Did you ever think about how the little gummie worms you eat have an impact on life? Let's trace the origin of the gelatine in them! (^__^)' Gelatine is extracted from live stock. The live stock is fed with cheap carbohydrates achieved through the mass plantation of soy beans and other stuff. These mass plantations need insane amounts of water. The live stock cattle consumes even more insane amounts of water.
The people working on the live stock and cheap feed are ironically so poor as they have no constant access to nor water, food or shelter etc. Over time these humans are suffering from starvation and disease. The little worms cause massive chaos and death in this world amongst animals AND humans. Yet we don't care because our minds are enslaved. Cool shit, huh? ;D
When did I ever say that if one does not believe in evolution, the beauty of life cannot be appreciated? That would be a ridiculous thing to say. If I came across in that manner, then I sincerely apologize.
I mean to argue that there is a deeper beauty to every mystery we behold within our universe. There is a deeper beauty to stars than simple twinkling specs, there is a deeper beauty to grass than just small blades of green. It is an understanding of why things are the way they are.
Well said F.E.-59, I concur. Understanding adds beauty and meaning.
Consider that we are all products of an unbroken chain of descent from a common ancestor of the unfathomably distant past ( I say "unfathomably" because given our relatively short time on earth we have a difficult time really understanding such a vast amount of time). Makes a person feel pretty lucky, incredibly, amazingly lucky to have the opportunity, nay the privilege to exist and experience life, WOO HOO !!
taking a look at the word atheism, i don't think it even makes comments on supernatural beings, since (as far as i can tell) it literally just means "without god(s)"
k, im rather up to physics than biology, but here are my 2 cents:
micro and macroevolution are observed.
for macroevolution, an organism with a short lifespam and quick reproduction rate set in an isolated system under highly selective pressure should do the trick
however, before it gets ugly: what definition to use as base?
Speciation has been observed. Allelic fluctuations can be predicted. It's difficult, not always feasible, but keep in mind evolution is contingent. A basic course in population genetics will tell you this.
Breeding is not synonymous with microevolution. First, scientists hardly ever differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution in professional papers. Second, when they do, microevolution is a reference to taxonomic classification.
Also, in response to those wondering why many get 'so worked up', the answer is simple. Biology is a true appreciation of the beauty of life, just as astronomy is a true appreciation of the beauty of the universe. To deny evolution is indirectly deny a vast number of intersubjective biological disciplines. It threatens this appreciation.
More importantly, this debate pertains to education. We live in a complex society that requires scientific literacy to function. (cont.)
Creationism and intelligent design seek to completely redefine the scientific method. Evolution is built upon observation, experimentation, and theoretical examination, just as all important scientific theories are. It has been resoundingly supported by the scientific community. It is the basis for biology. Undermining education in evolution threatens scientific education as a whole. Not only that, it denies a student's right to an understanding of their history.
"creationism and intelligent design seek to completely redefine the scientific method"
This is a baseless claim , and circular argument , i could say the darwinism is looking to redefine science , like dawkins said in his book even if there is no evidence for evolution we still must accept it because its the only scientific theory =p Who are you kidding ??
Why is it that I am automatically obligated to accept every single claim by an evolutionary biologist because we so happen to support the same scientific theory? I have a great level of respect for Dawkins because of his contributions to the evolutionary study of animal behavior, but I do believe he can be far too extreme in his defense of evolution.
My claim isn't baseless. Neither intelligent design nor creationism have any interest in peer-review, hypothesis, experimentation, or theory.
the basis for biology is life comes from life , period. Darwinism fails when it gets to this part , they cry we dont deal with abiogensis , which i understand . Abiogensis has not been answered yet and many tests have failed , i dont blame the scientific community for keeping away . But once they do answer abiogensis watch the evolutionsts use that in ever argument majically =p
Abiogenesis is chemical evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Although it is certainly apt to apply the adaptive mechanism of natural selection to chemical evolution, we cannot integrate genetic drift or any theoretical models for the evolutionary process within the framework for abiogenesis. The origin of life, in its very rudimentary stages, is much more chemical than it is biological.
"it denies a students right to an understanding of their history"
You mean one version of there history , why not let them make there own choices and not try and sell the evolution story like its conclusive lol who are you kidding ? your self ? the youtube commentors? Keep up with your fairy tale , maybe one day you can come up and predict to me the next possible major speciation out of all the enviromental factors we can factor in today?
Evolution is a biological explanation for the adaptation and diversity of life. In no way does it inform our understanding of the origin of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, or even our planet. There are scientific explanations behind these mysteries as well.
I do agree that we need a more philosophically and theologically informed society. However, scientific explanations should be offered in science classes. We're aware of the scientific consensus regarding evolution.
Please dont let guys like this mislead you , they are indoctrinated with one version and they think thats it . Science doesnt get it wrong lol . Just like religious people who get extreme and hijack religion , clowns like this hijack science in the name of truth . Its scienism Vs Religionism =D its sick and disgusting please keep an open mind to both sides of debate ! and continue your reserach!
By astronomy, you should mean 'astrobiology'. Astronomy and evolution are completely separate fields. They only hold mutual significance in astrobiology. As for paleontology, some of the most robust theoretical work has come out of paleontology. Radiometric data is only 'evolution's friend' when understood and not misinterpreted. Evolutionists, or evolutionary biologists, have their disagreements. Disagreement drives science. Science isn't meant to inform morality. Evolution has been observed.
"we live in a complex society that requires scientific literacy to function"
Actually skipper we live in a materlistic era , and science deals with the material world , thats why the world is hostage to this evolution theory , because most of the claimed evidence is on the bio level, which average joes have no clue about so they can sell whatever. Once we hit the era of subconscience and conscience then scienctists will be humble =p
The idea that evolution leads directly to materialism is at odds with the many theistic evolutionists that have gained popularity in recent years. However, the polarization between science and religion (influenced by poor books like The God Delusion and the End of Faith) has created a reactionary effect among the general public. Please don't think I am an arrogant atheist or agnostic who only supports evolution because I think it justifies anti-religion. It doesn't to the extent many believe.
Incidentally, the field of evolutionary psychology has driven a great level of insight into studying the conscious and subconscious. I'm sure you would agree that it's a very interesting biological phenomenon, and requires a great level of research. Some might argue we haven't even scratched the surface of the issue. However, ignorance does not justify the rejection of a scientific theory.
@flyingEvolutionst Genetics is not evolution's friend Statistics is not evolutions friend Biochemistry is not evolutions friend Information theory is not evolutions friend Physics is not evolutions friend Astronomy is not evolutions friend Palentology is not evolutions friend Radiometric dating is not evolutions friend Evolutionists are not evolutions friend Morality is not evolutions friend Observation is not evolutions friend Msg me for info to back these claims up :D :D
Genetics has revolutionized our understanding of selection's directionality. Statistics led to the synthesis of evolution and population biology. Look up the work of Dr. Doolittle (not the writer) to see the incredible way in which evolution and biochemistry interact. Biotechnology is an excellent example of evolution's importance in information theory. Biophysics has been greatly influenced by evolution. (cont.)
Good job - speciation does take a very long period of time. That's why we have deductive examples of speciation taking place over hundreds of years, where historical records and current observations allow us to conclude a speciation event. In other examples, the introduction of a species to a radically new environment - especially in archipelagos - results in a period of rapid diversification. And yes, we have observed this.
Let me clarify: Scientists hardly ever differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution for purposes other than classification. Theoretical evolutionary biology depends on studying evolution at different levels. For example, the debate between the dominance of selection and drift includes a study of small founder populations.
And yes, you are correct in pointing out that evolution takes place in populations and not entire species. I apologize for not making that clear.
One micro we can observe , Macro is part of your fairy tale . Lets ask the 50 million year old shark why he looks the same ? or the 50 million year old bat who looks the same? or perhaps the 125 million year old dragon fly who hasnt changed any form? Evolution sometimes skips right ? even through the trillions of eviromental factors that have taken place in those 50 million years clearly did nothing =p
This response is typical of an individual who has never read any of the literature opposing his views. I don't know if that's true, though it certainly sounds like this is the case.
Taxa can adapt themselves into evolutionary crevices. Although their structure may not be as advantageous as it could be, to further change the structures would result in a temporary period of lower fitness. Evolution doesn't take u-turns. (By the way, you're better off using mollusks as an example.)
The world is not made up of thing. The world is made up of facts.
The world is the totality of facts.
If you want to hear the facts, listen to Ken Miller's lecture right here on YouTube.
He's a breath of fresh air for this debacle between science and religion. He's a christian, but doesn't mix his beliefs with his science. His lecture on you tube can answer perhaps any and all questions people have about the creationism vs evolution debate. He even testified in the Dover trial on this issue
The theory of Evolution is a fact, the word 'theory' in scientific terms is like a set of ideas held in the highest regard possible. Before something becomes a theory it has to be considered the most plausible explanation by the scientific community as a whole.
Creationist science is not science and not even considered to be an alternative.
Now i don't mean that creationism IS scientifically sound, NOR do i mean that it is NOT sound. It simply isn't science.
It's a religious ideology that nit-picks evidence from the science cataloge, and uses it (in much the same way atheist's do) to support their own personal beliefs.
If this is bullocks to you, than equating ANYTHING in science to a religious belief (one way or the other) is equally as absurd.
This has been flagged as spam show
i think this character, and my diva character should hang out lmaooo!!!!
xD!!!
angiedlg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think this character, and my diva character should hang out lmaooo!!!!
xD
angiedlg 1 year ago
i think this character, and my diva character should hang out lmaooo!!!!
xD
angiedlg 1 year ago
ENJOY SUCKING ON YOUR WORMS, BABYYYYYYY!!!
o(^__^)O d(^__^)b
megatroll 1 year ago
Did you ever think about how the little gummie worms you eat have an impact on life? Let's trace the origin of the gelatine in them! (^__^)' Gelatine is extracted from live stock. The live stock is fed with cheap carbohydrates achieved through the mass plantation of soy beans and other stuff. These mass plantations need insane amounts of water. The live stock cattle consumes even more insane amounts of water.
megatroll 1 year ago
The people working on the live stock and cheap feed are ironically so poor as they have no constant access to nor water, food or shelter etc. Over time these humans are suffering from starvation and disease. The little worms cause massive chaos and death in this world amongst animals AND humans. Yet we don't care because our minds are enslaved. Cool shit, huh? ;D
megatroll 1 year ago
wow...too deep for me...i will just follow the gummy worms...
bkptsf 1 year ago
When did I ever say that if one does not believe in evolution, the beauty of life cannot be appreciated? That would be a ridiculous thing to say. If I came across in that manner, then I sincerely apologize.
I mean to argue that there is a deeper beauty to every mystery we behold within our universe. There is a deeper beauty to stars than simple twinkling specs, there is a deeper beauty to grass than just small blades of green. It is an understanding of why things are the way they are.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
Well said F.E.-59, I concur. Understanding adds beauty and meaning.
Consider that we are all products of an unbroken chain of descent from a common ancestor of the unfathomably distant past ( I say "unfathomably" because given our relatively short time on earth we have a difficult time really understanding such a vast amount of time). Makes a person feel pretty lucky, incredibly, amazingly lucky to have the opportunity, nay the privilege to exist and experience life, WOO HOO !!
Jomunrek 1 year ago
There's my buddy; I was wondering where you wandered off too :)
ElanaVital83 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
taking a look at the word atheism, i don't think it even makes comments on supernatural beings, since (as far as i can tell) it literally just means "without god(s)"
k, im rather up to physics than biology, but here are my 2 cents:
micro and macroevolution are observed.
for macroevolution, an organism with a short lifespam and quick reproduction rate set in an isolated system under highly selective pressure should do the trick
however, before it gets ugly: what definition to use as base?
nublered 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hopefully, will work now...
nublered 2 years ago
Comment removed
nublered 2 years ago
Comment removed
nublered 2 years ago
but what about gummy worms????
ElanaVital83 2 years ago
Evolution is nothing more then a silly misunderstanding of adaptation.
There are 6 types of evolution - darwinism is what your talking about
We cannot observe nor predict the next speciation (speciation = one species from another)
We see micro evolution (breeding) but not macro evolution(speciation)
Subscribe to my channel for many science made easy videos , including evolution <3
yourboycal 2 years ago
yourboycall: What a load of of absurd drivel.
Speciation has been observed. Allelic fluctuations can be predicted. It's difficult, not always feasible, but keep in mind evolution is contingent. A basic course in population genetics will tell you this.
Breeding is not synonymous with microevolution. First, scientists hardly ever differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution in professional papers. Second, when they do, microevolution is a reference to taxonomic classification.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
Also, in response to those wondering why many get 'so worked up', the answer is simple. Biology is a true appreciation of the beauty of life, just as astronomy is a true appreciation of the beauty of the universe. To deny evolution is indirectly deny a vast number of intersubjective biological disciplines. It threatens this appreciation.
More importantly, this debate pertains to education. We live in a complex society that requires scientific literacy to function. (cont.)
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
Creationism and intelligent design seek to completely redefine the scientific method. Evolution is built upon observation, experimentation, and theoretical examination, just as all important scientific theories are. It has been resoundingly supported by the scientific community. It is the basis for biology. Undermining education in evolution threatens scientific education as a whole. Not only that, it denies a student's right to an understanding of their history.
I can't let that fly by.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
"creationism and intelligent design seek to completely redefine the scientific method"
This is a baseless claim , and circular argument , i could say the darwinism is looking to redefine science , like dawkins said in his book even if there is no evidence for evolution we still must accept it because its the only scientific theory =p Who are you kidding ??
yourboycal 2 years ago
Why is it that I am automatically obligated to accept every single claim by an evolutionary biologist because we so happen to support the same scientific theory? I have a great level of respect for Dawkins because of his contributions to the evolutionary study of animal behavior, but I do believe he can be far too extreme in his defense of evolution.
My claim isn't baseless. Neither intelligent design nor creationism have any interest in peer-review, hypothesis, experimentation, or theory.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
the basis for biology is life comes from life , period. Darwinism fails when it gets to this part , they cry we dont deal with abiogensis , which i understand . Abiogensis has not been answered yet and many tests have failed , i dont blame the scientific community for keeping away . But once they do answer abiogensis watch the evolutionsts use that in ever argument majically =p
yourboycal 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is chemical evolution, not Darwinian evolution. Although it is certainly apt to apply the adaptive mechanism of natural selection to chemical evolution, we cannot integrate genetic drift or any theoretical models for the evolutionary process within the framework for abiogenesis. The origin of life, in its very rudimentary stages, is much more chemical than it is biological.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
"it denies a students right to an understanding of their history"
You mean one version of there history , why not let them make there own choices and not try and sell the evolution story like its conclusive lol who are you kidding ? your self ? the youtube commentors? Keep up with your fairy tale , maybe one day you can come up and predict to me the next possible major speciation out of all the enviromental factors we can factor in today?
yourboycal 2 years ago
Evolution is a biological explanation for the adaptation and diversity of life. In no way does it inform our understanding of the origin of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, or even our planet. There are scientific explanations behind these mysteries as well.
I do agree that we need a more philosophically and theologically informed society. However, scientific explanations should be offered in science classes. We're aware of the scientific consensus regarding evolution.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
@flying evolutionist
Please dont let guys like this mislead you , they are indoctrinated with one version and they think thats it . Science doesnt get it wrong lol . Just like religious people who get extreme and hijack religion , clowns like this hijack science in the name of truth . Its scienism Vs Religionism =D its sick and disgusting please keep an open mind to both sides of debate ! and continue your reserach!
yourboycal 2 years ago
By astronomy, you should mean 'astrobiology'. Astronomy and evolution are completely separate fields. They only hold mutual significance in astrobiology. As for paleontology, some of the most robust theoretical work has come out of paleontology. Radiometric data is only 'evolution's friend' when understood and not misinterpreted. Evolutionists, or evolutionary biologists, have their disagreements. Disagreement drives science. Science isn't meant to inform morality. Evolution has been observed.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
"we live in a complex society that requires scientific literacy to function"
Actually skipper we live in a materlistic era , and science deals with the material world , thats why the world is hostage to this evolution theory , because most of the claimed evidence is on the bio level, which average joes have no clue about so they can sell whatever. Once we hit the era of subconscience and conscience then scienctists will be humble =p
yourboycal 2 years ago
The idea that evolution leads directly to materialism is at odds with the many theistic evolutionists that have gained popularity in recent years. However, the polarization between science and religion (influenced by poor books like The God Delusion and the End of Faith) has created a reactionary effect among the general public. Please don't think I am an arrogant atheist or agnostic who only supports evolution because I think it justifies anti-religion. It doesn't to the extent many believe.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
Incidentally, the field of evolutionary psychology has driven a great level of insight into studying the conscious and subconscious. I'm sure you would agree that it's a very interesting biological phenomenon, and requires a great level of research. Some might argue we haven't even scratched the surface of the issue. However, ignorance does not justify the rejection of a scientific theory.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
yourboycal 2 years ago
Genetics has revolutionized our understanding of selection's directionality. Statistics led to the synthesis of evolution and population biology. Look up the work of Dr. Doolittle (not the writer) to see the incredible way in which evolution and biochemistry interact. Biotechnology is an excellent example of evolution's importance in information theory. Biophysics has been greatly influenced by evolution. (cont.)
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
"Speciation has been observed"
Actually no speciation in theory takes a long period of time , and has not been observed
A genetic drift is not a prediction based on random sampling.
"its difficult not always feasible"
No shit
"a basic course in population genetics will tell you this"
Of course any course to indoctrinate me will presuad me on one side =p
yourboycal 2 years ago
Good job - speciation does take a very long period of time. That's why we have deductive examples of speciation taking place over hundreds of years, where historical records and current observations allow us to conclude a speciation event. In other examples, the introduction of a species to a radically new environment - especially in archipelagos - results in a period of rapid diversification. And yes, we have observed this.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
@flying evolutionists "First , scientists hardly ever differntiate between micro and macro"
I beg to differ check out my videos for clear cut examples of this =)
Since you dont know the differnce between macro and micro
Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in a single population (not necessarily a species)
Macroevolution takes place on a much larger scale, encompassing such events such as speciation, extinction, and horizontal gene transfer.
yourboycal 2 years ago
Let me clarify: Scientists hardly ever differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution for purposes other than classification. Theoretical evolutionary biology depends on studying evolution at different levels. For example, the debate between the dominance of selection and drift includes a study of small founder populations.
And yes, you are correct in pointing out that evolution takes place in populations and not entire species. I apologize for not making that clear.
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
One micro we can observe , Macro is part of your fairy tale . Lets ask the 50 million year old shark why he looks the same ? or the 50 million year old bat who looks the same? or perhaps the 125 million year old dragon fly who hasnt changed any form? Evolution sometimes skips right ? even through the trillions of eviromental factors that have taken place in those 50 million years clearly did nothing =p
yourboycal 2 years ago
This response is typical of an individual who has never read any of the literature opposing his views. I don't know if that's true, though it certainly sounds like this is the case.
Taxa can adapt themselves into evolutionary crevices. Although their structure may not be as advantageous as it could be, to further change the structures would result in a temporary period of lower fitness. Evolution doesn't take u-turns. (By the way, you're better off using mollusks as an example.)
FlyingEvolutionist59 2 years ago
I'm not sure what the big deal is either. I would much rather debate about what to have for dinner. I'm swinging towards left overs. :)
VirtuallyAddicted 2 years ago
This is ken miller's lecture. It's lengthy, but is more than capable to answer all crucial questions concerning the creationism vs. evolution issue
watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
The world is not made up of thing. The world is made up of facts.
The world is the totality of facts.
If you want to hear the facts, listen to Ken Miller's lecture right here on YouTube.
He's a breath of fresh air for this debacle between science and religion. He's a christian, but doesn't mix his beliefs with his science. His lecture on you tube can answer perhaps any and all questions people have about the creationism vs evolution debate. He even testified in the Dover trial on this issue
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
Can you summarize what he's got to say?
ElanaVital83 2 years ago
You are so right ! Why do people get so worked up ,the world is too beautiful!
Lovnpce 2 years ago
Bonjour , you look great !
Lovnpce 2 years ago
Comment removed
EvilBproductions 2 years ago
The theory of Evolution is a fact, the word 'theory' in scientific terms is like a set of ideas held in the highest regard possible. Before something becomes a theory it has to be considered the most plausible explanation by the scientific community as a whole.
Creationist science is not science and not even considered to be an alternative.
In other words it's bollocks.
EvilBproductions 2 years ago
cont..
We share common ancestors with apes.
LOL
EvilBproductions 2 years ago
@EvilBproductions Actually, it's not bollocks.
Now i don't mean that creationism IS scientifically sound, NOR do i mean that it is NOT sound. It simply isn't science.
It's a religious ideology that nit-picks evidence from the science cataloge, and uses it (in much the same way atheist's do) to support their own personal beliefs.
If this is bullocks to you, than equating ANYTHING in science to a religious belief (one way or the other) is equally as absurd.
Theism fails, as does atheism
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
It's bollocks.
How can atheism fail? It's just a lack of belief in god or the supernatural. Plus I didn't even mention atheism...
EvilBproductions 2 years ago