(Contnd) So an OOP designer would still come up with something that looks much like common descent, except that all species could still have been created on the same day. The case against design should be about how the solutions found in nature always fall a bit short of real perfection. And about examples of plain bad design. Why would a designer who works with reusable code make so many different designs for the eye - and some of them inferior at that?
I'm probably being stupid, but this video doesn't make sense. You could make a good case for a designer trained in OOP, who would start with the AAAAA string for that enzyme in reptilians and then would modify that according to need for the different groups descending from the reptilians. Any intelligent designer faced with the task to create zillions different species would say "to hell with efficiency" and work with reusable code. DNA would still have to mean something, even in a design.
@@thybigballs I'm saying these things to say this. So called Genetic DNA designations don't make sense. Like so called Geneticists supposedly tracing these so called jews ancestry back to the middle east. Common sense would tell ppl that it takes money to run these labs. & who run these banks? so called Jews. Who run the media? The people actually fund these corporate stations, that's a no brainer. They tell people what they want them to hear. They say the wrong thing & their out of bussiness
@thybigballs Why is it so interesting? DNA of a son or daughter only resembles their parents DNA. If you don't accurate understand who a jew(Israelite) is you can't possibly accurately say who is or is not an Israelite. Hence, people come up with bogus theories to "try" to connect events that obviously don't fit. If your in Jerusalem & the romans are coming from the North why would you flee in2 neighboring countries of Rome? Like European countries where Rome could easily find you makes no sense
Your DNA information in general is bogus. Foolishness, it makes no sense at all. You cannot prove a person is an indian or a jew, by dna testing. Do the research on it.
@nejtilsvampe Evolution?Creationists discovered and published most of the concepts of evolution LONG before Darwin. If you just mean changes over time, then I accept evolution. But, UCD is mostly blind faith, not science.
You accept abiogenesis? That's a 100% faith statement that requires a miracle bigger than any that exists in any religion, since there is not even one scientific experiment to show that for example the essential kinesins&their delivery system can develop without intelligence.
@TheGamanic Why do all atheists completely lose their minds&pretend that the only claims of the Bible are miracles. We DO have some evidence for even those.But it's is cherry picking/straw manning in the extreme to represent that as the only claim or evidence of the Bible, sort of like saying that Darwinism's only claim is abiogenesis.
Evidence for the flood? great seminar on that by Dr. Silvestru, respected authority on geology here:
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (start ~36:00. ~54:00 is on tectonics)
@TruthIsLife7 cont. "Why do all atheists completely lose their minds&pretend that the only claims of the Bible are miracles"- Straw man and hasty generalisation, two fallacies in one! Atheists do not say that there are only miracles in the Bible, they pick those out to support their arguments. This is a bit like a robber who is in court and complaining that the prosecutors are bringing up the evidence which convicts him of the crime, the CCTV, eyewitness evidence etc! It's ludicrous...
@TruthIsLife7 cont. Respected by who exactly? How many scientific papers in respectable journals has he wirtten on the subject of the flood? And if he is so respected, how come his views are completely out of sync with those of the majority of geologists without anyone else supporting his views? I know that this doesn't mean he is wrong, but you have to ask yourself the question. He could be a forward thinking genius, but for everyone of those there are many deluded individuals
@nejtilsvampe Sorry, but you're wrong. Darwin proposed life arising from biotic soup. His book was mostly speculation on how life descended from a few common ancestors (most of the other concepts, like mutations, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. had been published previously by creationists).
@TruthIsLife7 okay sure I stand corrected. As long as you don't misinterpret darwinism as evolutionism. I don't know what darwinism is, but I certainly don't worship darwin or anything else. However, I do accept evolution and abiogenesis, no matter who proposed it.
@nejtilsvampe Btw, I commend you for being willing to correct yourself. That shows you have integrity&possibly a more open mind than others.There are many forms of Darwinism&even more of universal common descent. Most have been disproven, discarded, and abandoned even by those who do put blind faith in universal common descent...and the current version is in big trouble and likely will be discarded in a few years for some new hypothesis...anything except what science supports most, creation.
@TruthIsLife "Darwinism" has been observed. I guess you could call that "proof", something creationists lack. If you understood how evolution worked, you would realize how irrifutable it is. There really is no room for interpretation, it is a scientific fact. As for the origin of life itself, we don't really know yet. There are theories however, which are being tested. You see, rather then creationists, who just say "God did it, it says so in the bible.", scientists actually test their theories.
@TruthIsLife7 "Most have been disproven, discarded, and abandoned even by those who do put blind faith in universal common descent...and the current version is in big trouble and likely will be discarded in a few years for some new hypothesis...anything except what science supports most, creation."===How is the theory of evolution in big trouble? Out of the 300,000 plus biologists (just in the U.S. alone) has any of them shown there's big problems with evolution?
What was the same designer same gene argument? There doesn't seem to be any record of it anymore, and all google spots are filled with this video on different sites xD
@TheGamanic It is far more important to separate atheism from state power than religion. Why? The 22 officially atheist states in history have killed 30 times more than all religions in all history COMBINED, including even all false religions. Here are the facts (change DOT to . )
@DonExodus2 AGAIN with the strawmen Don...how can you be so badly misinformed? You have no business making videos when you can't even define creation science properly. It does NOT teach that all animals, etc. were created in present form. Epic fail. If I had $1 for every evolutionist who doesn't even know how to define creation science correctly (meaning they always straw man it and are incompetent to judge it scientifically), I'd be a millionaire many times over). See my creation playlists.
DonExodus, you rock and I'm on your team. All that we know about biology points to evolution.
Constructive criticism, though. In this video, you never actually explain that we can place a sequence into a phylogenetic tree because of the improbability of any particular combination of mutations. It only takes one easy change to get GAAGT from GAAGA, while it takes a very lucky combination of four changes to get it from GCTAA. Your vid never explains this. It merely urges the viewer to understand.
look up the arguments against the teleological and cosmological arguments for gods existence and it becomes clear why atheists reject creationist assertions of gods existence
and no 70% of scientists that reject creationism are Christians so no ones hardening anything they accept god just not the biblical account of the worlds beginning they view it as metaphoric
but wouldn't all this be in agreement in creationism, because, if it were not so and we evolved how does something get there that wasn't before and why does it not happen more. evolution gives me a headache maybe i'm not as smart as some but would it still not be continuing is it just a once in a very long time phenomena. sometimes i really think people become so smart they turn into fools, they harden their hearts so much against God sometimes when he shows them his brilliance they see it not
@epicseizurenow correction on the likes God loves, yes he loves you and he loves me also regardless of our short comings, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God Bless You
Think of it like this: YOU are, in fact, a "transitional form". You are one of MILLIONS.
For each of those macroevolutionary gene changes (the changing letters), there were hundreds of thousands of years of microevolutionary mutations, with only the consistent ones passing on down through the ages. And because they create a predictable pattern which mirrors the data we actually find, the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation.
@ForeverFearlessMe Because you are at least giving a glimmer of curiosity in this matter (more than most close-minded creationists) I urge you to do this: watch lots of videos by DonExodus2, cdk007, Thunderf00t, aronra, and other stuff that pops up in the sidebar when you are on those videos. For the time being, completely ignore the question of whether or not God exists. Just take some time to get comfortable with the claims of science and WHY we make these claims.
@ForeverFearlessMe Don't listen to Thunderfoot, Cdk007 &esp Aronra (who lies a lot) if you want to know anything about how real science&rationality operates.They just ignore most evidence.Don Ex is better than others in some ways, but knows nothing about creation science or that in most areas creation science has more evidence than evolution. See my channel, esp. "creation-evidence for the flood" playlist. Video #1 is a brilliant overview of powerful evidence for the creationist global flood.
@rmcdaniel423 Yes, do explore science fearlessly, but not with a closed mind and a priori determination of conclusions like all evolutionists and atheists do. And don't do the continual straw manning and refusal to follow the weight of evidence that evolutionists and atheists CONSTANTLY..and I DO MEAN CONSTANTLY do. If you reject the weight of evidence overall and lie that creation science doesn't have strong evidence..you are not doing anything scientific whatsoever.
@TruthIsLife7 You are committing the very same thing when you reject the unifiying predictable patterns of morphology, geographic distribution, DNA, etc, that lies at the heart of the Evolutionary theory. You speak of evolutionists, scientific minded people, and atheists in terms of utterly ignorant generalizations. "In most areas, creation science has more evidence than evolution"?!? Right. Just like astrology has more "evidence" than astronomy.
@rmcdaniel423 I've spent 20 years, reading/listening to the best scientists on both sides of the issue (just finished "Your Inner Fish"). A LOT of creationists used to be evolution scientists, including some teaching evolution and some atheists as well. Those who study both sides in depth usually become creationist. Most evolutionists have never heard the evidence for creation and aren't even able to define it accurately. Even most of the areas you refer to support creation science much better.
@rmcdaniel423 Evolution &atheism offer you no benefit at all&have both done massive amounts of harm to human freedom&human life&science.The sad thing is that none of these documented&indisputable facts are taught to people. Darwin wrote: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating&balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" The evolution establishment dishonors Darwin by refusing to do this with creation science.
