What happens when the predator evolves its vision to be able to see all the DarBabies? Maybe this is why predator birds have such great vision, to stop those little shits from hiding.
Sounds more like a mechanism to equilibrium to me than evolution.
Hi, Videos are really great and enlightening. I know that this video does not want to deal with the Q of "Intelligent Design". But I am curious that why is that "mating is random". Because natural selection involves making mating decisions which are intelligent. May be this is highly complex random process as discussed in "Complexity". Humans themselves have evolved technologically which is due to so called "Intelligence". Can you throw some light or pointers to this. thanks.
@jhonnygilbert Of course mating is NOT random in the real world. But this video is demonstrating that natural selection ALL BY ITSELF is sufficient to drive evolution in a direction to fit the environment. Intelligent Design is not science in any way and should be discussed in a Theology forum and not a science education setting.
@cassiopeiaproject hi, thanks for ur reply. When I said Intelligent Desing I did not mean anything supernatural or "existence of God". All I wanted to know is what is the scientific reason of apparently Intelligent beings or systems like how do beings know which mates are suitable in an environment? How does cells know how to replicate? How do we have "fear" and "greed" to increase our chances of survival etc. Thanks.in advance.
The main problem with this model of evolution is that it is too slow to be practical. In geological history, the most significant leaps of evoltution are made during calamity. In Atavism we see that the DNA of previous forms are intact but switched off. in Epigenetics is is observed DNA can change in real time. In theory, it is possible for an entire species to change completely in just one generation through the epigenetic model. Which random mutation models would not allow.
In short, the idea that random mutation can give rise to all we see is really an out dated model based more on assumptions than facts. It is folly to call any theory a "fact" because in science nothing is proven, only supported. While there is enough evidence to suggest that some random mutation has a role, it can be observed that in periods of rapid evolution there were natural disasters that happened at a speed mutation alone could not solve. The Epigenetic Model, however, can be observed.
@Elliandr ''In short, the idea that random mutation can give rise to all we see is really an out dated model based more on assumptions than facts''
So where does new genetic information come from? If you say ''viri'' or ''epigenetics'' I will simply ask the same question again. The ultimate source of new genes is mutation.
@TheProf1988 That depends on your definition of mutation. The problem with the current theory of evolution is that it assumes everything is random when it is not. Think about that for a moment: If we can show, in the lab, that a gene is switched on and off in real time based on environmental conditions and that these new traits are then passed on to off-spring which has the ultimate impact of changing a species, why would anyone support a theory of random mutation which can't be demonstrated?
@Elliandr '' That depends on your definition of mutation''
*my* definition of mutation? What one are YOU working to?
''why would anyone support a theory of random mutation which can't be demonstrated?''
Time to go back to books. Either that or learn the nuances of the word ''random'', strictly speaking I think only radioactive decay is random. We simply use the word random to describe a process with many variables, such as mutation.
@TheProf1988 Actually, mutation is random. The whole premise here taught in schools which is also presented in this video is that the mutations are random and that certain traits survive, such as in the case of a the color predation example.
However, there is a very important fact to consider: Atavism. Look it up. See, when new traits develop, the old traits are still there. The genes are off, but they are present. With Epigenetics, an entire species can change completely in 1 generation.
@TheProf1988 To answer your question of what the new genetic information comes from, I should explain how simple human DNA is. There are some 22k Genes and each Gene does many things. It is the combination of many genes that forms an expression. (An "eye" might include genes for pigment, numerous proteins, etc.) When we say "new trait" it actually doesn't require a new DNA sequence. It only requires that the current sequence be interpreted differently through the switching of genes on and off.
@TheProf1988 Also, there is evidence that these Methyl markers are actually required for Genes to be expressed at all. The Human body has about 50 thousand different proteins but less than half that many genes. Fractal Geometry can demonstrate why it requires very little genetic information for the levels of complexity so all of nature follows a simple set of math problems (i.e. the veins may appear complex but follow a single pattern) but without a layer of "software" the DNA "hardware" fails.
@Elliandr ''Fractal Geometry can demonstrate why it requires very little genetic information for the levels of complexity''
Please don't lecture me on off topic tangents. If you really wish to discuss this subject further why not send me a single PM instead of 8 comments. This is a COMPLETELY off topic post.
@TheProf1988 Actually, it's completely on point. The point being the way genetic information works. and no, I don't think I will PM you. This isn't even directed at one person.
Also, other traits are often introduced by Virus. Although most people like to think that traits from one species does not normally cross into another, that idea is wrong. It works allot like gene therapy, only it is sort of random. If a Virus makes a cell produce another virus, sometimes DNA from the host remains intact within the virus which can then be introduced into another individual. In this way, for example, eyes can "evolve" independently where a common ancestor didn't have eyes.
The field of Epigenetics has to some degree dis-proven this model of Evolution. Around the time of Darwin there was a competing theory that simply stated that the Giraffe has a long neck because it needed it. In Epigenetics it has been shown that genes are switched on and off in real time in response to one's environment. These methyl markers also change the way genes are interpreted. Some minor traits could be explained in this way but not all. Most are the result of this real time adaptation.
@Elliandr ''The field of Epigenetics has to some degree dis-proven this model of Evolution''
Modern evolution is a synthesis of many models, with natural selection being just on of them. Epigenetics does not falsify evolution just like endosymbiotic theory did not, it was simply brought into the fold. To dispove evolution one would need to disprove descent with inherited genetic modification, and epigenetic studies clearly support this statement.
@TheProf1988 I didn't say it falsified evolution. I said, as you have quoted "THIS model of Evolution" - being the idea that it is all completely random. Which has, clearly, been dis-proven. It is silly to hold onto a theory which lacks evidence when a better model has already come along.
@Elliandr '' It is silly to hold onto a theory which lacks evidence when a better model has already come along.''
How would you introduce people to evolution, schoolchildren, for example? They simply aren't going to comprehend concepts like epigenetics, phylogenetics or endosymbiosis. II think you are too anal for youtube, if you would like to discuss higher level biology then go to a dedicated biology forum.
I read some paper discussing that age is part of the "evolution" step, if older species do not die or have really long life then they will be competing with the younger of the species and since they have the big advantage of experience they will outperform the younger in finding food, etc. So it is in a way a result of evolution to allow the younger of the species to be able to compete.
@Vesania83 It was done for this simplified example. However, you are right. Some species actually select their mates, and this helps to further accelerate the beneficial mutations since an individual would want to mate with the best candidate with the best genes (stronger, faster, bigger, more competitive).
There are many factors involved in aging. And the topic is vast. But here are four important ones that you can search on to find some answers... oxidative stress, glycation, telomere shortening, and finally your genes. Longevity runs in families.
Poodles and bulldogs can interbreed and have fertile offspring, so they are the same species. When enough changes accumulate so that organisms can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring -- that's usually when they are deemed to be different species.
We focused on a single trait and a single environmental pressure and watched the DNA change. In real organisms, every trait undergoes similar pressure from the environment. Change enough traits, change enough DNA, and you have a new species. At first, it is just color or size or shape of the nose -- like poodles and bulldogs. But given enough time, you get foxes and wolves -- different species.
Wait, did one of those Darbabies in the first generation mate with itself?
It's obvious from some of the other connections that they have to be hermaphroditic, but even most natural hermaphrodites avoid self fertilization. Of course, being that picky isn't required for a demonstration of the process, I just thought it was strange.
look at the video titled "no mechanism for evolution part 1,2,3. Small changes over billions of years to reach this outcome? There are genetic limitations. Physical alterations on a person in an environment is not passed on, secondly, even if small changes could occur over billions of years, the process is so random , how could you expect millions of fully functional and distinct species to emerge? Origin of life? Hogwash! Got blind faith in baffled scientists interpretation of reality! Sucks
there are no genetic limitations, i have studied this kind of thing in institutions that know what they are talking about- youtube videos claiming absurdities are not going to change what can empirically demonstrated.
no, physical alterations are not passed on but genetic mutations in germ cells ARE passed on. Mutation is random but the selection process is the opposite of random; it is deterministic.
We can measure, test and confirm evolution. No faith is needed.
@TheProf1988 Actually, I see no reason why creationism and evolution necessarily has to contradict. To my knowledge the Bible doesn't specifically say how God did it. Only what God made it out of. Nor does it define how long it took (the Hebrew word for 'day" means 'period of time' which is very vague). The debate has less to do with creation vs. evolution as it is a debate between spontaneous generation and evolution, which was an old scientific model no longer accepted and in no way religious.
@Elliandr creationism, by it's own admission, is anti-evolution (more properly it is defined as a denial of modern science). The Bible clearly states the Hebrew word for ''passage of time'' in conjuction with words like ''morning'', contextually this means that ''yom'' can only be referring to a day scale in genesis. There is no debate between spontaneous generation and evolution.
@TheProf1988 *deep sigh* No. Creationism is an open ended concept that can mean many things based on individual beliefs. My point there is that in no way shape or form does any religion at all claim to define in any of it's scripture exactly how this was done. That being said, there is nothing in any scripture that would specifically contradict the idea that "creation" can be a gradual process of guidance. And no, Hebrew words mean different things based on their context. You can't blanket it.
@Elliandr '' *deep sigh* No. Creationism is ... does any religion ''
Deep sigh back. Creationism =/= religion. Creationism IS a denial of modern science, whether it be from a religious or non-religious standpoint. This is its very definition by admission of BOTH sides of the debate.
@TheProf1988 No, once again. look at the history books. The were once a theory called "Spontanious Manifestation" which was, in fact, based on scientific observations. It was, for a time, the best theory available based on the observations. With the development of Microscopes and an improved ability to observe, this idea fell away. With the emergence of genetic observations and the knowledge of random mutation, Darwin's theory won out. For a time. It's all science. But not always correct.
@Elliandr Spontanious Manifestation has never beeen a scientific theory. It came from medeval times and no one actually really bothered checking it until Louis Pasteur.
Advanced scientific theories are never completely disproved, that's what makes them useful. They only can be disproved partially or be upgrated. Evolution will never be disproved, just like Newton's law of gravity.
@TheProf1988 Although, when combined with the words "evening and morning" Yom can be interpreted to be a 24-hour period, remember that the context can also be subjective. Even in English "Morning" doesn't have to refer to a 24-hour day. We might say "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" to refer to a beginning. So Yom can mean an Epoch in Earth's history. My point still remains: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY contradict Evolution. It's too subjective. Some interpretations might, but scripture doesn't.
@Elliandr ''My point still remains: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY contradict Evolution''
The genesis account of creation is a direct denial of what modern science has to say about cosmology, geoscience and evolution. No amount of dancing through hoops, bending over backwards and simpering apologetics can ever change that.
@TheProf1988 Also... lol... suppose we assume it was a literal day and night. Whose day and night? The Earth didn't always have a 24 hour day. And there are many other planets. Heck, the whole Galaxy has a day and night based on the Galactic center. Sure, we might assume an Earth day - but how does one measure time before time began? See? It's way too subjective... Personally, I am a Pantheist. I believe the universe as a whole is Divine and it is a process. But I study many religions.
@Elliandr ''Also... lol... suppose ...center. Sure, we might assume an Earth day ... how does one measure time before time began?''
I can't describe how much fail is in this comment. I'm blocking you now, I wish I had read this comment first and I wouldn't have bothered replying to the others. Don't bother replying because I will not be alerted if you do.
@TheProf1988 LMAO! ok. you do that. That's typically what people do when they disagree with an argument. And I really don't care if you respond. These are my ideas and observations and, as I recall, you replied to me first for most of it.
But on a more serious note, to any reading: The length of a day is based on the rotation of the earth. The rotation of the earth is based on the tilt of the axis and the presence of absence of a moon. These factors change, even today, so one can't measure it
What happens when the predator evolves its vision to be able to see all the DarBabies? Maybe this is why predator birds have such great vision, to stop those little shits from hiding.
Sounds more like a mechanism to equilibrium to me than evolution.
TCupUK 4 months ago
Hi, Videos are really great and enlightening. I know that this video does not want to deal with the Q of "Intelligent Design". But I am curious that why is that "mating is random". Because natural selection involves making mating decisions which are intelligent. May be this is highly complex random process as discussed in "Complexity". Humans themselves have evolved technologically which is due to so called "Intelligence". Can you throw some light or pointers to this. thanks.
jhonnygilbert 6 months ago
@jhonnygilbert Of course mating is NOT random in the real world. But this video is demonstrating that natural selection ALL BY ITSELF is sufficient to drive evolution in a direction to fit the environment. Intelligent Design is not science in any way and should be discussed in a Theology forum and not a science education setting.
cassiopeiaproject 6 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject hi, thanks for ur reply. When I said Intelligent Desing I did not mean anything supernatural or "existence of God". All I wanted to know is what is the scientific reason of apparently Intelligent beings or systems like how do beings know which mates are suitable in an environment? How does cells know how to replicate? How do we have "fear" and "greed" to increase our chances of survival etc. Thanks.in advance.
jhonnygilbert 6 months ago
Holy crow am I enthralled by that. Some of your videos such as this one are SO exciting! Keep posting, this stuff is really cool.
Xadreos 6 months ago
Dar babies. All that needs to be said lol.
KoopaKontroller 11 months ago
The main problem with this model of evolution is that it is too slow to be practical. In geological history, the most significant leaps of evoltution are made during calamity. In Atavism we see that the DNA of previous forms are intact but switched off. in Epigenetics is is observed DNA can change in real time. In theory, it is possible for an entire species to change completely in just one generation through the epigenetic model. Which random mutation models would not allow.
Elliandr 1 year ago
In short, the idea that random mutation can give rise to all we see is really an out dated model based more on assumptions than facts. It is folly to call any theory a "fact" because in science nothing is proven, only supported. While there is enough evidence to suggest that some random mutation has a role, it can be observed that in periods of rapid evolution there were natural disasters that happened at a speed mutation alone could not solve. The Epigenetic Model, however, can be observed.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr ''In short, the idea that random mutation can give rise to all we see is really an out dated model based more on assumptions than facts''
So where does new genetic information come from? If you say ''viri'' or ''epigenetics'' I will simply ask the same question again. The ultimate source of new genes is mutation.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 That depends on your definition of mutation. The problem with the current theory of evolution is that it assumes everything is random when it is not. Think about that for a moment: If we can show, in the lab, that a gene is switched on and off in real time based on environmental conditions and that these new traits are then passed on to off-spring which has the ultimate impact of changing a species, why would anyone support a theory of random mutation which can't be demonstrated?
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr '' That depends on your definition of mutation''
*my* definition of mutation? What one are YOU working to?
''why would anyone support a theory of random mutation which can't be demonstrated?''
Time to go back to books. Either that or learn the nuances of the word ''random'', strictly speaking I think only radioactive decay is random. We simply use the word random to describe a process with many variables, such as mutation.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 Actually, mutation is random. The whole premise here taught in schools which is also presented in this video is that the mutations are random and that certain traits survive, such as in the case of a the color predation example.
However, there is a very important fact to consider: Atavism. Look it up. See, when new traits develop, the old traits are still there. The genes are off, but they are present. With Epigenetics, an entire species can change completely in 1 generation.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 To answer your question of what the new genetic information comes from, I should explain how simple human DNA is. There are some 22k Genes and each Gene does many things. It is the combination of many genes that forms an expression. (An "eye" might include genes for pigment, numerous proteins, etc.) When we say "new trait" it actually doesn't require a new DNA sequence. It only requires that the current sequence be interpreted differently through the switching of genes on and off.
Elliandr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elliandr ''how simple human DNA is.''
Hmmm, NO! Chromosomes (and by extention, DNA) are HUGE and complex structures. It is NOT a simple molecule.
''Also, there is evidence that these Methyl markers are actually required for Genes to be expressed at all.''
Where is the ORIGIN of the genes? Ultimately it is mutation!
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 Also, there is evidence that these Methyl markers are actually required for Genes to be expressed at all. The Human body has about 50 thousand different proteins but less than half that many genes. Fractal Geometry can demonstrate why it requires very little genetic information for the levels of complexity so all of nature follows a simple set of math problems (i.e. the veins may appear complex but follow a single pattern) but without a layer of "software" the DNA "hardware" fails.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr ''Fractal Geometry can demonstrate why it requires very little genetic information for the levels of complexity''
Please don't lecture me on off topic tangents. If you really wish to discuss this subject further why not send me a single PM instead of 8 comments. This is a COMPLETELY off topic post.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 Actually, it's completely on point. The point being the way genetic information works. and no, I don't think I will PM you. This isn't even directed at one person.
Elliandr 1 year ago
Also, other traits are often introduced by Virus. Although most people like to think that traits from one species does not normally cross into another, that idea is wrong. It works allot like gene therapy, only it is sort of random. If a Virus makes a cell produce another virus, sometimes DNA from the host remains intact within the virus which can then be introduced into another individual. In this way, for example, eyes can "evolve" independently where a common ancestor didn't have eyes.
Elliandr 1 year ago
The field of Epigenetics has to some degree dis-proven this model of Evolution. Around the time of Darwin there was a competing theory that simply stated that the Giraffe has a long neck because it needed it. In Epigenetics it has been shown that genes are switched on and off in real time in response to one's environment. These methyl markers also change the way genes are interpreted. Some minor traits could be explained in this way but not all. Most are the result of this real time adaptation.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr ''The field of Epigenetics has to some degree dis-proven this model of Evolution''
Modern evolution is a synthesis of many models, with natural selection being just on of them. Epigenetics does not falsify evolution just like endosymbiotic theory did not, it was simply brought into the fold. To dispove evolution one would need to disprove descent with inherited genetic modification, and epigenetic studies clearly support this statement.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 I didn't say it falsified evolution. I said, as you have quoted "THIS model of Evolution" - being the idea that it is all completely random. Which has, clearly, been dis-proven. It is silly to hold onto a theory which lacks evidence when a better model has already come along.
Elliandr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elliandr '' It is silly to hold onto a theory which lacks evidence when a better model has already come along.''
How would you introduce people to evolution, schoolchildren, for example? They simply aren't going to comprehend concepts like epigenetics, phylogenetics or endosymbiosis. II think you are too anal for youtube, if you would like to discuss higher level biology then go to a dedicated biology forum.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
I read some paper discussing that age is part of the "evolution" step, if older species do not die or have really long life then they will be competing with the younger of the species and since they have the big advantage of experience they will outperform the younger in finding food, etc. So it is in a way a result of evolution to allow the younger of the species to be able to compete.
ScriabinFanatic 2 years ago
Wow, cdk007 got a shout out? Neat XD
Deioth 2 years ago
Great video! I think the Darbabies simulation was a very concise model that illustrates the key variables in evolution! :D
UndeadTheta 2 years ago
"mating is totally random" this is not the case in nature
Vesania83 2 years ago
@Vesania83 It was done for this simplified example. However, you are right. Some species actually select their mates, and this helps to further accelerate the beneficial mutations since an individual would want to mate with the best candidate with the best genes (stronger, faster, bigger, more competitive).
ajwright85 1 year ago
@ajwright85 I know, I study biology ;)
Vesania83 1 year ago
The music is nice. What song is it?
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
When they "mate," I like the little noise that goes along with it. Hehe.
Axer2012 2 years ago 6
so what came first, the chicken or the egg?
nice video!
NaturalUniverse101 2 years ago
good sim
RickysaurusNY 2 years ago
excellent video
tblood33 2 years ago
There are many factors involved in aging. And the topic is vast. But here are four important ones that you can search on to find some answers... oxidative stress, glycation, telomere shortening, and finally your genes. Longevity runs in families.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Thx for the explanation...
Now I get it. More different in DNA, result in new species like poddles and bulldogs are also different species (?)
Great videos with easy explanation..
ilikekickassidea 2 years ago
Poodles and bulldogs can interbreed and have fertile offspring, so they are the same species. When enough changes accumulate so that organisms can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring -- that's usually when they are deemed to be different species.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
But its just the color right, not a new species.
You try to explain how a new species evolve, but I didn't get it..
ilikekickassidea 2 years ago
We focused on a single trait and a single environmental pressure and watched the DNA change. In real organisms, every trait undergoes similar pressure from the environment. Change enough traits, change enough DNA, and you have a new species. At first, it is just color or size or shape of the nose -- like poodles and bulldogs. But given enough time, you get foxes and wolves -- different species.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago 5
@ilikekickassidea dont give up on trying to understand....you will get it sooner or later get it.....
barakameek 11 months ago
Fantastic video. Sorry you got votebotted.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
Wait, did one of those Darbabies in the first generation mate with itself?
It's obvious from some of the other connections that they have to be hermaphroditic, but even most natural hermaphrodites avoid self fertilization. Of course, being that picky isn't required for a demonstration of the process, I just thought it was strange.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
The same way Adams sons found wives.
gregrutz 2 years ago
So, you're saying that Abel was a self fertilizing hermaphrodite?
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
this video was only spammed because it was so good. sorry creationists- YOU LOSE!
TheProf1988 2 years ago
look at the video titled "no mechanism for evolution part 1,2,3. Small changes over billions of years to reach this outcome? There are genetic limitations. Physical alterations on a person in an environment is not passed on, secondly, even if small changes could occur over billions of years, the process is so random , how could you expect millions of fully functional and distinct species to emerge? Origin of life? Hogwash! Got blind faith in baffled scientists interpretation of reality! Sucks
soulsearch1234 2 years ago
there are no genetic limitations, i have studied this kind of thing in institutions that know what they are talking about- youtube videos claiming absurdities are not going to change what can empirically demonstrated.
no, physical alterations are not passed on but genetic mutations in germ cells ARE passed on. Mutation is random but the selection process is the opposite of random; it is deterministic.
