I just wasted 2 minutes of my life. I can make an animation where superman can fly but that dosnt mean it is true. Why dont you make a proper educational video with real evidence.
@novelty4 Why don't you read the info box on the full version of this video, you know, the one where it explains why saying something as silly as you just said is exactly the point of the video.
The fact that you can't discern a difference between each frame is precisely why there is no macro/micro distinction made, and why it works. Every frame is within realistic genetic diversity of the previous frame.
@deRoyLight This video is an ANALOGY of what you THINK could be true. There are 2 problems with it. First, you can animate separate species together like you have done but it dosnt prove that they are from the same origin. Its just YOUR interpretation. That isnt me being silly its just common sense. Second, if you really do believe that Man and apes originate from the same species, then isnt it still MICROEVOLUTION.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
I've seen a ton of Creationists who claim that Evolution within kinds is possible but new species are never introduced. But so far 0 of them have managed to explain what the boundary is that stops little changes each generation for accumulating. Simply because there is no boundary.
@iwanttocrashmybike Who says evolution that species can only mutate into a preset variation of combinations? There is no plan of how species is suppose to evolve, it's all about which traits survive in a particular environment and gets passed on to the next generations.
Both apes and humans belong to the primate family, there are tons of evidence that proves that. Do you also believe that whales have always belonged to the whale species despite evidence of the contrary?
@lilmarome No plan huh?SO the Genetic code is in no way a Blueprint for the Mito's?
Primate,yes.Evolved from a previous form of Primate no.We are and always have been an Original Species.
Selective means to hold onto or delete sequences that are useful or useless.Evolution can only occur with specific causation having specific mutation.for instance I can do anything I want that I am Physically capable of doing,Freewill for a set number of choices ,Savvy?
@iwanttocrashmybike Yes there is no plan, the genetic code is just a blueprint for the current life form, not the ones that come after.
What do you mean with original species? life has existed on this earth for 3,5 billion years and humans have only existed for about 200.000 years, did we just pop into existence? And how do you explain all the other hominid species that existed before us and connects us with the apes?
@lilmarome Look up the definition of the word "BluePrint"
Also that pop you mention could be creationist gap of man came after animals,but to those Species:
Ring Species cannot mate at the end spectrum of the ring yea?But they can backtrack and mate in reverse down the ring to combine DNA to in effect still be considered the same Kind,as we cannot mate with any known species or at least combine artificially the DNA,the Ringspecies theory is busted Savvy?
@iwanttocrashmybike You seriously believe that blueprints for the first camera is the same as for cameras today or even similar? I think you need to check the definition yourself.
You just skipped all the hominids? I take that to mean that you don't have a come back against that.
Obviously I'm not "savvy" when you use such flawed logic to rationalize that there are phenomenon that contradict your faulty world view.
@iwanttocrashmybike cont: the animals at each end of the ring are still different species of one an other because they can't produce offspring and ring shows that "macro" evolution has taken place!
Next time you should try to use real logic when trying to falsify something.
@lilmarome Still can't articulate your rational for you conclusion eh?Some quoted Scientific fact would strengthen your premise,better yet you could expound on why you think Speciation is normal?
@iwanttocrashmybike You already know about ring species so I don't seem to have to quote anything, it's just your logic that is flawed like I have showed you.
Speciation has been shown to occur, like with your ring species example, we have observed macro evolution many times under our life time. Evolution is the most accepted and scrutinized theory in science and has never been proven wrong.
@lilmarome It has in some circumstances been proven wrong about varying specifics.
But what my Question to you was can a animal at the end of the rings mate with its previous form?
If so than that offspring from the two,would be able to mate with the previous,previous form etc. in effect that would make them still the same species Savvy?
@iwanttocrashmybike crashmybike, this is the error you're making in logic. Saying that because ring species can mate with their closest neighbors means they never changed from their starting point is a huge mistake in comprehension.
Take for example a gradient where white slowly changes to black, one small line at a time. When you examine this, each line looks identical to its neighbors on both sides, however by the end of the transition you still get from white to black.
@deRoyLight I didn't say they didn't change,I said that since both types at the ends of the Rings can still interbreed through their previous forms all the way back to the other end of the spectrum means their still the same species,and how that Logic means that through Genetic Manipulation we should still be able to crossbreed Humans and other Primate types Savvy?
@lilmarome Both of you didn't get what I was saying.-I didn't say they didn't change,I said that since both types at the ends of the Rings can still interbreed through their previous forms all the way back to the other end of the spectrum means their still the same species,and how that Logic means that through Genetic Manipulation we should still be able to crossbreed Humans and other Primate types Savvy?-eh?
@iwanttocrashmybike So you still think that white is the same colour as black? I don't know how to make you see the flaw in your logic if you haven't understood it yet, I guess you're just a close minded person who doesn't understand logic nor science.
@iwanttocrashmybike Videos are not evidence, give me a scientific article that supports your claim instead (not written by creationist looneys thank you very much).
@lilmarome Really?SO in a court of Law when they show a video to prove someone Guilty or Innocent,thats NOT evidence?
Also Creationist looneys?
Well by your own admission you could never be convinced with Scientific data that would prove my premise and conclusions because you are Bias as to the source.So that's like saying"I want a Big Mac,but I dont want to eat McDonalds food" Savvy?
@iwanttocrashmybike By my own admission I WILL be convinced by scientific data (again you're ignoring what I wrote) but I WONT be convinced by ignorant creationists because they do not follow the Scientific Method! Do yourself a favour and educate yourself.
@lilmarome I am educated to talk about these subjects.
You ignore the obvious,that Consciousness Exists as Condensed Brain Matter(S),that Energy is now Conscious in this Universe.So as a fact types of Energy can exist as Consciousness as Physical beings,
That Naturalisms claim about a Universe that was made out of another Universe is as saying that Universe Spawned itself from/of itself which like Spinoza's GOD,implys that no conscious thought went into it.I claim that thing to b Conscious-GOD
@iwanttocrashmybike Clearly you're not educated in this subject when you do not accept the most accepted and scrutinized theory of science. Evolution has more evidence behind it than even the theory of gravity and you do believe in that don't you? So therefore you should believe in Evolution as well.
@iwanttocrashmybike A conscious being needs a material body with a concentrated spot of neurons. There has never been any evidence for consciousness to exist without some sort of brain so how can it be an obvious conclusion? You keep showing more and more of your illogical way of thinking, please stop making fun of yourself where everyone can see your ignorance.
@iwanttocrashmybike I do not know about any hypothesis that says that the universe was created from an other universe, the theory of the big bang is the commonly accepted one and it says nothing about that. Still, how is that the same as the universe creating yourself? If it was created by an other universe it was not the same as this universe. Was your god created by an other god and that god was created by an other god ad infinitum? Don't you have a serious problem with that logic?
@lilmarome That theory in essence means that a never ending rebirthing of the Universe occurs or that the U was created by/of itself.Just like the Theist claim about GOD.
Since all you can do is throw out incoherent insults with Zero Sci evidence I would conclude you need to strength your Statements Savvy?We are proof Energy can be conscious,so the I.D. theory gains more Ground,especially thanks to Neuroscience you should look into intentionality eh?
@iwanttocrashmybike No it does not mean there is a never ending rebirth of universes and the universe did not create itself, it was created by the big bang. And a conscious being cannot create itself because it has to be built by complex mater which the big bang was not.
Humans are not energy, we are material beings that has a concentration of neurons that we call a brain. That's not energy.