@TruthIsLife7 it doesnt matter if atheism or evolution offers some benefit aslong as they have evidence, thats the difference between logical people and creationists, creationists care about what feels good, logical people actually care about what is true. obviously you never really watched dons videos
@TruthIsLife7 cont. What massive amounts of harm has atheism done to human freedom, human life and science? You make large sweeping statements with little to no evidence or your side, instead promoting a ludicruous conspiracy of scientists across the world of all faiths suppressing the evidence for creation.
But, even atheist scholars like Dr. Walter Brock,eminent scholar at Loyala University agree that "To compare a few thousands of unjustified deaths (due to inquisitions,etc.) with several hundreds of millions is unreasonable (caused by atheist governments)" He says statism is the cause, but that's only the power. Since atheism has no moral creed, atheist leaders directed the power they had to persecute, torture & kill their worst enemies & obstacles, which for them was usually religious people.
@TruthIsLife7 I would have to say that the number of deaths is significantly more than that, especially when considering all world faiths. But anyway, atheism is a rejection of a belief not a belief system in itself. You have to remember that those leaders killed often religious people because they were the biggest threat to their own religion. You just as easily say the two men didn't wear thongs, hence their atrocities.
@TheGamanic That sentence refers to the inquisitions in Europe which tragically killed 2-10,000 according to experts. So, it would be some higher for all religions, true. But, way less than officially atheist states. You like many seem not to be aware that there are ~17 types of atheism...and ALL of them ridicule atheism with malignant falsehoods as the enemy of science, progress, etc. and it is precisely because they viewed religion as their greatest enemy that they tried to destroy it.
@TheGamanic Power is used against what people hate or consider dangerous, etc. Thongs, etc. had nothing to do with it. The virulent hatred of atheism for the truth of the Bible that is documented by vast scientific and historical evidence, more than any other rival belief...is the main factor in why all atheist states have killed huge numbers of Christians, often into the millions. Here's the link for Dr. Brock by the way:
@TruthIsLife7 "The virulent hatred of atheism for the truth of the Bible"- absolute crap, generalisation of all atheists. Whether it is documented by vast scientific, historical evidence is highly debatable (wifes turning into salt pillars, big arks etc). The fact remains communist states didn't kill their citizens because of their atheism, but because of other reasons. They were evil people, their atheism has nothing to do with it.
@TheGamanic Oh my stars...cherry picking and misrepresentation galore.
1) Find me an atheist who represents the Bible fairly and I'll praise you highly. ALL I've met and heard misrepresent it VERY badly. ALL
2) It is explicitly because of atheism that most of the millions of religious people in atheist states died. Communism does not hate religions. It's an economic system and there are even some communist Christians. At best communism would be a secondary factor. Atheism was the #1 factor.
@TruthIsLife7 1) I don't think anyone could live up to your standards. You want to believe what you want to believe. As for those misrepresenting it badly, I haven't heard their claims so I couldn't comment nor do I want to take your claims for it since you seem incredibly anti-atheist.
2) "Communism does not hate religions"- hence why it is not tolerated in the school system in China, Soviet Russia etc?Hence for purging of religions by communists as it was seen as a threat if people worshipped
@TruthIsLife7 cont. someone other than the leader. "there are some communist Christians"- openly definintely not, if you look at the most communist states i.e. North Korea, the USSR, they were no such people. And so your arguments falls down, pity...
@TruthIsLife7 1) Matt Dillahunty is quite fair.. If you disagree call the atheist experience.
2) where the hell do you get that bullshit from? The scandinavien countrys are christian states, however 85% of the population are atheists.. Are you claiming the cause is that atheists are killing the christians? xD
@rmcdaniel423 Also , most Christians have never heard much of the evidence for creation because pastors aren't trained in science. So, the evidence is banned from schools for political reasons and not taught much in churches. There is very little that is censored more than evidence for creation (but censorship happens to many groups, conservative and liberal). See my playlist "creation-evidence for the flood" for some of the evidence that exists. Videos 1(36:00+) & 2-9 are good intros.
@TruthIsLife7 no, they never see the evidence because there is no evidence, none, the only explanation of the species is evolution through natural selection. don actually has a video about noahs ark, it was made when he was still a christian, go watch it and take your head out of your ass
@wearestarstuffsagan Almost nothing you have said is fact. I've watched many of DonExodus and other evo videos. They lie astronomically about the evidence for creation which has absolutely NOTHING to do with feeling. ALL scientists, ALL, agree with many of the major pillars of creation. They just don't tell anyone that these scientific concepts like biogenesis, mutations, speciation and many others were discovered and published by creationists LONG before Darwin based on the Bible.
@wearestarstuffsagan Watch this video by internationally recognized Dr. Silvestru, to expose the delusions of people like DonExodus that there is no evidence:
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (start at:0:36:00 to skip the formalities and from ~54:00 there's a section on how plate tectonics integrates very well with flood geology)
Those who say there is no evidence for creation (or for universal common descent) either:
@wearestarstuffsagan Every time I watch a video by DonExodus or others like him, their ignorance of what creation science is and it's evidence is no different from Kim Jung Il's claim that Americans live in concentration camps as slaves.I don't care if DonExodus was a Christian.Pastors aren't scientists&so most don't even know the the evidence well. Then it's all banned from public education for POLITICAL reasons, violating the foundation of science that we follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads.
@wearestarstuffsagan If something offers benefits, that's extremely important. It's also called pragmatic evidence. Christianity built the foundation of modern science, public education, much health research that extends lives, human rights, law, democracy and so much more. This is but one of MANY evidences from all sorts of fields that it is true. Atheism has contributed nothing except possibly intolerance and teaching people how to insult rival views falsely. Evolution is not much different.
@TruthIsLife7 Is he internationally recognised in the field of evolutionary biology by anyone except fundamentalist Christians? How many papers in respectable journals has he written directly attacking evolution?
You can have all the evidence but if someone refuses to listen and consider the overwhelming peer reviewed data to hold on to the Flying Spagetti monster than what is one to do!
holy fuck donexodus are you truely stating that we all would have the same gene make up lol if we had the same creator lol i mean come on are you that fucking retarded? the fact that man and ape are 95-98% similar pending the genome you look at those 2-5% makes the massive difference lol for example with your failed logic that then water melon & clouds must be similar since infact they have a same 98% water content lol wow dude get your head out of your ass you really need to upgrade your info!
@MrDathon1577 Different dna codes can be made for the same protein...For example, UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG all codes for the amino acid leucine...In fact only one type is needed...why bother using a multitude? But that variety corresponds directly to how these genes were created in the first place, if you accept evolution, then one can understand why these genes that have different codons and the do the same work are used differently in each animal, same designer would just use one type...
@swisscheesepotatochi Your buddy swiss cheese says...'bout 437,500. LMAO! br, this is fact, and you know it; there would have been millions upon millions of creatures that are somewhere in-between a dog-creature, and a whale. Think about how slight the changes would be, there would be MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of intermediate creatures. We haven't found ONE distinctive transitional fossil for any species. BTW, don't say yes we have plz, simply calling all fossils transitional is highly inadequate
@swisscheesepotatochi Understand, genetics cannot be used to prove evolution because all we see, are common properties, nothing more, the rest is conjecture. It matters not how absolutely, positively sure you are, or how much sense the conjecture makes; to say matching sequences in DNA and amino acid chains proves a common ancestor, is to say the same thing proves a
common designer! Including other branches of science in Darwin's theory does not make it any more true.
@tcgreen11 Genetic proves a hierarchy of genes which corresponds to what we find in the fossil record, it corresponds to what we find in embryology...it corresponds to what type of vestigial organs we find...In a common designer there would be no nested hierarchy, no vestigial organs, no atavisms, no pattern in embryology...Unless ofcourse you argue for a strange and weird designer who does not use logic to design...
@tcgreen11 Science is based on logic of course, thats why we use math which is an invention based on logic...If we had no evidence of evolution occurring in the past but proof that do now, it would be logical to infer that this is most probably the case that evolution happened in the past until proven otherwise...In reality, we do actually have proof of evolution...
@swisscheesepotatochi swiss, Evolution (the origin of species) didn't happen...no matter how convinced you are, or how many youtube videos you watch. It makes sense on its face, but that is where it stops. I do not need to falsify evolution to believe God created the Universe. As a matter of fact I could just as easily say...hey, god designed it, and set it in motion...However, I have poured over th theory, and man it just has to many gaps, and problems, that just shouldn't be there. But enjoy
@tcgreen11 You have not given any such "problems" to the theory, only gaps...which is accepted in any scientific theory considering we do not know everything...
@swisscheesepotatochi Evolution says life evolved over a long period of time through a series of slow, gradual, genetic mutations, acted upon by........ even given the difficult conditions need to form a fossil, there by pure odds should be several, if not hundreds, of smooth transitional sequences in museums. Along with the sporadic record we have now. By that I mean a complete, if not very close to complete series, eg. Dinosaur with small wings, D. with medium wings and less teeth, D.
@tcgreen11 actually, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, gradualism itself is a proposed mechanism for how that evolution could have happened...
