Ah, yes, the old "Make the thing you hate sound completely ridiculous so no one will believe it because you only understanding parts of it" trick. Very effective at convincing the ignorant.
That was a lot of effort to demonstrate that understand how scientists theorize that life emerged from water to land slowly over millions of years that you do not.
this video is not addressing any real claims made by evolutionists. instead, it is setting up a "straw man" argument of it's own making and then knocking it down. it's disturbing to think that if children went through schools taught by creationists, they would come away without a rudimentary idea of what the idea o f evolution even is. this is sad.
So you call evolution a 'unprovable bad hypothesis' and yet you believe everything was made out a word by a sky dwelling creation faerie you call god... Stunning logic!
Dolphins, whales, seals, penguins. So many animals move between the land and aquatic environments... and fish do have kidneys. Moronic, childish nonsense. What is this Dutchman so high on?
I know another group that had lots of learned people stating that something was a fact and they put together streams of data and propaganda to influence their people. The Nazis were great at streaming together arguments for their superiority. I'm not equating you to a Nazi, but I am saying the researchers are a nepotistic bunch. Show any free thought or idea out of the ordinary and prepare to be lambasted.
in fact if i am making a propaganda here,it is only a video,you may choose just not to watch it and its all,the video does not exist "in your dimension" but what is forcing an unprovable bad hypothesis into the facts of objective and logical science? the tale of the zombie bacteria into humanity on itself is the most nonsense claim of history and they are not ashamed of themselves,either for distorting the reality :P
@sugarhitman Why are you arguing against a theory you don't actually comprehend? Freedom of speech gives you freedom to spout ignorant statements? Okay then.
HAHAHAHA i hope you are joking with this video. This is indeed so stupid and shows how stupid can creationist be. Thanks for making my day....keep making more videos like this u moron
I'd have a lot more respect for people if they'd stop saying it's fact and simply stated, "this is what I believe," because in the end it is a set of beliefs. People also were sure for centuries that the world was flat. It was a scientific fact. Was it? They were sure straw turned into mice. Does it? That is not an attack or an attempt to use archaic logic to prove or disprove anything, but it is the case that "common knowledge" is constant torn down and new "logic" replaces it.
First off, I WOULD believe how many "PhDs" there are on the internet. Any time someone wants to lend some sort of credence to their reply they simply say, "X degree says it's so." And yes, I question all of the "hard working" researchers of lying because in the end, there is still no evidence. There is "logical conjecture" out the wazoo, but there is no chain of fossils, there is no DNA map to a common ancestor. It's mystical well put together mumbo jumbo, and as I said earlier...
@TwoSonsStrong- And I'd have a lot more respect for you if you actually replied to my comment rather than putting it as a separate comment so that I didn't even know that you replied to me, but clearly you thought you'd be sneaky by not replying directly to me. Luckily another user did reply to me and thus I was able to see what you did. But that aside, some random person on the internet =/= an expert in the field. And it's not just one or two people making things up for shits and grin,
(cont'd)- These are thousands of INDEPENDENT researchers of all nationalities, religions, and political viewpoints that independently came to the same conclusion. But if you want to think there's some sort global conspiracy against you then be my guest. I can't change the opinions you want to hold. And yes, people in the past were wrong, but guess what? They corrected it when new evidence came to light as any good science will.
(cont'd)- But to suggest that we are equally likely to be completely wrong about modern biology as we were in the past is absurd. When people thought mice came from straw they didn't have as much evidence as we do now. They knew nothing of genetics, population dynamics, little about embryology, and a miniscule amount about biology in general compared to today. Same goes with the flat Earth claim and geography/astronomy.
(cont'd)- To suggest that our understanding of biology and amount of evidence today is equivalent to that of even 50 years ago is asinine, never mind comparing it to centuries ago. And as we find more evidence and gain more understanding we refine what we know and it becomes far less likely that what we know gets completely overturned. Updated, definitely, but to suggest that ToE is as likely to be overturned as spontaneous generation shows a lack of understanding of how far we've come.
(cont'd)- So no, I will NOT dance your little dance and agree that everything is just a matter of faith because I follow where the evidence points and it points toward common ancestry. Our evidence has been getting better and thus we understand the world far better now than we ever did in the past. We now KNOW the Earth is round and aren't likely to find out in 50 years that it's actually been a cube the whole time and we know evolution happens and aren't likely to find out life was created.
There is a class of animal today that is born wholely aquatic, without lungs or limbs, grows lungs and limbs, moves to land for the rest of it's life, lays eggs and fertilizes them in the water so thier children are born aquatic. Amphibians, ever hear of them? Fail
@Coquipirate They were designed that way. Now, prove they evolved. I'll wait. All of a frogs changes are ingrained in its DNA. It doesn't evolve all of a sudden. That is akin to saying that when I was 11 I evolved from a boy into a man, or a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly. These aren't sudden accidental changes, these are programmed in, just like your TEVO will pick up the next episode of Animal Planet, where evolutionist dogma will be laid out for you.
@TwoSonsStrong I was adressing the arguement brought forth in this video, if you want to know about evidence for common decent, look it up. It's quite abundant.
@TwoSonsStrong- Nobody says that they evolve suddenly. This isn't Pokemon. Individuals can't evolve, only populations can. And you'd know that if you took two minutes to understand the theory you were attempting to criticize. As for proof of evolution, proof only exists in mathematics, however, there is strong evidence among which is observed speciation, transitional fossils, ERVs, ring species, DNA sequencing, human chromosome 2, and the human vitamin C gene.
(cont'd)- And that ain't all. But basically just about every field of science and scientists from all different countries, religions, political affiliations, and personal philosophies have independently come to the same conclusion by looking at the evidence available and gathering their own evidence through rigorous research and experimentation. That conclusion, of course, being that common ancestry is a fact, a fact best explained by the Theory of Evolution.
(cont'd)- But hey, what's the expert opinion of an independent group of people who actually research the topic and examine the world for a living who collectively publish hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles detailing their findings annually compared to some random person on Youtube who immediately insults people s/he doesn't even know?
Yeah, I'm sure you're a MUCH more reliable source of information [/sarcasm]
@califoniania Once again, instead of citing any proof you just say it's there and want me to "go look it up." There is no chain of transitional fossils. Again, proof only in mathematics. The issue is that you can twist mathematics to prove what you want. I'm not going to argue with you. I have my degree, you have yours, we have our beliefs and it's impossible to convince either side. Just be honest that you have no proof. And "the sun doesn't rise" is a gross exaggeration of my words.
@TwoSonsStrong- I'm not an encyclopedia and I'm not going to hold your hand and educate you. Especially since the resources you need are as simple as looking up "evidence for common ancestry" on Wikipedia. I could also supply scientific peer-reviewed articles as well but you'd need to learn the basics first. I don't care what degree you have, not that I'd trust the credentials of some random person on the internet (you'd be amazed how many self-proclaimed PhDs there on the internet).