@iwanttocrashmybike How would consciousness be able to exist outside some kind of brain really? There has to be so many different parts for thoughts and feelings to be formed and then they obviously need fuel to be able to function so you need a heart and lungs and a digestive system to transport oxygen and nourishment to the cells in the brain.
It's very obvious to me that a consciousness could not work as energy alone.
@lilmarome Have you seen the NOVA special about "WATSON" eh?
So now we have two types with varying degrees of intelligence,both made of different types of Matter(S) both appear Designed or that they both were given a type of Consciousness.Although the human kind has more value,Energy has become many types of Consciousness as Bugs.Insects, etc etc.We are Condensed Energy,burning out the Usable,so that this Physical Existence is but a ride,where we have only one ticket,a Manifestation of pre-BB
@lilmarome I assume you mean "you have NOT shown" eh?
Well let me try again...We are made up of things called Matter,cells,atoms,moleculs these things are condensed Energy so we being Energy using Energy burning Energy transforming Energy are literally Conscious Energy Savvy?
@iwanttocrashmybike Two video suggestions since this comment strikes me as misinformed about evolution: First video - watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8 and second video - watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
@1SavageDragon1 Which is precisely the point. The illustration is meant to demonstrate how macro events occur through micro changes. If it can reproduce, it can produce small variations within every generation, and if it can do that, it can over time accumulate large-scale results from a collective of small-scale changes.
The point being, every single frame is within the realm of realistic genetic diversity of the previous frame, this illustrates why there is no invisible wall to species.
@iwanttocrashmybike Saying it is "natural" to select a "humanoid" form is misunderstanding natural selection. Natural Selection simply means that natural selective pressures can influence the frequency in which a trait is exhibited in a given population, due to the survive-mate-reproduce dynamic.
Also, evolution has no "end goal" in mind. It doesn't distinguish humans as any "better" of a species than anything else, that's not what it means. (continued)
@iwanttocrashmybike (continued)... What it means is that certain selective pressures faced our ancestors that allowed us to develop in such a way that we did today. Similar selective pressures faced other primates, but not in the same way or to the same degree it clearly faced us.
Also, thinking that humans are somehow "better" than other creatures is a big mistake. We have advantages to suit us for our environment, but other animals have advantages to suit them to theirs.
@iwanttocrashmybike It's not a matter of it being "more natural" for things to evolve into what we call today as humans. It's simply a matter of fact that the changes which occurred in our lineage came about in such a way that we appear the way we are.
Certain features have evolved MANY TIMES because they are SO advantageous. This includes eyes, the ability to hear, taste, smell... Evolution doesn't say "what is this animal lacking" and fixes it, that's not how it works.
@deRoyLight Well for example Deer,somehow being the specific prey for a specific predator doesn't seem very advantages.Unless you argu for a eco-conscious animal relationship.But seeing as how we "evolved beings" Have little regard for our eco-system.It seems unlikely that animals would in a co0productive way evolve to be both predator & prey to each other.You know did the flowers & bees have a contract a few billion years ago in the mana pool?
@iwanttocrashmybike Things like Lions/gazelle are an example of an arms race in action. Lions have evolved to be great predators of gazelles and like animals, while gazelles have evolved to have great agility and allows them to avoid such predators. This dynamic is also present in venomous toads and snakes, where the toads continue to get more toxic as to not be eaten, while the snake continues to build resistance to such toxins.
Flowers and bees are also an easy explanation... (continued)
@iwanttocrashmybike Bees and flowers work together not as some conscious unit, but because it's a symbiotic relationship (in a different way but in the same sense that some fish clean sharks for them).
Flowers, as a matter of mere natural selection, reproduce using pollen. Over time, the selective process has shown that flowers spread better when the pollen sticks to insects and they carry it to other areas. As a result, flowers slowly evolved "nectar," which draws insects for the task.
@deRoyLight That sound reasonable only if the flowers are aware of the bees interaction.Consciously aware,which you say they are not.To design the organ ofr pollen production means to be aware of the effect though feeling or observational traits.Feeling or thought.Since I don't think flowers think,that only leaves GOD to design the precursors for the interaction or symbiosis.Fusion of skills or functions to increase.
Also how did the flowers know what would attract the bees?
@iwanttocrashmybike The flowers do not need to be aware of the bee interactions. As a matter of happenstance, flowers with random mutations that produce things that attract insects, will find those mutations (those traits) pushed even further in that direction, because the flower will spread due to the insect's interaction and in return proliferate that trait for its survival.
The flowers did not "know" this would attract bees. It's a random mutation that was selected upon by its environment.
@iwanttocrashmybike I would recommend a good, but brief video answering some common misconceptions people have about Evolution. It may or may not include things you are concerned about, but it should give you a better understanding of the basics of Evolution in general: /watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Sorry but how does that disprove GOD?Preset articulations & designations of possible variations does more to imply a creator or designer than any universe theory I could have come up with.Basically its like saying that Lego's blocks can only mutate into a variation of preset combinations but was totally not designed by an intelligence,that comparatively is far beyond that of its own creation.A Lego man is nothing compared to a actual human.
@iwanttocrashmybike Where did I say anything about God? I thought we were talking about Evolution. I personally don't believe in any sort of supernatural deity, but that's not because of Evolution. The video I referenced you in fact states in the beginning that evolution is and can be accepted by people who both believe, and do not believe in God(s), just as general relativity, cell theory or any other scientific theory can be.
@deRoyLight My bad I pasted that part to the wrong person about GOD.(Old argument)
That video was very good.About the flowers & bees,Yes the enviroment stimulated the mutation,but the ability to respond in that manner was preset.As meaning that the specific interaction of flower & bee was preset for both.Permanent placements for finite variations.
There can be only one GOD not GOD'.The definition prohibits that,Angels as in Angel of light is a title for a functionary,like heavens dmv lol
@iwanttocrashmybike How do you know that there can only be one god? Do you know everything? Do you also know if this god is good or evil? How do go about determining such a thing? Is there some way to detect that or do you just rely on some fairytales written in an old book by superstitious shepherds that had none or very poor education compared to what we can get in today's modern society?
Nice. And you can see the jawbone getting shorter as it squeezes the wisdom teeth out to the point where almost everyone has to have them removed when they mature.
Not the sort of thing you'd expect from an "Intelligent Designer".
Deyroy. DO you know that homo -sapiens ( human) were found way before Homo genus(ape)? Don't you realise how damaging this is for the evolution transition you promote as evidence?
I said that sapien were found 1.5 million years ago while evolutionist put them around 200 thousand years ago.
I read further into it. THE years are ranging from 1.5 -3.5 which is mind blowing.
@Unity4allhumans Cite your information please. I'd like to look at it with an open mind, as long as its not on a creationist fundamentalist religious zealot web site form people who are not experts (no credentials), otherwise, I would be wasting my time with quackery. I'd advise you to also check your info compared to reality, also.
BTW i appreciate Darwin more than his blinded followers. He was his own biggest critic which proved that he genuinely was trying to find truths and not deceive him self or others.
Its those who carried on his work that are the misleader's of the unscientific theory of evolution.
"the unscientific theory of evolution. " - modern evolutionary synthesis (the current theory of evolution) is the brain child of thousands of scientists accross many generations, now we could assume there is an international conspiracy OR THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TWIT AS EVIDENCE BY YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
@The unveiling of 100 million fossils declaring the collapse of Darwinism, the greatest blow to the theory is a newly found human foot print fossil. Contrary to all the Darwinist claims, this fossil indicates that CONTEMPORARY MAN WAS LIVING 1,5 MILLION YEARS AGO
as opposed to evolutionist claiming until presence that contemporary man appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago
@types10000 Yes i i know homo sapien but 1.5 million years old. :) Time for deroylight to correct his fossil transition to the current scientific finds. Im curious to see how it would look to have modern man much much earlier on in his transitional sequence.
