I love the discussion for the most part on the pros and cons of evolution and intelligent design. Once a form of reproducing life occurred on Earth I think we can all agree it turned out more amazing and complicated than any human can fully appreciate at this time. My theory of life on Earth differs from most evolutionists in that I think many different reproducing forms of life occurred on Earth creating the different evolving species we see. Our ancestors were always human on my trees of life.
But its still the same kind of reptile, it will never produce a bird , a mango or a whale . This is a stupid proof for evolution. Evolution is a fairy tail for grown ups.
Isn't it telling that a Creationist will embrace all of Science's fruits as long as it doesn't conflict with what it says in their 2,000 year old book? They'll happily bet their life on air travel and modern medicine but when they find out the Science shows their dogma to be wrong they turn on it like a rabid dog.
@warren52nz We embrace truth. Air travel is not science, that's technology. And modern medicine I wouldn't give the time of day. Do your homework and you'll discover that all we need to prevent illness and disease is to be found in nature and diet. The pharmaceutical industry, like Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a money making venture and Big Brother's machine to gain control. Might is right, be it democracy, the sword or the pen. Oh, and science is yet to show the Bible wrong.
@AlainSta60 " Air travel is not science, that's technology"
Technology is applied Science. Aerodynamic theory is the starting point. Duh.
Oh, and Science is yet to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist so do you believe in the FSM?
Science doesn't deal with faith because it's not built on facts. However Scientific tests have been done on the efficacy of prayer and guess what... prayer DOESN'T WORK! There was an article in Scientific American if you want to Google it.
@warren52nz Technology is not the science in discussion here was the point! No I don't believe in the FSM, but I'm sure there are people that do, let me give you an example. You speak of "modus operandi" Natural selection. I hate to break it to you but natural selection IS NOT evolution, it is wait for it..SELECTION. It selects from what is ALREADY there. Evolution is how did what is there GET there. Welcome to your FSM. Because science is totally void of evidence for that one. Cheers
Evolution is random change in genes followed by Natural Selection (in a nutshell).
Did you drop out of 3rd form or what?
If you think there's no evidence for Evolution you're brainwashed. Evolution has been proven to be the mechanism that created all of the species from the first life forms.
@warren52nz "Evolution has been proven to be the mechanism that created all of the species from the first life forms." Prove it!! with evidence that evolution HAPPENED and is the result of life as we know it today. Start with what even Darwin knew to be the most important evidence required, the fossil record. Oh and which 'fact' nails it for you; the facts of the 30's or the facts of the 60's or the facts of the 70's or the facts of the 90's or the current facts. The facts keep changing. Cheers
Facts never change, theories do though, sometimes. That's how Science works and that's why it produces the incredible things it does. I'm not here to teach you, you should have learned this in High School but there are some good videos on the subject. I can tell you're not interested in truth though:
@warren52nz That's my point, Darwinian Evolutionists confuse facts with theories. You didn't answer my question. Give me EVIDENCE that would have a species locked up in jail for having evolved. Then, and ONLY then can you talk about facts. Couldn't get your links to work. Could be PC. I was born, raised, educated and drilled as a Darwinian evolutionist and also raised to view Theists as "brain Dead". It was hard core OBJECTIVE search for facts and truth that led me where I stand today.
@warren52nz Initially it was irreducible complexity which to me meant intelligent design, and a design that reeked of an artist. I grew up in an era where common sense prevailed and disbelief in evolution was not yet almost illegal. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. We are told it 'appears' like ID, has all the 'attributes' of ID and operates like ID, but it isn't ID. My investigation began. It was 1980 (Where's my evidence :D)
@AlainSta60 Of course if we hadn't looked at the evidence ID looks obvious. Life is just TOO complex to happen by chance. Or is it? Anyone who DOES study the evidence properly will discover that Evolution explains everything once the first life arrived. It's not possible to find some detail that would topple the theory, there's just too much harmony in it. I think the main problem most people have with it is that they can't properly grasp what 4 BILLION years means. The Earth is very, very old!
@AlainSta60 Oh and here's a link to the issue about irreducible complexity. The old flagellum argument was sorted out long ago and Michael Behe was discredited.
watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=sub
Personally I find the Venus Flytrap a better candidate for I.C. but I know it must have evolved.
@AlainSta60 Dude what were you expecting? Its a noble present day example. Its not intended to illustrate whatever preconceived evolution falsehoods you have. Decent with modification involve very subtle changes over time. The video is simply pointing out the beneficial adaptation aspects of modification. Over very long periods of time, the summation of subtle changes results in macro changes and new species. If anyone is desperate, its you. And its pretty obvious.
@Johnf85 " Decent with modification involve very subtle changes over time" is not evolution: it remains a lizard. "Over very long periods of time, the summation of subtle changes results in macro changes and new species" is a " preconceived evolution falsehood". There's no evidence of it's occurrence, especially in the fossil records, where even Darwin said it was really needed. And no I'm not desperate, I don't have to make things up to substantiate my worldview. It just is (or isn't)
@GrandmasterBBC lol. This is the worst example of evolution in action. Not only is the concept of a ring species stupid (read ealier comment), the tail ends of the ensatina ring do produce offspring naturally, which are rare. A better example of ring species is the greenish warbler, however this too is not an example of speciation. A better example of speciation is the wild/domestic sheep case where the two differ in chromosome number, however on occasion these do produce viable ofspring.
@Christofernixonrules There are two types of grasshopper that can reproduce but don't because they have different mating calls and they are considered two species.
@klm4298 Whoever considers these two animals to be a different species is an idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of a species. Its like saying that jewish people are a different species because they preffer to marry jews, or because their customs attract other jews. Evolution is dangerous because it makes people dumb enough to accept this line of reasoning.
All hail Darwin and may the 4th reich bring an end to the inferiors who doubt his infalliable word
These salamanders have evolved over millions of years into completly different species and........(side talk off camera), What do you mean they are still just salamanders? spspspspsp, Well lets just say they're different species so people still believe this bs theory of macro-evolution, anyway ladies and gentlemen, this salamander it seems like is turning into a bird, LOOK AT ITS WINGS GROWING!!
"Well lets just say they're different species so people still believe this bs theory of macro-evolution" Define specie. And, while we're at it, apply it to this list Golden Retriever, Labrador, Greyhound, Great Dane, Chihuahua, Husky, Wolf, Dingo, Jackal, Coyote, Fox, Raccoon Dog, ...
@wimscheers My point was that they are all still salamanders, they were all the same kind of animal. I really don't know how to define species, that's why I make fun of the term. All those dogs you listed are still all dogs, they are the same kind of animal.
