6000 years old. It is not. Try 4 million years old. You're going to take Wikipedia's word, which goes off random people over scientific journals? You deserve to be lied to. And there are millions of transitional fossils. The only nontransistional fossils would be from creatures who went extinct. And just because a few fossils were faked does not discount the entire fossil record. livescience(dot)com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory
@HimesInu I did not mention anything about earth being 6000 years old. Darwin himself stated that there were no transistional fossils in his time yet you claimed that there are millions of transitional fossils If that is so why would people fake fossils as transistional if there are millions already?
@daogdaog People fake transitional fossils for money, but the few that have been faked have been quickly disproven by scientists. As for Darwin saying there were no transitional fossils found, the reason is they didn't have the full picture. They had a few fossils, but not as complete as today's. This was 150 years ago. The fossil record has grown considerably since then.
It's a testament to the fossil record that frauds are extremely few and far between. I've only ever heard of two and neither one fooled scientists for more than a few years. Neither would fool anyone today.
In science, if a theory works at all, it must be used until something else can better explain all collected data. You can't throw out something that works and replace it with nothing that doesn't.
Google "observed instances of speciation." This isn't hard.
@daogdaog There weren't millions of fossils in Darwin's time. There were a few houndrets. Now there are literally millions. Every single fossil is by definition transitional.
@daogdaog wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils A shit ton more than "2 or 4 supposedly transitional forms." And you're "2 or 4" number is dishonest. First, you don't site which page of Wikipedia you use, but I think I've found it: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Transitional_fossil This page isn't to give the transitional fossils. It's talking about transitional fossils in a general manner. And it goes on to debunk a few creationists claims.
"For a specie to turn to another specie, there should be millions of transistions because evolution by natural selection is so slow and requires very long time."
While there ARE many transitional fossils, this statement assumes that every organism gets fossilized. Fossilization is an extremely rare event that only happens under specific conditions, so it's a testament to life's diversity that we have so many anyway.
@TheZooCrew fossilization is extremely rare for transistional forms, but we have so many fossilized species of shrimps, birds, dino, lizards. It is not logical. The funny thing is, we are seeing live horse shoe crabs today similar to fossilized horse shoe crabs before the era of dino. Those animals never evolved at all? Why do we find fossilized bird with highly complex feathers during the jurassic period?
"fossilization is extremely rare for transistional forms, but we have so many fossilized species of shrimps, birds, dino, lizards. It is not logical."
Apparently you know jack shit about taxonomy and don't understand evolution. Every species could be classified as transitional.
Evolution doesn't require radical change. Horseshoe crabs are well-suited to their environment, which is rather static, and so their changes are the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection.
@TheZooCrew First natural selection then mutations then genetics then what else? the theory of darwin evolution is so flawed that biologists kept on introducing anything they could think of to support the darwins idea. Darwin himself stated that if people cannot find numerous transistional fossils then his theory must be wrong. Plain and simple.
@TheZooCrew How can I go back to high school when I am still in my last year in grade school? mutation is actually a genetic defect. Mutation cannot generate new specie. Species can adapt but in no way evolve.
@daogdaog "Species can adapt but in no way evolve." Idiot. You just said "Species can evolve but in no way evolve.". A mutation is a random change in a gene. They can be beneficial (increased strength for example), neutral, or they can be bad mutations, like retardedness.
@flightkiller09 Says who? You? Who cares about what you say? I certainly do not. You don't have to be a scientist to argue with a scientist, but unless you intend to look like a moron, you should have some knowledge in the specific field.
@daogdaog And lastly, a scientist is equally happy to be proven wrong or right. Both means an advance in knowledge, and that's what science is all about.
@Helge129 No amount of evolutionists idea will ever change the mere fact that species never evolved at all. We see forms today of lizards, shrimps, crocs similar to those fossilized millions of years ago
some even prior to the existence of dinos like the horse shoe crabs. Evolution theory is nothing but unverified assumptions after assumptions
@daogdaog Crocks haven't changed much in the past few houndred millions years. They probably just got smaller. Same for sharks. Why? Because they are pinacles of evolution.
The fact is that species do evolve. And it has been observed directly.
@Helge129 Yes, it has been observed directly by our own very eyes that crocs and sharks ever since never turned into a new form of animals based on fossil records. For millions of years they remained crocs and sharks. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Modern human has no Neandertal DNA trace. Time and time again evolution has been proven to be flawed by modern science.
@daogdaog Evolution has been proven to be good, solid science for the last 150 years. Claiming anything else is a downright lie with the sole purpose of decieving people into believing you.
The fossil record is indirect. I mean directly, as in, nowadays. The arise of several new species has been directly observed. They call that speciation now.
@Helge129 I dont intend to deceive people. I encourage anyone to have an unbiased look at the evidence showing that evolution is flawed. Speciation is a theory and assumed to have happened in the past. It is not a mechanism to generate new species. In animal husbandry, interbreeding species will always result in infertile offspring.
@daogdaog Speciation is a process that has been observed directly in nature. And is part of the theory of evolution. And who said anything about interbreeding species?
This is why Neandertals are not postulated to be the ancestors of modern man. Homo erectus is, among many others.
"Time and time again evolution has been proven to be flawed by modern science. "
Please cite peer-reviewed literature that asserts this. You won't, of course, and you'll invent an excuse that will likely involve a conspiracy theory.
@TheZooCrew Many people know that peer-reviewed literatures are biased and unreliable. Biologists are afraid of being branded as outcasts by their fellow biologists whenever they deviate from evolutionary theory. They don't to want to rock the establishments that provided them salaries and grants. Otherwise they might end up without jobs. Plain and simple.
"Many people know that peer-reviewed literatures are biased and unreliable."
This is such an asinine statement it's hilarious.
"They don't to want to rock the establishments that provided them salaries and grants. Otherwise they might end up without jobs."
So you're going to swallow Ben Stein's load whole without fact-checking. You don't know a damn thing about the scientific community. The person who disproved evolution would win a Nobel Prize.
@TheZooCrew Yes, peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual. Biologists are already biased towards the theory of evolution.
@daogdaog ‘ peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual’
You mean accurate. Scientific theories explain factual data.
‘ Biologists are already biased towards the theory of evolution’
If this is known to a layman like you, then it should be rather easy for some of the biologists who work for creation institutes to prove it. Such no, evidence would destroy biological research’s validity. Why aren’t they working to obtain the evidence?
@daogdaog ‘ peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual’
The real falsification process takes place after the peer review process. This is where other scientists recheck & retest all the evidence to see if it leads them to the same conclusions.
Since everything was based solely on the evidence, then any effort to discredit it must address that evidence.
No creation scientist (yeck)is trying to discredit any such evidence.
The Discovery Institute actively engages in attempting to discredit evolutionary evidence.
However, their attempts almost always incorporate baldfaced lies and other forms of dishonesty. They never, ever attempt to publish in peer-reviewed literature without cheating a la Sternberg.
@egamble22 Biologist and geneticist W.E.Loennig has showed that there is no fossil evidence to support the idea of a gradual elongation of the neck from the giraffe’s Okapi-like ancestors, and that the elongation required much more than simple quantitative changes: new features were required, for example, to handle the much higher blood pressure required by the long neck
Loennig has not showed this. His work has not passed peer review and the evolution of the giraffe's neck is well-documented. Loennig is an ID advocate, meaning incontrovertibly that he began with an apriori position and attempted to shoehorn something, anything, into that conclusion. Doing so necessitates dishonesty.
The only person who seems to take him seriously is Granville Sewell, an ID mathematician whose attempts to rewrite the second law of thermodynamics are laughable.
@TheZooCrew well documented assumptions after assumptions. Can you list the species with gradual changes in their necks leading to giraffe? Since it is a gradual change, there should be thousands of forms in between as stated in the theory of evolution.
These are the words of someone who is clearly not a scientist and hasn't done a single bit of research. I grow tired of compensating for your utter laziness.