@types10000 Unable to deny the existence of 250 million fossils proving the existence of Creation, to explain even how a single protein came into existence or how life initially began, to give an example about a beneficial mutation, and seeing the glory of the fact of Creaion was urged to admit the irrationality of his claims of chance and realized that Darwinism is in a great dilemma.
- evolution relates only to the diversity of life not it's origin the fact that evolution occurs is no more dependent on the big bang or abiogenesis than gravity is.
- also given the fact that the innitial stages of abiogenesis have been demonstrated in the lab gives abiogenesis incredible credibility.
- however even if it didnt the God option would still not be viable because it is an affirmative claim and requires evidence :)
@Unity4allhumans what fossils proving creation show me one every human has 125 mutations differing from there parents most are neutral the countless bacteria mutations that cause an example evolving ability to digest nylon humans made nylon so the genes were NOT always there and WERE BENEFICIAL
@Unity4allhumans, 250 million fossils are arranged in taxa and phyla and dated in half a dozen methods all in predictable order showing mutations of species transforming into another slowly, through time. It proves evolution. About proteins, we cracked the DNA code and no longer need fossil proof. DNA proves evolution through predictable and testable chromosome coding revealing ancestors in logical order and progression. Humans mutate 130 times in a life time. Take evolution 101!
@truvelocity You need to shake your indoctrinated head and take it out of your ass.
Becuase i can give 2 fossil evidence that screw up this buildup of evolution. Gradualism of species is no longer a theory its been thrown out. They is a more mythical explaination now and its Puncuated evolution.
This theory alone demolishes the evolution theory Darwin proposed.
@Unity4allhumans You are a moron. DNA has an entire line that can be traced back to all ancestors, we don't need fossils any longer. In fact, we can predict where a transitional species would be and when the fossil is found later on, its no surprise.
Out of 200,000 transitional species, 2 fossils you "think" that are wrong on your creationist religious fundamentalist zealot web site you parrot proves your hypocrisy.
@Unity4allhumans Your local natural history museum has a few thousand to start. If you would like to learn how many there are, google it and you will find hundreds of thousands have been categorized so far. But, again... Why are you relying on fossils? DNA already proves evolution without fossils. Google that, too. Its all under your nose.
@truvelocity they are not only approx 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx are more birdlike, and had no teeth. Commonnnnnnnnnnnnnn can't you see the problem here? Evolutionist are recently suggesting that evidence of evolution is showing not from ground to sky. But opposite. So maybe its birds into reptiles instead of reptiles into birds.
@Unity4allhumans Cite your information, please. I'd like to see it with an open mind, because unlike you, I actually study the information given to me from the other point of view outside of my sphere of influence.
@Unity4allhumans Archaeopteryx is one of thousands of transitional bird fossils found in China in the 90's and 200's. But, a famous fossil at that. However, you need to check your facts, because Archeopteryx beak is lined with little teeth. Also, it has a long tail as well as raptor claws and feet and bones. Keep going, maybe you will ask questions, next time.
@Unity4allhumans lol wheres ur jesus he supposed to come back in the age of his dicifles or whatever it is but really man r u that stupid go read ur bible and ask is this rational or in any way moral please spare urself the pain the bible is not the truth
The oldest butterfly fossil is 390 million years old and it is absolutely no different to the butterflies of today. There is so many flaws in the theory of evolution that i can not grasp how any logicalically minded individual would sell it as 100% fact.
You want to source that comment in a single peer-reviewed scientific journal? Just one in the modern literature? How about just one little quote that vaguely even sounds like that's what they're saying.
@deRoyLight The naturalist [i.e., Darwin] stated: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
@Unity4allhumans No one in the study of evolution science has ever claimed a dinosaur turns into a bird (you spelled dinosaur wrong, by the way) and no one said an elephant became a whale. You really don't understand evolution at all.
"The oldest butterfly fossil is 390 million years old and it is absolutely no different to the butterflies of today. There is so many flaws in the theory of evolution" - if you think this is a flaw in evolution you have just shown you dont know what evolution is. go read the wikipedia page idiot.
Evolution does not state that an animal has to change its form or guarantees an animal changes its form. Ergo, a butterfly is successful and is able to pass on its genes to the next generation and is lucky that there was not a mass extinction rendering it long gone. So, its a misconception that you have about evolution.
@patrickleford420, its because they cannot see a phylogenetic tree or picture it in their head. Creationist web sites ignore taxa and phyla and they don't even know what the terms mean! Branches of a tree with newly formed branches live side by side with other branches, some die off and some live. Thus, the branches with one form live side by side with another form. That is how I would show a 5 year old. Once they grasp it, evolution is the only logical explanation.
@truvelocity yeh i agree i think the phylogonies that can be made for evey protein in our body and any other animals is the biggest peice of evidence for evolution because either we evolved or "god" wanted us to beleive it lol which one sounds more logical
@Unity4allhumans Insects existed long before the first land animals came out of the sea. What is wrong with you? The fossils show similar taxa and phyla just like the fossils in ancient oceans show jelly fish living side by side with trilobites. You need to take evolution 101 for grade school and you will have an "aha" moment.
@Unity4allhumans Get your facts straight. The oldest Insect is 390 million years old the bristletail. Butterflies and Flowering plants appeared at the same time around 190 million years ago.
Evolution is the best explanation for what we see today. There is nothing else. What else is there? The magic man in the sky just waved his magic staff and poof! Everything was just... Then he tried to fool the smart people by making it look like Evolution is true.
One of the bases of the evolution theory is the survival of the fittest.
By this we can say for example if a bear turned into a whale as Darwin predicted why would the bear still exist in present time? For this to be valid the bear would have gone extinct.
Macro evolution talks about long long time needed for the process to occur so how can evolutionist explain butterflies and frogs?
@Unity4allhumans listen to me. Very closely. When you start saying things like "evolution would predict that a bear will turn into a whale" then you really, really do not understand what it is you're talking about. I'm not trying to be rude in this instance, I'm being very serious.
Evolution has nothing to do with anything morphing into anything int he way you're implying. No more than your father has to be extinct for you to be alive than do ancestor species have to be dead.
@Unity4allhumans Evolution does not say a bear is turned into a whale? Could you please cite your source of information. Cite, means to show where you are getting your info from, because evolution never claimed what you are talking about. Also, think of a tree, some branches on that tree keep growing new branches and other branches die. Not all animals become extinct according to evolution. A wombat is an ancestor of Koalas and yet they both exist at the same time. Single cells exist, too.
"speciation does not support the theory of evolution! " - speciation shows that genetic diversity can increase to the point at which organisms become genetically isolated, as being genetically isolated it is seen that genetic diversity will continue to increase because the variation cannot be reabsorbed back into the collective diversity of the original populous.
evolution predicts this trend will continue and it does, it is irrefutable proof of macroevolution.
@Eastmanarium In order for the theory to be taken seriously, therefore, it needs to propose "mechanisms that create and increase genetic information."
@Eastmanarium "Speciation" means a loss of genetic information rather than an increase. The cause of speciation is not that new genetic information has been acquired by one or both variations. There is no such addition of genetic information. On the contrary, instead of a population that previously had a larger gene pool, there are now two different populations with reduced gene pools.