(cont'd)- But I will say no such thing because it would be DIShonest of me to say that there isn't conclusive evidence. I AM just being honest and I take offense to you accusing me of lying and I take even more offense to you accusing hard-working researchers who spend decades gathering data and performing experiments of lying. I'm sorry that ToE doesn't fit in with your other beliefs but it's a solid theory with tremendous, independent support.
evolution is so stoopid theory, just like gravity. people need to accept that Gawd is the creator & designer, he used his magic & created the entire universe.
Ignoring the video tale which is not a valid debunk, just looking at your description.
It didn't go Water --> Land in one swift step. The likely areas for the evolution of land life will have been mud flats, estuaries etc. Places where an ability to live in both water and on land for short periods would give an advantage. I'm afraid the issues you raise are only issues if you assume a sudden change in lifestyle - which is not how it will have worked.
The answer to these 'riddles' is that not all of these things happened at once. You start out with something that can hop out onto land for a second to escape predators, (Like a lobster) or to eat nearby food. Fast forward a bit and watch as natural selection slowly changes that critter to be able to live longer and longer periods on the land. Eventually, you get a critter that can survive indefinitely in either environ. Gills cost energy, so eventually you select for a critter without them.
Let's get a lil' serious... you have no fucking idea what your trying to refute.... what proof do you have that it didn't happen? I mean REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF gained over YEARS and YEARS of study IN THE FIELD..... that's how scientists and Darwin (who was a DEVOUT christian) discovered the theory of evolution... Bible thumpers have no evidence of their God or Savior other than a book and "witness testimony"...but of course we all know this provides definitive proof... HA! Plus your vid sux :D
Well, there really is nothing in this video related to the Theory of Evolution, only a straw man argument against a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionary theory predicts that the fish in the original pond would all die. It also predicts that not a single one of the types of changes shown in this clip would have happened.
evolution is stupid... why would natural selection allow a fish to grow limbs, dig a hole, lay eggs, while breathing on land, and go back into the water. that according to science was how it started, but what was the chance of it finding a mate with the same mutation as her? i thought about this and got 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or less you agree?
@zepeterinma Just to clarify a partner would not need to have the same mutation as its spouse to pass the trait to its offspring. Thats not how genetics works.
@zepeterinma umm did u know if a man with a mutation that gave him 4 arms could still do a girl with 2 arm and have a kid but thanks to natural selection no girl would want to touch a freak with 4 arms or a creationist cause that would be devolving
@xREDe4Ux Dont you have something better to do, Its the fourth of July, I may be a creationist, but whether i am right or not I have a life! I dont waste my fourth of July bantering. So if I'm wrong and there is no God, then i still enjoyed my life. If im right, then i have an eternity of happiness, so regardless of how it is I still win. You tell me what is wrong with creationists? What normal intelligent person stereotypes an entire group of people? In my eyes your the person who is devolving.
I'll prove creationism false right now. Eve was spawned from Adam's rib, giving her the same DNA as Adam. If they were to have children then many problems would develop with the children themselves. It's incest a sin? If so, then are you saying humans were created by sin? Lets look at a bread of dog fr a second; The English Bulldog, it's species was inbred for 150 years and originally looked like a Boxer hound. Then what would humans look like after 6000 years of incest? Like we do now? No.
@AbeleWong- And I've never seen a wolf with droopy, pendant-shaped ears. Must mean that wolves and bloodhounds are completely unrelated. Anyway, all you're doing is moving the goalposts. The video claimed that fish going on land was impossible and yet I provided a land fish. You want a fish with lungs too? There's actually a fish called the LUNGfish. I'm not exactly sure when kidneys developed but, again, that's not at all relevant to the point I was making.
@califoniania You make a foolish statement and expect it to just stand? Moron. You're debunked. What? You don't approve of that method? It's the same thing you just did. Oh, so it's okay if you're a loud mouth with no actual proof of your beliefs? Got it. Let me clear this up. I can't empirically prove God. I can't create him nor can I show him to you right out. I admit that. But you can't prove any of your beliefs. If you'd admit it's faith I'd have more respect for your ilk.
@TwoSonsStrong- Starting with an ad hominem. Great touch. And further you go and lie by saying that I can't demonstrate that anything I believe is true. I was going to be snarky about it and say "I can prove that the Sun rises in the morning" but I decided you made enough of an ass of yourself already that it was unnecessary. And no, I don't have any faith-based beliefs, not that you know what my beliefs are anyway.
the whole family of fish would have died except for the one that could breath air and he would have probably mated with his sisters who also could breath air.
this movie is written like... like you don't get evolution at ALL. if you don't understand something, you should go learn about it.
funny video, but i wouldnt take it seriously, it is pretty inconsistant with the theory of evolution. even if the author claims that it is consistant.
That video has indeed nothing to do with science. Not even with evolution or evolving. It's obvious the author does not understand the process of evolving.
Not his fault. He still has those religious genes of our ancestors. Maybe his children will mutate and get the blessing of fine atheist genes. Fit for the future without gods and religious nonsens. They won't have to hide in der cave from lightning and thunder (some gods anger) anymore. They'll just build a lightning conductor.
Please, please this might be the dumbest video I have ever seen. It is just a childish.
Remember the movie "Animal House" when the dean says "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." well that is what I thought of you when I watched you video. You might want to do some research on a fish called the Mudskip.
Also do some research on "Tiktaalik roseae" the recently discovered missing link. It was also discovered in exactly the spot predicted by evolution.
have you seen the video where someone ran a simulation, made the programme themself, and found that you can get a population of pointless clocks that don't tell time to tell time accurately if you set them up like they're animals who mate and live and die only they don't tell time very well?
i will not consider you well-learned until you watch all the vids made by the clock-guy, for they are easy to understand and not TOO mean.
@HighFlyingDutchman: No, you don't understand it. I've read your objections and they are all the silly trifling objections of school-children.
I realise that you think you're unsinkable, but that's only because you only read sympathetic sites. There are plenty of good answers out there and if you're going to join the fight you owe it to yourself to read up.
@HighFlyingDutchman thank you for that comeback. im going to use it on some of my athiestic friends. Cant believe i didnt come up with that. After all, why do athiests go and rant on these video's if they are already 100% sure evolution is true. :)
@HighFlyingDutchman i use to think sir about evolution may be possible, but when i started in my medicine course, i started to examine dozens of books about replication and Central dogma of biology.. etc.. and what noticed in all the books they come to a blind end, even a single amino acid or a single mutation in protein sequence is lethal, and wen they say life mutated to go in higher order its a big lie, mutation never improves anything it bring ur body to a lower functionality state
@HighFlyingDutchman It'd be almost better not to understand it than to misunderstand it as much as you do. All your text would make sense only if the transition from water to land was instantenuous, without gradual adaptations. For example, when certain water regions dryed up, fishes that had more of the muscles and a better ability to move from one swamp to another had a much bigger survival rate, thus the muscular gain. Easy research can show why all your points are bunks
@HighFlyingDutchman It seems like the idea of species that only had minor land contact, and gradually more and more never did came to your mind. But if you knew only a little about evolution, you would have heard about it.