"there should be thousands of forms"
Only if you don't understand the well-known obvious fact that fossilization is an extremely rare event that takes precise conditions.
The evolution of the giraffe neck is a current topic of research, but it has definite short-necked cousins.
@TheZooCrew You cant provide a list because it did not happen at all. Where is that so called massive evidence? Granting fossilization is rare why are same species like horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, cockroaches are ones fossilized time and time again and not the transistional forms like those animals that gradually change into giraffes?
"You cant provide a list because it did not happen at all."
Argument from ignorance.
"why are same species like horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, cockroaches are ones fossilized time and time again"
Mostly because those terms include thousands of species, some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization than others, and also because you're extremely ignorant of what the fossil record contains.
@TheZooCrew You assumed that some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization, so only giraffes get fossilized and not those thousands of animals just before they turn into giraffes living in the same geographical locations. Those thousands animals for millions of years never get fossilized at all. How many floods and volcanic eruptions in millions of years?
"You assumed that some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization"
There's no assumption involved. You could look up the conditions for fossilization and realize that some biomes don't have readily available resources.
"so only giraffes get fossilized"
We've found fossilized giraffes? 0_o
"Those thousands animals for millions of years never get fossilized at all."
When did I say this? And who says we're done finding fossils?
@TheZooCrew who says we're done finding fossils? Would 150 years not enough for digging? Had you started digging some 350 million years ago, you would have found the same fossilized specimen of horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, crocs, sharks, dragonflies and cockroaches showing that those animals never evolved at all.
Of course not, dumbass. Why would you even say that? Have we explored the entirety of Earth's crust? Absolutely not, so your statement is beyond stupid. We've explored the tiniest fraction of our planet.
"Had you started digging some 350 million years ago"
No, actually...and we know this because we've uncovered fossils from then and we don't find modern species.
@TheZooCrew You have no evidence to back up the story of four legged animals turning into giraffes in very gradual manner, yet there are so many fossilized specimen some dated 350 million years ago of horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, crocs, sharks, dragonflies and cockroaches identical to species living today.
If you think any species from 350 million years ago is identical to modern species, you need your head examined. Some species haven't changed much, but genetic drift has caused them to change a little.
"You have no evidence to back up the story of four legged animals turning into giraffes in very gradual manner,"
This does not mean this evidence doesn't exist (for there isn't any evidence against it) and it doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation period.
I'm a space systems engineer. I have a decent grasp of certain parts of biology and I'm pretty skilled with tracking down information, but why are you not at a university majoring in biology if you have so many questions? Ask the experts who have infinitely more resources and knowledge on these topics than I do. Arguments from ignorance against random YouTubers just makes you look pathetic.
@TheZooCrew The fact remains you have not provided me with a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually transform into a giraffe for a simple reason that fossilization is rare yet what we observed is that tigers, lizards, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, herrings, cockroaches, crocs, dragonflies, sharks get fossilized but the animals that represented small changes prior to the existence of those species mentioned never fossilized. Where is that complete and massive evidence?
"The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, along with the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. The giraffids evolved from a 3 m (9.8 ft) tall antelope-like mammal that roamed Europe and Asia some 30–50 million years ago.[6] The earliest known giraffid was Climacoceras, which still resembled deer, having large antler-like ossicones. It first appeared in the early Miocene epoch......"
@daogdaog What makes you think that those fossils you say don't exists, really don't exist? You Creationists constantly give this argument from ignorance. If you did research to find examples of them, you will find them. Did you bother to WATCH the video you are commenting on? Specific examples of transitional forms can be seen on "9th foundational Falsehoods of Creationism".
@daogdaog Odinata just proved my point. Just the simplest research can show you examples of that which you claim does not exist. If you are honest and seek knowledge, then the information is out there for you to discover. If however, you seek to support your religious belief system with science, you will need to remain ignorant of real scientific research and will have to continue to delude yourself to maintain your belief system. It is obvious you chose the latter.
@coolgreyoneabby Provide me a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually change into a giraffe. There should be thousands because according to evolution theory changes were so minute over a long period of time.
@daogdaog Odenata already provided that list for you. I read it too. But being a Creationist you ignore evidence, stick your fingers in your ears, sing la la la and then ask the same question again as if it was still some big mystery. Again, it underscores the intellectual dishonesty of the Creationists. WATCH the "9th foundational falsehood of Creationism" for an even longer list of transitional species.
@coolgreyoneabby Again provide me a list here of FOUR LEGGED animals with short NECKS that gradually change into a GIRAFFE, not insects. There should be thousands because according to evolution theory changes were so minute over a long period of time.
"Why do we find fossilized bird with highly complex feathers during the jurassic period?"
Because feathers developed before birds. Remember that "bird" is merely an arbitrary barrier we've set up. How much do you know about cladistic phylogenetics?
@blaisingm Maybe one day science will come up with a better theory to replace the flawed natural selection theory. The biggest problem is that many biologist are not so open minded enough for an alternative theory. They are afraid that they may become outcasts in a peer review.
@daogdaog "a better theory to replace the flawed natural selection theory."
So, evolutionary theory is flawed but you cannot think or conceive of a better scientific theory. Do you also feel the same way about other scientific theories? For example, are: germ theory, atomic theory, or plate tectonic theory ALSO equally flawed? If not, and all those other theories are just fine, what is the primary flaw of evolutionary theory?
@daogdaog Go ahead, come up with a new theory to replace the "flawed" theory of evolution, and win a nobel prize. But you know what? Evolution is the strongest theory in science nowadays. All the evidence, every single bit of evidence, points towards it, with no exeptions.
I think creationists are simply desperate to find something, anything to support a belief which cannot stand critical scrutiny. Everyone has experienced the awful feelings that come with the realization that something they have held to be true is demonstrated to be false. Given that, I think that creationists are simply too afraid to look in the mirror and get over that first hurdle. The more times an epiphany occurs, the more temporary and less shocking the effects and the more one grows.
I wonder if planting a hot chick in the video for purposes of the icon indicates dishonesty. I mean after all humans are more visual creatures so its a classic bait and switch, I would even go so far as saying rick-rolled. However, I suppose as long as they get the information while awaiting the inevitable "booby flash" I suppose its not unforgivable.
YOu are a bunch of fools. You cant even convey a coherent argument. You spout opinions in the form of emotional rants. You commit logical fallacies continuously. You make assertions and you cant/wont support them. But most of you make no assertions, but continuously just committ the fallacy of ad hominem. Yet you are all so sure that you know everything. Woe unto you
No mutations produce greater order/complexity. Some mutations are good but only accidentally. Like if i were born without hair and a new dictator of the coutry I was born enslaved all people except those without hair.
@j919or Wrong. Just wrong. You should read and study things before making such radical statments abount them. A mutation is good if makes the bug more like a leaf, for example. And, yes, there are genetic/molecular mecanisms by which complexity is created. It is actualy the non thinking mind that accepts the supernatural better that the educated one. It is also creationists who are good at ignoring evidence and preaching they dont exist
@yyjpyy You are a complete drone and lemming as read ur precious science books without questioning them and are duped by the man and with the man u will go to everlasting misery. Mutations never increase order. Some times reduction of order is good but contniued reduction of order is never good. You love sin and independence and that is what u will get for eternity and its called hell. God has done everything to rescue u but ur ego is bloated and dominates ur thinking. Woe unto you!
@j919or And I can be pretty sure that you have entered deep questioning and sought a lot of evidence from the priest who told you these stuff... You talk about quastioning 200 years of peer-rewied science... They are questioned and chalenged BEFORE they are published. And after, too, indeed. You have your own precisous book, dont you? Have you ever quastioned what is in it a single, solitary time? Or is it heresy? It is you who should diversify your sources of info.
All those horrible things creationists say "evolutionists" are doing? The creationists are doing them because they do not have any actual evidence for their case.
The entire universe is a clockwork orange organized by God with all the required processes set to carryout all their functions on a cyclical manner about which no human being can fully understand. Until we get to the final confirmation, we will continue include theories and explanations some factual and others immature to confirm our so called independence of a higher being than ourselves. Evidence or not, I cannot honestly believe that I just exist from no external force. NO WAY!!!