@swisscheesepotatochi As far as genetics, we are like a monkey playing around in the cab of the space shuttle! You watch youtube videos of people explaning genetics as if they were authorities. For you to say that a "designer would have done it a different way" is positively absurd! Especially since we understand genetic structure and sequencing so well, we can get tiny little pieces of skin to regenerate in a labratory, oh wait...no we can't...
@swisscheesepotatochi "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils …."Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History.
@tcgreen11 stephen jay gould was talking about punctuated equilibrium, so thats essentially a quote mine...jay gould supported the theory of evolution...(Stephen. J. gould, "evolution as fact and theory")
@tcgreen11 please note, i am talking about evolution, the mechanism for evolution, like natural selection, genetic drift, etc...and please stop quote mining...
@swisscheesepotatochi HAHA exactly! Gould is all about punctuated equilibrium, you know why? Because there are so many gaps in the fossil record, an alternative theory is necessary! However, punctuated equilibrium, and quantum speciation are so rediculous, and even less supported by evidence, that that theory is thrown off the table by the Evolution community at large! Gradualism must call for intermediaries, there are none, thus punctuated equilibrium, which is worse. Perfect to my point :)
@swisscheesepotatochi "I also believe we are on the verge of a solution..." LOL, we have been on that same verge since that quote was made. NONE of those quotes are from creationists. You said you wanted a published peer to peer review example of intermediaries being a problem..there you go! Quote mining..so? Evolution is joke. The evidence used for Evolution is COMPATIBLE at best, not supportive.
@swisscheesepotatochi You said..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." I just gave you like 10 quotes from several sources. A few were from Gould, who absolutely states graduated evolution is FALSE, based on the fossil record it is IMPOSSIBLE. Now, do you want me to look for a bunch of gradualism junkies that say Punctuated Equilibrium is FALSE??
@tcgreen11 its a controversy, if you would understand what a controversy is...because if they had known everything, they would have said evolution by natural selection or by gradualism...What im talking about is evolution and not its mechanism...
@swisscheesepotatochi You are so bought into Evolution you can't even see it critically from an objective point of view. that is sad :( You do not see how far abiogenesis has to stretch, or how absurd it is to contemplate that genetic gain of information-the complexity we see-is possible by pure accidental transpositioning of proteins. You fail to see the fact that by the very nature of Evolution, and the populations, the theory should have easily been proven years ago by transitional examples.
@tcgreen11 you are just being retarded or ignorant? Transitional examples WERE proven DECADES ago, heck just try reading becominghuman. org (no space), it has a graph of the transitional forms. That said, everything is transitional and even in the space of a human life time, background radiation will almost certainly lead to some change in genes, it just will not be on any real noticeable scale for tens of thousands of generations which is why bacteria serve as the best example for speciation.
@swisscheesepotatochi You said..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." I gave you several. Gould, and several others, say the fossil record disproves Evolution. Would you like me to quote the gradualism guys that say Punctuated Equilibrium is false? And, some of those quoted are from the traditional Darwinian school of thought. Do you still hold on to your blind faith in Evolution?
@swisscheesepotatochi What about Richard Dawkins? He freely admits the fossil record would disprove Evolution, but the only alternative is special creation, and he cannot accept that. He is Evolution's Pope, isn't he?
@tcgreen11 and you wish to back-up this statement with a citation? Because this sounds very much like it's going to lead to a quote mine which you are asserting and missing out key information, kind of like the quote mines of Darwin's Eye, which when read on show a very different story.
That said, the fact the fossil record is so predictable, linear and existent that it is just evidence in favor of evolution, even if there were just 1/10th as many fossils, it'd still be staggering proof of it
Clarification: by linear, I refer to the depth at which things can be found, things that are around about 100,000 years old tend to usually gather together while things 10,000,000 years old generally tend to be much deeper within the ground but all around the same height.
As you move up things are clearly progressive with species slowly moving around and evolving/changing over time.
@swisscheesepotatochi I answered your question..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." and very well at that. Now, please answer a question for me. in order for the very fist single cell organism to reproduce, it had to have information. Amino acids are the structure for DNA, the information is sequenced in the DNA in ordered fashion, in the form of proteins. Similar to binary code on a computer chip. Where did the information come?
@swisscheesepotatochi The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. - Steven M. Stanley (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)
@tcgreen11 "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.", not, "offer no evidence for evolution"...He believed in quantum speciation, his proposed force for evolution...
@swisscheesepotatochi "We can tell tales of improvement, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ..I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ..we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.", Natural His., 2/82, p.22
@tcgreen11 yeah, and the writer also said, "But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times"...
@swisscheesepotatochi I answered your question.."Show me one peer to peer review publication that the fossil record disproves Evolution.." I answered it with a bang. Please, answer this question; For the first cell to reproduce, it needed information for the process. Amino acids are the base for DNA. The information is ordered in the DNA in the form of sequenced charged proteins. This a biological version of a computer chip, with binary code stored on it. Where did the information come from?
@tcgreen11 I have no comment on the first cell...And yes it was peer reviewed, but it does not disprove evolution...most were quote mines you took off creationist websites...Most were discussing against gradualism in evolution, not against evolution itself...Most of what i say about the origin of the first actual replicator is speculation, through ultimately physical processes, replicators started creating copies of themselves, no information needed there...
@swisscheesepotatochi LMAO, what are you talking about? What does the website have to do with the validity of the quote? HA, you can skirt it all you want, the fact is the absence of transitional fossils debunk gradualism, of course an evolutionist that realizes this isn't going to abandon the theory, just come up with a whimsical alternative, that is unaccepted by the rest of the scientific community!
You do realize theres no such thing as a "transitional fossil" right? All fossils are either not transitional or all all transitional, considering that evolution isnt a plan to change from one animal to another, its just gradual change. Its impossible to provide a fossil of every single little change in one particular line of animal.
Heres an idea for you, explain why, whales/dolphins/porpoises have pelvic bones and why humans have appendixes without evolution.
@fruitytuttiluigi LOL, follower...! Whales and Dolphins don't have human pelvic bones. Did you know that? Did you know that Whales and Dolphins do not have human pelvic bones? They have bones that serve their purpose, and resemble human pelvic bones. And the appendix has uses, you should read more, and keep up to date. We share similar features with other creatures because the same designer made us all, not because we share a common ancestor.
@fruitytuttiluigi actually, you have a much bigger problem of explaining why there are not many, MANY more useless organs in the human body, that would be there if Evolution were true. No, see there should be at least a few, actually many examples of clear transitions in the fossil record, and there just isn't, sorry. Dinosaur--->dinosaur type creature with feathers--->Bird, is not a good example, lmao.
Why would i need to explain why there arent many more useless organs? I have a feeling this is based on misunderstandings of evolution but hell ill bite
@swisscheesepotatochi "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
"BTW, don't say yes we have plz, simply calling all fossils transitional is highly inadequate"
...as is simply insisting that no fossil is transitional, which is what Creationists do.
Let me ask you: what would a "transitional" fossil look like? We HAVE many fossils that are between land-dwelling and ocean-dwelling. Creationists just say "That's a separate created kind that happened to look like that."
What characteristics would convince you that a fossil was transitional?
@tcgreen11 also fossilization is a rare event, for the passenger pigeon that has gone extinct yet very few of those fossils have ever been found...It would be insane if one would find fossils of every single transition that has ever happened...Thats why i said, for the fossils we do find, its important that do not contradict evolution. And no, im not an atheist, my motives are not evil or anti god like...
@swisscheesepotatochi Fossilization is somewhat rare, but not that rare. There are many ways for fossilization to occur. This is the default argument for evolutionists, which is fine. So, dinosaurs turned into birds (more or less), here's the problem: we have THOUSANDS of dinosaur bones/fossils, hundreds for some same species (from very different areas), and we see birds. So, the fossilization process stopped working after the dinosaurs? Not every single transition is need, but some.
@tcgreen11 There are transitions from dinosaur to birds..roughly about 25 dinosaurs with feathers have been found...so, those are some you can start with...
@swisscheesepotatochi I gave you plenty of other quotes from other people also, the transitionals are not there, no matter how many youtube videos you watch, it is a problem. Now, answer my question, because we never get to evolution, without answering the question I just asked you.
tcgreen11 there are half bird, half reptile like creatures, meaning creatures with both qualities of birds and reptiles... Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Psittacosaurus, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna...The question itself is already a problem when you assume that there are no fossils for these transitions...
@swisscheesepotatochi I am not trying to sound rude, but you are a blind follower of a religion, and your blind defence of it proves that. Now, in your own words, ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU, PLEASE. Don't refer me to some youtube video
@tcgreen11 When we drop things off a cliff, they fall. Matter is attracted to matter.
Now the Empirical Evidence for Evolution. There's Modern Genetics, Embryology, Comparative anatomical structures, Vestigial structures, the fossil record, and even modern examples of evolution happening. Species coming into contact with an environmental pressure and having to adapt over the course of several generations being documented and analyzed.
@sabertooth1980 That is not "empirical evidence", that is evidence that can be considered "compatible." That evidence can be considered "comatible with an intelligent designer. You're not really a scientist, so I do not expect you to understand the difference.
@tcgreen11 micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same size. Micro means small and Macro means large. In other words macro-evolution is just a large micro-evolution or more specifically multiple micro-evolutions, nothing more.