@splutonium basically evolution theory is a religion, it requires faith in an unproven idea, darwin himself admitted that if within 50 years if the missing link was not discovered his theory should be discarded, piltdown hoax was also publicize in the 50's in which the so called missing link was discovered by expert who examine it was just a fraud compilation of monkey and human bones... its a religion, no argument, but i'd rather believe in God than being here by chance..
"It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance."
...and evolution doesn't claim it either. 1) It's not the same organism but rather over lots of generations, 2) Not at the same time (why should be obvious now) and 3) not "by chance" - evolution might be random in the specific mutations but over generations it's not; it's "survival of the fittest"; some were more fit for landdwelling.
You clearly have an ironclad, rock solid understanding of evolutionary theory. Everyone knows that theres no middle ground to emergence onto land, any animal that did had to have fully formed sprinting legs. Either its fully fish or fully cheetah. Everyone knows as well that all this had to happen in easily comprehensible timespans because billions of years? Thats just crazy talk.
This video and the info that you provided only proves to me that your knowledge of the actual process of evolution is very, very limited. You don't really know what you're talking about.
Also, the guy who actually made the video stopped believing in this YEC stuff - possibly because he did more research on evolution and is now a better informed person. You would do well to follow his example.
it is limited to all the evolutionary books out there in the world :D
i dunno if any alien can bring any logical evidence that undirected random mutations can make a retarded zombie bacteria turn into a rebelling arrogant human,how much ever natural selection can help...
"Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species. "
Uh, no, we don't.
"There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:"
That's right. Unfortunately for you and your strawman argument, evolution theory doesn't say that such a transition happens the way you try to present it.
If you know, then you should understand that fish survivnig out the of water is obviously not impossible.
it took time for the early chordates to evolve first to amphibians, then later to land creatures. As ambiphians, they woulc have lived in the water most of the time. Also, those that ventured on land even briefly were not identical to modern fish. So the video is WAY off.
i also know there is a relation between their genes but claiming that the mudskipper is some kind of a transitional form or an example of the ones in past is subjective
the order in fossil record also gives you no objective evidence
in fact,life has always been as complex as it first appeared,nothing is really getting better,the program or the code system is always the same
i dont want a "design" argument here but there is a designer to "evolve" the ferrari,so its not the same what you claim
"or "this will become something like that one day!""
Actually no. We can't predict what will evolve in the future. Again, you don't understand how evolution works, and how it does not. It isn't deterministic. We might posit that one trait or another would be favorable, but we can't predict what new traits might appear.
"but in fact,there should be some kind of template to allow such complex things to come into existence "
Yes. Mutation and natural selection. That's all evolution is.
"Complexity" is a misnomer. What we really see is specialization.
"such as the living ones "
But in answer to your question, we see many examples of the various degrees of specialization. There are many life forms just as "simple" as they were 3.5 billion years ago. Evolution is not a ladder.
@HighFlyingDutchman i cant believe sir what we have been taught, we i was in my baccalaureate course they used to tell us the simpliest life form is a cell... but in higher degree they teach u diff thing.. as a biochemist quoted "a process within a single cell is more complex than new york city"... i hope genuinely not to injure the pride of evolutionist but its a dead end, microtube assemble in array and disassemble, NADPH reduces this, phosphorylation here and there, 1 mising then we die...
the mudskipper has the genes to allow it to live outside water
it is not just an ordinary fish
it already has the information
just by knowing this,it is subjective to claim ordinary fish can "add" this information to their gene pool on themselves,or through random mutations and natural selection whatever
"the mudskipper has the genes to allow it to live outside water"
Yes.
What I'm telling you is that it happned before.
"just by knowing this,it is subjective to claim ordinary fish can "add" this information to their gene pool on themselves"
It would, if I was saying that. But I'm not. I'm making no predictions of the future. I'm telling you what DID happen in the past. I'm using a modern example to show how the early amphibians lived.
if you are objective enough not to claim what will happen
why cant you do the same about past?
you can stay agnostic about if a cat turned into a lion or a fish got out of water or not
honestly,i dont care at all,if it did happen,nothing would change on my side,the intelligence is still and always shining in unintelligent matter,and it always will,thats the point
and you can still keep not believing in God,you dont have to support subjective arguments to "verify" your disbelief
but why i am trying to show the flaws of evolution here is that it allows people to become atheists
in fact,it is not that more illogical than Christianity so honestly you are both same in my eyes,but at least anyone who rejects Christianity shows some logic and he has a potential to do the same about atheism too
evolution just helps them
but in fact,i dont really care
history shows evidence of changings but science shows no evidence of random mutations' creative power
The problem here is that you are showing something that ISN'T whaqt evolutionary theory says. The first creatures to try and come on land were not like the fish you displayed. They were tetrapods, amphibians. Creatures that lived in the shallows that had already evoluved leg-like apendages. Creatures that evolved the ability to breath at least for a short time outside of the water.
So while you might find your video funny, you are lampooning something no one believes.
And you are incorrect that science shows no evidence of random mutations having "creative power".
Look up Nylonase.
Hell, I have an extra coronary artery. Most people have 3. I have 4. And all 4 are fully functional; a small number of people have an extra one, but in most cases, it is too small to be of any use, and/or lies in a way that causes problems.
In my case, it's actually beneficial. And I have the cardiac catheterization to prove it.
@HighFlyingDutchman Evolution was obviously created by somebody, What kind of sick god would actually put a lot of effort into saving our failing species, It's not like people actually contribute ANYTHING to the planet whatsoever, we just kill everything through carelessness and false ideologies of superiority over our "roommates" by saying that a magic man will save us no matter how many lives we destroy either through war or eliminating the lifestyles of other's because we deem them wrong! :D
Note evolution did not happen this way. Its just an example I had to use because of a 500 word limit. If you want to know the mechanisms of evolution I'd suggest talking to a professor as people on youtube (like me, and 99% of the youtube posters) are not fit to teach other people properly.
Finally- anyone who BELIEVES in evolution is foolish, you don't believe in a theory, you regard it as the best SCIENTIFIC explanation that currently exists.
this just goes to show how stupid the darwin theory really is. I did some research on him and found out that he went to an island to watch birds evolve. And guess what....NO THING HAPPENED. OMGOSH im so surprised...
On the other hand, a pair of scientists (Peter and Rosemary Grant) have been studying the finches for over 30 years and discovered a great deal about the evolution of the population, so yeah
they were able to stay outside of the water for a short time and they had food and mates inside the water and out of it
plants evolved before creatures
and plants such as see weed was abounded on land and was able to use the sun for its advantage then it populated the land and changed over time to a new kind of plant that was able to absorb more sun
These sarcastic videos do nothing for the creationist cause. Any person who has learnt even the basics of the theory of evolution knows this is ridiculous. They just show creationists as uneducated fools, which isnt the case.
Try learning something about molecular biology and math.
The probability a single protein forming in the correct sequential order is 1 to the 72nd power. They are a 150 amino acids long.
And 20 to the 150th power of possible ways of arranging the amino acids. The probability of generating one single shore protein through random mutation is 1/70 power. That's 100, trillion, trillion,trillion,trillion, trillion,trillion.