"means a loss of genetic information rather than an increase" - incorrect, speciation occurs when the genetic variation resulting from random mutation becomes too significant for a population of organisms to breed with the original populous.
- the gene pool can be larger or smaller or the same size depending on the mutations.
- as i have already stated a gene duplication followed by random mutation to the duplicated gene IS BY DEFINITION new information.
@types10000 First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
- neutral mutations (the bulk of mutations) are not beneficial or detrimental and are simply reabsorbed back into the collective variation of the populous.
- Detrimental mutations are not propagated because they decrease the survivability of the organism therefore reducing it's likelyhood to reproduce.
- beneficial mutations (such as the ability of bacteria to ingest nylon) increase the survivability of the organism and therefore propagate.
@types10000 No evolutionist can ever say that macro- evolution is scientifically proven to be true. The only thing you demonstrated is how dogmatic atheist are when following what they are programmed to see and not really understanding what they are told to believe in.
Yes it happens in religions too but your evidence that the ignorant and blind followers are among non believers too. :)
- macroevolution is the logical necessity of microevolution given that no mechanism to prevent the accumulation of change exists. it is nothing ore than the cumulative effect of microevolution over time.
"dogmatic atheist" - no, i can however see that theists dogmatically believe their faith-based crap in-spite of the evidence against.
- i have present evidence you are yet to refute in any way.
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.
"Disabled fruit flies" - you are repeating a creationist lie that has already been refuted scientists have presented numerous evidence numerous examples of beneficial mutation nylon ingesting bacteria being the most prominant.
"Not even a horsefly, much less a horse" - this statement is on par with Kirk Cameron's crockoduck; it is not simply something evolution does not predict but something that would completely disprove evolution if found.
@types10000 micro ev. is real but there are to many skulls missing to prove the idea.Many animals share some same trates but there cousins of each other not micro ev.
@callofdutymw2geek That made no sense, no offense. Of course they are cousins of eachother, that's the entire point. Saying they are cousins of eachother is exactly what evolution is. Are you sure you understand that you're agreeing?
If you believe that everything comes from the same org. then yeah i understand your point but,i believe we all come from diff. org.Just cause something is similar doesnt mean they come from the same org.
@callofdutymw2geek Yes it may be real but the deception of evolutionaries is that it is linked to evolution when facts scientific ones proves Its not supporting the theory of evolution.
@Unity4allhumans To say that "scientific" facts do not support evolutionary theory is to be completely disconnected from science. You have to seriously have your head under a rock if you think science is anything but fully in support of evolution. Just pick up any science journal.
I agree. Micro ev. is real but to say we come from monkeys is wierd because we have no proof there is a huge gap between money skulls and mans.Its just too far fetched.Truth is out of all the worlds animals humans are the newst we seem to come out of nowhere its bizare but we are the youngest animals in the world.
@jasondemon you missed the point. AaronRa's video is about how the naming system should put all apes in as Monkeys, not that we derived from what we describe today as Monkeys.
@deRoyLight no. The point of his video is that we, us, human beings are monkeys (as are all apes)... because we came from a common ancestor that is itself a monkey... as such, we do in fact derive from what we today call monkeys... we are monkeys... He even points out the fact that most people don't want to hear that, or believe it... watch the video... My point is you shouldn't tell people we aren't, no matter how stupid they are, because we are, in fact, monkeys...
@jasondemon For a second time, you misunderstand what AronRa is saying in relation to what people are thinking when they make the statement "we didn't come from monkeys." AronRa's video is about classification, and how all Apes should technically be classified as monkeys.
The people who I am responding to, are the kind of people that think "we came from monkeys" is about a transition from modern creatures.
@deRoyLight "Dude. No one says we come from monkeys. That has nothing to do with evolution. I don't think you understand what evolution is. " this is what you said. It's flat out wrong... Aronra's video does in fact state that WE ARE MONKEYS. That's my point. directing you to his video was an aside. Your assertion that the fact that we came from monkeys has nothing to do with evolutions is patently false. For a second time...
@jasondemon I'm not going to keep repeating myself, you need to start reading what is being said and understanding it in context.
AronRa's video is about classification. The statement "we did not come from monkeys" means two entirely different things in different contexts. In the context of Ra's video, it's incorrect to say we didn't come from
I just wasted 2 minutes of my life. I can make an animation where superman can fly but that dosnt mean it is true. Why dont you make a proper educational video with real evidence.
novelty4 1 week ago
@novelty4 Why don't you read the info box on the full version of this video, you know, the one where it explains why saying something as silly as you just said is exactly the point of the video.
The fact that you can't discern a difference between each frame is precisely why there is no macro/micro distinction made, and why it works. Every frame is within realistic genetic diversity of the previous frame.
deRoyLight 1 week ago
@deRoyLight This video is an ANALOGY of what you THINK could be true. There are 2 problems with it. First, you can animate separate species together like you have done but it dosnt prove that they are from the same origin. Its just YOUR interpretation. That isnt me being silly its just common sense. Second, if you really do believe that Man and apes originate from the same species, then isnt it still MICROEVOLUTION.
novelty4 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 2 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 2 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 2 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 2 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 2 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've seen a ton of Creationists who claim that Evolution within kinds is possible but new species are never introduced. But so far 0 of them have managed to explain what the boundary is that stops little changes each generation for accumulating. Simply because there is no boundary.
pat5168 6 months ago
LOL. With photoshop is a breeze, dude. Now, where is the beef?
raponte1955 9 months ago
Evolution say that each species can only mutate into a preset variation of combinations.
Or in other words a cat species will always be a cat species no mater what size or variation in characteristics.
Same as with apes & humans,both of which are different species.No banana man or crocoduck boy!
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Who says evolution that species can only mutate into a preset variation of combinations? There is no plan of how species is suppose to evolve, it's all about which traits survive in a particular environment and gets passed on to the next generations.
Both apes and humans belong to the primate family, there are tons of evidence that proves that. Do you also believe that whales have always belonged to the whale species despite evidence of the contrary?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome No plan huh?SO the Genetic code is in no way a Blueprint for the Mito's?
Primate,yes.Evolved from a previous form of Primate no.We are and always have been an Original Species.
Selective means to hold onto or delete sequences that are useful or useless.Evolution can only occur with specific causation having specific mutation.for instance I can do anything I want that I am Physically capable of doing,Freewill for a set number of choices ,Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Yes there is no plan, the genetic code is just a blueprint for the current life form, not the ones that come after.
What do you mean with original species? life has existed on this earth for 3,5 billion years and humans have only existed for about 200.000 years, did we just pop into existence? And how do you explain all the other hominid species that existed before us and connects us with the apes?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Look up the definition of the word "BluePrint"
Also that pop you mention could be creationist gap of man came after animals,but to those Species:
Ring Species cannot mate at the end spectrum of the ring yea?But they can backtrack and mate in reverse down the ring to combine DNA to in effect still be considered the same Kind,as we cannot mate with any known species or at least combine artificially the DNA,the Ringspecies theory is busted Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike You seriously believe that blueprints for the first camera is the same as for cameras today or even similar? I think you need to check the definition yourself.
You just skipped all the hominids? I take that to mean that you don't have a come back against that.
Obviously I'm not "savvy" when you use such flawed logic to rationalize that there are phenomenon that contradict your faulty world view.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike cont: the animals at each end of the ring are still different species of one an other because they can't produce offspring and ring shows that "macro" evolution has taken place!