I believe instead you are really talking about what is called Adaption and Speciation, both can be either micro- or macro-evolution but Adaption is where the host can still breed as one species, unlike Speciation where the species splits into two separate species.
@sabertooth1980 Plus, if you don't think it's a religion, just challenge the theory, and watch the tempers fly and the defenders come out, lmao. plus Evolution has its own creation story, etc, it is a religion, and you are a defender of the faith.
@tcgreen11 Uh. No. There aren't any "gods" of evolution. Evolution doesn't have any dogma, it doesn't have any of the things that religions have.
It is a Scientific Theory about explaining the diversity of life. If you equivocate that to meaning "creation story", then that is where the flaw in your reasoning is.
@tcgreen11 The individuals of a population who have the traits to survive, Thrive. See when a mommy being finds a daddy being fairly attractive because they can get food, have a good territory or even have an advantage over the other beings, They Fuck. When they fuck, they have a great deal of offspring (results may vary on species.) And those babies that survive, Again. Thrive. This is known as Natural Selection. Evolution is a two part thing. Mutation and Natural Selection.
@sabertooth1980 LOL, dude, you have to have a mechanism than adds information to the DNA sequence. There isn't one! Do you understand that? Natural selection is a common sense logical exercise, that is a component used in the theory of Evolution.
@tcgreen11 I just told you. Mutation. Natural Selection, Ae the Environment in which organizims live acts on them and weeds out any traits that won't survive.
Mammals with small ears tend not to live long in desert climates, unless they have some other way of dispersing heat (like sweating). Mammals with big ears can radiate heat better and thus have an advantage over those who have smaller ears. There is a trade off here for how big you can go before it becomes costly to the species however.
@tcgreen11 there are multiple processes that can lead to Mutation, the most basic and understood would be radiation, we live our lives constantly surrounded by background radiation and despite new artificial types of background radiation, natural levels are still larger then what we as humanity produce artificially.
Radiation occasionally interferes with (or is absorbed by) our genes and can change the base genome. The same process could create potential harmful effects too, like a neoplasm.
@sabertooth1980 Mutation is the process assumed, but addition of information in the form of coded protein sequences has never been observed, not even close. That is a the BIG problem with Evolution, do you understand?
@sabertooth1980 Yes, lol! I am not trying to be rude, but you simply do not understand enough about genetics to answer my question. And man...I just finished 3 days of schooling someone on this topic until he finally caved, I do not want to do it again. Read back a several posts, when you understand what I am talking about, or learn more.
@tcgreen11 Don't care. I understand enough to know that what you are asking seems almost like a red herring. And what it appears that you are arguing against is Novel Mutations.
Which I can give you one.
Nylonase. Nylonase is an enzyme that is used by a type of bacterium that can break down Nylon so that it can be used for food stuffs. This particular enzyme was produced by a single insertion into the bacteriums genome.
@tcgreen11 and who do you think you schooled? most of what I see is you going on horrible assertions and people pointing out your fallacies shortly before you invoke tangents either calling Evolution a "Religion" or trying to peg Evolution as reliant on Abiogenesis, which it is not. If I had to say what realistically is seen, is you getting repeatably schooled but recoiling into Denialism and tangents as you have no where else to go on many issues that you raise.
@tcgreen11 I'm starting to wonder if you creationists aren't just all the same person. After a while of argumentation with you, the lines of what you are arguing become like an advert for some product that we don't need or want. The jingle is the same and we start recognizing the words.
Yet.
You bring it out as if it were something brand new. Then you tote it around, add some catch phases, try to appeal to the masses and when that doesn't work result to personal insults. Repeat.
@tcgreen11 " Evolution has its own creation story". Erm no it doesn't. I suspect you are referring to Abiogenesis but I understand that name might escape you, I can assure you that Evolution does not need Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis does not need Evolution, they both focus in completely different areas. Abiogenesis concerns itself with how life begun, Evolution only concerns itself to the variety of life, not how it began.
given how this has already been mentioned and it appears to escape you. I work primarily with computers, now if I were to say build a computer, I would take (in a minimum build) a motherboard, a CPU, RAM, Hard Drive(s) and a case and I would assemble these.
For this process I do not need to understand the process of Doping Silicon which was used essentially in the manufacture of all these components and yet I can swap most of the components easily to get a fundamentally different machine.
Evolution is about this latter example, it is about gradually changing the pieces to get different results, Abiogenesis on the other hand concerns it self as being a potential method of doping silicon. I hope you can understand this Metaphor but something tells me you either not understand it, or just deny it outright, even tho it is very accurate of the situation in hand.
@sabertooth1980 I couldn't say I would remember if you had, I appreciate the comment but I am a relatively* humble person and forget about compliments fairly quickly ^^;;. After all, bloated egos do little for the truth but a lot for themselves ;). I still have a bit of ego tho, as we all do, else we'd all have no confidence.
*is it humble to say you are humble? I doubt it but it's the only word I can describe it by!
@tcgreen11 I'd say you were blindly in Denialism. Most of what you seem to produce is based either off of Misconceptions, Lies or Quote Mines and there is only two ways to get those. To research with a Bias, finding what you want to find, be it truthful or not, or to rely on the works of others, searching around people's work who have already found these things on your behalf. That doesn't change the fact however you seem to a lack of understanding about Evolution and Science.
@swisscheesepotatochi "Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)" - Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology, 3 (1977): 115-151. (p. 147)
@tcgreen11 firstly all those on there is no smooth intermediates are supportive of punctuated equilibrium, a separate mechanism for evolution and is in no way saying that this disproves evolution...(change in allele frequency in the gene pool over time)...
@tcgreen11 also, why are there are almost no animals exactly the same as today in the fossil record billions of ears ago...where are all the snakes in the precambrian...please also note, we are currently finding more and more fossils, and these lineages are getting more complete...They have found 11 species from the dog like creature to the whale like creature...
@swisscheesepotatochi The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.
@tcgreen11 yeah, and leave out, "Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor."
@swisscheesepotatochi "In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel,. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism..: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes", t - Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95)
@swisscheesepotatochi "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
@tcgreen11 bowler is a lexicologist, woodroff was talking about punctuated equilibrium, the part you did not quote, "An alternative model of evolution, that of punctuated equilibria, introduced by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970s, more fully accounts for these same observations."
@swisscheesepotatochi The fossil record should produce mosiac fossils in mass, distinguishable intermediaries abundantly, and at LEAST A FEW smooth transitional examples, for gradual evolution to be true. This is cannot be denied! We find THOUSANDS of fossils every year, we have MILLIONS in storage rooms and museums, but not a SINGLE example of a smooth transitional fossil set, period! The problem; given the nature of Evolution, and the rate of fossilization, they should be in abundance.
@swisscheesepotatochi one designer would use one type?? oh really?? so you are a designer? what have you created from nothing?the fact that our designer created us and everything else in this world and beyond with such complexity and variety shows the very essence of Him and that is we humans can not even grasp how complex things are with our pathetic brain capacity. it's funny when i hear atheists,doctors etc.. try and know how God does things lol it makes me laugh
@MrDathon1577 Just on a side note, it's obvious you have watched a lot of donexodus type videos. You are a follower, and here is why; the "hierarchy" of genes...is a model. a model. a theoretical MODEL. Do you understand the significance of that? The model is built by using circular reasoning, and conjecture eg. we see A and because of our theory, we logically ASSUME A was brought about by C, you can figure the rest. WE DO NOT HAVE CLUE, as to the entire finction of any DNA sequence.
(Contnd) So an OOP designer would still come up with something that looks much like common descent, except that all species could still have been created on the same day. The case against design should be about how the solutions found in nature always fall a bit short of real perfection. And about examples of plain bad design. Why would a designer who works with reusable code make so many different designs for the eye - and some of them inferior at that?
florisv559 2 weeks ago
I'm probably being stupid, but this video doesn't make sense. You could make a good case for a designer trained in OOP, who would start with the AAAAA string for that enzyme in reptilians and then would modify that according to need for the different groups descending from the reptilians. Any intelligent designer faced with the task to create zillions different species would say "to hell with efficiency" and work with reusable code. DNA would still have to mean something, even in a design.
florisv559 2 weeks ago
@@thybigballs I'm saying these things to say this. So called Genetic DNA designations don't make sense. Like so called Geneticists supposedly tracing these so called jews ancestry back to the middle east. Common sense would tell ppl that it takes money to run these labs. & who run these banks? so called Jews. Who run the media? The people actually fund these corporate stations, that's a no brainer. They tell people what they want them to hear. They say the wrong thing & their out of bussiness
MessengerOfTruth27 2 weeks ago
@thybigballs Why is it so interesting? DNA of a son or daughter only resembles their parents DNA. If you don't accurate understand who a jew(Israelite) is you can't possibly accurately say who is or is not an Israelite. Hence, people come up with bogus theories to "try" to connect events that obviously don't fit. If your in Jerusalem & the romans are coming from the North why would you flee in2 neighboring countries of Rome? Like European countries where Rome could easily find you makes no sense
MessengerOfTruth27 2 weeks ago
Your DNA information in general is bogus. Foolishness, it makes no sense at all. You cannot prove a person is an indian or a jew, by dna testing. Do the research on it.