I am no expert and don't know if your Numbers are correct (neither do you) but picture this. a primordial earth comprised of nothing but chemicals and rocks. sitting there. you have the numbers do you not? how many chemicals are there? 1.200.000.000 years this number x sits there. what are the odds of the amino acids forming and later connecting know? also you make a fundamental mistake. you assume that each step is equally unlikely. the tricky part is them forming. its abc from there.
this video is terrible, all those impossibilities happened as fossil records would show, not a divine power. Creatures didn't just jump out of the water and start crawling, things that you think may be impossible have a better chance over about a billion years.
I've only seen about 30 times myself missing link oops ha ha ha, if you make that many errors I question it! a lemur? don't hear about that much any more? now it's another lucy? w.t.f. crazy
lool
Perseveranze 1 month ago
Amphibians.
ComedianFromNASA 1 month ago
Lol. I always enjoy a satire of evolution, because there are so few out there. I believe in evolution and everything, but it's still funny.
Harold6913 1 month ago
So you're saying there's a chance!
InternetDisciple 3 months ago
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen
blueacid33 3 months ago
That's not even close to how evolution works... if I saw rain I wouldn't grab my family and jump into a lake. This is very small minded...
feraligatr8 4 months ago
if you think that animals didnt evolve fro the sea, how did they.. and dont say god
kaninikmanbal 4 months ago
Haha! cute vid! =:P
gordogreat74 7 months ago
i like how evolution is a 1 day task now.
PAROHO9 7 months ago
"where they all drowned!" LOL
godisgreat10 7 months ago 2
Ah, yes, the old "Make the thing you hate sound completely ridiculous so no one will believe it because you only understanding parts of it" trick. Very effective at convincing the ignorant.
Blarghonius 8 months ago
That was a lot of effort to demonstrate that understand how scientists theorize that life emerged from water to land slowly over millions of years that you do not.
zippydebrain 8 months ago
Wow you know so much but understand so little!
yo1o2eggs 9 months ago
this video is not addressing any real claims made by evolutionists. instead, it is setting up a "straw man" argument of it's own making and then knocking it down. it's disturbing to think that if children went through schools taught by creationists, they would come away without a rudimentary idea of what the idea o f evolution even is. this is sad.
picofarad2 10 months ago
So evolution is disproved because fish piss in the sea! ROFL
MrGhostTube 10 months ago
So you call evolution a 'unprovable bad hypothesis' and yet you believe everything was made out a word by a sky dwelling creation faerie you call god... Stunning logic!
MrGhostTube 10 months ago 2
Dolphins, whales, seals, penguins. So many animals move between the land and aquatic environments... and fish do have kidneys. Moronic, childish nonsense. What is this Dutchman so high on?
MrGhostTube 10 months ago 2
Search: mudskippers
ZZzzzzzWhat 11 months ago 2
I know another group that had lots of learned people stating that something was a fact and they put together streams of data and propaganda to influence their people. The Nazis were great at streaming together arguments for their superiority. I'm not equating you to a Nazi, but I am saying the researchers are a nepotistic bunch. Show any free thought or idea out of the ordinary and prepare to be lambasted.
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong
in fact if i am making a propaganda here,it is only a video,you may choose just not to watch it and its all,the video does not exist "in your dimension" but what is forcing an unprovable bad hypothesis into the facts of objective and logical science? the tale of the zombie bacteria into humanity on itself is the most nonsense claim of history and they are not ashamed of themselves,either for distorting the reality :P
HighFlyingDutchman 11 months ago
@HighFlyingDutchman Great Vid!! Evolution has got to be the most retarded theory in human history.
sugarhitman 9 months ago
@sugarhitman Nope. The God theory has it beat in retardedness.
Boogers32150 8 months ago
@Boogers32150 Let me seeee, humans evolved from Lizards or God creates man? I think the former sounds more retarded.
sugarhitman 8 months ago
@sugarhitman Why are you arguing against a theory you don't actually comprehend? Freedom of speech gives you freedom to spout ignorant statements? Okay then.
Boogers32150 8 months ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
HAHAHAHA i hope you are joking with this video. This is indeed so stupid and shows how stupid can creationist be. Thanks for making my day....keep making more videos like this u moron
janko1212 7 months ago
I'd have a lot more respect for people if they'd stop saying it's fact and simply stated, "this is what I believe," because in the end it is a set of beliefs. People also were sure for centuries that the world was flat. It was a scientific fact. Was it? They were sure straw turned into mice. Does it? That is not an attack or an attempt to use archaic logic to prove or disprove anything, but it is the case that "common knowledge" is constant torn down and new "logic" replaces it.
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
First off, I WOULD believe how many "PhDs" there are on the internet. Any time someone wants to lend some sort of credence to their reply they simply say, "X degree says it's so." And yes, I question all of the "hard working" researchers of lying because in the end, there is still no evidence. There is "logical conjecture" out the wazoo, but there is no chain of fossils, there is no DNA map to a common ancestor. It's mystical well put together mumbo jumbo, and as I said earlier...
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong- And I'd have a lot more respect for you if you actually replied to my comment rather than putting it as a separate comment so that I didn't even know that you replied to me, but clearly you thought you'd be sneaky by not replying directly to me. Luckily another user did reply to me and thus I was able to see what you did. But that aside, some random person on the internet =/= an expert in the field. And it's not just one or two people making things up for shits and grin,
califoniania 11 months ago
(cont'd)- These are thousands of INDEPENDENT researchers of all nationalities, religions, and political viewpoints that independently came to the same conclusion. But if you want to think there's some sort global conspiracy against you then be my guest. I can't change the opinions you want to hold. And yes, people in the past were wrong, but guess what? They corrected it when new evidence came to light as any good science will.
califoniania 11 months ago
(cont'd)- But to suggest that we are equally likely to be completely wrong about modern biology as we were in the past is absurd. When people thought mice came from straw they didn't have as much evidence as we do now. They knew nothing of genetics, population dynamics, little about embryology, and a miniscule amount about biology in general compared to today. Same goes with the flat Earth claim and geography/astronomy.
califoniania 11 months ago
(cont'd)- To suggest that our understanding of biology and amount of evidence today is equivalent to that of even 50 years ago is asinine, never mind comparing it to centuries ago. And as we find more evidence and gain more understanding we refine what we know and it becomes far less likely that what we know gets completely overturned. Updated, definitely, but to suggest that ToE is as likely to be overturned as spontaneous generation shows a lack of understanding of how far we've come.
califoniania 11 months ago
(cont'd)- So no, I will NOT dance your little dance and agree that everything is just a matter of faith because I follow where the evidence points and it points toward common ancestry. Our evidence has been getting better and thus we understand the world far better now than we ever did in the past. We now KNOW the Earth is round and aren't likely to find out in 50 years that it's actually been a cube the whole time and we know evolution happens and aren't likely to find out life was created.
califoniania 11 months ago
There is a class of animal today that is born wholely aquatic, without lungs or limbs, grows lungs and limbs, moves to land for the rest of it's life, lays eggs and fertilizes them in the water so thier children are born aquatic. Amphibians, ever hear of them? Fail
Coquipirate 1 year ago
@Coquipirate They were designed that way. Now, prove they evolved. I'll wait. All of a frogs changes are ingrained in its DNA. It doesn't evolve all of a sudden. That is akin to saying that when I was 11 I evolved from a boy into a man, or a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly. These aren't sudden accidental changes, these are programmed in, just like your TEVO will pick up the next episode of Animal Planet, where evolutionist dogma will be laid out for you.