Next time you should try to use real logic when trying to falsify something.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome So your saying the ones at the end of the ring,cant mate with the previous version?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike You don't know how to read or something?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Still can't articulate your rational for you conclusion eh?Some quoted Scientific fact would strengthen your premise,better yet you could expound on why you think Speciation is normal?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike You already know about ring species so I don't seem to have to quote anything, it's just your logic that is flawed like I have showed you.
Speciation has been shown to occur, like with your ring species example, we have observed macro evolution many times under our life time. Evolution is the most accepted and scrutinized theory in science and has never been proven wrong.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome It has in some circumstances been proven wrong about varying specifics.
But what my Question to you was can a animal at the end of the rings mate with its previous form?
If so than that offspring from the two,would be able to mate with the previous,previous form etc. in effect that would make them still the same species Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike crashmybike, this is the error you're making in logic. Saying that because ring species can mate with their closest neighbors means they never changed from their starting point is a huge mistake in comprehension.
Take for example a gradient where white slowly changes to black, one small line at a time. When you examine this, each line looks identical to its neighbors on both sides, however by the end of the transition you still get from white to black.
deRoyLight 8 months ago
@deRoyLight I didn't say they didn't change,I said that since both types at the ends of the Rings can still interbreed through their previous forms all the way back to the other end of the spectrum means their still the same species,and how that Logic means that through Genetic Manipulation we should still be able to crossbreed Humans and other Primate types Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike And some circumstances prove speciation wrong entirely?
deRoyLight answered you pretty well so I guess I do not have to repeat myself unless you have some sort of dyslexia or just ignored him Savvy?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Both of you didn't get what I was saying.-I didn't say they didn't change,I said that since both types at the ends of the Rings can still interbreed through their previous forms all the way back to the other end of the spectrum means their still the same species,and how that Logic means that through Genetic Manipulation we should still be able to crossbreed Humans and other Primate types Savvy?-eh?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike So you still think that white is the same colour as black? I don't know how to make you see the flaw in your logic if you haven't understood it yet, I guess you're just a close minded person who doesn't understand logic nor science.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Hmm,nope Black is the same as purple.
Cool how you used non-science to make your point eh.
But good job countering my Ring species argument...
And even better job of not supporting your argument with facts;-)
John Cleese - The Scientists - 2008
/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo
The Language Matrix (Part 1)
/watch?v=3pKB-xAx9wM
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike The ring species are the facts airhead. Where are your facts?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Right there:
v
v
/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Videos are not evidence, give me a scientific article that supports your claim instead (not written by creationist looneys thank you very much).
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Really?SO in a court of Law when they show a video to prove someone Guilty or Innocent,thats NOT evidence?
Also Creationist looneys?
Well by your own admission you could never be convinced with Scientific data that would prove my premise and conclusions because you are Bias as to the source.So that's like saying"I want a Big Mac,but I dont want to eat McDonalds food" Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike By my own admission I WILL be convinced by scientific data (again you're ignoring what I wrote) but I WONT be convinced by ignorant creationists because they do not follow the Scientific Method! Do yourself a favour and educate yourself.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome I am educated to talk about these subjects.
You ignore the obvious,that Consciousness Exists as Condensed Brain Matter(S),that Energy is now Conscious in this Universe.So as a fact types of Energy can exist as Consciousness as Physical beings,
That Naturalisms claim about a Universe that was made out of another Universe is as saying that Universe Spawned itself from/of itself which like Spinoza's GOD,implys that no conscious thought went into it.I claim that thing to b Conscious-GOD
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Clearly you're not educated in this subject when you do not accept the most accepted and scrutinized theory of science. Evolution has more evidence behind it than even the theory of gravity and you do believe in that don't you? So therefore you should believe in Evolution as well.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike A conscious being needs a material body with a concentrated spot of neurons. There has never been any evidence for consciousness to exist without some sort of brain so how can it be an obvious conclusion? You keep showing more and more of your illogical way of thinking, please stop making fun of yourself where everyone can see your ignorance.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike I do not know about any hypothesis that says that the universe was created from an other universe, the theory of the big bang is the commonly accepted one and it says nothing about that. Still, how is that the same as the universe creating yourself? If it was created by an other universe it was not the same as this universe. Was your god created by an other god and that god was created by an other god ad infinitum? Don't you have a serious problem with that logic?
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome That theory in essence means that a never ending rebirthing of the Universe occurs or that the U was created by/of itself.Just like the Theist claim about GOD.
Since all you can do is throw out incoherent insults with Zero Sci evidence I would conclude you need to strength your Statements Savvy?We are proof Energy can be conscious,so the I.D. theory gains more Ground,especially thanks to Neuroscience you should look into intentionality eh?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike No it does not mean there is a never ending rebirth of universes and the universe did not create itself, it was created by the big bang. And a conscious being cannot create itself because it has to be built by complex mater which the big bang was not.
Humans are not energy, we are material beings that has a concentration of neurons that we call a brain. That's not energy.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike How would consciousness be able to exist outside some kind of brain really? There has to be so many different parts for thoughts and feelings to be formed and then they obviously need fuel to be able to function so you need a heart and lungs and a digestive system to transport oxygen and nourishment to the cells in the brain.
It's very obvious to me that a consciousness could not work as energy alone.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome Have you seen the NOVA special about "WATSON" eh?
So now we have two types with varying degrees of intelligence,both made of different types of Matter(S) both appear Designed or that they both were given a type of Consciousness.Although the human kind has more value,Energy has become many types of Consciousness as Bugs.Insects, etc etc.We are Condensed Energy,burning out the Usable,so that this Physical Existence is but a ride,where we have only one ticket,a Manifestation of pre-BB
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike You have shown anything that would suggest that energy can have consciousness.
lilmarome 8 months ago
@lilmarome I assume you mean "you have NOT shown" eh?
Well let me try again...We are made up of things called Matter,cells,atoms,moleculs these things are condensed Energy so we being Energy using Energy burning Energy transforming Energy are literally Conscious Energy Savvy?
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Nope we're not condensed energy, and energy is not conscious. Try again
lilmarome 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lilmarome Brian Greene: The Search For Hidden Dimensions
/watch?v=BB1B42HYvZg
Scientific Proof of God/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI
#21 The Two Subsystem Mind/watch?v=EWuS8DXc1l0
#22 The Mind Body Problem/watch?v=lJwNSzzxhLM
#15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof/watch?v=XJUIxaSDfU0
Rational Approach To Divine Origin of Judaism/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA
Cat intelligence/watch?v=3wqga6sQExs
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Two video suggestions since this comment strikes me as misinformed about evolution: First video - watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8 and second video - watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
deRoyLight 8 months ago
@deRoyLight I have both those videos in my "SCIENCE OF GOD?" file on my channel
Thanks anyway;-)
iwanttocrashmybike 8 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Humans belong to the taxonomic group Hominidae. That means we ARE apes by definition.
Mike12784 8 months ago 4
@iwanttocrashmybike you are aware that a crocoduck would disprove evolution right?
AWEF321 5 months ago
@AWEF321 Mic or Mac?...Paddy-Wack...
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike mac.
AWEF321 5 months ago
@AWEF321 Nah,I think it would just prove you could Genetically/Surgically alter/blend varying Material.
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike a crocaduck formed without human intervention would disprove it
AWEF321 5 months ago
@AWEF321 Seems Backwards,but ok...Maybe a Doggy-Bag?
iwanttocrashmybike 5 months ago
damn evolutionists watch?v=7A6qtrDGiXI
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
GREAT video! Thanks for the effort...
kusalaviro 10 months ago
ugh this can be done with anything.
e.g watermelon to clock...just keep adding subtle changes
1SavageDragon1 11 months ago
@1SavageDragon1 Which is precisely the point. The illustration is meant to demonstrate how macro events occur through micro changes. If it can reproduce, it can produce small variations within every generation, and if it can do that, it can over time accumulate large-scale results from a collective of small-scale changes.