MessengerOfTruth27 3 weeks ago
@MessengerOfTruth27 "You can't prove a person is a jew by dna testing". I find this quote very fascinating.
thybigballs 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nejtilsvampe Evolution?Creationists discovered and published most of the concepts of evolution LONG before Darwin. If you just mean changes over time, then I accept evolution. But, UCD is mostly blind faith, not science.
You accept abiogenesis? That's a 100% faith statement that requires a miracle bigger than any that exists in any religion, since there is not even one scientific experiment to show that for example the essential kinesins&their delivery system can develop without intelligence.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TheGamanic Why do all atheists completely lose their minds&pretend that the only claims of the Bible are miracles. We DO have some evidence for even those.But it's is cherry picking/straw manning in the extreme to represent that as the only claim or evidence of the Bible, sort of like saying that Darwinism's only claim is abiogenesis.
Evidence for the flood? great seminar on that by Dr. Silvestru, respected authority on geology here:
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (start ~36:00. ~54:00 is on tectonics)
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 cont. "Why do all atheists completely lose their minds&pretend that the only claims of the Bible are miracles"- Straw man and hasty generalisation, two fallacies in one! Atheists do not say that there are only miracles in the Bible, they pick those out to support their arguments. This is a bit like a robber who is in court and complaining that the prosecutors are bringing up the evidence which convicts him of the crime, the CCTV, eyewitness evidence etc! It's ludicrous...
TheGamanic 2 months ago
@TheGamanic
You do realize that the bible says that It is the absolute truth, gods word is law.
So, If one piece is proven false, the whole thing crumbles under it's own weight.
Nobody is threatened by it what so ever ASIDE for people of other religions, the same way you are threatened by paganism or Wicca .
Marazish 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DonExodus2
@TruthIsLife7 cont. Respected by who exactly? How many scientific papers in respectable journals has he wirtten on the subject of the flood? And if he is so respected, how come his views are completely out of sync with those of the majority of geologists without anyone else supporting his views? I know that this doesn't mean he is wrong, but you have to ask yourself the question. He could be a forward thinking genius, but for everyone of those there are many deluded individuals
TheGamanic 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 what is darwinism? Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he had nothing to do with abiogenesis...
nejtilsvampe 2 months ago
@nejtilsvampe Sorry, but you're wrong. Darwin proposed life arising from biotic soup. His book was mostly speculation on how life descended from a few common ancestors (most of the other concepts, like mutations, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. had been published previously by creationists).
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 okay sure I stand corrected. As long as you don't misinterpret darwinism as evolutionism. I don't know what darwinism is, but I certainly don't worship darwin or anything else. However, I do accept evolution and abiogenesis, no matter who proposed it.
nejtilsvampe 2 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@nejtilsvampe Btw, I commend you for being willing to correct yourself. That shows you have integrity&possibly a more open mind than others.There are many forms of Darwinism&even more of universal common descent. Most have been disproven, discarded, and abandoned even by those who do put blind faith in universal common descent...and the current version is in big trouble and likely will be discarded in a few years for some new hypothesis...anything except what science supports most, creation.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife "Darwinism" has been observed. I guess you could call that "proof", something creationists lack. If you understood how evolution worked, you would realize how irrifutable it is. There really is no room for interpretation, it is a scientific fact. As for the origin of life itself, we don't really know yet. There are theories however, which are being tested. You see, rather then creationists, who just say "God did it, it says so in the bible.", scientists actually test their theories.
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "Most have been disproven, discarded, and abandoned even by those who do put blind faith in universal common descent...and the current version is in big trouble and likely will be discarded in a few years for some new hypothesis...anything except what science supports most, creation."===How is the theory of evolution in big trouble? Out of the 300,000 plus biologists (just in the U.S. alone) has any of them shown there's big problems with evolution?
thybigballs 2 weeks ago
What was the same designer same gene argument? There doesn't seem to be any record of it anymore, and all google spots are filled with this video on different sites xD
nemomoo 2 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TheGamanic It is far more important to separate atheism from state power than religion. Why? The 22 officially atheist states in history have killed 30 times more than all religions in all history COMBINED, including even all false religions. Here are the facts (change DOT to . )
wwwDOThawaiiDOTedu/powerkills/20THDOTHTM
wwwDOTgodandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/atrocitiesDOThtml
Religious people have done terrible things true. But, they were usually done in rebellion to Bible principles.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@DonExodus2 AGAIN with the strawmen Don...how can you be so badly misinformed? You have no business making videos when you can't even define creation science properly. It does NOT teach that all animals, etc. were created in present form. Epic fail. If I had $1 for every evolutionist who doesn't even know how to define creation science correctly (meaning they always straw man it and are incompetent to judge it scientifically), I'd be a millionaire many times over). See my creation playlists.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
I'm sorry I don't understand the diagram
SchizoCarpetBeater 7 months ago
@SchizoCarpetBeater well it is talking about the genetic similarity of dna from one organism to another
jandkas 6 months ago
the thing is that the creationists can always just reply """Well thats just how god did it""" and just claim there is no evidence for evolution.
gulbirk 7 months ago
DonExodus, you rock and I'm on your team. All that we know about biology points to evolution.
Constructive criticism, though. In this video, you never actually explain that we can place a sequence into a phylogenetic tree because of the improbability of any particular combination of mutations. It only takes one easy change to get GAAGT from GAAGA, while it takes a very lucky combination of four changes to get it from GCTAA. Your vid never explains this. It merely urges the viewer to understand.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago in playlist DonExodus' Videos (Evolution/Creationism debate)
look up the arguments against the teleological and cosmological arguments for gods existence and it becomes clear why atheists reject creationist assertions of gods existence
and no 70% of scientists that reject creationism are Christians so no ones hardening anything they accept god just not the biblical account of the worlds beginning they view it as metaphoric
InquisitorDracomual 9 months ago
Thank you, this was a really good, clear video =)
Exallium 10 months ago
but wouldn't all this be in agreement in creationism, because, if it were not so and we evolved how does something get there that wasn't before and why does it not happen more. evolution gives me a headache maybe i'm not as smart as some but would it still not be continuing is it just a once in a very long time phenomena. sometimes i really think people become so smart they turn into fools, they harden their hearts so much against God sometimes when he shows them his brilliance they see it not
ForeverFearlessMe 11 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe
Wow. How do you operate a keyboard?
generalataris 11 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe NO!
InquisitorDracomual 10 months ago
@InquisitorDracomual Why NO
ForeverFearlessMe 9 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe
God likes stoopid people.
epicseizurenow 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epicseizurenow correction on the likes God loves, yes he loves you and he loves me also regardless of our short comings, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God Bless You
ForeverFearlessMe 9 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe I'll be nice and give this a shot...
Think of it like this: YOU are, in fact, a "transitional form". You are one of MILLIONS.
For each of those macroevolutionary gene changes (the changing letters), there were hundreds of thousands of years of microevolutionary mutations, with only the consistent ones passing on down through the ages. And because they create a predictable pattern which mirrors the data we actually find, the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation.
rmcdaniel423 7 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe Because you are at least giving a glimmer of curiosity in this matter (more than most close-minded creationists) I urge you to do this: watch lots of videos by DonExodus2, cdk007, Thunderf00t, aronra, and other stuff that pops up in the sidebar when you are on those videos. For the time being, completely ignore the question of whether or not God exists. Just take some time to get comfortable with the claims of science and WHY we make these claims.
Explore science fearlessly!
rmcdaniel423 7 months ago
@ForeverFearlessMe Don't listen to Thunderfoot, Cdk007 &esp Aronra (who lies a lot) if you want to know anything about how real science&rationality operates.They just ignore most evidence.Don Ex is better than others in some ways, but knows nothing about creation science or that in most areas creation science has more evidence than evolution. See my channel, esp. "creation-evidence for the flood" playlist. Video #1 is a brilliant overview of powerful evidence for the creationist global flood.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Yes, do explore science fearlessly, but not with a closed mind and a priori determination of conclusions like all evolutionists and atheists do. And don't do the continual straw manning and refusal to follow the weight of evidence that evolutionists and atheists CONSTANTLY..and I DO MEAN CONSTANTLY do. If you reject the weight of evidence overall and lie that creation science doesn't have strong evidence..you are not doing anything scientific whatsoever.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You are committing the very same thing when you reject the unifiying predictable patterns of morphology, geographic distribution, DNA, etc, that lies at the heart of the Evolutionary theory. You speak of evolutionists, scientific minded people, and atheists in terms of utterly ignorant generalizations. "In most areas, creation science has more evidence than evolution"?!? Right. Just like astrology has more "evidence" than astronomy.