"All those dogs you listed are still all dogs, they are the same kind of animal." So you're saying Wolves & Foxes are the same specie ... You might find out there's a hell of a lot less difference between the great apes (including humans) then between some species on that lists. Kind & Specie are bogus words in this context.
@kilikadork In the unlikely event that you are not a troll, if you dont know the definition why dont you just look it up? You have the internet at your disposal! Seriously...
@kilikadork Not the last two they are a differant kind because they are so geneticly differant that thier offspring are steril hybreds like when a horse and donkey breed to make a mule.
Chihuahua, if it evolved from a rat, it didn't make much of a difference. It can just run faster and bark louder. Has the same enemies. If it evolved from a dog, it isn't evolution, it is devolution.
aww fail... variations within a species.. kinda like chihuahuas and great danes.. got a real example?.. still salamanders.. and over 10 million years?.. not much change considering what we are taught.. Humans "evolved" from apes much more rapidly than that.. so did pretty much every other species evolution holds up.. so this really isnt much of anything..
@hooseyadaddy Humans didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. Also, evolution has no arbitrary unit, the time it takes varies between organisms. Also, great danes and chihuahuas were produced through artificial selective breeding, not natural selection like these salamanders.
@Aspongeinmauve i still take issue with "NS" weeding out the unfit and changing a species.. Look at humans.. I, being a caucasian, look way different from an asian. Yet i would survive just fine in asia with my features.. The minor mutations need to have such a huge benefit that i reproduce more than the next guy. And thats just not possible. It seems to happen regardless. It seems to just "know" its environment and slowly change... With no real pressures. Like a evolutionary "destiny"...'[;
You hit the nail on the head by saying "need to reproduce more than the next guy". Your features would probably not be as attractive to asian women as would an asian man's. Perhaps this is not as applicable today, but it certainly was thousands to tens of thousands of years ago. Male preferences of female characteristics, and female preferences of male characteristics are a huge factor in evolution.
@hooseyadaddy Speciation can occur quite rapidly, or very slowly depending on the selective pressures. Anyway, we do know that we evolved from apes given the massive amount of our DNA that we share with them, and also that one of our chromosomes is proven to be a combination of two great ape chromosomes.
I think you pretty much summed up your own comment: fail.
lol you watch too much zytgeist lol my minds not closed to wevolution ,its just its a theory and i like facts when it comes to earthly matters and obviously you never read the bible or youd know that you should not tempy god.So after you read the full vehdas give me another shout or indeed read the bible back to front ,then also please get back to me and also Id like too add that your mind is closed to god because they tired to indoctrinate you when you were growing up
@Acrimonator lol hey went to school and thats when they indoctrinated me with the evolution theory and loads of other shit,but come on give me your thought on my excuse???and im currently at college doing counselling! and blame Acrimnator?I dont blame others for my life,thats probably something you picked up from your parents?good and bad?lol and as for lazy lol you know nowt boy.
lol observed instances of evolution ??like what exactly?and genetics is an incomplete science and last but not least lol the fossil record is so incomplete,you cant argue for evolution on that,well you probably could but hey if your onto vampires you coukld probably argue for that,although vampires are a natural fact.
@seanmonaghan1966 Um... no. Tics are tics. Mosquitoes are mosquitoes. Vampire bats are Vampire bats. Insect, Insect, Mammal respectively. They ALL have proper biological classifications in the animal kingdom in regards to their categorization. Your logic would infer that dinosaurs are dragons and that whales are sea monsters, or do you believe that as well? lol
@CommanderC4 ok so what would you call an animal that lives on blood? der,maybe thats why a vampire bat is called a vampire bat ,and commander,ffs i hope your not commanding combat troops ,but your probably a cod commander.wakeup and come to the real world lol
@seanmonaghan1966 The real world? Are you referring to the one with vampires in it? lol But I wonder, do you really not understand the concept of a metaphor? Do you actually think that Butterfly moths are butterflies because that is what their name infers? Do you not realize that the Vampire bat was named as such because it's tendency to drink blood coincided with the myth of vampires, and in fact even caused it to a degree? Do you REALLY not see that? Are you REALLY that ignorant?
@Acrimonator ok commander this one isnt a huffy response>so ill question where in the bible is a bat classified as a bird?????????? come on ,put some meat on your comment.When you finished killing cyber baddies on cod.
@seanmonaghan1966 Your mind is closed to evolution because religion has closed it. Think for yourself and prove the existance of a god, and dont say the bible.The hindu bible Bhagavad gita was written centuries before the bible and yes their christ lord krishna was also born of a virgin like buddha, isis and a load more. pick out 2 blind people 2 down syndromes and 2 amputees and take your friends and start praying for a miracle and let me know and i'll believe you've got the right god.
@seanmonaghan1966 Not so much wishful thinking as evidence. Like the fossil record, genetics, and observed instances of evolution. Did we wishfully think those into existence?
Salamanders and newts are amphibians, not reptiles. The issue on this is that the different salamanders are subspecies; which means they are another group within the salamander family. It takes a lot of geneticchange over millions of years for any noticable difference to be made. This is seen pretty easily between modern fish and fish that have been extinct for countless millions of years. The fish of the past had some stay as fish and adapt further while other fish grew legs.
Every single person who wont accept evolution has an indoctrinated religious background.Because religion suffocated science during the dark ages for over 1000 years between 476 at the fall of Rome to Gallileo in the 1500's we would have probably got a cure for cancer by now and gone to the moon hundreds of years ago.Religion is a business selling a reward after death that can never be observed so their service doesnt exist,and they are not even trying to prove it.To me thats FRAUD.
@tonyp1945 lol organised religion sells everything,and the theory of evolution says it all ,its just a theory,theres no definate links in archoelogy between one species and another ,so its a shit theory realy lol
i only seen a cat have a cat,and a dog have a dog,but you interbreed and get a different loking dog,doesnt mean it isnt va dog and certainly doesnt prove the duff theory of evolution
@seanmonaghan1966 they might still be salamanders, but they will be unable to mix together and produce viable offsprings. If you want proof of 2 lineage becoming two completly separate species, then you should learn what species are. There are species of animals that exist today that are 100% proof of speciation.
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Nothing more, nothing less. Ever heard of crossing a horse with a donkey?
This is by no means evolutions... They might all be very different... But they are all salamanders and wont ever become any more than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then why do we see fossils like Tiktaalik who show obvious signs of fish becoming tetrapod? Why do we see fossils like Archeopterix which are a blend of bird and dinosaur? Just because you can't see the change before your eye doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Evolution occurs on the cellular level, which is microscopic, and the individual does not change since tere is not enough time in the life span of any animal or plant to offer such a drastic change. The genes carry on through the ages.