Let's just keep it simple. I believe in evolution, but with a supreme being directing the whole process, though i will probably be crucified for stating such opinion. God exists because: love, anger, jealousy, joy, hatred, arrogance, shame, sadness, and fear exist. These are all intangible characteristics of the human being which we cannot physically see but recognize clearly--even though educated idiots try to use chemical imbalances to explain such phenomena. The entire universe is clock!!!
Sooooo.... If evolution really is science, how come we haven't been able go successfully test, observe' or repeat it?? I find it interesting that you accuse creationists of lying and being dishonest, and that Darwin doesnt really apply to today because science has "changed"... Th creation account has NEVER changed
@insaneExtrapilot I thought the dishonesty was pretty well covered. Are you saying that these tactics aren't dishonest?
Darwin's 150 year old writings about evolution do apply, but are not some sort of "Holy Grail" of dogmatic scientific theory. Science has had a long time to correct, improve upon, and reject parts of Darwin's writings, so in the strictest sense Darwin does not really apply today. Not all of what Darwin wrote was correct, and biological science has changed since the 1850's.
How is this a good thing? Being wrong from the start and touting that you have always been wrong is rather stupid. Poor Galileo...the church chose to punish him rather than admit a mistake.
Evolution has been successfully tested, observed, and repeated. To claim otherwise is a dishonest claim just like the ones listed in this video. Drosophila, helacyton gartleri, thousands of plants are all present-day examples.
@insaneExtrapilot It HAS been tested, observed, and repeated. If you don't believe me, just go to your local zoo and extract some DNA from a random chimpanzee and have it analyzed. Now, test your own DNA. Look specifically at your #2 chromosome. Now, take another chimpanzee and test it with your best friend's DNA. BEHOLD! You've observed, tested, and repeated. You'll find something very interesting about our #2 chromosome. Specifically look for telomeres in the middle. Notice anything unusual?
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. -Michael Denton, Author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
@TheBinary123 Some religoius people are crazy. All evolutionists are crazy for order does not come out of dfisorder, unless an intelligent life form is involved.
There are no transitory fossil and species. Prove one. The bird in the video is hardly proof but an example of the best these quacks have to offer. There should be millions of such fossils.
Atheists are skilled in deception. They use words like magic and imaginary to suggest to the non thinking mind that the supernatural is ridiculous. They love sin and their egos and the knowledge of God wont tolerate either. Deep down its not about what is true that people want but what best fits their desires.
@TheBinary123 Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@TheBinary123 How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
I'm curious about something... Why would have Single Celled Organsims been encouraged to evolved into new and seperate species over time from enviornmental pressures, if they were all subject to the same environment and it's change? If the Environment changed slowly over time and this encouraged EP which envoked NS, then why would the previous species still even last?
@crazy77iii well in some cases being a single celled organism was such an advantage that many organisms still alive today are single celled. however in a planet with varying resources and the organisms were subjected to different environmental pressures any adaptation that gave one the reproductive edge would have multiplied. one of the reasons eukaryotic cells for instance have been so successful is because of a symbiotic relationship that formed with bacteria.
@AussiePolitics You are Not understanding what I'm saying. If single celled organisms formed in the same environment, why would there change between them if they all developed in the same environment? There wouod be no reason for change amoungst them. They would all change to the same thing...
@crazy77iii when cells copy themselves mistakes are made and mutations occur. if a mutation is beneficial then that organism will be more likely to spread those genes onto its offspring correct? so even a slight advantage when competing for resources can have great reproductive success over time. that is the reason that they changed - competition for resources amongst each other and over time they dispersed and were subjected to different environmental pressures
@AussiePolitics I do understand "how" mutation can happen being that it happens pretty regularly from my understanding of it. But most mutations are in fact neutral. Then next in frequency is a bad mutation that is unfortunately implimented. Then if by by chance a good mutation even happens, it has to be the right mutation to even be beneficial. This is when NS happens which is derived from Environmental pressures. If All of the single celled organisms are in the same place, why would be better?
@crazy77iii there is always a finite amount of resources in an environment and organisms will produce more young than can survive. so even if they are in the same environment, a mutation that gave a single celled organism an advantage would increase its chances of surviving and reproducing because it would be more efficient at getting resources.
@AussiePolitics "Finite"- We are talking about a micron in size of an Organism... I'm not talking about nature. I'm not talking abuot fish, rabbbits or anything that we know of know and have observed reproduce. I' talking about that one celled organism that Evolution is supposedly based off of. Think abuot it. Put yourself right there as either scientist or or even one of them. What environmental changes would take place for one of them to NEED to become more advanced than the other? Think....
@crazy77iii why did a single celled organism need to advance? who said it NEEDED to advance. did you think that it WANTED to consciously do it. you do realise that it took longer for multicellular organisms to evolve than it took for live to originate on this planet in the first place dont you? so in all that time of course some single celled organisms were going to develop beneficial mutations that would make them more efficient at utilising resources and reproducing than others
@AussiePolitics "Who said that it NEEDED to advance?" The Ever changing evironment DID! That's the whole idea of evolution! EP +mutation= Beneficial Change to survive. Enough genetic change= new species from speciation... SUPPOSEDLY!? This is my point... If they were all the same species, WHY would they need to be better at utilizing resources? That process is for competitive Species that are not the same species.
@crazy77iii why would they need to be better at utilising resources? because certain individuals with beneficial mutations who WERE better at utilising resources would be able to have more children and pass those genes on. yes, evolution is accelerated during environmental change but that is not necessarily the case. it happens ALL the time.
@AussiePolitics So what makes a "Beneficial Mutation" Beneficial? Why would they need to be more efficient? Why would they have to compete if they were all the same thing? we are NOT talking about life today? We are talking about Supposed life on the Micron scale. Not a bunch of apes! There is no way that limited resources were the main contributing factor for the rise of evolution. You talk abot all of this like it's fact!? And it's NOT! It's all a dandy idea... That's it!
@crazy77iii why would they need to be more efficient? because they would be able to reproduce MORE of themselves than ANY OTHER. even a slight reproductive advantage over time yields HUGE differences in the general population
@AussiePolitics So you are telling me that colonies of the same spcies, infact the ONLY species at that time felt a need to become better at reproducing than others? That would be if there were indeed a limited resource. But there wasn't.... I WAS WAITING for You start attacking me! as usual! You all get pissed and start acting like children by calling names and claiming stupidity on our behalf....
@crazy77iii you're waiting for me to start insulting you? coming from the person who just wrote "You people are so brainwashed". actually its called examining the EVIDENCE. brainwashing is when a human tells you that life just magically appeared with no proof.
@crazy77iii you obviously have no clue how natural selection works if you wonder this. they did not 'feel' a need, they developed beneficial adaptations that allowed them to be more effective at reproducing than others. why is this too difficult to understand? the very first precursors of multicellular organisms were colonies of single cells called biofilms. some bacteria STILL do this today when food is scarce.
@crazy77iii actually there is competition amongst species ALL the time, in fact that is where the strongest competition is in the animal kingdom because they are the same and they occupy the same niche. you do realise it took almost 3 billion years for the first multicellular organism to arise from unicellular ones. that is more than enough time for them to have been distributed across the planet and been subject to a wide range of evolutionary changes.
@AussiePolitics "3 billion years" YEAH, and this is known as a fact!? LMAO! You people are so brainwashed these days with this stuff. how does the scientific community come up with such an idea that it's repeatedly stated as Fact, when it's all CLEARLY guessing! Listen, You CONNOT apply what is seen today in bacteria to a time that No One has knowlegde of other than conjecture, to have the same priciples act accrodingly. It's nonsense!
@crazy77iii three billion years because we have machines that are able to date objects based on radioactive decay. why bother explaining to someone as ignorant as you though because i doubt you have sat through a single class of chemistry in your life.