You are the king of trolls.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago 2
@rmcdaniel423 I've spent 20 years, reading/listening to the best scientists on both sides of the issue (just finished "Your Inner Fish"). A LOT of creationists used to be evolution scientists, including some teaching evolution and some atheists as well. Those who study both sides in depth usually become creationist. Most evolutionists have never heard the evidence for creation and aren't even able to define it accurately. Even most of the areas you refer to support creation science much better.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Evolution &atheism offer you no benefit at all&have both done massive amounts of harm to human freedom&human life&science.The sad thing is that none of these documented&indisputable facts are taught to people. Darwin wrote: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating&balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" The evolution establishment dishonors Darwin by refusing to do this with creation science.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 it doesnt matter if atheism or evolution offers some benefit aslong as they have evidence, thats the difference between logical people and creationists, creationists care about what feels good, logical people actually care about what is true. obviously you never really watched dons videos
wearestarstuffsagan 3 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 cont. What massive amounts of harm has atheism done to human freedom, human life and science? You make large sweeping statements with little to no evidence or your side, instead promoting a ludicruous conspiracy of scientists across the world of all faiths suppressing the evidence for creation.
TheGamanic 3 months ago
But, even atheist scholars like Dr. Walter Brock,eminent scholar at Loyala University agree that "To compare a few thousands of unjustified deaths (due to inquisitions,etc.) with several hundreds of millions is unreasonable (caused by atheist governments)" He says statism is the cause, but that's only the power. Since atheism has no moral creed, atheist leaders directed the power they had to persecute, torture & kill their worst enemies & obstacles, which for them was usually religious people.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I would have to say that the number of deaths is significantly more than that, especially when considering all world faiths. But anyway, atheism is a rejection of a belief not a belief system in itself. You have to remember that those leaders killed often religious people because they were the biggest threat to their own religion. You just as easily say the two men didn't wear thongs, hence their atrocities.
TheGamanic 3 months ago
@TheGamanic That sentence refers to the inquisitions in Europe which tragically killed 2-10,000 according to experts. So, it would be some higher for all religions, true. But, way less than officially atheist states. You like many seem not to be aware that there are ~17 types of atheism...and ALL of them ridicule atheism with malignant falsehoods as the enemy of science, progress, etc. and it is precisely because they viewed religion as their greatest enemy that they tried to destroy it.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TheGamanic Power is used against what people hate or consider dangerous, etc. Thongs, etc. had nothing to do with it. The virulent hatred of atheism for the truth of the Bible that is documented by vast scientific and historical evidence, more than any other rival belief...is the main factor in why all atheist states have killed huge numbers of Christians, often into the millions. Here's the link for Dr. Brock by the way:
the-classic-liberalDOTcom/atheist-defense-christianity/
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "The virulent hatred of atheism for the truth of the Bible"- absolute crap, generalisation of all atheists. Whether it is documented by vast scientific, historical evidence is highly debatable (wifes turning into salt pillars, big arks etc). The fact remains communist states didn't kill their citizens because of their atheism, but because of other reasons. They were evil people, their atheism has nothing to do with it.
TheGamanic 3 months ago
@TheGamanic Oh my stars...cherry picking and misrepresentation galore.
1) Find me an atheist who represents the Bible fairly and I'll praise you highly. ALL I've met and heard misrepresent it VERY badly. ALL
2) It is explicitly because of atheism that most of the millions of religious people in atheist states died. Communism does not hate religions. It's an economic system and there are even some communist Christians. At best communism would be a secondary factor. Atheism was the #1 factor.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 1) I don't think anyone could live up to your standards. You want to believe what you want to believe. As for those misrepresenting it badly, I haven't heard their claims so I couldn't comment nor do I want to take your claims for it since you seem incredibly anti-atheist.
2) "Communism does not hate religions"- hence why it is not tolerated in the school system in China, Soviet Russia etc?Hence for purging of religions by communists as it was seen as a threat if people worshipped
TheGamanic 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 cont. someone other than the leader. "there are some communist Christians"- openly definintely not, if you look at the most communist states i.e. North Korea, the USSR, they were no such people. And so your arguments falls down, pity...
TheGamanic 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 1) Matt Dillahunty is quite fair.. If you disagree call the atheist experience.
2) where the hell do you get that bullshit from? The scandinavien countrys are christian states, however 85% of the population are atheists.. Are you claiming the cause is that atheists are killing the christians? xD
nejtilsvampe 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 ''truth of the Bible that is documented by vast scientific and historical evidence''
Geologists proved there was never a globel flood. The bible is a poor history book.
Religion is not suppoerted by science or history.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Also , most Christians have never heard much of the evidence for creation because pastors aren't trained in science. So, the evidence is banned from schools for political reasons and not taught much in churches. There is very little that is censored more than evidence for creation (but censorship happens to many groups, conservative and liberal). See my playlist "creation-evidence for the flood" for some of the evidence that exists. Videos 1(36:00+) & 2-9 are good intros.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 no, they never see the evidence because there is no evidence, none, the only explanation of the species is evolution through natural selection. don actually has a video about noahs ark, it was made when he was still a christian, go watch it and take your head out of your ass
wearestarstuffsagan 3 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan Almost nothing you have said is fact. I've watched many of DonExodus and other evo videos. They lie astronomically about the evidence for creation which has absolutely NOTHING to do with feeling. ALL scientists, ALL, agree with many of the major pillars of creation. They just don't tell anyone that these scientific concepts like biogenesis, mutations, speciation and many others were discovered and published by creationists LONG before Darwin based on the Bible.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan Watch this video by internationally recognized Dr. Silvestru, to expose the delusions of people like DonExodus that there is no evidence:
watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (start at:0:36:00 to skip the formalities and from ~54:00 there's a section on how plate tectonics integrates very well with flood geology)
Those who say there is no evidence for creation (or for universal common descent) either:
1) don't know anything about science
2) don't know what evidence is or
3) are lying.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan Every time I watch a video by DonExodus or others like him, their ignorance of what creation science is and it's evidence is no different from Kim Jung Il's claim that Americans live in concentration camps as slaves.I don't care if DonExodus was a Christian.Pastors aren't scientists&so most don't even know the the evidence well. Then it's all banned from public education for POLITICAL reasons, violating the foundation of science that we follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan If something offers benefits, that's extremely important. It's also called pragmatic evidence. Christianity built the foundation of modern science, public education, much health research that extends lives, human rights, law, democracy and so much more. This is but one of MANY evidences from all sorts of fields that it is true. Atheism has contributed nothing except possibly intolerance and teaching people how to insult rival views falsely. Evolution is not much different.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Is he internationally recognised in the field of evolutionary biology by anyone except fundamentalist Christians? How many papers in respectable journals has he written directly attacking evolution?
TheGamanic 3 months ago
i have absolutely nothing against you but you hold the mic a bit too close.
yourmother2161 11 months ago
You can have all the evidence but if someone refuses to listen and consider the overwhelming peer reviewed data to hold on to the Flying Spagetti monster than what is one to do!
ronkytown 1 year ago
holy fuck donexodus are you truely stating that we all would have the same gene make up lol if we had the same creator lol i mean come on are you that fucking retarded? the fact that man and ape are 95-98% similar pending the genome you look at those 2-5% makes the massive difference lol for example with your failed logic that then water melon & clouds must be similar since infact they have a same 98% water content lol wow dude get your head out of your ass you really need to upgrade your info!
MrDathon1577 1 year ago
@MrDathon1577 Different dna codes can be made for the same protein...For example, UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG all codes for the amino acid leucine...In fact only one type is needed...why bother using a multitude? But that variety corresponds directly to how these genes were created in the first place, if you accept evolution, then one can understand why these genes that have different codons and the do the same work are used differently in each animal, same designer would just use one type...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Your buddy swiss cheese says...'bout 437,500. LMAO! br, this is fact, and you know it; there would have been millions upon millions of creatures that are somewhere in-between a dog-creature, and a whale. Think about how slight the changes would be, there would be MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of intermediate creatures. We haven't found ONE distinctive transitional fossil for any species. BTW, don't say yes we have plz, simply calling all fossils transitional is highly inadequate
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 You are absolutely correct...Oh no, ive been living a lie...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Understand, genetics cannot be used to prove evolution because all we see, are common properties, nothing more, the rest is conjecture. It matters not how absolutely, positively sure you are, or how much sense the conjecture makes; to say matching sequences in DNA and amino acid chains proves a common ancestor, is to say the same thing proves a
common designer! Including other branches of science in Darwin's theory does not make it any more true.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Genetic proves a hierarchy of genes which corresponds to what we find in the fossil record, it corresponds to what we find in embryology...it corresponds to what type of vestigial organs we find...In a common designer there would be no nested hierarchy, no vestigial organs, no atavisms, no pattern in embryology...Unless ofcourse you argue for a strange and weird designer who does not use logic to design...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Science is based on logic of course, thats why we use math which is an invention based on logic...If we had no evidence of evolution occurring in the past but proof that do now, it would be logical to infer that this is most probably the case that evolution happened in the past until proven otherwise...In reality, we do actually have proof of evolution...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi swiss, Evolution (the origin of species) didn't happen...no matter how convinced you are, or how many youtube videos you watch. It makes sense on its face, but that is where it stops. I do not need to falsify evolution to believe God created the Universe. As a matter of fact I could just as easily say...hey, god designed it, and set it in motion...However, I have poured over th theory, and man it just has to many gaps, and problems, that just shouldn't be there. But enjoy
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 You have not given any such "problems" to the theory, only gaps...which is accepted in any scientific theory considering we do not know everything...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Evolution says life evolved over a long period of time through a series of slow, gradual, genetic mutations, acted upon by........ even given the difficult conditions need to form a fossil, there by pure odds should be several, if not hundreds, of smooth transitional sequences in museums. Along with the sporadic record we have now. By that I mean a complete, if not very close to complete series, eg. Dinosaur with small wings, D. with medium wings and less teeth, D.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 actually, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, gradualism itself is a proposed mechanism for how that evolution could have happened...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi As far as genetics, we are like a monkey playing around in the cab of the space shuttle! You watch youtube videos of people explaning genetics as if they were authorities. For you to say that a "designer would have done it a different way" is positively absurd! Especially since we understand genetic structure and sequencing so well, we can get tiny little pieces of skin to regenerate in a labratory, oh wait...no we can't...