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong I was adressing the arguement brought forth in this video, if you want to know about evidence for common decent, look it up. It's quite abundant.
Coquipirate 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong- Nobody says that they evolve suddenly. This isn't Pokemon. Individuals can't evolve, only populations can. And you'd know that if you took two minutes to understand the theory you were attempting to criticize. As for proof of evolution, proof only exists in mathematics, however, there is strong evidence among which is observed speciation, transitional fossils, ERVs, ring species, DNA sequencing, human chromosome 2, and the human vitamin C gene.
califoniania 1 year ago
(cont'd)- And that ain't all. But basically just about every field of science and scientists from all different countries, religions, political affiliations, and personal philosophies have independently come to the same conclusion by looking at the evidence available and gathering their own evidence through rigorous research and experimentation. That conclusion, of course, being that common ancestry is a fact, a fact best explained by the Theory of Evolution.
califoniania 1 year ago
(cont'd)- But hey, what's the expert opinion of an independent group of people who actually research the topic and examine the world for a living who collectively publish hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles detailing their findings annually compared to some random person on Youtube who immediately insults people s/he doesn't even know?
Yeah, I'm sure you're a MUCH more reliable source of information [/sarcasm]
califoniania 1 year ago
@califoniania Once again, instead of citing any proof you just say it's there and want me to "go look it up." There is no chain of transitional fossils. Again, proof only in mathematics. The issue is that you can twist mathematics to prove what you want. I'm not going to argue with you. I have my degree, you have yours, we have our beliefs and it's impossible to convince either side. Just be honest that you have no proof. And "the sun doesn't rise" is a gross exaggeration of my words.
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong- I'm not an encyclopedia and I'm not going to hold your hand and educate you. Especially since the resources you need are as simple as looking up "evidence for common ancestry" on Wikipedia. I could also supply scientific peer-reviewed articles as well but you'd need to learn the basics first. I don't care what degree you have, not that I'd trust the credentials of some random person on the internet (you'd be amazed how many self-proclaimed PhDs there on the internet).
califoniania 1 year ago
(cont'd)- But I will say no such thing because it would be DIShonest of me to say that there isn't conclusive evidence. I AM just being honest and I take offense to you accusing me of lying and I take even more offense to you accusing hard-working researchers who spend decades gathering data and performing experiments of lying. I'm sorry that ToE doesn't fit in with your other beliefs but it's a solid theory with tremendous, independent support.
califoniania 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In The Name of Allah(God) The Most Gracious The Most Merciful
21:(32) And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!
(33) It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course."
77705000000000000000 1 year ago
Ever hear of a LungFish? You lose.
PaulinaPaulino 1 year ago
hahaha! i sounds cool im gonna post this in facebook
ouano1 1 year ago
...No on ever say FISH, per say evolved into mammals, they say aquatic FISH like creatures.
AugustusOxy 1 year ago
lol I found this amusing :)
Keruaran 1 year ago
...Not the brightest one, eh?
giraki1 1 year ago
Seconded. MUDSKIPPERS! lol fail discovered and locked on.
grendelee 1 year ago
evolution is so stoopid theory, just like gravity. people need to accept that Gawd is the creator & designer, he used his magic & created the entire universe.
ButterOnCorn 1 year ago
Ignoring the video tale which is not a valid debunk, just looking at your description.
It didn't go Water --> Land in one swift step. The likely areas for the evolution of land life will have been mud flats, estuaries etc. Places where an ability to live in both water and on land for short periods would give an advantage. I'm afraid the issues you raise are only issues if you assume a sudden change in lifestyle - which is not how it will have worked.
p0rtaccio 1 year ago
The answer to these 'riddles' is that not all of these things happened at once. You start out with something that can hop out onto land for a second to escape predators, (Like a lobster) or to eat nearby food. Fast forward a bit and watch as natural selection slowly changes that critter to be able to live longer and longer periods on the land. Eventually, you get a critter that can survive indefinitely in either environ. Gills cost energy, so eventually you select for a critter without them.
dirkson 1 year ago
it takes millions of years for tiny changes but according to this vid it happend within a few weeks.
j400wel 1 year ago
Have you ever hear heard of a mudfish or mudskipper? LIVING proof this can take place.
RPBiohazard 1 year ago
idc about religion nor atheism and evolution >.>
i just live my life.
steelleel 1 year ago
MUDSKIPPERS!!!!
hiawathabanias 1 year ago
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) Lungfish.
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) Amphibians.
1) Lungfish and Amphibians.
2) Ectothermic body systems of fish, amphibians, and reptiles.
3) Moist skin such as amphibians and molluscs. And many organisms "bathe".
4) Diffusion through the skin, as in amphibians. While those that evolve"full" excretory systems can go farther away from water.
5) Moist enough gills that passing air can be filtered successfully. Which is why fish can be out of water for short periods of time.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 lungfish??does it smoke cigarettes??
gix500 1 year ago
2 words; Mud Skipper
lifescomicrelief 1 year ago
It sounds better with the vuvuzela.
magic0ninja0pro 1 year ago
Let's get a lil' serious... you have no fucking idea what your trying to refute.... what proof do you have that it didn't happen? I mean REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF gained over YEARS and YEARS of study IN THE FIELD..... that's how scientists and Darwin (who was a DEVOUT christian) discovered the theory of evolution... Bible thumpers have no evidence of their God or Savior other than a book and "witness testimony"...but of course we all know this provides definitive proof... HA! Plus your vid sux :D
kb340 1 year ago
Wow.
That's embarrassing
FredJDouble 1 year ago
Well, there really is nothing in this video related to the Theory of Evolution, only a straw man argument against a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionary theory predicts that the fish in the original pond would all die. It also predicts that not a single one of the types of changes shown in this clip would have happened.
pamcn123 1 year ago
evolution is stupid... why would natural selection allow a fish to grow limbs, dig a hole, lay eggs, while breathing on land, and go back into the water. that according to science was how it started, but what was the chance of it finding a mate with the same mutation as her? i thought about this and got 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or less you agree?
zepeterinma 1 year ago
@zepeterinma learn evolution, then post about it.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@zepeterinma Just to clarify a partner would not need to have the same mutation as its spouse to pass the trait to its offspring. Thats not how genetics works.