Wow! Ten million years and salamanders developed different colors. Amazing. With the unexplained appearance of animals in the Cambrian period only 550 million years ago. 10 million years should produce much more than color changes.
Wow, i've certainly noticed that the evolutionist can convey their debates in an intelligent manner. Whilst the religious/intelligent design types seem to lash out like a pised off teenager......... I'm just saying :)
Unless they have been watching and documenting the evolution of these salamanders from north to south, I have a hard time believing that it's anything less than a theory of how the southernmost two came to be.
@daisie09876 First off salamanders are not a reptile they are an amphibian. Second the scientists do not claim that the different colored salamanders are seperate species they say that they are on the way to becoming different species because they have adapted to their enviroment in such different ways. Third things like differences in human skin color are from humans adapting to different enviroments. At this point we are all still humans and the salamanders are all still salamanders.
@daisie09876 They aren't different species. They are just different variations of the same species, in much the same way "a blond blue eyed American and a Chinese" human are the same species. They are just showing how variation arose and can eventually lead to two different species if it continues. Since it's an evolutionary dis-advantage for the two variations in the south to interbreed they will likely continue to diverge, but at the moment they are still the same species.
oh my gosh africans must be evolutions in your logic! we live in different areas and look different areas and look different but we arnt evolution links!
@hubjubjub been on this planet a very short time and if at some point some or all of us are not propperly adapted to the enviromental conditions humans will either die off or further evolve to adapt to the enviroment. I think the current theory is that human life began on the African continent and people developed lighter skin and more narrow noses as they moved further north since they no longer needed the same degree of innate sun protection and did need a better way of warming air.
@zodiakranch Then why didn't black people start adapting yet. The ones that were brought from Africa to here haven't started adapting to the weather. None of this shit proves evolution. Evolution is just a bunch of bullshit that cannot be proven and never will be. The evolutionists are just going to say I'm to ignorant to understand instead of explain it, becuase they can't prove this dumb shit. The fossils in the museums don't prove shit either.
you see: once you give up the silly idea, that the earth is only 6000yrs old, things come out quite easily. Just wait a few 100000yrs, and there might be the adaption, you are looking for. But asking for such an adaption within a few generations just shows how ignorant of any facts or scientific theories you actually are.
in addition: evolution also needs selection, which is probably no longer present, as (thanks to science) survival no longer depends solely on physical attributes, but mostly on advances of technology, based on the intellect, not on physical strength or better physical adaption.
(well, looking at some comments here, it looks more like degeneration... ;-)
They are still salamanders, but they are a different species. They evolved under different environmental pressures to become varied and different from one another. If we gave this many millions of years, the changes might eventually add up for each individual salamander that they can no longer be recognized as all salamanders. This is just very small change, but it is evolution nonetheless.
They're** and yes, they are still salamanders. This is from Origin of Species page 460 "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can create no great or sudden modification." So when they say 'on the way to being new species' they mean as time goes on, and more slight changes accumulate by natural selection, you will have new species. Evolution is truly amazing (when you understand it).
Nobody expects stupid religious people to be convinced by anything if its not in your fictional holy book about some guy who flew across the desert on a camel. Go watch an animal sacrifice video instead.
As they begin to fully genetically sequence all the animals, your going to have one hell of a time refuting the mounds and mounds of evidence in support of evolution. Not only will science very soon, with the aid of faster and faster computers, be able to decode the genomes of all the animals, they will also be able to tell you with absolute certainty what one came first. This, coupled with the observational evidence is likely to enlighten the devout in the same way astronomy has.
Look up transitional fossils on a site OTHER than the fraudulent discovery institute or any creation evidence museum. You'll be suprised what turns up.
Unfortunately they will do so all too easily, by claiming this is micro evolution and not macro evolution. They are the same "kind" not a new "kind". This stems from their misunderstood version of Evolution and fails as it's like claiming you can walk 10m but not 10km. Its the same process, the difference is scale.
Well your point would be valid if it wasn't a complete strawman. He said that they originated in one area 10 million years ago, he did not say that they changed colour, therefore they originated 10 million years ago.The fact that you need to lie so blatantly nicely illustrates how unsupported your position is.
not according to the bible that was "supposedly" inspired by god. Funny how Theists conveniently switch view points when confronted with valid evidence. So now i take it Genesis was allegorical as well I suppose?
The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved from monkeys. It states that we share common ancestors with them. (Who ya callin naive?) ....And if I just waltzed around letting people 'put stuff in my head' Then why am I argueing with the crap you're trying to 'put in my head?' I say again: Get a life, Ignoramus!
Another thing, you are the idiot here, because you let other people put stuff into your naive head that you evolved from animals, such as monkeys and even fish. :) holy stupidity!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ah ha ha ha. People plenty smarter than you believe in God. Evolutionists need more faith than theists, what makes you think people aren't smart if they don't believe in Evolutionism???
i never said any such thing, all i pointed out what that if you dont have any knowlegde about a subject you should refrain from commenting on it. rocha333 obviously thinks the theory of evolution says we come from monkeys.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
These lizards are still lizards no matter the way they behave.... I thought evolution thought that animals became other animals...such as Monkeys and humans :)
if you go back far enough, you will find that these salamanders came from other species, that produced even more species like geckos, newts, etc. as it is, these salamanders are very successful in their environment and have adapted well. thus, there is no reason for them to evolve quickly if they are thriving such as they are. the bigger the gene pool, the slower a specie will evolve.
They are not lizards, they are "salamanders." You may have thought that evolution has thoughts but you are quite wrong; Evolution does not think anything. It is a scientific theory, incapable of thought, yet still intelligent. Further more their behavior is not whats in question. Get a life, Ignoramus!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
your replay is but circular reasoning...By the way, you haven't commented on what I said about animals becoming another animals... do you have anything evidence? Dont change the subject because I'm not stupid!
Yes over longer periods of time or with certain more specific changes they can become other animals. For instance go look up Darwin's finches and see how different they became. As the time it takes for animals to change into something entirely new takes far too long for us to see, the best example of how new animals can be made by the choosing of certain babies over others is by looking at the selective breeding that farmers and animal breeders do.
This is curious to me. Millions of years past and the only change yielded was that the salanders started looking like a new species?
Given that the timeframe for evolution accounts for multi-cellular life primarily diverging in the last billion years, shouldn't "millions of years" not only yield dramatic variance in an existing species but many entirely new species?