The point being, every single frame is within the realm of realistic genetic diversity of the previous frame, this illustrates why there is no invisible wall to species.
deRoyLight 11 months ago 3
@deRoyLight If its natural to select this humanoid form why didn't the other species evolve humanoid forms?
No not a crocduck,but people that evolved from ducks or gators?
Also,how are video games natural?
If its natural it happens more than once..
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Saying it is "natural" to select a "humanoid" form is misunderstanding natural selection. Natural Selection simply means that natural selective pressures can influence the frequency in which a trait is exhibited in a given population, due to the survive-mate-reproduce dynamic.
Also, evolution has no "end goal" in mind. It doesn't distinguish humans as any "better" of a species than anything else, that's not what it means. (continued)
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike (continued)... What it means is that certain selective pressures faced our ancestors that allowed us to develop in such a way that we did today. Similar selective pressures faced other primates, but not in the same way or to the same degree it clearly faced us.
Also, thinking that humans are somehow "better" than other creatures is a big mistake. We have advantages to suit us for our environment, but other animals have advantages to suit them to theirs.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike It's not a matter of it being "more natural" for things to evolve into what we call today as humans. It's simply a matter of fact that the changes which occurred in our lineage came about in such a way that we appear the way we are.
Certain features have evolved MANY TIMES because they are SO advantageous. This includes eyes, the ability to hear, taste, smell... Evolution doesn't say "what is this animal lacking" and fixes it, that's not how it works.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@deRoyLight Well for example Deer,somehow being the specific prey for a specific predator doesn't seem very advantages.Unless you argu for a eco-conscious animal relationship.But seeing as how we "evolved beings" Have little regard for our eco-system.It seems unlikely that animals would in a co0productive way evolve to be both predator & prey to each other.You know did the flowers & bees have a contract a few billion years ago in the mana pool?
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Things like Lions/gazelle are an example of an arms race in action. Lions have evolved to be great predators of gazelles and like animals, while gazelles have evolved to have great agility and allows them to avoid such predators. This dynamic is also present in venomous toads and snakes, where the toads continue to get more toxic as to not be eaten, while the snake continues to build resistance to such toxins.
Flowers and bees are also an easy explanation... (continued)
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Bees and flowers work together not as some conscious unit, but because it's a symbiotic relationship (in a different way but in the same sense that some fish clean sharks for them).
Flowers, as a matter of mere natural selection, reproduce using pollen. Over time, the selective process has shown that flowers spread better when the pollen sticks to insects and they carry it to other areas. As a result, flowers slowly evolved "nectar," which draws insects for the task.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@deRoyLight That sound reasonable only if the flowers are aware of the bees interaction.Consciously aware,which you say they are not.To design the organ ofr pollen production means to be aware of the effect though feeling or observational traits.Feeling or thought.Since I don't think flowers think,that only leaves GOD to design the precursors for the interaction or symbiosis.Fusion of skills or functions to increase.
Also how did the flowers know what would attract the bees?
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike The flowers do not need to be aware of the bee interactions. As a matter of happenstance, flowers with random mutations that produce things that attract insects, will find those mutations (those traits) pushed even further in that direction, because the flower will spread due to the insect's interaction and in return proliferate that trait for its survival.
The flowers did not "know" this would attract bees. It's a random mutation that was selected upon by its environment.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike I would recommend a good, but brief video answering some common misconceptions people have about Evolution. It may or may not include things you are concerned about, but it should give you a better understanding of the basics of Evolution in general: /watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
deRoyLight 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deRoyLight Evolution say that each species can only mutate into a preset variation of combinations.
Or in other words a cat species will always be a cat species no mater what size or variation in characteristics.
Same as with apes & humans,both of which are different species.No banana man or crocoduck boy!
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
Sorry but how does that disprove GOD?Preset articulations & designations of possible variations does more to imply a creator or designer than any universe theory I could have come up with.Basically its like saying that Lego's blocks can only mutate into a variation of preset combinations but was totally not designed by an intelligence,that comparatively is far beyond that of its own creation.A Lego man is nothing compared to a actual human.
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Where did I say anything about God? I thought we were talking about Evolution. I personally don't believe in any sort of supernatural deity, but that's not because of Evolution. The video I referenced you in fact states in the beginning that evolution is and can be accepted by people who both believe, and do not believe in God(s), just as general relativity, cell theory or any other scientific theory can be.
deRoyLight 9 months ago
@deRoyLight My bad I pasted that part to the wrong person about GOD.(Old argument)
That video was very good.About the flowers & bees,Yes the enviroment stimulated the mutation,but the ability to respond in that manner was preset.As meaning that the specific interaction of flower & bee was preset for both.Permanent placements for finite variations.
There can be only one GOD not GOD'.The definition prohibits that,Angels as in Angel of light is a title for a functionary,like heavens dmv lol
iwanttocrashmybike 9 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike How do you know that there can only be one god? Do you know everything? Do you also know if this god is good or evil? How do go about determining such a thing? Is there some way to detect that or do you just rely on some fairytales written in an old book by superstitious shepherds that had none or very poor education compared to what we can get in today's modern society?
lilmarome 8 months ago
Nice. And you can see the jawbone getting shorter as it squeezes the wisdom teeth out to the point where almost everyone has to have them removed when they mature.
Not the sort of thing you'd expect from an "Intelligent Designer".
warren52nz 11 months ago 2
great rendering !!
Neueregel 1 year ago
well done
cruciphile 1 year ago
Deyroy. DO you know that homo -sapiens ( human) were found way before Homo genus(ape)? Don't you realise how damaging this is for the evolution transition you promote as evidence?
I said that sapien were found 1.5 million years ago while evolutionist put them around 200 thousand years ago.
I read further into it. THE years are ranging from 1.5 -3.5 which is mind blowing.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Cite your information please. I'd like to look at it with an open mind, as long as its not on a creationist fundamentalist religious zealot web site form people who are not experts (no credentials), otherwise, I would be wasting my time with quackery. I'd advise you to also check your info compared to reality, also.
truvelocity 1 year ago
BTW i appreciate Darwin more than his blinded followers. He was his own biggest critic which proved that he genuinely was trying to find truths and not deceive him self or others.
Its those who carried on his work that are the misleader's of the unscientific theory of evolution.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
First evolutionist PREDICTED that humans and chimps had 99% similarities in dna. Now thanks to science its dropped by 4% and keeps dropping.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
"the unscientific theory of evolution. " - modern evolutionary synthesis (the current theory of evolution) is the brain child of thousands of scientists accross many generations, now we could assume there is an international conspiracy OR THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TWIT AS EVIDENCE BY YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
types10000 2 years ago
@The unveiling of 100 million fossils declaring the collapse of Darwinism, the greatest blow to the theory is a newly found human foot print fossil. Contrary to all the Darwinist claims, this fossil indicates that CONTEMPORARY MAN WAS LIVING 1,5 MILLION YEARS AGO
as opposed to evolutionist claiming until presence that contemporary man appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
bam-bow, wrong, those prints are attributed to Homo ergaster.
Humans = homo sapien sapien :)
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 Yes i i know homo sapien but 1.5 million years old. :) Time for deroylight to correct his fossil transition to the current scientific finds. Im curious to see how it would look to have modern man much much earlier on in his transitional sequence.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
- the fossil already complies with both the current scientific method and dating methods.