FTFDan79 1 year ago
@zepeterinma umm did u know if a man with a mutation that gave him 4 arms could still do a girl with 2 arm and have a kid but thanks to natural selection no girl would want to touch a freak with 4 arms or a creationist cause that would be devolving
xREDe4Ux 1 year ago
@xREDe4Ux Dont you have something better to do, Its the fourth of July, I may be a creationist, but whether i am right or not I have a life! I dont waste my fourth of July bantering. So if I'm wrong and there is no God, then i still enjoyed my life. If im right, then i have an eternity of happiness, so regardless of how it is I still win. You tell me what is wrong with creationists? What normal intelligent person stereotypes an entire group of people? In my eyes your the person who is devolving.
zepeterinma 1 year ago
lawl the fish all drowned at the end
DeltaPivot01 1 year ago
I'll prove creationism false right now. Eve was spawned from Adam's rib, giving her the same DNA as Adam. If they were to have children then many problems would develop with the children themselves. It's incest a sin? If so, then are you saying humans were created by sin? Lets look at a bread of dog fr a second; The English Bulldog, it's species was inbred for 150 years and originally looked like a Boxer hound. Then what would humans look like after 6000 years of incest? Like we do now? No.
MrNick2D 1 year ago
Mudskippers. Video debunked.
califoniania 1 year ago 23
@califoniania
Mudskippers with lungs and kidneys? Never seen one of them!
AbeleWong 1 year ago
@AbeleWong- And I've never seen a wolf with droopy, pendant-shaped ears. Must mean that wolves and bloodhounds are completely unrelated. Anyway, all you're doing is moving the goalposts. The video claimed that fish going on land was impossible and yet I provided a land fish. You want a fish with lungs too? There's actually a fish called the LUNGfish. I'm not exactly sure when kidneys developed but, again, that's not at all relevant to the point I was making.
califoniania 1 year ago
@califoniania You make a foolish statement and expect it to just stand? Moron. You're debunked. What? You don't approve of that method? It's the same thing you just did. Oh, so it's okay if you're a loud mouth with no actual proof of your beliefs? Got it. Let me clear this up. I can't empirically prove God. I can't create him nor can I show him to you right out. I admit that. But you can't prove any of your beliefs. If you'd admit it's faith I'd have more respect for your ilk.
TwoSonsStrong 1 year ago
@TwoSonsStrong- Starting with an ad hominem. Great touch. And further you go and lie by saying that I can't demonstrate that anything I believe is true. I was going to be snarky about it and say "I can prove that the Sun rises in the morning" but I decided you made enough of an ass of yourself already that it was unnecessary. And no, I don't have any faith-based beliefs, not that you know what my beliefs are anyway.
califoniania 1 year ago
@califoniania Tadpoles. Video debunked.
pburto 11 months ago
Hlarious, though there really are people ignorant enough to deny evolution.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
Where did the bear come from?
chadthebeean 1 year ago
The first animals to walk on land were not fish with legs. They were amphibians. Have you ever seen a fucking frog?
mefondlevagina 1 year ago
the whole family of fish would have died except for the one that could breath air and he would have probably mated with his sisters who also could breath air.
this movie is written like... like you don't get evolution at ALL. if you don't understand something, you should go learn about it.
snager80 1 year ago
"Also you are free to believe in fairy tales,although they may be defended by serious and educated people."
Perhaps the funniest bit of irony on this page?
ashesinthewax 1 year ago
"Why Transition From Water to Land is Impossible"
It is possible. It has happened at least once in evolution. Look up Tiktaalic.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
hahaha this whas fuunny
MrIvan72 1 year ago
funny video, but i wouldnt take it seriously, it is pretty inconsistant with the theory of evolution. even if the author claims that it is consistant.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
So everybody dies in the end? :(
adamkyler 1 year ago
OMG LOLOLOL!!
GodzillaHeisei 1 year ago
That video has indeed nothing to do with science. Not even with evolution or evolving. It's obvious the author does not understand the process of evolving.
Not his fault. He still has those religious genes of our ancestors. Maybe his children will mutate and get the blessing of fine atheist genes. Fit for the future without gods and religious nonsens. They won't have to hide in der cave from lightning and thunder (some gods anger) anymore. They'll just build a lightning conductor.
TheAstronymus 1 year ago
Please, please this might be the dumbest video I have ever seen. It is just a childish.
Remember the movie "Animal House" when the dean says "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." well that is what I thought of you when I watched you video. You might want to do some research on a fish called the Mudskip.
Also do some research on "Tiktaalik roseae" the recently discovered missing link. It was also discovered in exactly the spot predicted by evolution.
jim6584 1 year ago
more strawman?
demondim5 1 year ago
Haha
This is hilarious!
omfirstutube 2 years ago
Very clever!!!
i LOVE your uploads ;)
greybear3 2 years ago
Please read the theory of evolution and understand it before posting silly videos on the internet. You can save everyone a lot of time.
splutonium 2 years ago 10
lol
i do know the theory well
perhaps you shouldnt waste your time with something that you are already %100 percent sure of
:P
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago 8
@HighFlyingDutchman
have you seen the video where someone ran a simulation, made the programme themself, and found that you can get a population of pointless clocks that don't tell time to tell time accurately if you set them up like they're animals who mate and live and die only they don't tell time very well?
i will not consider you well-learned until you watch all the vids made by the clock-guy, for they are easy to understand and not TOO mean.
snager80 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman: No, you don't understand it. I've read your objections and they are all the silly trifling objections of school-children.
I realise that you think you're unsinkable, but that's only because you only read sympathetic sites. There are plenty of good answers out there and if you're going to join the fight you owe it to yourself to read up.
kuroshashu 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman well, you did a bad job explaining it.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman thank you for that comeback. im going to use it on some of my athiestic friends. Cant believe i didnt come up with that. After all, why do athiests go and rant on these video's if they are already 100% sure evolution is true. :)
Proves that they are ignorant, and stubborn. :)
zepeterinma 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
One word for you.... Muskipper.
PlutoedParadigm 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman i use to think sir about evolution may be possible, but when i started in my medicine course, i started to examine dozens of books about replication and Central dogma of biology.. etc.. and what noticed in all the books they come to a blind end, even a single amino acid or a single mutation in protein sequence is lethal, and wen they say life mutated to go in higher order its a big lie, mutation never improves anything it bring ur body to a lower functionality state
ouano1 1 year ago
@ouano1
What is the role of mutation in evolution?
odinata 1 year ago
@HighFlyingDutchman It'd be almost better not to understand it than to misunderstand it as much as you do. All your text would make sense only if the transition from water to land was instantenuous, without gradual adaptations. For example, when certain water regions dryed up, fishes that had more of the muscles and a better ability to move from one swamp to another had a much bigger survival rate, thus the muscular gain. Easy research can show why all your points are bunks
2CSST2 7 months ago
@HighFlyingDutchman It seems like the idea of species that only had minor land contact, and gradually more and more never did came to your mind. But if you knew only a little about evolution, you would have heard about it.
2CSST2 7 months ago
@splutonium basically evolution theory is a religion, it requires faith in an unproven idea, darwin himself admitted that if within 50 years if the missing link was not discovered his theory should be discarded, piltdown hoax was also publicize in the 50's in which the so called missing link was discovered by expert who examine it was just a fraud compilation of monkey and human bones... its a religion, no argument, but i'd rather believe in God than being here by chance..
ouano1 1 year ago
"It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance."