What I mean is, the narrator claims that over millions of years the salamanders in one particular region obtained different markings.
Over millions of years? Given that one billion equals just a thousand millions? Given that multi-cellular life diverged in just the last billion years according to the evolutionary model.
Evolution & Species are very ambiguous terms these days. I'd like to know how the variation observed here demonstrates the potential of MACRO changes, i.e. new major structures. The great variety in these populations shows vast yet finite genetic info. The lack of ability/inclination in the converging groups to breed says that significant information was lost, correct? Whether we call it speciation or not, isn't this de-evolution in action?
No. All major features/structures so far studied have revealed no irreducable complexity meaning that each can happen with miniscule steps over large timescales. Erv viruses, gene drift, mutations, duplications, deletions, recombinations and frame shifts (to name a few known mechanisms) increase genetic information while natural selection deletes what is directly detrimental.
A species does define itself by the breeding potential...
As opposite to the "kind" taxonomy used by anti-evolutionist.
Well... Micro-changes does occur, as creatures become resistant to things their ancestor wouldn't (new heat resistant insects) or by adapting the way they communicate (a group of grasshoper lost their "singing" but became more aware of pheromones after a grasshopper eating fly arrived on their island)
I love the discussion for the most part on the pros and cons of evolution and intelligent design. Once a form of reproducing life occurred on Earth I think we can all agree it turned out more amazing and complicated than any human can fully appreciate at this time. My theory of life on Earth differs from most evolutionists in that I think many different reproducing forms of life occurred on Earth creating the different evolving species we see. Our ancestors were always human on my trees of life.
jamesrking1 4 days ago
the madness of macro-evolution at its best. I guess we should put human albinos into the same spectrum - atheists get more desperate every day.
whiteliketar 6 days ago
If a fact arose that proved evolution wrong there would still be no evidence that gods exist.
max2right 1 month ago
But its still the same kind of reptile, it will never produce a bird , a mango or a whale . This is a stupid proof for evolution. Evolution is a fairy tail for grown ups.
mikevaneck1 4 months ago
I've evolved, instead of having a dick i have a third leg.
bombersrulz 4 months ago
Isn't it telling that a Creationist will embrace all of Science's fruits as long as it doesn't conflict with what it says in their 2,000 year old book? They'll happily bet their life on air travel and modern medicine but when they find out the Science shows their dogma to be wrong they turn on it like a rabid dog.
SO hypocritical !!!
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz We embrace truth. Air travel is not science, that's technology. And modern medicine I wouldn't give the time of day. Do your homework and you'll discover that all we need to prevent illness and disease is to be found in nature and diet. The pharmaceutical industry, like Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a money making venture and Big Brother's machine to gain control. Might is right, be it democracy, the sword or the pen. Oh, and science is yet to show the Bible wrong.
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 " Air travel is not science, that's technology"
Technology is applied Science. Aerodynamic theory is the starting point. Duh.
Oh, and Science is yet to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist so do you believe in the FSM?
Science doesn't deal with faith because it's not built on facts. However Scientific tests have been done on the efficacy of prayer and guess what... prayer DOESN'T WORK! There was an article in Scientific American if you want to Google it.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Technology is not the science in discussion here was the point! No I don't believe in the FSM, but I'm sure there are people that do, let me give you an example. You speak of "modus operandi" Natural selection. I hate to break it to you but natural selection IS NOT evolution, it is wait for it..SELECTION. It selects from what is ALREADY there. Evolution is how did what is there GET there. Welcome to your FSM. Because science is totally void of evidence for that one. Cheers
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 "natural selection IS NOT evolution"
And the Bible isn't Christianity.
Evolution is random change in genes followed by Natural Selection (in a nutshell).
Did you drop out of 3rd form or what?
If you think there's no evidence for Evolution you're brainwashed. Evolution has been proven to be the mechanism that created all of the species from the first life forms.
Oh and pity about the rugby. 8^P
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz "Evolution has been proven to be the mechanism that created all of the species from the first life forms." Prove it!! with evidence that evolution HAPPENED and is the result of life as we know it today. Start with what even Darwin knew to be the most important evidence required, the fossil record. Oh and which 'fact' nails it for you; the facts of the 30's or the facts of the 60's or the facts of the 70's or the facts of the 90's or the current facts. The facts keep changing. Cheers
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 "The facts keep changing"
Facts never change, theories do though, sometimes. That's how Science works and that's why it produces the incredible things it does. I'm not here to teach you, you should have learned this in High School but there are some good videos on the subject. I can tell you're not interested in truth though:
watch?v=RqwsIAVQnxw&feature=digest_refresh_mon
watch?v=FWUDvF-Twts&NR=1
watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8&feature=digest
watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ&feature=sdig&et=1262923627.92
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz That's my point, Darwinian Evolutionists confuse facts with theories. You didn't answer my question. Give me EVIDENCE that would have a species locked up in jail for having evolved. Then, and ONLY then can you talk about facts. Couldn't get your links to work. Could be PC. I was born, raised, educated and drilled as a Darwinian evolutionist and also raised to view Theists as "brain Dead". It was hard core OBJECTIVE search for facts and truth that led me where I stand today.
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 " I was born, raised, educated and drilled as a Darwinian evolutionist..."
That's interesting. What specifically changed your mind? I'm interested as long as the reason isn't because it contradicts a religious text.
To make those links work you have to copy and paste them to the end of the YouTube home page right after ".com/" (the forward slash must be there)
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Initially it was irreducible complexity which to me meant intelligent design, and a design that reeked of an artist. I grew up in an era where common sense prevailed and disbelief in evolution was not yet almost illegal. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. We are told it 'appears' like ID, has all the 'attributes' of ID and operates like ID, but it isn't ID. My investigation began. It was 1980 (Where's my evidence :D)
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 Of course if we hadn't looked at the evidence ID looks obvious. Life is just TOO complex to happen by chance. Or is it? Anyone who DOES study the evidence properly will discover that Evolution explains everything once the first life arrived. It's not possible to find some detail that would topple the theory, there's just too much harmony in it. I think the main problem most people have with it is that they can't properly grasp what 4 BILLION years means. The Earth is very, very old!
warren52nz 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 Oh and here's a link to the issue about irreducible complexity. The old flagellum argument was sorted out long ago and Michael Behe was discredited.
watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=sub
Personally I find the Venus Flytrap a better candidate for I.C. but I know it must have evolved.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz And my family are breeding just fine. Thank you for your concern
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 Oh and as for "And modern medicine I wouldn't give the time of day"
That's good because ironically, Natural Selection the modus operandi of Evolution will probably take you out. Have you bred yet?