- it is not a modern human
- why would modern man appear earlier, changes occur in response to selective pressure
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 Huh lol u sound a little confused.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
- you claimed it was fossil of a modern human (ie. Homo sapien sapien)
- it is infact a fossil of Homo Ergaster
- ergo NOT modern humans which came much later
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 Unable to deny the existence of 250 million fossils proving the existence of Creation, to explain even how a single protein came into existence or how life initially began, to give an example about a beneficial mutation, and seeing the glory of the fact of Creaion was urged to admit the irrationality of his claims of chance and realized that Darwinism is in a great dilemma.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
- evolution relates only to the diversity of life not it's origin the fact that evolution occurs is no more dependent on the big bang or abiogenesis than gravity is.
- also given the fact that the innitial stages of abiogenesis have been demonstrated in the lab gives abiogenesis incredible credibility.
- however even if it didnt the God option would still not be viable because it is an affirmative claim and requires evidence :)
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 ur right try using 5 year old logic you might get through
patrickledford420 1 year ago
creation does not explain how life innitially began, it makes an argument from ignorance assertion that a God is responsible.
ie. 'i dont know how this could have happened and you cant tell me, so a God did it'. it's logically flawed.
your insinuation that evolution needs to explain the origin of proteins is also wrong
types10000 2 years ago
so really, not only is your claim about a fossil disproving evolution completely wrong, your whole understanding of what evolution is, is wrong :)
types10000 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans what fossils proving creation show me one every human has 125 mutations differing from there parents most are neutral the countless bacteria mutations that cause an example evolving ability to digest nylon humans made nylon so the genes were NOT always there and WERE BENEFICIAL
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans, 250 million fossils are arranged in taxa and phyla and dated in half a dozen methods all in predictable order showing mutations of species transforming into another slowly, through time. It proves evolution. About proteins, we cracked the DNA code and no longer need fossil proof. DNA proves evolution through predictable and testable chromosome coding revealing ancestors in logical order and progression. Humans mutate 130 times in a life time. Take evolution 101!
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity You need to shake your indoctrinated head and take it out of your ass.
Becuase i can give 2 fossil evidence that screw up this buildup of evolution. Gradualism of species is no longer a theory its been thrown out. They is a more mythical explaination now and its Puncuated evolution.
This theory alone demolishes the evolution theory Darwin proposed.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans You are a moron. DNA has an entire line that can be traced back to all ancestors, we don't need fossils any longer. In fact, we can predict where a transitional species would be and when the fossil is found later on, its no surprise.
Out of 200,000 transitional species, 2 fossils you "think" that are wrong on your creationist religious fundamentalist zealot web site you parrot proves your hypocrisy.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity thats weird that you claim that... The fossil record would disagree with you.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@truvelocity 200 thousandddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd wow where are they please tell me where i can look
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Your local natural history museum has a few thousand to start. If you would like to learn how many there are, google it and you will find hundreds of thousands have been categorized so far. But, again... Why are you relying on fossils? DNA already proves evolution without fossils. Google that, too. Its all under your nose.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity they are not only approx 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx are more birdlike, and had no teeth. Commonnnnnnnnnnnnnn can't you see the problem here? Evolutionist are recently suggesting that evidence of evolution is showing not from ground to sky. But opposite. So maybe its birds into reptiles instead of reptiles into birds.
Who knows where this fictious story is going...
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Cite your information, please. I'd like to see it with an open mind, because unlike you, I actually study the information given to me from the other point of view outside of my sphere of influence.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Archaeopteryx is one of thousands of transitional bird fossils found in China in the 90's and 200's. But, a famous fossil at that. However, you need to check your facts, because Archeopteryx beak is lined with little teeth. Also, it has a long tail as well as raptor claws and feet and bones. Keep going, maybe you will ask questions, next time.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@types10000 Now dawkings admits to creation but say Aliens created us. hahahahahaha
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@types10000 Your prophet left you high and dry!
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans lol wheres ur jesus he supposed to come back in the age of his dicifles or whatever it is but really man r u that stupid go read ur bible and ask is this rational or in any way moral please spare urself the pain the bible is not the truth
patrickledford420 1 year ago
The oldest butterfly fossil is 390 million years old and it is absolutely no different to the butterflies of today. There is so many flaws in the theory of evolution that i can not grasp how any logicalically minded individual would sell it as 100% fact.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans Absolutely no different from today?
You want to source that comment in a single peer-reviewed scientific journal? Just one in the modern literature? How about just one little quote that vaguely even sounds like that's what they're saying.
Good luck.
deRoyLight 2 years ago 5
@deRoyLight OMG DARWIN BELIEVED THAT> See you your self do not even understand the implications of the theory of evolution.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@deRoyLight The naturalist [i.e., Darwin] stated: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@deRoyLight So you think that a dinasour turning into a bird is not an outrageous claim? Or that a elephant becoming a whale?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans No one in the study of evolution science has ever claimed a dinosaur turns into a bird (you spelled dinosaur wrong, by the way) and no one said an elephant became a whale. You really don't understand evolution at all.
truvelocity 1 year ago
"The oldest butterfly fossil is 390 million years old and it is absolutely no different to the butterflies of today. There is so many flaws in the theory of evolution" - if you think this is a flaw in evolution you have just shown you dont know what evolution is. go read the wikipedia page idiot.
types10000 2 years ago
Evolution does not state that an animal has to change its form or guarantees an animal changes its form. Ergo, a butterfly is successful and is able to pass on its genes to the next generation and is lucky that there was not a mass extinction rendering it long gone. So, its a misconception that you have about evolution.
truvelocity 2 years ago
@truvelocity exactly why theres still scorpians or wasps or fish doesnt it get old how these creotards just cant listen to anything
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickleford420, its because they cannot see a phylogenetic tree or picture it in their head. Creationist web sites ignore taxa and phyla and they don't even know what the terms mean! Branches of a tree with newly formed branches live side by side with other branches, some die off and some live. Thus, the branches with one form live side by side with another form. That is how I would show a 5 year old. Once they grasp it, evolution is the only logical explanation.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity yeh i agree i think the phylogonies that can be made for evey protein in our body and any other animals is the biggest peice of evidence for evolution because either we evolved or "god" wanted us to beleive it lol which one sounds more logical
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Comment removed
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Insects existed long before the first land animals came out of the sea. What is wrong with you? The fossils show similar taxa and phyla just like the fossils in ancient oceans show jelly fish living side by side with trilobites. You need to take evolution 101 for grade school and you will have an "aha" moment.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans lol and I guess you cant see the diffrence between the various skulls in this video either -
badpanda84 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Get your facts straight. The oldest Insect is 390 million years old the bristletail. Butterflies and Flowering plants appeared at the same time around 190 million years ago.
Evolution is the best explanation for what we see today. There is nothing else. What else is there? The magic man in the sky just waved his magic staff and poof! Everything was just... Then he tried to fool the smart people by making it look like Evolution is true.
jim6584 1 year ago
One of the bases of the evolution theory is the survival of the fittest.
By this we can say for example if a bear turned into a whale as Darwin predicted why would the bear still exist in present time? For this to be valid the bear would have gone extinct.
Macro evolution talks about long long time needed for the process to occur so how can evolutionist explain butterflies and frogs?
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans listen to me. Very closely. When you start saying things like "evolution would predict that a bear will turn into a whale" then you really, really do not understand what it is you're talking about. I'm not trying to be rude in this instance, I'm being very serious.