We can measure, test and confirm evolution. No faith is needed.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
@TheProf1988 Actually, I see no reason why creationism and evolution necessarily has to contradict. To my knowledge the Bible doesn't specifically say how God did it. Only what God made it out of. Nor does it define how long it took (the Hebrew word for 'day" means 'period of time' which is very vague). The debate has less to do with creation vs. evolution as it is a debate between spontaneous generation and evolution, which was an old scientific model no longer accepted and in no way religious.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr creationism, by it's own admission, is anti-evolution (more properly it is defined as a denial of modern science). The Bible clearly states the Hebrew word for ''passage of time'' in conjuction with words like ''morning'', contextually this means that ''yom'' can only be referring to a day scale in genesis. There is no debate between spontaneous generation and evolution.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 *deep sigh* No. Creationism is an open ended concept that can mean many things based on individual beliefs. My point there is that in no way shape or form does any religion at all claim to define in any of it's scripture exactly how this was done. That being said, there is nothing in any scripture that would specifically contradict the idea that "creation" can be a gradual process of guidance. And no, Hebrew words mean different things based on their context. You can't blanket it.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr '' *deep sigh* No. Creationism is ... does any religion ''
Deep sigh back. Creationism =/= religion. Creationism IS a denial of modern science, whether it be from a religious or non-religious standpoint. This is its very definition by admission of BOTH sides of the debate.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 No, once again. look at the history books. The were once a theory called "Spontanious Manifestation" which was, in fact, based on scientific observations. It was, for a time, the best theory available based on the observations. With the development of Microscopes and an improved ability to observe, this idea fell away. With the emergence of genetic observations and the knowledge of random mutation, Darwin's theory won out. For a time. It's all science. But not always correct.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr Spontanious Manifestation has never beeen a scientific theory. It came from medeval times and no one actually really bothered checking it until Louis Pasteur.
Advanced scientific theories are never completely disproved, that's what makes them useful. They only can be disproved partially or be upgrated. Evolution will never be disproved, just like Newton's law of gravity.
vldmr0tube 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 Although, when combined with the words "evening and morning" Yom can be interpreted to be a 24-hour period, remember that the context can also be subjective. Even in English "Morning" doesn't have to refer to a 24-hour day. We might say "Dawn of the Dinosaurs" to refer to a beginning. So Yom can mean an Epoch in Earth's history. My point still remains: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY contradict Evolution. It's too subjective. Some interpretations might, but scripture doesn't.
Elliandr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elliandr ''My point still remains: it doesn't SPECIFICALLY contradict Evolution''
The genesis account of creation is a direct denial of what modern science has to say about cosmology, geoscience and evolution. No amount of dancing through hoops, bending over backwards and simpering apologetics can ever change that.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 Also... lol... suppose we assume it was a literal day and night. Whose day and night? The Earth didn't always have a 24 hour day. And there are many other planets. Heck, the whole Galaxy has a day and night based on the Galactic center. Sure, we might assume an Earth day - but how does one measure time before time began? See? It's way too subjective... Personally, I am a Pantheist. I believe the universe as a whole is Divine and it is a process. But I study many religions.
Elliandr 1 year ago
@Elliandr ''Also... lol... suppose ...center. Sure, we might assume an Earth day ... how does one measure time before time began?''
I can't describe how much fail is in this comment. I'm blocking you now, I wish I had read this comment first and I wouldn't have bothered replying to the others. Don't bother replying because I will not be alerted if you do.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988 LMAO! ok. you do that. That's typically what people do when they disagree with an argument. And I really don't care if you respond. These are my ideas and observations and, as I recall, you replied to me first for most of it.
But on a more serious note, to any reading: The length of a day is based on the rotation of the earth. The rotation of the earth is based on the tilt of the axis and the presence of absence of a moon. These factors change, even today, so one can't measure it
Elliandr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=3SUwMbyNQz8
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video is really similar to a cdk007 video i think this video is based off it
FireStorm821 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
excellet set of sci-videos
h1t10 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very well explained. However in reality, the predator goes trough a evolution too, as long as his only food source are DarBabies.
MrCalhoun 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW great video. The conclusion is, the ppl become more and more cuty :)
magnetismewave 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great 2 videos !!
AbtryZenfix9 3 years ago