...and evolution doesn't claim it either. 1) It's not the same organism but rather over lots of generations, 2) Not at the same time (why should be obvious now) and 3) not "by chance" - evolution might be random in the specific mutations but over generations it's not; it's "survival of the fittest"; some were more fit for landdwelling.
DigitizedSelf 2 years ago
i dont ban anyone
you can even curse me here :D
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
You clearly have an ironclad, rock solid understanding of evolutionary theory. Everyone knows that theres no middle ground to emergence onto land, any animal that did had to have fully formed sprinting legs. Either its fully fish or fully cheetah. Everyone knows as well that all this had to happen in easily comprehensible timespans because billions of years? Thats just crazy talk.
htomerif 2 years ago
really
i didnt know that :P X=D
so you are wrong
see,everyone hadnt known it
you clearly have an ironclad,rock solid understanding of everyone,dude :D
lol
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
This video and the info that you provided only proves to me that your knowledge of the actual process of evolution is very, very limited. You don't really know what you're talking about.
Also, the guy who actually made the video stopped believing in this YEC stuff - possibly because he did more research on evolution and is now a better informed person. You would do well to follow his example.
evilchibi4reel 2 years ago
it is limited to all the evolutionary books out there in the world :D
i dunno if any alien can bring any logical evidence that undirected random mutations can make a retarded zombie bacteria turn into a rebelling arrogant human,how much ever natural selection can help...
:D
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
Sorry let me clarify, read a book NOT written by a creationist, but by a REAL qualified scientist.
I highly doubt you ever will.
How old are you with these childish responses?
ToraAlbatou 2 years ago
have you read the title yet first?
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
/facepalm.
Fail video fails.
jedwards0820 2 years ago
Evolution says nothing like this, go read a book, and stop your desperate attempts at keeping the world ignorant.
ToraAlbatou 2 years ago
before suggesting me to read a "book" you should learn to read the titles first
see
-nothing scientific-
:P
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
"Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species. "
Uh, no, we don't.
"There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:"
That's right. Unfortunately for you and your strawman argument, evolution theory doesn't say that such a transition happens the way you try to present it.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
it took millions of years according to the claim but in the end it happened in one day,or shorter,in one moment when the first fish went out
it is still impossible even in trillions of years actually
lol
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand the claim.
You also don't seem to understand that there are fish, even today, that can survive for a time outside of the water.
Go look up mudskipper.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
i know
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
If you know, then you should understand that fish survivnig out the of water is obviously not impossible.
it took time for the early chordates to evolve first to amphibians, then later to land creatures. As ambiphians, they woulc have lived in the water most of the time. Also, those that ventured on land even briefly were not identical to modern fish. So the video is WAY off.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
i know
i also know the "flying fish"
will you use it to prove that fish also became birds?
your argument is pure subjective
nothing different than looking at two different ferraris and saying that the newer one evolved from the older one
you have nothing objectively scientific to support your claim
you can only look at the similarities and say "hey,you see?this must be its ancestor!"
or "this will become something like that one day!"
all the variations and natural selection do exist btw
peace
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
re: flyign fish
No. Just because they both can fly, it doesn't make them related.
But we were talking about fish.
"your argument is pure subjective"
No, it's based on fossil and DNA evidence.
"nothing different than looking at two different ferraris and saying that the newer one evolved from the older one"
Uh, but that would also be true.
"you can only look at the similarities and say "hey,you see?this must be its ancestor!""
No. You clearly have not investigated this.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
i also know there is a relation between their genes but claiming that the mudskipper is some kind of a transitional form or an example of the ones in past is subjective
the order in fossil record also gives you no objective evidence
in fact,life has always been as complex as it first appeared,nothing is really getting better,the program or the code system is always the same
i dont want a "design" argument here but there is a designer to "evolve" the ferrari,so its not the same what you claim
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
"but claiming that the mudskipper is some kind of a transitional form"
Everything is a transitional form.
" or an example of the ones in past is subjective"
:sigh:
It is an example of one. I'm not saying it was identical. I'm trying to use it as an illustration.
"the order in fossil record also gives you no objective evidence"
Please explain. We have the fossils.
",life has always been as complex as it first appeared"
That is patently false.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
"or "this will become something like that one day!""
Actually no. We can't predict what will evolve in the future. Again, you don't understand how evolution works, and how it does not. It isn't deterministic. We might posit that one trait or another would be favorable, but we can't predict what new traits might appear.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
you accept that it isnt deterministic but in fact,there should be some kind of template to allow such complex things to come into existence
such as the living ones
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
"but in fact,there should be some kind of template to allow such complex things to come into existence "
Yes. Mutation and natural selection. That's all evolution is.
"Complexity" is a misnomer. What we really see is specialization.
"such as the living ones "
But in answer to your question, we see many examples of the various degrees of specialization. There are many life forms just as "simple" as they were 3.5 billion years ago. Evolution is not a ladder.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
what makes them simple while they did have the same system of mathematical codes
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
@HighFlyingDutchman i cant believe sir what we have been taught, we i was in my baccalaureate course they used to tell us the simpliest life form is a cell... but in higher degree they teach u diff thing.. as a biochemist quoted "a process within a single cell is more complex than new york city"... i hope genuinely not to injure the pride of evolutionist but its a dead end, microtube assemble in array and disassemble, NADPH reduces this, phosphorylation here and there, 1 mising then we die...
ouano1 1 year ago
what i actually mean is this
the mudskipper has the genes to allow it to live outside water
it is not just an ordinary fish
it already has the information
just by knowing this,it is subjective to claim ordinary fish can "add" this information to their gene pool on themselves,or through random mutations and natural selection whatever
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
"the mudskipper has the genes to allow it to live outside water"
Yes.
What I'm telling you is that it happned before.
"just by knowing this,it is subjective to claim ordinary fish can "add" this information to their gene pool on themselves"
It would, if I was saying that. But I'm not. I'm making no predictions of the future. I'm telling you what DID happen in the past. I'm using a modern example to show how the early amphibians lived.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
if you are objective enough not to claim what will happen
why cant you do the same about past?
you can stay agnostic about if a cat turned into a lion or a fish got out of water or not
honestly,i dont care at all,if it did happen,nothing would change on my side,the intelligence is still and always shining in unintelligent matter,and it always will,thats the point
and you can still keep not believing in God,you dont have to support subjective arguments to "verify" your disbelief
peace X=D
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
"if you are objective enough not to claim what will happen"
Because there is no evidence to prove what will happen.
"why cant you do the same about past?"
Because there IS evidence of what was.
Are you saying we can never say anything about the past? That's ludicrous.
"about if a cat turned into a lion or a fish got out of water or not
"
I am objective. The evidence tells me what happened.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
"and you can still keep not believing in God,you dont have to support subjective arguments to "verify" your disbelief"
and you can accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution, and STILL believe in a god. Nothing in science eliminates the possibility of a god.