Evolution has nothing to do with anything morphing into anything int he way you're implying. No more than your father has to be extinct for you to be alive than do ancestor species have to be dead.
deRoyLight 2 years ago 2
@deRoyLight So your saying that bears are the fathers of whales?
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
hey stupid what happens if a normal population gathers a series of mutations/adaptations...does the main populous simply disappear?
types10000 2 years ago
aahhh ok ahaaaa :)
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans Evolution does not say a bear is turned into a whale? Could you please cite your source of information. Cite, means to show where you are getting your info from, because evolution never claimed what you are talking about. Also, think of a tree, some branches on that tree keep growing new branches and other branches die. Not all animals become extinct according to evolution. A wombat is an ancestor of Koalas and yet they both exist at the same time. Single cells exist, too.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@Eastmanarium THUS speciation does not support the theory of evolution!
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
"speciation does not support the theory of evolution! " - speciation shows that genetic diversity can increase to the point at which organisms become genetically isolated, as being genetically isolated it is seen that genetic diversity will continue to increase because the variation cannot be reabsorbed back into the collective diversity of the original populous.
evolution predicts this trend will continue and it does, it is irrefutable proof of macroevolution.
types10000 2 years ago
@Eastmanarium In order for the theory to be taken seriously, therefore, it needs to propose "mechanisms that create and increase genetic information."
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
""mechanisms that create and increase genetic information." " - random mutation is an observed fact.
types10000 2 years ago
@Eastmanarium "Speciation" means a loss of genetic information rather than an increase. The cause of speciation is not that new genetic information has been acquired by one or both variations. There is no such addition of genetic information. On the contrary, instead of a population that previously had a larger gene pool, there are now two different populations with reduced gene pools.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
"means a loss of genetic information rather than an increase" - incorrect, speciation occurs when the genetic variation resulting from random mutation becomes too significant for a population of organisms to breed with the original populous.
- the gene pool can be larger or smaller or the same size depending on the mutations.
- as i have already stated a gene duplication followed by random mutation to the duplicated gene IS BY DEFINITION new information.
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Unity4allhumans
"First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature" -incorrect mutations are VERY common.
"Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random" - INCORRECT most mutations are neutral.
", rather than orderly changes.." - this claim is baseless, you clearly have no understanding of genetics.
"For example, if an earthquake.." - your example does not breed with variation or is acted apon by natural selection. you are completely ignorant.
types10000 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
- neutral mutations (the bulk of mutations) are not beneficial or detrimental and are simply reabsorbed back into the collective variation of the populous.
- Detrimental mutations are not propagated because they decrease the survivability of the organism therefore reducing it's likelyhood to reproduce.
- beneficial mutations (such as the ability of bacteria to ingest nylon) increase the survivability of the organism and therefore propagate.
it's VERY simple stuff
types10000 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
so far i've demonstrated:
- how beneficial mutations occur and provided evidence (nylon ingesting bacteria)
- showed how 'information' can be added to the genome and pointed to a well documented process (gene duplication followed by random mutation).
- Provided evidence that can ONLY be explained via evolution ie. ERVs, chromosome number 2, necessity of macroevolution
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 No evolutionist can ever say that macro- evolution is scientifically proven to be true. The only thing you demonstrated is how dogmatic atheist are when following what they are programmed to see and not really understanding what they are told to believe in.
Yes it happens in religions too but your evidence that the ignorant and blind followers are among non believers too. :)
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
"No evolutionist can ever say that macro"-
- macroevolution is the logical necessity of microevolution given that no mechanism to prevent the accumulation of change exists. it is nothing ore than the cumulative effect of microevolution over time.
"dogmatic atheist" - no, i can however see that theists dogmatically believe their faith-based crap in-spite of the evidence against.
- i have present evidence you are yet to refute in any way.
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 Jonathan Wells continues:
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans
"Disabled fruit flies" - you are repeating a creationist lie that has already been refuted scientists have presented numerous evidence numerous examples of beneficial mutation nylon ingesting bacteria being the most prominant.
"Not even a horsefly, much less a horse" - this statement is on par with Kirk Cameron's crockoduck; it is not simply something evolution does not predict but something that would completely disprove evolution if found.
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000 micro ev. is real but there are to many skulls missing to prove the idea.Many animals share some same trates but there cousins of each other not micro ev.
callofdutymw2geek 2 years ago
@callofdutymw2geek That made no sense, no offense. Of course they are cousins of eachother, that's the entire point. Saying they are cousins of eachother is exactly what evolution is. Are you sure you understand that you're agreeing?
deRoyLight 2 years ago
If you believe that everything comes from the same org. then yeah i understand your point but,i believe we all come from diff. org.Just cause something is similar doesnt mean they come from the same org.
callofdutymw2geek 2 years ago
@callofdutymw2geek Yes it may be real but the deception of evolutionaries is that it is linked to evolution when facts scientific ones proves Its not supporting the theory of evolution.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@Unity4allhumans To say that "scientific" facts do not support evolutionary theory is to be completely disconnected from science. You have to seriously have your head under a rock if you think science is anything but fully in support of evolution. Just pick up any science journal.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
I agree. Micro ev. is real but to say we come from monkeys is wierd because we have no proof there is a huge gap between money skulls and mans.Its just too far fetched.Truth is out of all the worlds animals humans are the newst we seem to come out of nowhere its bizare but we are the youngest animals in the world.
callofdutymw2geek 2 years ago
@callofdutymw2geek Dude. No one says we come from monkeys. That has nothing to do with evolution. I don't think you understand what evolution is.
deRoyLight 2 years ago 2
@deRoyLight ok sorry help me understand the point of this vid then im truly confused.
callofdutymw2geek 2 years ago
I think you do not understand what evolution is and really means.
Unity4allhumans 2 years ago
@deRoyLight what challenge?
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@deRoyLight We ARE monkeys. search for 'aronra turns out we did come from monkey'
jasondemon 1 year ago
@jasondemon you missed the point. AaronRa's video is about how the naming system should put all apes in as Monkeys, not that we derived from what we describe today as Monkeys.
deRoyLight 1 year ago
@deRoyLight no. The point of his video is that we, us, human beings are monkeys (as are all apes)... because we came from a common ancestor that is itself a monkey... as such, we do in fact derive from what we today call monkeys... we are monkeys... He even points out the fact that most people don't want to hear that, or believe it... watch the video... My point is you shouldn't tell people we aren't, no matter how stupid they are, because we are, in fact, monkeys...
jasondemon 1 year ago
@jasondemon For a second time, you misunderstand what AronRa is saying in relation to what people are thinking when they make the statement "we didn't come from monkeys." AronRa's video is about classification, and how all Apes should technically be classified as monkeys.
The people who I am responding to, are the kind of people that think "we came from monkeys" is about a transition from modern creatures.
deRoyLight 1 year ago
@deRoyLight "Dude. No one says we come from monkeys. That has nothing to do with evolution. I don't think you understand what evolution is. " this is what you said. It's flat out wrong... Aronra's video does in fact state that WE ARE MONKEYS. That's my point. directing you to his video was an aside. Your assertion that the fact that we came from monkeys has nothing to do with evolutions is patently false. For a second time...
jasondemon 1 year ago
@jasondemon I'm not going to keep repeating myself, you need to start reading what is being said and understanding it in context.
AronRa's video is about classification. The statement "we did not come from monkeys" means two entirely different things in different contexts. In the context of Ra's video, it's incorrect to say we didn't come from