8^)
warren52nz 4 months ago
So this is evolution? Bahahahahaha, boy they are desperate.
AlainSta60 5 months ago
@AlainSta60 Dude what were you expecting? Its a noble present day example. Its not intended to illustrate whatever preconceived evolution falsehoods you have. Decent with modification involve very subtle changes over time. The video is simply pointing out the beneficial adaptation aspects of modification. Over very long periods of time, the summation of subtle changes results in macro changes and new species. If anyone is desperate, its you. And its pretty obvious.
Johnf85 4 months ago
@Johnf85 " Decent with modification involve very subtle changes over time" is not evolution: it remains a lizard. "Over very long periods of time, the summation of subtle changes results in macro changes and new species" is a " preconceived evolution falsehood". There's no evidence of it's occurrence, especially in the fossil records, where even Darwin said it was really needed. And no I'm not desperate, I don't have to make things up to substantiate my worldview. It just is (or isn't)
AlainSta60 4 months ago
@AlainSta60 You don't have to substantiate your world view since it is impossible to substantiate fairy tales
Xatasha6611 4 months ago
This is my favorite example of evolution in action. Any comments, creationsists?
GrandmasterBBC 6 months ago
@GrandmasterBBC lol. This is the worst example of evolution in action. Not only is the concept of a ring species stupid (read ealier comment), the tail ends of the ensatina ring do produce offspring naturally, which are rare. A better example of ring species is the greenish warbler, however this too is not an example of speciation. A better example of speciation is the wild/domestic sheep case where the two differ in chromosome number, however on occasion these do produce viable ofspring.
utubedetective72 6 months ago
@Christofernixonrules There are two types of grasshopper that can reproduce but don't because they have different mating calls and they are considered two species.
klm4298 7 months ago
@klm4298 Whoever considers these two animals to be a different species is an idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of a species. Its like saying that jewish people are a different species because they preffer to marry jews, or because their customs attract other jews. Evolution is dangerous because it makes people dumb enough to accept this line of reasoning.
All hail Darwin and may the 4th reich bring an end to the inferiors who doubt his infalliable word
utubedetective72 6 months ago
@utubedetective72 It's just showing how vague the word species means.
klm4298 6 months ago
@Christofernixonrules What they said is that they were well on their way, not that they had achieved it.
looncraz 7 months ago
Ring Species are always neat to learn about keep up the good work Nova
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Big deal. Chameleons can change their color too.
thealienwarlord 7 months ago
@thealienwarlord Are you for real??
MrG0TH1ER 7 months ago
@thealienwarlord That has nothing to do with what they are talking about.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
What makes you think they didn't DEVOLVE?
thealienwarlord 8 months ago
@thealienwarlord such at thing doesn't exist in the theory of evolution.
Helge129 8 months ago
@Helge129
That is a MAJOR flaw in the theory then. Because I'm pretty sure it does exist.
thealienwarlord 7 months ago
@thealienwarlord No. To evolve means "To change". Not to advance or to get better, but just to change over time. You don't have species "unevolving".
Helge129 7 months ago 7
@Helge129
I see. So, every time i get a freckle or get a tan, I evolve?
thealienwarlord 7 months ago
@thealienwarlord Not at all. Evolution-related Mutations only happen during reproduction.
Helge129 7 months ago 8
@thealienwarlord Technically, every time you get any type of trait that you pass on to a new generation, then evolution has occurred.
You did not evolve - you mutated - your children did not evolve, but your children are evolved from you!
Evolution occurs only across generations.
looncraz 7 months ago
Boooooriiiiing...... yawn
llHyRaXll 11 months ago
These salamanders have evolved over millions of years into completly different species and........(side talk off camera), What do you mean they are still just salamanders? spspspspsp, Well lets just say they're different species so people still believe this bs theory of macro-evolution, anyway ladies and gentlemen, this salamander it seems like is turning into a bird, LOOK AT ITS WINGS GROWING!!
kilikadork 11 months ago
@kilikadork
"Well lets just say they're different species so people still believe this bs theory of macro-evolution" Define specie. And, while we're at it, apply it to this list Golden Retriever, Labrador, Greyhound, Great Dane, Chihuahua, Husky, Wolf, Dingo, Jackal, Coyote, Fox, Raccoon Dog, ...
wimscheers 11 months ago
@wimscheers My point was that they are all still salamanders, they were all the same kind of animal. I really don't know how to define species, that's why I make fun of the term. All those dogs you listed are still all dogs, they are the same kind of animal.
kilikadork 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kilikadork
"All those dogs you listed are still all dogs, they are the same kind of animal." So you're saying Wolves & Foxes are the same specie ... You might find out there's a hell of a lot less difference between the great apes (including humans) then between some species on that lists. Kind & Specie are bogus words in this context.
wimscheers 11 months ago
@kilikadork In the unlikely event that you are not a troll, if you dont know the definition why dont you just look it up? You have the internet at your disposal! Seriously...
MrTrollooo 11 months ago
@kilikadork Not the last two they are a differant kind because they are so geneticly differant that thier offspring are steril hybreds like when a horse and donkey breed to make a mule.
f00tstep 8 months ago
@wimscheers
Chihuahua, if it evolved from a rat, it didn't make much of a difference. It can just run faster and bark louder. Has the same enemies. If it evolved from a dog, it isn't evolution, it is devolution.
thealienwarlord 7 months ago
aww fail... variations within a species.. kinda like chihuahuas and great danes.. got a real example?.. still salamanders.. and over 10 million years?.. not much change considering what we are taught.. Humans "evolved" from apes much more rapidly than that.. so did pretty much every other species evolution holds up.. so this really isnt much of anything..
hooseyadaddy 1 year ago
@hooseyadaddy Humans didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. Also, evolution has no arbitrary unit, the time it takes varies between organisms. Also, great danes and chihuahuas were produced through artificial selective breeding, not natural selection like these salamanders.
Aspongeinmauve 1 year ago
@Aspongeinmauve i still take issue with "NS" weeding out the unfit and changing a species.. Look at humans.. I, being a caucasian, look way different from an asian. Yet i would survive just fine in asia with my features.. The minor mutations need to have such a huge benefit that i reproduce more than the next guy. And thats just not possible. It seems to happen regardless. It seems to just "know" its environment and slowly change... With no real pressures. Like a evolutionary "destiny"...'[;
hooseyadaddy 1 year ago
@hooseyadaddy Answer: Sexual selection.
You hit the nail on the head by saying "need to reproduce more than the next guy". Your features would probably not be as attractive to asian women as would an asian man's. Perhaps this is not as applicable today, but it certainly was thousands to tens of thousands of years ago. Male preferences of female characteristics, and female preferences of male characteristics are a huge factor in evolution.