@AussiePolitics "Carbon dating" Free yourself and Do some RESERCH PLEASE!!!!!!! Fact: A single C14 atom's nucleus emits a beta particle in a stochastic (i.e. RANDOM or Completely UNPREDICTABLE!!!!!!!) manner to start the decay process. BUT Scientists CLAIM that the emission BECOMES predictable when there is a "group" of C14 Atom's..... And YOU are the one Claiming that I'm the 'Ignorant one" YOU clearly don't know the Facts about what you believe to truth!? It's actually disappointing...
@crazy77iii LOL you've been waiting to use that haven't you? carbon dating cant date past a certain age! congratulations, scientists KNOW THAT. I NEVER SAID CARBON DATING. i said radioactive decay because there are OTHER elements that are more stable that scientists use to date objects, lead isotopes for instance.
you betray your own ignorance and blind acceptance of creationist propaganda by instantly jumping to carbon dating despite me NEVER SAYING IT.
@crazy77iii YOU SAID CARBON DATING. carbon dating is NOT USED to date extremely old objects like billion year old rocks. if you had ANY understanding of this issue than you would know this. your ignorance clearly demonstrates you have NO understanding of radioactive dating and i doubt you have any background in science at all.
@crazy77iii ill give you an example: finches of the galapagos. they started off the same, but over time ones on the islands where only seeds were available or insects could be found in trees, the finches that had beneficial mutations that allowed their beaks to gather resources the most efficiently had the most reproductive success. that is an example of organisms completely the same in the same place, but over time advantageous mutations built up in the population
@AussiePolitics "CD's Finches" I knwo the story of CD and his theory's of how things became the way that they did... I understand how a mutation could work if applied beneficially. Stop thinking about everything that has been taught and think about the "Why" of the situation. Why was there a need for the 1 Species (single celled organism) to advance if there was only it? It's doesn't make sense if you look at that aspect. Other species compete against each other. Predator vs. Prey. etc.....
@crazy77iii over the vast amount of time that unicellular organisms existed they were subject to a range of evolutionary pressures. you seem to have the idea that multicellular organisms were somehow destined to evolve. you say what environmental changes would need to take place - maybe they were environmental changes or maybe it was a reproductive advantage developed over time to cooperate with other cells and form multicellular organisms. we've seen cooperation amongst cells before
@AussiePolitics "EP's, Destiny, EC needed for advancement, MAYBE" THIS is ALL the Evolution IS....... "Maybe this, maybe that, could have this, could have that, etc..." This is what MOST people fail to recognize about the process of evolution! it all based off of conjecture! NO ONE knows FOR SURE that Evolution even took place. Just because there were MANY, MANY Fossils created that could easily be put in Morphological order, that doesn't mean that they evolved from each other!
Evolution is not just a theory. It is an historical account of what happened over billions of years. So which is it, oh great and Holy Scientists!?!?! Is evolution a THEORY of life's history or is it actually our life's history? If it's a theory, then that's pretty ridiculous to believe it as historical... Just to clarify, there are not "theories" as to whether George Washington existed. That is fact. So do tell, evolutionists, is evolution a theory or a historical fact?
tpstrat14 3 weeks ago
@tpstrat14 Get off your high horse and look up the definition of a scientific theory. It doesn't mean 'theory' in the colloquial sense. Germs, gravity and evolution are all theories.
Slanguaj 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The name title of this video is 'Creationism Dishonesty', yet he has shows a thumbnail of a hot chick to get people to come and watch his video. This technique is dishonest and manipulative, therefore how can we assume that anything else he says is not also dishonest and manipulative? Typical atheist B.S.
ValRoyD 1 month ago
In this video, you say that Neanderthals weren't human. It's my understanding that they are a different species of human, Homo Neanderthalensis, and we are Homo Sapiens.
8698gil 1 month ago
I've done plenty to contribute in this time frame and locale
moneymakerx11 2 months ago
What are the 100s of transitional forms. This is often stated by evolutionists but is never actually addressed with details anywhere. I am aware of Australopithecus, Ambulocetus, Archaeopteryx, Thrinaxodon, and Tiktaalik. I don't necessarily agree that these are in fact transitional forms - it seems a bit more like wishful thinking, but I can see how these might be such. I am trying to put together a database of these transitional forms and other evidence of evolution.
CohibaSkeeza 3 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza
"I am trying to put together a database of these transitional forms and other evidence of evolution. "
Then fucking go to PubMed and search "evolution." You'll find over 300,000 peer-reviewed publications. Don't make pointless demands on random videos.
Google "transitional forms" or search it here.
"it seems a bit more like wishful thinking,"
You're clearly ignorant of all things science, so it's no surprise your opinion is rather idiotic.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago 2
@TheZooCrew I'm not sure the individual would be able to figure out how to search through PubMed.
SonOfNye 2 months ago
@SonOfNye Start with ArnoRa's vids
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@NOCO2TAX amen!
rltroup33 3 months ago
the same dihonest mechanisms are used by muslims, the difference: muslims will kill you after the end of your debate with them...
TheWonzy2009 3 months ago 6
@TheWonzy2009 r u nuts.
thinkmanworld 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWonzy2009see Roger Morneau ex Satanist pt 5
Darwin is a religion
IdaSputum 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 4 months ago
@RadarGuidedVermin
Um, ok.
mecher3k 4 months ago
Dont worry about creationists, worry about the Creator on judgement day.
Professing to be wise they became fools” (Romans 1:22)
NOCO2TAX 4 months ago
LOL chick hahahah
djay00009 4 months ago
To be a creationist is the mark of a poor education. To be an educated creationist is the mark of a liar.
Ackers555 4 months ago
That hot horny chick wearing little clothing was placed in the exact middle of the clip so it would show that on the youtube sidebar, so more people would click on it and visit this site.
Thumbs up if it worked for you!
:)
MegaSolipsist 4 months ago
Who's the chick in the blip in the middle?
COEXISTential 4 months ago
Ceationists= IGNORANCE!
flightkiller09 4 months ago
Criationists are DICKS!
kafkazinho 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kafkazinho my question for you is this ,God said He God made man in His image in Genesis ,and then God said that man was above all the creatures on earth, made in Gods image and God gave man dominion over all the earth and the creatures therein ,so today even after 6000 years we can visibly see that man has always held that place in the world,so therefore can you continue to refute this evidence and stay in your lies???????????
majorl311 4 months ago
"...... The modern genus Giraffa evolved during the Pliocene epoch, and included a number of other long-necked species, such as Giraffa jumae, that do not survive today.[7]
odinata 5 months ago
"..... Later examples include the genera Palaeotragus and Samotherium, which appeared in the early-to-mid-Miocene. They were both tall at the shoulder, and had developed the simple, unbranched ossicones of modern giraffids, but still had relatively short necks.[7] From the late Pliocene onwards, the variety of giraffids drastically declined, until only the two surviving species remained......."
odinata 5 months ago
@SciBishop
Clearly DonExodus knows that creationists are just horny and uneducated, so he put the pic in the thumbnail to lure them in. Smart.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 5 months ago
Ask Hitler ? Why? he was a Catholic who ordered the burning of Darwins book. He was also nuts, if that isn`t obvious. The Nazi`s had Gott Mit Uns as a slogan and Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he was doing God`s work. There are many transitional forms, freely available for your education on the Net. Any other misunderstandings you need cleared up ?
ilikezappa 6 months ago
Holocaust? Where did that come from? Pick one topic please.
As for immorality, evolution turns man into an animal. Ask Hitler how easy it was to get men who think of themselves as amoral animals, to behave that way?
Evolution has no starting point, and a serious lack of intermediate species. If you are going to sell your soul, aim higher.
wjestick 6 months ago
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog Scientists have already debunked piltdown man. Hell, no scientist ever believed it. NatGeo, which is not a peer reviewed journal, put it in their magazine before scientists had a chance to truly looked at it. The same with the dino bird. And it's not scietists' faults, it is the greedy people who will fake fossils for monetary gain.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu That is exactly the point. Greedy people will not make fake fossils if there are so many transistional fossils around. Even wikipedia, could only show 2 or 4 supposedly transistional forms between species. For a specie to turn to another specie, there should be millions of transistions because evolution by natural selection is so slow and requires very long time.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog And you're assuming the Earth is 6000 years old. It is not. Try 4 million years old. You're going to take Wikipedia's word, which goes off random people over scientific journals? You deserve to be lied to. And there are millions of transitional fossils. The only nontransistional fossils would be from creatures who went extinct. And just because a few fossils were faked does not discount the entire fossil record. livescience(dot)com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu I did not mention anything about earth being 6000 years old. Darwin himself stated that there were no transistional fossils in his time yet you claimed that there are millions of transitional fossils If that is so why would people fake fossils as transistional if there are millions already?
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog People fake transitional fossils for money, but the few that have been faked have been quickly disproven by scientists. As for Darwin saying there were no transitional fossils found, the reason is they didn't have the full picture. They had a few fossils, but not as complete as today's. This was 150 years ago. The fossil record has grown considerably since then.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@daogdaog
It's a testament to the fossil record that frauds are extremely few and far between. I've only ever heard of two and neither one fooled scientists for more than a few years. Neither would fool anyone today.
In science, if a theory works at all, it must be used until something else can better explain all collected data. You can't throw out something that works and replace it with nothing that doesn't.
Google "observed instances of speciation." This isn't hard.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@daogdaog There weren't millions of fossils in Darwin's time. There were a few houndrets. Now there are literally millions. Every single fossil is by definition transitional.
Helge129 5 months ago
@daogdaog wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils A shit ton more than "2 or 4 supposedly transitional forms." And you're "2 or 4" number is dishonest. First, you don't site which page of Wikipedia you use, but I think I've found it: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Transitional_fossil This page isn't to give the transitional fossils. It's talking about transitional fossils in a general manner. And it goes on to debunk a few creationists claims.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@daogdaog
"For a specie to turn to another specie, there should be millions of transistions because evolution by natural selection is so slow and requires very long time."
While there ARE many transitional fossils, this statement assumes that every organism gets fossilized. Fossilization is an extremely rare event that only happens under specific conditions, so it's a testament to life's diversity that we have so many anyway.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew fossilization is extremely rare for transistional forms, but we have so many fossilized species of shrimps, birds, dino, lizards. It is not logical. The funny thing is, we are seeing live horse shoe crabs today similar to fossilized horse shoe crabs before the era of dino. Those animals never evolved at all? Why do we find fossilized bird with highly complex feathers during the jurassic period?
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
"fossilization is extremely rare for transistional forms, but we have so many fossilized species of shrimps, birds, dino, lizards. It is not logical."
Apparently you know jack shit about taxonomy and don't understand evolution. Every species could be classified as transitional.
Evolution doesn't require radical change. Horseshoe crabs are well-suited to their environment, which is rather static, and so their changes are the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew First natural selection then mutations then genetics then what else? the theory of darwin evolution is so flawed that biologists kept on introducing anything they could think of to support the darwins idea. Darwin himself stated that if people cannot find numerous transistional fossils then his theory must be wrong. Plain and simple.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog
"the theory of darwin evolution is so flawed that biologists kept on introducing anything they could think of to support the darwins idea."
It's not "anything they could think of." Go back to high school. You clearly have zero experience with any kind of science.
"Darwin himself stated that if people cannot find numerous transistional fossils"
What Darwin said doesn't really matter any more and we've found thousands.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew How can I go back to high school when I am still in my last year in grade school? mutation is actually a genetic defect. Mutation cannot generate new specie. Species can adapt but in no way evolve.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog "Species can adapt but in no way evolve." Idiot. You just said "Species can evolve but in no way evolve.". A mutation is a random change in a gene. They can be beneficial (increased strength for example), neutral, or they can be bad mutations, like retardedness.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 you must be a scientist to argue with scientists. But you're NOT!
Why should anyone believe you?
flightkiller09 4 months ago
@flightkiller09 Says who? You? Who cares about what you say? I certainly do not. You don't have to be a scientist to argue with a scientist, but unless you intend to look like a moron, you should have some knowledge in the specific field.
Helge129 4 months ago
@Helge129 Duh, If I am not a Medical doctor, Should I argue with Doctor about...Medicine?
flightkiller09 4 months ago
@flightkiller09 Depends. If you have ample knowledge in a certain field of medicine, despite not being a doctor, why not?
Helge129 4 months ago
@Helge129 you, Creationists Must Geniuses of the World! You Should be our Scientist from now on.
flightkiller09 4 months ago
@flightkiller09 Creationist? How the hell did you get to the conclusion I'm a creationist?
Helge129 4 months ago
@daogdaog And lastly, a scientist is equally happy to be proven wrong or right. Both means an advance in knowledge, and that's what science is all about.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 Theory of evolution is not science at all. It never was. It is just assuimptions after assumptions
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Uhm, the scientific community disagrees. And they probably know it better than you.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 No amount of evolutionists idea will ever change the mere fact that species never evolved at all. We see forms today of lizards, shrimps, crocs similar to those fossilized millions of years ago
some even prior to the existence of dinos like the horse shoe crabs. Evolution theory is nothing but unverified assumptions after assumptions
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Crocks haven't changed much in the past few houndred millions years. They probably just got smaller. Same for sharks. Why? Because they are pinacles of evolution.
The fact is that species do evolve. And it has been observed directly.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 Yes, it has been observed directly by our own very eyes that crocs and sharks ever since never turned into a new form of animals based on fossil records. For millions of years they remained crocs and sharks. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Modern human has no Neandertal DNA trace. Time and time again evolution has been proven to be flawed by modern science.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Evolution has been proven to be good, solid science for the last 150 years. Claiming anything else is a downright lie with the sole purpose of decieving people into believing you.
The fossil record is indirect. I mean directly, as in, nowadays. The arise of several new species has been directly observed. They call that speciation now.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 I dont intend to deceive people. I encourage anyone to have an unbiased look at the evidence showing that evolution is flawed. Speciation is a theory and assumed to have happened in the past. It is not a mechanism to generate new species. In animal husbandry, interbreeding species will always result in infertile offspring.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Speciation is a process that has been observed directly in nature. And is part of the theory of evolution. And who said anything about interbreeding species?
Helge129 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"I dont intend to deceive people."
Then why do you lie so much?
"Modern human has no Neandertal DNA trace."
This is why Neandertals are not postulated to be the ancestors of modern man. Homo erectus is, among many others.
"Time and time again evolution has been proven to be flawed by modern science. "
Please cite peer-reviewed literature that asserts this. You won't, of course, and you'll invent an excuse that will likely involve a conspiracy theory.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew Many people know that peer-reviewed literatures are biased and unreliable. Biologists are afraid of being branded as outcasts by their fellow biologists whenever they deviate from evolutionary theory. They don't to want to rock the establishments that provided them salaries and grants. Otherwise they might end up without jobs. Plain and simple.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"Many people know that peer-reviewed literatures are biased and unreliable."
This is such an asinine statement it's hilarious.
"They don't to want to rock the establishments that provided them salaries and grants. Otherwise they might end up without jobs."
So you're going to swallow Ben Stein's load whole without fact-checking. You don't know a damn thing about the scientific community. The person who disproved evolution would win a Nobel Prize.
My prediction was 100% accurate, BTW.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew Yes, peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual. Biologists are already biased towards the theory of evolution.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
...I rest my case.
Get professional help. Gullibility and paranoia are treatable conditions.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@daogdaog ‘ peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual’
You mean accurate. Scientific theories explain factual data.
‘ Biologists are already biased towards the theory of evolution’
If this is known to a layman like you, then it should be rather easy for some of the biologists who work for creation institutes to prove it. Such no, evidence would destroy biological research’s validity. Why aren’t they working to obtain the evidence?
Could it be because it doesn't exist
egamble22 5 months ago
@daogdaog ‘ peer review does not make the content a scientific literature factual’
The real falsification process takes place after the peer review process. This is where other scientists recheck & retest all the evidence to see if it leads them to the same conclusions.
Since everything was based solely on the evidence, then any effort to discredit it must address that evidence.
No creation scientist (yeck)is trying to discredit any such evidence.
All you do is make unsupported accusations.
egamble22 5 months ago
@egamble22
The Discovery Institute actively engages in attempting to discredit evolutionary evidence.
However, their attempts almost always incorporate baldfaced lies and other forms of dishonesty. They never, ever attempt to publish in peer-reviewed literature without cheating a la Sternberg.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@egamble22 Biologist and geneticist W.E.Loennig has showed that there is no fossil evidence to support the idea of a gradual elongation of the neck from the giraffe’s Okapi-like ancestors, and that the elongation required much more than simple quantitative changes: new features were required, for example, to handle the much higher blood pressure required by the long neck
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
Loennig has not showed this. His work has not passed peer review and the evolution of the giraffe's neck is well-documented. Loennig is an ID advocate, meaning incontrovertibly that he began with an apriori position and attempted to shoehorn something, anything, into that conclusion. Doing so necessitates dishonesty.
The only person who seems to take him seriously is Granville Sewell, an ID mathematician whose attempts to rewrite the second law of thermodynamics are laughable.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew well documented assumptions after assumptions. Can you list the species with gradual changes in their necks leading to giraffe? Since it is a gradual change, there should be thousands of forms in between as stated in the theory of evolution.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"well documented assumptions after assumptions."
These are the words of someone who is clearly not a scientist and hasn't done a single bit of research. I grow tired of compensating for your utter laziness.
"there should be thousands of forms"
Only if you don't understand the well-known obvious fact that fossilization is an extremely rare event that takes precise conditions.
The evolution of the giraffe neck is a current topic of research, but it has definite short-necked cousins.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew You cant provide a list because it did not happen at all. Where is that so called massive evidence? Granting fossilization is rare why are same species like horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, cockroaches are ones fossilized time and time again and not the transistional forms like those animals that gradually change into giraffes?
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"You cant provide a list because it did not happen at all."
Argument from ignorance.
"why are same species like horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, cockroaches are ones fossilized time and time again"
Mostly because those terms include thousands of species, some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization than others, and also because you're extremely ignorant of what the fossil record contains.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew You assumed that some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization, so only giraffes get fossilized and not those thousands of animals just before they turn into giraffes living in the same geographical locations. Those thousands animals for millions of years never get fossilized at all. How many floods and volcanic eruptions in millions of years?
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"You assumed that some geographical locations are more conducive to fossilization"
There's no assumption involved. You could look up the conditions for fossilization and realize that some biomes don't have readily available resources.
"so only giraffes get fossilized"
We've found fossilized giraffes? 0_o
"Those thousands animals for millions of years never get fossilized at all."
When did I say this? And who says we're done finding fossils?
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew who says we're done finding fossils? Would 150 years not enough for digging? Had you started digging some 350 million years ago, you would have found the same fossilized specimen of horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, crocs, sharks, dragonflies and cockroaches showing that those animals never evolved at all.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"Would 150 years not enough for digging?"
Of course not, dumbass. Why would you even say that? Have we explored the entirety of Earth's crust? Absolutely not, so your statement is beyond stupid. We've explored the tiniest fraction of our planet.
"Had you started digging some 350 million years ago"
No, actually...and we know this because we've uncovered fossils from then and we don't find modern species.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew You have no evidence to back up the story of four legged animals turning into giraffes in very gradual manner, yet there are so many fossilized specimen some dated 350 million years ago of horseshoe crabs, shrimps, lizards, crocs, sharks, dragonflies and cockroaches identical to species living today.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
If you think any species from 350 million years ago is identical to modern species, you need your head examined. Some species haven't changed much, but genetic drift has caused them to change a little.
"You have no evidence to back up the story of four legged animals turning into giraffes in very gradual manner,"
This does not mean this evidence doesn't exist (for there isn't any evidence against it) and it doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation period.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@daogdaog
I'm a space systems engineer. I have a decent grasp of certain parts of biology and I'm pretty skilled with tracking down information, but why are you not at a university majoring in biology if you have so many questions? Ask the experts who have infinitely more resources and knowledge on these topics than I do. Arguments from ignorance against random YouTubers just makes you look pathetic.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@daogdaog
I predict your response will include some sort of conspiracy theory.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew The fact remains you have not provided me with a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually transform into a giraffe for a simple reason that fossilization is rare yet what we observed is that tigers, lizards, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, herrings, cockroaches, crocs, dragonflies, sharks get fossilized but the animals that represented small changes prior to the existence of those species mentioned never fossilized. Where is that complete and massive evidence?
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog
"The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, along with the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. The giraffids evolved from a 3 m (9.8 ft) tall antelope-like mammal that roamed Europe and Asia some 30–50 million years ago.[6] The earliest known giraffid was Climacoceras, which still resembled deer, having large antler-like ossicones. It first appeared in the early Miocene epoch......"
odinata 5 months ago
@daogdaog What makes you think that those fossils you say don't exists, really don't exist? You Creationists constantly give this argument from ignorance. If you did research to find examples of them, you will find them. Did you bother to WATCH the video you are commenting on? Specific examples of transitional forms can be seen on "9th foundational Falsehoods of Creationism".
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@daogdaog Odinata just proved my point. Just the simplest research can show you examples of that which you claim does not exist. If you are honest and seek knowledge, then the information is out there for you to discover. If however, you seek to support your religious belief system with science, you will need to remain ignorant of real scientific research and will have to continue to delude yourself to maintain your belief system. It is obvious you chose the latter.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Provide me a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually change into a giraffe. There should be thousands because according to evolution theory changes were so minute over a long period of time.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Odenata already provided that list for you. I read it too. But being a Creationist you ignore evidence, stick your fingers in your ears, sing la la la and then ask the same question again as if it was still some big mystery. Again, it underscores the intellectual dishonesty of the Creationists. WATCH the "9th foundational falsehood of Creationism" for an even longer list of transitional species.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@coolgreyoneabby Again provide me a list here of FOUR LEGGED animals with short NECKS that gradually change into a GIRAFFE, not insects. There should be thousands because according to evolution theory changes were so minute over a long period of time.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog ‘Many people know that peer-reviewed literatures are biased and unreliable’
The ‘peer review’ process is more accurately a ‘QA check’.
But scientists don’t just say ‘I believe that theory because it passed peer review’. Before they buy in to it, they first try to falsify it.
Often, theories are rejected (plate tectonics, solar winds). Often, there are competing theories (static vs expanding universe)..
They were only accepted when subsequent evidence validated them.
It's about evidence
egamble22 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog
"Why do we find fossilized bird with highly complex feathers during the jurassic period?"
Because feathers developed before birds. Remember that "bird" is merely an arbitrary barrier we've set up. How much do you know about cladistic phylogenetics?
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@daogdaog "The underlying science of evolution is wrong. "
What do you suggest as an alternative to evolutionary theory?
blaisingm 6 months ago
@blaisingm Maybe one day science will come up with a better theory to replace the flawed natural selection theory. The biggest problem is that many biologist are not so open minded enough for an alternative theory. They are afraid that they may become outcasts in a peer review.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog "a better theory to replace the flawed natural selection theory."
So, evolutionary theory is flawed but you cannot think or conceive of a better scientific theory. Do you also feel the same way about other scientific theories? For example, are: germ theory, atomic theory, or plate tectonic theory ALSO equally flawed? If not, and all those other theories are just fine, what is the primary flaw of evolutionary theory?
blaisingm 6 months ago
@daogdaog Go ahead, come up with a new theory to replace the "flawed" theory of evolution, and win a nobel prize. But you know what? Evolution is the strongest theory in science nowadays. All the evidence, every single bit of evidence, points towards it, with no exeptions.