What you should not do is think that you have to disbelieve the evidence in order to protect your belief in a god.
ikvsabre 2 years ago 2
i agree with you
but why i am trying to show the flaws of evolution here is that it allows people to become atheists
in fact,it is not that more illogical than Christianity so honestly you are both same in my eyes,but at least anyone who rejects Christianity shows some logic and he has a potential to do the same about atheism too
evolution just helps them
but in fact,i dont really care
history shows evidence of changings but science shows no evidence of random mutations' creative power
HighFlyingDutchman 2 years ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
The problem here is that you are showing something that ISN'T whaqt evolutionary theory says. The first creatures to try and come on land were not like the fish you displayed. They were tetrapods, amphibians. Creatures that lived in the shallows that had already evoluved leg-like apendages. Creatures that evolved the ability to breath at least for a short time outside of the water.
So while you might find your video funny, you are lampooning something no one believes.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
@HighFlyingDutchman
And you are incorrect that science shows no evidence of random mutations having "creative power".
Look up Nylonase.
Hell, I have an extra coronary artery. Most people have 3. I have 4. And all 4 are fully functional; a small number of people have an extra one, but in most cases, it is too small to be of any use, and/or lies in a way that causes problems.
In my case, it's actually beneficial. And I have the cardiac catheterization to prove it.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
We see lots of random mutations. Notice how every human looks different than every other? Each has a slight and distinguishable mutation. Booyah!
slippy441 2 years ago
@HighFlyingDutchman Evolution was obviously created by somebody, What kind of sick god would actually put a lot of effort into saving our failing species, It's not like people actually contribute ANYTHING to the planet whatsoever, we just kill everything through carelessness and false ideologies of superiority over our "roommates" by saying that a magic man will save us no matter how many lives we destroy either through war or eliminating the lifestyles of other's because we deem them wrong! :D
noeyedeer2jk89sx 1 year ago
hahaha awesome
chooselifenz 2 years ago
hahhahahah,,this is very fuunny,,,,,,,,thanks for upload
raju53 2 years ago
Lol fish didnt quite grow legs like in that video. I think they were amphiions like frogs first.
badpanda84 2 years ago
dumb ass christian.
rayj778 2 years ago
I see a lot of bullshit, but no plausible rebuttal to a scientific theory.
exomanifesto 2 years ago
Note evolution did not happen this way. Its just an example I had to use because of a 500 word limit. If you want to know the mechanisms of evolution I'd suggest talking to a professor as people on youtube (like me, and 99% of the youtube posters) are not fit to teach other people properly.
Finally- anyone who BELIEVES in evolution is foolish, you don't believe in a theory, you regard it as the best SCIENTIFIC explanation that currently exists.
Kaplosion 2 years ago
Step 1: Weight bearing- just travel on land for 1min to reach a new body of water. Hopefully you'll breed and your kids(G2) will have this trait
Step 2: Water retention- increases the time G2 can stay on land, can find bodies of water further away. Breed (G3)
Step 3: Respiratory system- stay even longer on land! But then G3 has to deal with heat so stay near water. Breed (G4)
With these traits G4 may be comparable to amphibians
G1->G2->G3->G4 This process take hundreds of thousands of years.
Kaplosion 2 years ago
Hey, wait a minute! Where did the land animal that ate the attempting fish at 2:17 come from?!!
ZebrasFirst 2 years ago
dumbass fish have scales and this is totally not the facts (has been proven) ignorant creationists
patrickledford420 2 years ago
LOL! .... he suffocated.
Funny, but you guys are fighting a losing battle. Evolution is a fact, do some research and try again
ScotiaTheOne 2 years ago
this just goes to show how stupid the darwin theory really is. I did some research on him and found out that he went to an island to watch birds evolve. And guess what....NO THING HAPPENED. OMGOSH im so surprised...
bandwcheckers 2 years ago
He was only there 5 weeks.
On the other hand, a pair of scientists (Peter and Rosemary Grant) have been studying the finches for over 30 years and discovered a great deal about the evolution of the population, so yeah
cactustactics 2 years ago
the first to leave the water was amphibians!
they were able to stay outside of the water for a short time and they had food and mates inside the water and out of it
plants evolved before creatures
and plants such as see weed was abounded on land and was able to use the sun for its advantage then it populated the land and changed over time to a new kind of plant that was able to absorb more sun
BUT the vid was funny as hell
adirm18 2 years ago
Great video to show how IDIOTIC this theory is.
evangelosism 2 years ago
Hey Dum Dum,
water does not wither!!
evangelosism 2 years ago
it's funny....check it
have an evolutionist post this video you have positive comments
have a christian post this video you have negative comments :D
1SavageDragon1 2 years ago
Adam and eve were fish? Blasphemy !!! you will burn for this.
OctoMoose 2 years ago
These sarcastic videos do nothing for the creationist cause. Any person who has learnt even the basics of the theory of evolution knows this is ridiculous. They just show creationists as uneducated fools, which isnt the case.
jayrod105 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure the film-makers were aware of this, jayrod105. The joke is that the fish evolved only to lose something in the process.
AvantGardeGuy2 2 years ago
ha thats fuckin hilarious which shows how stupid evolution is
awesome248 2 years ago
super funny!!!
S00rabh 2 years ago
oooooo so close...
andiconda3 2 years ago
This video was hilarious.
But wrong. Mudskippers and frogs need to stay moist to avoid overheating, and both can go back into the water to cool off and eat if they need to.
Land-dwelling fish would have evolved in intertidal zones, swamps, and areas with seasonal drought conditions.
I can't say the video wasn't funny, though.
piovino87 2 years ago
ha ha ha ha ha ha, yep! finally someone got evolution rite lol that was funnnnnnny
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 2 years ago
4.5 million yrs ha ha ha cartoon fish been around along time lol
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 2 years ago
LOL THAT'S just how ridiculousness Evolution's teachings are.
HatedChristian 2 years ago
Try learning something about molecular biology and math.
The probability a single protein forming in the correct sequential order is 1 to the 72nd power. They are a 150 amino acids long.
And 20 to the 150th power of possible ways of arranging the amino acids. The probability of generating one single shore protein through random mutation is 1/70 power. That's 100, trillion, trillion,trillion,trillion, trillion,trillion.
HatedChristian 2 years ago
I am no expert and don't know if your Numbers are correct (neither do you) but picture this. a primordial earth comprised of nothing but chemicals and rocks. sitting there. you have the numbers do you not? how many chemicals are there? 1.200.000.000 years this number x sits there. what are the odds of the amino acids forming and later connecting know? also you make a fundamental mistake. you assume that each step is equally unlikely. the tricky part is them forming. its abc from there.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
this video is terrible, all those impossibilities happened as fossil records would show, not a divine power. Creatures didn't just jump out of the water and start crawling, things that you think may be impossible have a better chance over about a billion years.
pyroman1000k 2 years ago
I've only seen about 30 times myself missing link oops ha ha ha, if you make that many errors I question it! a lemur? don't hear about that much any more? now it's another lucy? w.t.f. crazy
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 2 years ago