See: Fisher theory of sexual selection.
magicmentalmaniac 1 year ago
@hooseyadaddy Speciation can occur quite rapidly, or very slowly depending on the selective pressures. Anyway, we do know that we evolved from apes given the massive amount of our DNA that we share with them, and also that one of our chromosomes is proven to be a combination of two great ape chromosomes.
I think you pretty much summed up your own comment: fail.
magicmentalmaniac 1 year ago
I live in the northern end of that salamander's range. Used to catch them in my back yard as a kid.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
whippty do da day, they are still salamanders,
MrTmapp 1 year ago
@MrTmapp But we're still Apes.
Chirostenotes 1 year ago
They all "evolved" within about a thousand years.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie No... Millions, not thousands.. Come on man, get your facts straight.
palmerpoop 1 year ago
Oooo, millions.. You remind me of those idiots who try to exaggerate by using as big a number as possible. You're a moron times 184043904390843834890
knowwaie 1 year ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 year ago
evolution in action is so beautiful. i seriously do not understand the fear of it shown by so many americans.
cruciphile 1 year ago
Hehehe the salamanders are all "wtf is this dish thing? I want out!"
Panzarkunst 1 year ago 2
that aint evolution.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
lol you watch too much zytgeist lol my minds not closed to wevolution ,its just its a theory and i like facts when it comes to earthly matters and obviously you never read the bible or youd know that you should not tempy god.So after you read the full vehdas give me another shout or indeed read the bible back to front ,then also please get back to me and also Id like too add that your mind is closed to god because they tired to indoctrinate you when you were growing up
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 You just found a bad excuse for missing school, but don't blame on us your actual ignorance for having been lazy...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@Acrimonator lol hey went to school and thats when they indoctrinated me with the evolution theory and loads of other shit,but come on give me your thought on my excuse???and im currently at college doing counselling! and blame Acrimnator?I dont blame others for my life,thats probably something you picked up from your parents?good and bad?lol and as for lazy lol you know nowt boy.
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 your grammar says it all... Lazy...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@Acrimonator hey this is utube not master mind.
and you got big issues you need help.
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Yes, I believe in mythology and make half assed sentences... I need help... But, wait...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@Acrimonator well at least your past the denial stage,keep going Acrinem your going to beat these issues? well i hope you will lol
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
lol observed instances of evolution ??like what exactly?and genetics is an incomplete science and last but not least lol the fossil record is so incomplete,you cant argue for evolution on that,well you probably could but hey if your onto vampires you coukld probably argue for that,although vampires are a natural fact.
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Vampires are real and science is a myth. Sounds like Christianity to me.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 vampires are real,ticks,mosqiutos ,vampire bats so stick it up your ass<and science is a work in progress
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Um... no. Tics are tics. Mosquitoes are mosquitoes. Vampire bats are Vampire bats. Insect, Insect, Mammal respectively. They ALL have proper biological classifications in the animal kingdom in regards to their categorization. Your logic would infer that dinosaurs are dragons and that whales are sea monsters, or do you believe that as well? lol
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 ok so what would you call an animal that lives on blood? der,maybe thats why a vampire bat is called a vampire bat ,and commander,ffs i hope your not commanding combat troops ,but your probably a cod commander.wakeup and come to the real world lol
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 The real world? Are you referring to the one with vampires in it? lol But I wonder, do you really not understand the concept of a metaphor? Do you actually think that Butterfly moths are butterflies because that is what their name infers? Do you not realize that the Vampire bat was named as such because it's tendency to drink blood coincided with the myth of vampires, and in fact even caused it to a degree? Do you REALLY not see that? Are you REALLY that ignorant?
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 Pardon me, but I guess the tick is an arachnidae...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Yes, and in the bible the bats are classified as bird... Go figure, god doesn't even know how to classify his own creation...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@Acrimonator ok commander this one isnt a huffy response>so ill question where in the bible is a bat classified as a bird?????????? come on ,put some meat on your comment.When you finished killing cyber baddies on cod.
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Your mind is closed to evolution because religion has closed it. Think for yourself and prove the existance of a god, and dont say the bible.The hindu bible Bhagavad gita was written centuries before the bible and yes their christ lord krishna was also born of a virgin like buddha, isis and a load more. pick out 2 blind people 2 down syndromes and 2 amputees and take your friends and start praying for a miracle and let me know and i'll believe you've got the right god.
tonyp1945 1 year ago
ane seems like evolution has become a new religion its a theory,no proof behind it just wishful thinking lol
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 Not so much wishful thinking as evidence. Like the fossil record, genetics, and observed instances of evolution. Did we wishfully think those into existence?
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago 2
Salamanders and newts are amphibians, not reptiles. The issue on this is that the different salamanders are subspecies; which means they are another group within the salamander family. It takes a lot of geneticchange over millions of years for any noticable difference to be made. This is seen pretty easily between modern fish and fish that have been extinct for countless millions of years. The fish of the past had some stay as fish and adapt further while other fish grew legs.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Every single person who wont accept evolution has an indoctrinated religious background.Because religion suffocated science during the dark ages for over 1000 years between 476 at the fall of Rome to Gallileo in the 1500's we would have probably got a cure for cancer by now and gone to the moon hundreds of years ago.Religion is a business selling a reward after death that can never be observed so their service doesnt exist,and they are not even trying to prove it.To me thats FRAUD.
tonyp1945 1 year ago 2
@tonyp1945 lol organised religion sells everything,and the theory of evolution says it all ,its just a theory,theres no definate links in archoelogy between one species and another ,so its a shit theory realy lol
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
yeah but they are still salamanders,im right arent I
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966
Look at Archeopterix. It was a dinosaur with feathers. Tiktaalik was a fish with a neck and ears.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 yeah but still a dinosaur
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
still just a dinosaur
and scales and feathers are just about the same
i only seen a cat have a cat,and a dog have a dog,but you interbreed and get a different loking dog,doesnt mean it isnt va dog and certainly doesnt prove the duff theory of evolution
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 they might still be salamanders, but they will be unable to mix together and produce viable offsprings. If you want proof of 2 lineage becoming two completly separate species, then you should learn what species are. There are species of animals that exist today that are 100% proof of speciation.
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Nothing more, nothing less. Ever heard of crossing a horse with a donkey?
Flem1337 1 year ago
@Flem1337 yeah you get a jackass?have you ever checked your lineage?I know but just couldnt resist lol
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
@seanmonaghan1966 wrong. You get a mule. And mules happen to be sterile and unable to reproduce.
Flem1337 1 year ago
@Flem1337 hey flem thanks mate,ill consider myself educated,ty
seanmonaghan1966 1 year ago
This is by no means evolutions... They might all be very different... But they are all salamanders and wont ever become any more than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duplooytim 1 year ago
Then why do we see fossils like Tiktaalik who show obvious signs of fish becoming tetrapod? Why do we see fossils like Archeopterix which are a blend of bird and dinosaur? Just because you can't see the change before your eye doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Evolution occurs on the cellular level, which is microscopic, and the individual does not change since tere is not enough time in the life span of any animal or plant to offer such a drastic change. The genes carry on through the ages.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago 2
@Duplooytim give it time (some millions of years might do the trick)
D413373R 1 year ago
Do creationists even know what they are looking at?
HybridD91 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! Ten million years and salamanders developed different colors. Amazing. With the unexplained appearance of animals in the Cambrian period only 550 million years ago. 10 million years should produce much more than color changes.
mejc2 1 year ago
Evolution is a lie! We were created intelligently by the Great Old Ones. It says so in the Necronomicon so it must be true, and evolution wrong.
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser Sarcasm?
BlazzingSaber 1 year ago
@BlazzingSaber Yup :)
Killjeser 1 year ago
Wow, i've certainly noticed that the evolutionist can convey their debates in an intelligent manner. Whilst the religious/intelligent design types seem to lash out like a pised off teenager......... I'm just saying :)
homedepot7033 1 year ago
dog races are much more different from one another than these salamanders yet they interbreed just fine. what do we make of this?
salex2500 1 year ago
Unless they have been watching and documenting the evolution of these salamanders from north to south, I have a hard time believing that it's anything less than a theory of how the southernmost two came to be.
zookydragon 1 year ago
@daisie09876 First off salamanders are not a reptile they are an amphibian. Second the scientists do not claim that the different colored salamanders are seperate species they say that they are on the way to becoming different species because they have adapted to their enviroment in such different ways. Third things like differences in human skin color are from humans adapting to different enviroments. At this point we are all still humans and the salamanders are all still salamanders.
zodiakranch 1 year ago
@daisie09876 They aren't different species. They are just different variations of the same species, in much the same way "a blond blue eyed American and a Chinese" human are the same species. They are just showing how variation arose and can eventually lead to two different species if it continues. Since it's an evolutionary dis-advantage for the two variations in the south to interbreed they will likely continue to diverge, but at the moment they are still the same species.
csandb 1 year ago
why can't i come to a science video without religious crap?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
This is a good presentation. Science rules!
jdh501 1 year ago
oh my gosh africans must be evolutions in your logic! we live in different areas and look different areas and look different but we arnt evolution links!
hubjubjub 1 year ago
@hubjubjub
right, we share a common ancestor, duh.
pyr666 1 year ago
@hubjubjub been on this planet a very short time and if at some point some or all of us are not propperly adapted to the enviromental conditions humans will either die off or further evolve to adapt to the enviroment. I think the current theory is that human life began on the African continent and people developed lighter skin and more narrow noses as they moved further north since they no longer needed the same degree of innate sun protection and did need a better way of warming air.
zodiakranch 1 year ago
@zodiakranch Then why didn't black people start adapting yet. The ones that were brought from Africa to here haven't started adapting to the weather. None of this shit proves evolution. Evolution is just a bunch of bullshit that cannot be proven and never will be. The evolutionists are just going to say I'm to ignorant to understand instead of explain it, becuase they can't prove this dumb shit. The fossils in the museums don't prove shit either.
billy1303 1 year ago
@billy1303
you see: once you give up the silly idea, that the earth is only 6000yrs old, things come out quite easily. Just wait a few 100000yrs, and there might be the adaption, you are looking for. But asking for such an adaption within a few generations just shows how ignorant of any facts or scientific theories you actually are.
sarahj666666 1 year ago
@billy1303
in addition: evolution also needs selection, which is probably no longer present, as (thanks to science) survival no longer depends solely on physical attributes, but mostly on advances of technology, based on the intellect, not on physical strength or better physical adaption.
(well, looking at some comments here, it looks more like degeneration... ;-)
sarahj666666 1 year ago
@sarahj666666 Name one time in human history where we didn't rely on technology?
HybridD91 1 year ago
i think god is fake
glennie5000 1 year ago
i love novas opening its just so epic its like SCIENCE!!!
aziansn4k3 1 year ago
Wrong! Jebus, mohamed and vishnu made everything!
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 2
They are still salamanders, but they are a different species. They evolved under different environmental pressures to become varied and different from one another. If we gave this many millions of years, the changes might eventually add up for each individual salamander that they can no longer be recognized as all salamanders. This is just very small change, but it is evolution nonetheless.
AnonymousCthulhu 2 years ago 2
Its the usual switch and bait. Swapping micro evolution for macro evolution!
Micro evolution is not even really evolution it is merely variation with a kind.
A con!
IDH77 2 years ago
...There still salamanders aren't they?
IpwnUa11 2 years ago
They're** and yes, they are still salamanders. This is from Origin of Species page 460 "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can create no great or sudden modification." So when they say 'on the way to being new species' they mean as time goes on, and more slight changes accumulate by natural selection, you will have new species. Evolution is truly amazing (when you understand it).
shorty962 1 year ago
isn't it still a salimander?
2071stephen 2 years ago
@2071stephen
"salamander" is an order, that's 3 taxonomic levels above species.
pyr666 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
crap - utter shit
jbooks888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow. This video takes differently created salamanders and then ascribes to them a fictionally past that has no evidence, but conjecture.
You have me convinced.
Now if only they would talk about the fossil record showing sudden appearance and stasis with no transitional forms.
Peace940 2 years ago
Nobody expects stupid religious people to be convinced by anything if its not in your fictional holy book about some guy who flew across the desert on a camel. Go watch an animal sacrifice video instead.
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 years ago 15
As they begin to fully genetically sequence all the animals, your going to have one hell of a time refuting the mounds and mounds of evidence in support of evolution. Not only will science very soon, with the aid of faster and faster computers, be able to decode the genomes of all the animals, they will also be able to tell you with absolute certainty what one came first. This, coupled with the observational evidence is likely to enlighten the devout in the same way astronomy has.