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils …."Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 stephen jay gould was talking about punctuated equilibrium, so thats essentially a quote mine...jay gould supported the theory of evolution...(Stephen. J. gould, "evolution as fact and theory")
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 please note, i am talking about evolution, the mechanism for evolution, like natural selection, genetic drift, etc...and please stop quote mining...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi HAHA exactly! Gould is all about punctuated equilibrium, you know why? Because there are so many gaps in the fossil record, an alternative theory is necessary! However, punctuated equilibrium, and quantum speciation are so rediculous, and even less supported by evidence, that that theory is thrown off the table by the Evolution community at large! Gradualism must call for intermediaries, there are none, thus punctuated equilibrium, which is worse. Perfect to my point :)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "I also believe we are on the verge of a solution..." LOL, we have been on that same verge since that quote was made. NONE of those quotes are from creationists. You said you wanted a published peer to peer review example of intermediaries being a problem..there you go! Quote mining..so? Evolution is joke. The evidence used for Evolution is COMPATIBLE at best, not supportive.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swisscheesepotatochi You said..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." I just gave you like 10 quotes from several sources. A few were from Gould, who absolutely states graduated evolution is FALSE, based on the fossil record it is IMPOSSIBLE. Now, do you want me to look for a bunch of gradualism junkies that say Punctuated Equilibrium is FALSE??
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 its a controversy, if you would understand what a controversy is...because if they had known everything, they would have said evolution by natural selection or by gradualism...What im talking about is evolution and not its mechanism...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi You are so bought into Evolution you can't even see it critically from an objective point of view. that is sad :( You do not see how far abiogenesis has to stretch, or how absurd it is to contemplate that genetic gain of information-the complexity we see-is possible by pure accidental transpositioning of proteins. You fail to see the fact that by the very nature of Evolution, and the populations, the theory should have easily been proven years ago by transitional examples.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 We have those.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 you are just being retarded or ignorant? Transitional examples WERE proven DECADES ago, heck just try reading becominghuman. org (no space), it has a graph of the transitional forms. That said, everything is transitional and even in the space of a human life time, background radiation will almost certainly lead to some change in genes, it just will not be on any real noticeable scale for tens of thousands of generations which is why bacteria serve as the best example for speciation.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swisscheesepotatochi You said..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." I gave you several. Gould, and several others, say the fossil record disproves Evolution. Would you like me to quote the gradualism guys that say Punctuated Equilibrium is false? And, some of those quoted are from the traditional Darwinian school of thought. Do you still hold on to your blind faith in Evolution?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi What about Richard Dawkins? He freely admits the fossil record would disprove Evolution, but the only alternative is special creation, and he cannot accept that. He is Evolution's Pope, isn't he?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 and you wish to back-up this statement with a citation? Because this sounds very much like it's going to lead to a quote mine which you are asserting and missing out key information, kind of like the quote mines of Darwin's Eye, which when read on show a very different story.
That said, the fact the fossil record is so predictable, linear and existent that it is just evidence in favor of evolution, even if there were just 1/10th as many fossils, it'd still be staggering proof of it
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Clarification: by linear, I refer to the depth at which things can be found, things that are around about 100,000 years old tend to usually gather together while things 10,000,000 years old generally tend to be much deeper within the ground but all around the same height.
As you move up things are clearly progressive with species slowly moving around and evolving/changing over time.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swisscheesepotatochi I answered your question..."show me one peer review publication that the fossil record disproves evolution..." and very well at that. Now, please answer a question for me. in order for the very fist single cell organism to reproduce, it had to have information. Amino acids are the structure for DNA, the information is sequenced in the DNA in ordered fashion, in the form of proteins. Similar to binary code on a computer chip. Where did the information come?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. - Steven M. Stanley (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.", not, "offer no evidence for evolution"...He believed in quantum speciation, his proposed force for evolution...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "We can tell tales of improvement, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ..I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ..we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.", Natural His., 2/82, p.22
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 yeah, and the writer also said, "But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times"...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I answered your question.."Show me one peer to peer review publication that the fossil record disproves Evolution.." I answered it with a bang. Please, answer this question; For the first cell to reproduce, it needed information for the process. Amino acids are the base for DNA. The information is ordered in the DNA in the form of sequenced charged proteins. This a biological version of a computer chip, with binary code stored on it. Where did the information come from?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I have no comment on the first cell...And yes it was peer reviewed, but it does not disprove evolution...most were quote mines you took off creationist websites...Most were discussing against gradualism in evolution, not against evolution itself...Most of what i say about the origin of the first actual replicator is speculation, through ultimately physical processes, replicators started creating copies of themselves, no information needed there...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi LMAO, what are you talking about? What does the website have to do with the validity of the quote? HA, you can skirt it all you want, the fact is the absence of transitional fossils debunk gradualism, of course an evolutionist that realizes this isn't going to abandon the theory, just come up with a whimsical alternative, that is unaccepted by the rest of the scientific community!
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11
"transitional fossil"
You do realize theres no such thing as a "transitional fossil" right? All fossils are either not transitional or all all transitional, considering that evolution isnt a plan to change from one animal to another, its just gradual change. Its impossible to provide a fossil of every single little change in one particular line of animal.
Heres an idea for you, explain why, whales/dolphins/porpoises have pelvic bones and why humans have appendixes without evolution.
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi LOL, follower...! Whales and Dolphins don't have human pelvic bones. Did you know that? Did you know that Whales and Dolphins do not have human pelvic bones? They have bones that serve their purpose, and resemble human pelvic bones. And the appendix has uses, you should read more, and keep up to date. We share similar features with other creatures because the same designer made us all, not because we share a common ancestor.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@fruitytuttiluigi actually, you have a much bigger problem of explaining why there are not many, MANY more useless organs in the human body, that would be there if Evolution were true. No, see there should be at least a few, actually many examples of clear transitions in the fossil record, and there just isn't, sorry. Dinosaur--->dinosaur type creature with feathers--->Bird, is not a good example, lmao.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11
"you have a much bigger problem of explaining why there are not many, MANY more useless organs in the human body"
evolution makes certain organs vestigial after a certain amount of time, nuff said.
". No, see there should be at least a few, actually many examples of clear transitions in the fossil record, and "
Ever heard of sediment layers brah? Older fossils appear deeper in the ground than new ones and new haves certain traits that old ones have.
What more do you want bro?
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@tcgreen11
Oh woops I misunderstood your first statement
Why would i need to explain why there arent many more useless organs? I have a feeling this is based on misunderstandings of evolution but hell ill bite
fruitytuttiluigi 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 type abiogenesis into wikipedia for the hypothesis on how the first replicators began...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11
"BTW, don't say yes we have plz, simply calling all fossils transitional is highly inadequate"
...as is simply insisting that no fossil is transitional, which is what Creationists do.
Let me ask you: what would a "transitional" fossil look like? We HAVE many fossils that are between land-dwelling and ocean-dwelling. Creationists just say "That's a separate created kind that happened to look like that."
What characteristics would convince you that a fossil was transitional?
brpierce 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 also fossilization is a rare event, for the passenger pigeon that has gone extinct yet very few of those fossils have ever been found...It would be insane if one would find fossils of every single transition that has ever happened...Thats why i said, for the fossils we do find, its important that do not contradict evolution. And no, im not an atheist, my motives are not evil or anti god like...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Fossilization is somewhat rare, but not that rare. There are many ways for fossilization to occur. This is the default argument for evolutionists, which is fine. So, dinosaurs turned into birds (more or less), here's the problem: we have THOUSANDS of dinosaur bones/fossils, hundreds for some same species (from very different areas), and we see birds. So, the fossilization process stopped working after the dinosaurs? Not every single transition is need, but some.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 There are transitions from dinosaur to birds..roughly about 25 dinosaurs with feathers have been found...so, those are some you can start with...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I gave you plenty of other quotes from other people also, the transitionals are not there, no matter how many youtube videos you watch, it is a problem. Now, answer my question, because we never get to evolution, without answering the question I just asked you.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
tcgreen11 there are half bird, half reptile like creatures, meaning creatures with both qualities of birds and reptiles... Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Psittacosaurus, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna...The question itself is already a problem when you assume that there are no fossils for these transitions...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I am not trying to sound rude, but you are a blind follower of a religion, and your blind defence of it proves that. Now, in your own words, ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU, PLEASE. Don't refer me to some youtube video
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Evolution isn't a religion.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Yes it is...a religion.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 No. No it isn't That's like saying that gravity is a religion.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 We have empirical evidence for gravity, what empirical evidence do you have for evolution?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 When we drop things off a cliff, they fall. Matter is attracted to matter.