Helge129 5 months ago
I think creationists are simply desperate to find something, anything to support a belief which cannot stand critical scrutiny. Everyone has experienced the awful feelings that come with the realization that something they have held to be true is demonstrated to be false. Given that, I think that creationists are simply too afraid to look in the mirror and get over that first hurdle. The more times an epiphany occurs, the more temporary and less shocking the effects and the more one grows.
malectric 6 months ago
Question: Who do you figure controls what gets published and what doesn't get published in academia?
Answer: The same entities that fund the institutions whose purpose it is to keep God out of academia.
If they accept the creation of the universe by God, they will no doubt have to accept His judgment.
People want to do their own thing rather than answer to God.
stubabyq 6 months ago
@stubabyq
I recommend professional help. Paranoia is a treatable disorder.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
I wonder if planting a hot chick in the video for purposes of the icon indicates dishonesty. I mean after all humans are more visual creatures so its a classic bait and switch, I would even go so far as saying rick-rolled. However, I suppose as long as they get the information while awaiting the inevitable "booby flash" I suppose its not unforgivable.
SciBishop 6 months ago
YOu are a bunch of fools. You cant even convey a coherent argument. You spout opinions in the form of emotional rants. You commit logical fallacies continuously. You make assertions and you cant/wont support them. But most of you make no assertions, but continuously just committ the fallacy of ad hominem. Yet you are all so sure that you know everything. Woe unto you
j919or 6 months ago
At some point were you sticking the microphone inside your mouth?
Good presentation but the microphone noise was distracting.
davidm1952 6 months ago
Who made the Hebrew God and why is he such a selfish asshole?
localphenom 7 months ago
@localphenom
because he was made in the image of the bigoted male savages who invented him. Explained.
RafaChannel3001 6 months ago
No mutations produce greater order/complexity. Some mutations are good but only accidentally. Like if i were born without hair and a new dictator of the coutry I was born enslaved all people except those without hair.
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or Wrong. Just wrong. You should read and study things before making such radical statments abount them. A mutation is good if makes the bug more like a leaf, for example. And, yes, there are genetic/molecular mecanisms by which complexity is created. It is actualy the non thinking mind that accepts the supernatural better that the educated one. It is also creationists who are good at ignoring evidence and preaching they dont exist
yyjpyy 6 months ago
@yyjpyy You are a complete drone and lemming as read ur precious science books without questioning them and are duped by the man and with the man u will go to everlasting misery. Mutations never increase order. Some times reduction of order is good but contniued reduction of order is never good. You love sin and independence and that is what u will get for eternity and its called hell. God has done everything to rescue u but ur ego is bloated and dominates ur thinking. Woe unto you!
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or And I can be pretty sure that you have entered deep questioning and sought a lot of evidence from the priest who told you these stuff... You talk about quastioning 200 years of peer-rewied science... They are questioned and chalenged BEFORE they are published. And after, too, indeed. You have your own precisous book, dont you? Have you ever quastioned what is in it a single, solitary time? Or is it heresy? It is you who should diversify your sources of info.
yyjpyy 6 months ago
Natural selection doesnt not make strong organisms it just filters out the weak.
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or I just wish it would filter out the creationists lol
jammapcb 7 months ago
I thought Gravity was a scientific law! if evolution is a theory that is scientific "Fact" what is the difference between Law and Theory, please ?
Crazy80563 7 months ago
Comment removed
Crazy80563 7 months ago
All those horrible things creationists say "evolutionists" are doing? The creationists are doing them because they do not have any actual evidence for their case.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
The entire universe is a clockwork orange organized by God with all the required processes set to carryout all their functions on a cyclical manner about which no human being can fully understand. Until we get to the final confirmation, we will continue include theories and explanations some factual and others immature to confirm our so called independence of a higher being than ourselves. Evidence or not, I cannot honestly believe that I just exist from no external force. NO WAY!!!
reason5000 7 months ago
Let's just keep it simple. I believe in evolution, but with a supreme being directing the whole process, though i will probably be crucified for stating such opinion. God exists because: love, anger, jealousy, joy, hatred, arrogance, shame, sadness, and fear exist. These are all intangible characteristics of the human being which we cannot physically see but recognize clearly--even though educated idiots try to use chemical imbalances to explain such phenomena. The entire universe is clock!!!
reason5000 7 months ago
LOL 99.98% Deception #1. THAT"S HYSTERICAL.
sailentshadow 7 months ago
Good to hear from someone from UNC, my son graduated from UNC last year.
Moontanman 7 months ago
3:30 It's like a subliminal message (I think thats what it's called)
"you like boobs, you like boobs"
nukepwetty 7 months ago
What is with the girl at 3:29?
no2religions 8 months ago in playlist Random 6
Sooooo.... If evolution really is science, how come we haven't been able go successfully test, observe' or repeat it?? I find it interesting that you accuse creationists of lying and being dishonest, and that Darwin doesnt really apply to today because science has "changed"... Th creation account has NEVER changed
insaneExtrapilot 9 months ago
@insaneExtrapilot I thought the dishonesty was pretty well covered. Are you saying that these tactics aren't dishonest?
Darwin's 150 year old writings about evolution do apply, but are not some sort of "Holy Grail" of dogmatic scientific theory. Science has had a long time to correct, improve upon, and reject parts of Darwin's writings, so in the strictest sense Darwin does not really apply today. Not all of what Darwin wrote was correct, and biological science has changed since the 1850's.
JimtheBob 9 months ago
@insaneExtrapilot
"Th creation account has NEVER changed"
How is this a good thing? Being wrong from the start and touting that you have always been wrong is rather stupid. Poor Galileo...the church chose to punish him rather than admit a mistake.
Evolution has been successfully tested, observed, and repeated. To claim otherwise is a dishonest claim just like the ones listed in this video. Drosophila, helacyton gartleri, thousands of plants are all present-day examples.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew Really? Repeatedly observed and tested AND repeated?? WOW MAN! You've gotta show me this! LOL Incest = negative mutation.
sailentshadow 7 months ago
@sailentshadow Open a biology book to the evolution chapter and read.
HimesInu 7 months ago
@insaneExtrapilot It HAS been tested, observed, and repeated. If you don't believe me, just go to your local zoo and extract some DNA from a random chimpanzee and have it analyzed. Now, test your own DNA. Look specifically at your #2 chromosome. Now, take another chimpanzee and test it with your best friend's DNA. BEHOLD! You've observed, tested, and repeated. You'll find something very interesting about our #2 chromosome. Specifically look for telomeres in the middle. Notice anything unusual?
Ripley747 7 months ago
cmon don't sneak a picture in there your videos are classier than that
lah1577 10 months ago
Comment removed
ElCID40000 11 months ago
Creationidiots are the only real question realists have to answer, after all, how can 'people' that stupid still exist?
ElCID40000 11 months ago 12
@ElCID40000 Because they are too stupid to use birth control.
no2religions 8 months ago in playlist Random 6
@ElCID40000 Pure idiocy is keeping them alive.
HimesInu 6 months ago
Darwin married his cousin I believe, some of his children died at an early age.
clicker59 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. -Michael Denton, Author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
achilles197474 11 months ago
Religious people are so crazy and dont care to know or learn anything. they idiots with an imaginary friend.
TheBinary123 11 months ago 9
@TheBinary123 Some religoius people are crazy. All evolutionists are crazy for order does not come out of dfisorder, unless an intelligent life form is involved.
j919or 7 months ago
There are no transitory fossil and species. Prove one. The bird in the video is hardly proof but an example of the best these quacks have to offer. There should be millions of such fossils.
j919or 7 months ago
Atheists are skilled in deception. They use words like magic and imaginary to suggest to the non thinking mind that the supernatural is ridiculous. They love sin and their egos and the knowledge of God wont tolerate either. Deep down its not about what is true that people want but what best fits their desires.
j919or 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBinary123 Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@TheBinary123 How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago
Uh.
3:29
What?
Llynok 11 months ago
@Llynok subliminal stuff
patriciacarrasco 4 months ago
Most excellent video. All point are right on!
Flipstick96 11 months ago
crazy77iii 11 months ago
I'm curious about something... Why would have Single Celled Organsims been encouraged to evolved into new and seperate species over time from enviornmental pressures, if they were all subject to the same environment and it's change? If the Environment changed slowly over time and this encouraged EP which envoked NS, then why would the previous species still even last?
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii well in some cases being a single celled organism was such an advantage that many organisms still alive today are single celled. however in a planet with varying resources and the organisms were subjected to different environmental pressures any adaptation that gave one the reproductive edge would have multiplied. one of the reasons eukaryotic cells for instance have been so successful is because of a symbiotic relationship that formed with bacteria.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics You are Not understanding what I'm saying. If single celled organisms formed in the same environment, why would there change between them if they all developed in the same environment? There wouod be no reason for change amoungst them. They would all change to the same thing...
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii when cells copy themselves mistakes are made and mutations occur. if a mutation is beneficial then that organism will be more likely to spread those genes onto its offspring correct? so even a slight advantage when competing for resources can have great reproductive success over time. that is the reason that they changed - competition for resources amongst each other and over time they dispersed and were subjected to different environmental pressures
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics I do understand "how" mutation can happen being that it happens pretty regularly from my understanding of it. But most mutations are in fact neutral. Then next in frequency is a bad mutation that is unfortunately implimented. Then if by by chance a good mutation even happens, it has to be the right mutation to even be beneficial. This is when NS happens which is derived from Environmental pressures. If All of the single celled organisms are in the same place, why would be better?
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii there is always a finite amount of resources in an environment and organisms will produce more young than can survive. so even if they are in the same environment, a mutation that gave a single celled organism an advantage would increase its chances of surviving and reproducing because it would be more efficient at getting resources.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "Finite"- We are talking about a micron in size of an Organism... I'm not talking about nature. I'm not talking abuot fish, rabbbits or anything that we know of know and have observed reproduce. I' talking about that one celled organism that Evolution is supposedly based off of. Think abuot it. Put yourself right there as either scientist or or even one of them. What environmental changes would take place for one of them to NEED to become more advanced than the other? Think....
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii why did a single celled organism need to advance? who said it NEEDED to advance. did you think that it WANTED to consciously do it. you do realise that it took longer for multicellular organisms to evolve than it took for live to originate on this planet in the first place dont you? so in all that time of course some single celled organisms were going to develop beneficial mutations that would make them more efficient at utilising resources and reproducing than others
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "Who said that it NEEDED to advance?" The Ever changing evironment DID! That's the whole idea of evolution! EP +mutation= Beneficial Change to survive. Enough genetic change= new species from speciation... SUPPOSEDLY!? This is my point... If they were all the same species, WHY would they need to be better at utilizing resources? That process is for competitive Species that are not the same species.
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii why would they need to be better at utilising resources? because certain individuals with beneficial mutations who WERE better at utilising resources would be able to have more children and pass those genes on. yes, evolution is accelerated during environmental change but that is not necessarily the case. it happens ALL the time.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics So what makes a "Beneficial Mutation" Beneficial? Why would they need to be more efficient? Why would they have to compete if they were all the same thing? we are NOT talking about life today? We are talking about Supposed life on the Micron scale. Not a bunch of apes! There is no way that limited resources were the main contributing factor for the rise of evolution. You talk abot all of this like it's fact!? And it's NOT! It's all a dandy idea... That's it!
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii why would they need to be more efficient? because they would be able to reproduce MORE of themselves than ANY OTHER. even a slight reproductive advantage over time yields HUGE differences in the general population
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics So you are telling me that colonies of the same spcies, infact the ONLY species at that time felt a need to become better at reproducing than others? That would be if there were indeed a limited resource. But there wasn't.... I WAS WAITING for You start attacking me! as usual! You all get pissed and start acting like children by calling names and claiming stupidity on our behalf....
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii you're waiting for me to start insulting you? coming from the person who just wrote "You people are so brainwashed". actually its called examining the EVIDENCE. brainwashing is when a human tells you that life just magically appeared with no proof.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@crazy77iii you obviously have no clue how natural selection works if you wonder this. they did not 'feel' a need, they developed beneficial adaptations that allowed them to be more effective at reproducing than others. why is this too difficult to understand? the very first precursors of multicellular organisms were colonies of single cells called biofilms. some bacteria STILL do this today when food is scarce.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@crazy77iii actually there is competition amongst species ALL the time, in fact that is where the strongest competition is in the animal kingdom because they are the same and they occupy the same niche. you do realise it took almost 3 billion years for the first multicellular organism to arise from unicellular ones. that is more than enough time for them to have been distributed across the planet and been subject to a wide range of evolutionary changes.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "3 billion years" YEAH, and this is known as a fact!? LMAO! You people are so brainwashed these days with this stuff. how does the scientific community come up with such an idea that it's repeatedly stated as Fact, when it's all CLEARLY guessing! Listen, You CONNOT apply what is seen today in bacteria to a time that No One has knowlegde of other than conjecture, to have the same priciples act accrodingly. It's nonsense!
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii three billion years because we have machines that are able to date objects based on radioactive decay. why bother explaining to someone as ignorant as you though because i doubt you have sat through a single class of chemistry in your life.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "Carbon dating" Free yourself and Do some RESERCH PLEASE!!!!!!! Fact: A single C14 atom's nucleus emits a beta particle in a stochastic (i.e. RANDOM or Completely UNPREDICTABLE!!!!!!!) manner to start the decay process. BUT Scientists CLAIM that the emission BECOMES predictable when there is a "group" of C14 Atom's..... And YOU are the one Claiming that I'm the 'Ignorant one" YOU clearly don't know the Facts about what you believe to truth!? It's actually disappointing...
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii LOL you've been waiting to use that haven't you? carbon dating cant date past a certain age! congratulations, scientists KNOW THAT. I NEVER SAID CARBON DATING. i said radioactive decay because there are OTHER elements that are more stable that scientists use to date objects, lead isotopes for instance.
you betray your own ignorance and blind acceptance of creationist propaganda by instantly jumping to carbon dating despite me NEVER SAYING IT.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics I'm Not talking about time! C14 decay is TOTALLY UNPREDICTABLE!!!!
C14 dating involves RD!!!!!! or diodn't you realize this?
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii YOU SAID CARBON DATING. carbon dating is NOT USED to date extremely old objects like billion year old rocks. if you had ANY understanding of this issue than you would know this. your ignorance clearly demonstrates you have NO understanding of radioactive dating and i doubt you have any background in science at all.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@crazy77iii ill give you an example: finches of the galapagos. they started off the same, but over time ones on the islands where only seeds were available or insects could be found in trees, the finches that had beneficial mutations that allowed their beaks to gather resources the most efficiently had the most reproductive success. that is an example of organisms completely the same in the same place, but over time advantageous mutations built up in the population
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "CD's Finches" I knwo the story of CD and his theory's of how things became the way that they did... I understand how a mutation could work if applied beneficially. Stop thinking about everything that has been taught and think about the "Why" of the situation. Why was there a need for the 1 Species (single celled organism) to advance if there was only it? It's doesn't make sense if you look at that aspect. Other species compete against each other. Predator vs. Prey. etc.....
crazy77iii 11 months ago
@crazy77iii over the vast amount of time that unicellular organisms existed they were subject to a range of evolutionary pressures. you seem to have the idea that multicellular organisms were somehow destined to evolve. you say what environmental changes would need to take place - maybe they were environmental changes or maybe it was a reproductive advantage developed over time to cooperate with other cells and form multicellular organisms. we've seen cooperation amongst cells before
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "EP's, Destiny, EC needed for advancement, MAYBE" THIS is ALL the Evolution IS....... "Maybe this, maybe that, could have this, could have that, etc..." This is what MOST people fail to recognize about the process of evolution! it all based off of conjecture! NO ONE knows FOR SURE that Evolution even took place. Just because there were MANY, MANY Fossils created that could easily be put in Morphological order, that doesn't mean that they evolved from each other!
crazy77iii 11 months ago