PaleHearse 2 years ago 9
@PaleHearse It's almost interesting to observe how the more and more exposed certain beliefs become the more rigidly the religious defend it.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
@Peace940
Look up transitional fossils on a site OTHER than the fraudulent discovery institute or any creation evidence museum. You'll be suprised what turns up.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Let's see creationist try to disprove this.
kingferret53 2 years ago 4
Unfortunately they will do so all too easily, by claiming this is micro evolution and not macro evolution. They are the same "kind" not a new "kind". This stems from their misunderstood version of Evolution and fails as it's like claiming you can walk 10m but not 10km. Its the same process, the difference is scale.
TheNameIsNotBond 2 years ago
That's true, otherwise they wouldn't call it micro and macro evolution.
kingferret53 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kingferret53 don't have to disprove it - it's self-evident crap
jbooks888 2 years ago
He's kidding isn't he? They change colour and all of a sudden it happened over 10 million years ago! All species of dog can be produced in 100 years.
mrlroe 2 years ago
Well your point would be valid if it wasn't a complete strawman. He said that they originated in one area 10 million years ago, he did not say that they changed colour, therefore they originated 10 million years ago.The fact that you need to lie so blatantly nicely illustrates how unsupported your position is.
per50n 2 years ago
That's when humans are pulling the strings...
Dahlberg116 2 years ago
So it takes intelligence!
mrlroe 2 years ago
John Frum was most likely responsible.
Kamaka675 2 years ago
Actually, it took about 15,000 years to produce all those dogs...
And it took our intelligence acting on them to do it that fast, not to do it at all.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Ring species are the equivalent of kryptonite to creationists.
"Show us the transitional forms." "Now show us the transitional forms between the transitional forms." "We still don't believe you."
"Aaaaargh! It's a ring species. I feel my superpower of irrationality fading!"
bdf2718 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just how God meant for this to be.
komododr 2 years ago
not according to the bible that was "supposedly" inspired by god. Funny how Theists conveniently switch view points when confronted with valid evidence. So now i take it Genesis was allegorical as well I suppose?
americasace 2 years ago 4
The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved from monkeys. It states that we share common ancestors with them. (Who ya callin naive?) ....And if I just waltzed around letting people 'put stuff in my head' Then why am I argueing with the crap you're trying to 'put in my head?' I say again: Get a life, Ignoramus!
a715124 2 years ago 27
@a715124 The theory of evolution says we evolved from a common ancestor that was an ape, the same ape that Chimpanzees supposedly evolved from.
MrTmapp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another thing, you are the idiot here, because you let other people put stuff into your naive head that you evolved from animals, such as monkeys and even fish. :) holy stupidity!
rocha333 2 years ago
if your not smart enough to understand the theory of evolution you should refrain from commenting on it
FenriX123 2 years ago 35
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah ha ha ha. People plenty smarter than you believe in God. Evolutionists need more faith than theists, what makes you think people aren't smart if they don't believe in Evolutionism???
mrlroe 2 years ago
i never said any such thing, all i pointed out what that if you dont have any knowlegde about a subject you should refrain from commenting on it. rocha333 obviously thinks the theory of evolution says we come from monkeys.
FenriX123 2 years ago 2
Valid.
mrlroe 2 years ago
@mrlroe
Darwin was Christian before seeing how flawed the so-called "perfect creation" of nature was when he did his research.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These lizards are still lizards no matter the way they behave.... I thought evolution thought that animals became other animals...such as Monkeys and humans :)
rocha333 2 years ago
if you go back far enough, you will find that these salamanders came from other species, that produced even more species like geckos, newts, etc. as it is, these salamanders are very successful in their environment and have adapted well. thus, there is no reason for them to evolve quickly if they are thriving such as they are. the bigger the gene pool, the slower a specie will evolve.
senorchipotle 2 years ago
They are not lizards, they are "salamanders." You may have thought that evolution has thoughts but you are quite wrong; Evolution does not think anything. It is a scientific theory, incapable of thought, yet still intelligent. Further more their behavior is not whats in question. Get a life, Ignoramus!
a715124 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your replay is but circular reasoning...By the way, you haven't commented on what I said about animals becoming another animals... do you have anything evidence? Dont change the subject because I'm not stupid!
rocha333 2 years ago
Yes over longer periods of time or with certain more specific changes they can become other animals. For instance go look up Darwin's finches and see how different they became. As the time it takes for animals to change into something entirely new takes far too long for us to see, the best example of how new animals can be made by the choosing of certain babies over others is by looking at the selective breeding that farmers and animal breeders do.
Wild corn was only about 2-3 inches long.
Hashishin13 2 years ago
"As the salanders progressed south, over millions of years..."
That is said somewhere past 1:32 on the video.
This is curious to me. Millions of years past and the only change yielded was that the salanders started looking like a new species?
Given that the timeframe for evolution accounts for multi-cellular life primarily diverging in the last billion years, shouldn't "millions of years" not only yield dramatic variance in an existing species but many entirely new species?
CaptainCrunchOwns 2 years ago
(continued)
What I mean is, the narrator claims that over millions of years the salamanders in one particular region obtained different markings.
Over millions of years? Given that one billion equals just a thousand millions? Given that multi-cellular life diverged in just the last billion years according to the evolutionary model.
Please help me out here!
CaptainCrunchOwns 2 years ago
Thanx for the vid. Deserves 5 stars and a fave.
tapotsnm 2 years ago 2
Evolution & Species are very ambiguous terms these days. I'd like to know how the variation observed here demonstrates the potential of MACRO changes, i.e. new major structures. The great variety in these populations shows vast yet finite genetic info. The lack of ability/inclination in the converging groups to breed says that significant information was lost, correct? Whether we call it speciation or not, isn't this de-evolution in action?
MikeWDM 2 years ago
No. All major features/structures so far studied have revealed no irreducable complexity meaning that each can happen with miniscule steps over large timescales. Erv viruses, gene drift, mutations, duplications, deletions, recombinations and frame shifts (to name a few known mechanisms) increase genetic information while natural selection deletes what is directly detrimental.
einarth 2 years ago
Not correct...
A species does define itself by the breeding potential...
As opposite to the "kind" taxonomy used by anti-evolutionist.
Well... Micro-changes does occur, as creatures become resistant to things their ancestor wouldn't (new heat resistant insects) or by adapting the way they communicate (a group of grasshoper lost their "singing" but became more aware of pheromones after a grasshopper eating fly arrived on their island)
So there is changes and addition to code...
MrOsmose 2 years ago
de-evolution? theres no such thing, any specie only changes to best fit its enviornment
sulthus 2 years ago
Yeah! They change as much as they need to best fit their environment! .... That includes becoming an entirely new species. "Evolution" we call it!
a715124 2 years ago
I geuss your retarted, because what you said, means the exact same thing that I said.
sulthus 2 years ago