Now the Empirical Evidence for Evolution. There's Modern Genetics, Embryology, Comparative anatomical structures, Vestigial structures, the fossil record, and even modern examples of evolution happening. Species coming into contact with an environmental pressure and having to adapt over the course of several generations being documented and analyzed.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 That is not "empirical evidence", that is evidence that can be considered "compatible." That evidence can be considered "comatible with an intelligent designer. You're not really a scientist, so I do not expect you to understand the difference.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 You don't even know the difference between microevolution, and macroevolution! Why are you defending Evolution? Why?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 There isn't a difference between the two. Biologists will even attest to this.
After all if you can walk to the kitchen, then you can walk to the store. Given enough time you can even walk across the state.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same size. Micro means small and Macro means large. In other words macro-evolution is just a large micro-evolution or more specifically multiple micro-evolutions, nothing more.
I believe instead you are really talking about what is called Adaption and Speciation, both can be either micro- or macro-evolution but Adaption is where the host can still breed as one species, unlike Speciation where the species splits into two separate species.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
correction: micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Plus, if you don't think it's a religion, just challenge the theory, and watch the tempers fly and the defenders come out, lmao. plus Evolution has its own creation story, etc, it is a religion, and you are a defender of the faith.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Uh. No. There aren't any "gods" of evolution. Evolution doesn't have any dogma, it doesn't have any of the things that religions have.
It is a Scientific Theory about explaining the diversity of life. If you equivocate that to meaning "creation story", then that is where the flaw in your reasoning is.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Explain to me how Evolution adds sequenced coded proteins, that carry environmental specific information, to a DNA strand.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 The individuals of a population who have the traits to survive, Thrive. See when a mommy being finds a daddy being fairly attractive because they can get food, have a good territory or even have an advantage over the other beings, They Fuck. When they fuck, they have a great deal of offspring (results may vary on species.) And those babies that survive, Again. Thrive. This is known as Natural Selection. Evolution is a two part thing. Mutation and Natural Selection.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 LOL, dude, you have to have a mechanism than adds information to the DNA sequence. There isn't one! Do you understand that? Natural selection is a common sense logical exercise, that is a component used in the theory of Evolution.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I just told you Mutation.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Inadequate, lol! Give me the process
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I just told you. Mutation. Natural Selection, Ae the Environment in which organizims live acts on them and weeds out any traits that won't survive.
Mammals with small ears tend not to live long in desert climates, unless they have some other way of dispersing heat (like sweating). Mammals with big ears can radiate heat better and thus have an advantage over those who have smaller ears. There is a trade off here for how big you can go before it becomes costly to the species however.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 there are multiple processes that can lead to Mutation, the most basic and understood would be radiation, we live our lives constantly surrounded by background radiation and despite new artificial types of background radiation, natural levels are still larger then what we as humanity produce artificially.
Radiation occasionally interferes with (or is absorbed by) our genes and can change the base genome. The same process could create potential harmful effects too, like a neoplasm.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Mutation is the process assumed, but addition of information in the form of coded protein sequences has never been observed, not even close. That is a the BIG problem with Evolution, do you understand?
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 .. You do realize that Genes encode for protein structures and that by altering the genes you alter the proteins being produced right?
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Yes, lol! I am not trying to be rude, but you simply do not understand enough about genetics to answer my question. And man...I just finished 3 days of schooling someone on this topic until he finally caved, I do not want to do it again. Read back a several posts, when you understand what I am talking about, or learn more.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Don't care. I understand enough to know that what you are asking seems almost like a red herring. And what it appears that you are arguing against is Novel Mutations.
Which I can give you one.
Nylonase. Nylonase is an enzyme that is used by a type of bacterium that can break down Nylon so that it can be used for food stuffs. This particular enzyme was produced by a single insertion into the bacteriums genome.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 and who do you think you schooled? most of what I see is you going on horrible assertions and people pointing out your fallacies shortly before you invoke tangents either calling Evolution a "Religion" or trying to peg Evolution as reliant on Abiogenesis, which it is not. If I had to say what realistically is seen, is you getting repeatably schooled but recoiling into Denialism and tangents as you have no where else to go on many issues that you raise.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 I am sure you have good intentions, I am not trying to be mean, or an asshole, i promise
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I doubt your intentions. Thus far you have done nothing but the opposite.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 He's probably explain it if you explained what you refer to when saying "environmental specific information"
pjnlsn 10 months ago
@sabertooth1980 "Abiogenesis"="creation story"
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 Uh No. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory all together. That's about how life began. Evolution is about what happens afterward.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Haha, I know that, but they are inseparable, dumbass!
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I'm guessing you haven't heard of panspermia have you?
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 Answer my question genius, quit dodging.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I'm starting to wonder if you creationists aren't just all the same person. After a while of argumentation with you, the lines of what you are arguing become like an advert for some product that we don't need or want. The jingle is the same and we start recognizing the words.
Yet.
You bring it out as if it were something brand new. Then you tote it around, add some catch phases, try to appeal to the masses and when that doesn't work result to personal insults. Repeat.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 No, they aren't. The theory of evolution was being developed before anyone had much considered the beginning.
pjnlsn 10 months ago
@tcgreen11 " Evolution has its own creation story". Erm no it doesn't. I suspect you are referring to Abiogenesis but I understand that name might escape you, I can assure you that Evolution does not need Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis does not need Evolution, they both focus in completely different areas. Abiogenesis concerns itself with how life begun, Evolution only concerns itself to the variety of life, not how it began.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
given how this has already been mentioned and it appears to escape you. I work primarily with computers, now if I were to say build a computer, I would take (in a minimum build) a motherboard, a CPU, RAM, Hard Drive(s) and a case and I would assemble these.
For this process I do not need to understand the process of Doping Silicon which was used essentially in the manufacture of all these components and yet I can swap most of the components easily to get a fundamentally different machine.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Evolution is about this latter example, it is about gradually changing the pieces to get different results, Abiogenesis on the other hand concerns it self as being a potential method of doping silicon. I hope you can understand this Metaphor but something tells me you either not understand it, or just deny it outright, even tho it is very accurate of the situation in hand.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance Have I mentioned your awesomeness at anytime? Cause I think I have neglected doing so..
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 I couldn't say I would remember if you had, I appreciate the comment but I am a relatively* humble person and forget about compliments fairly quickly ^^;;. After all, bloated egos do little for the truth but a lot for themselves ;). I still have a bit of ego tho, as we all do, else we'd all have no confidence.
*is it humble to say you are humble? I doubt it but it's the only word I can describe it by!
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 I'd say you were blindly in Denialism. Most of what you seem to produce is based either off of Misconceptions, Lies or Quote Mines and there is only two ways to get those. To research with a Bias, finding what you want to find, be it truthful or not, or to rely on the works of others, searching around people's work who have already found these things on your behalf. That doesn't change the fact however you seem to a lack of understanding about Evolution and Science.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)" - Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology, 3 (1977): 115-151. (p. 147)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 firstly all those on there is no smooth intermediates are supportive of punctuated equilibrium, a separate mechanism for evolution and is in no way saying that this disproves evolution...(change in allele frequency in the gene pool over time)...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 also, why are there are almost no animals exactly the same as today in the fossil record billions of ears ago...where are all the snakes in the precambrian...please also note, we are currently finding more and more fossils, and these lineages are getting more complete...They have found 11 species from the dog like creature to the whale like creature...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 yeah, and leave out, "Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor."
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel,. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism..: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes", t - Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 again, these is a criticism of natural selection not evolution...try harder...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 bowler is a lexicologist, woodroff was talking about punctuated equilibrium, the part you did not quote, "An alternative model of evolution, that of punctuated equilibria, introduced by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970s, more fully accounts for these same observations."
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi The fossil record should produce mosiac fossils in mass, distinguishable intermediaries abundantly, and at LEAST A FEW smooth transitional examples, for gradual evolution to be true. This is cannot be denied! We find THOUSANDS of fossils every year, we have MILLIONS in storage rooms and museums, but not a SINGLE example of a smooth transitional fossil set, period! The problem; given the nature of Evolution, and the rate of fossilization, they should be in abundance.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi one designer would use one type?? oh really?? so you are a designer? what have you created from nothing?the fact that our designer created us and everything else in this world and beyond with such complexity and variety shows the very essence of Him and that is we humans can not even grasp how complex things are with our pathetic brain capacity. it's funny when i hear atheists,doctors etc.. try and know how God does things lol it makes me laugh
MrDathon1577 1 year ago
@MrDathon1577 okay...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@MrDathon1577 Just on a side note, it's obvious you have watched a lot of donexodus type videos. You are a follower, and here is why; the "hierarchy" of genes...is a model. a model. a theoretical MODEL. Do you understand the significance of that? The model is built by using circular reasoning, and conjecture eg. we see A and because of our theory, we logically ASSUME A was brought about by C, you can figure the rest. WE DO NOT HAVE CLUE, as to the entire finction of any DNA sequence.
tcgreen11 1 year ago
@tcgreen11 actually, i have been reading the textbook, but oh well...And i think brpierce actually answered most of your questions...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago