The only true way to unbiasedly look at evidence for evolution is to first forget everything you know about religion. Pretend Bible, Quran, or whatever religion you are, pretend you never heard of them. And also put your belief of God aside. Pretend you don't know God. Forget all of this.
Then now, look at the evidence at hand. See if this still point to creationism. Try this exercise, if your brain can handle it.
@AlanaPower Lol the chicken and the egg paradox is one of the dumbest creationists arguments, I've ever heard off. But to put it in simple terms it is the egg, since the first chicken came from the egg of an animal slightly different from a chicken, depending on where we draw the speciation. As for everything else you said, that's not an argument, just petty slander on the theory that you made up. Your ignorance on the matter doesn't really help out those statements either. Evolution was create
@kyekire You believe in evolution? Lol so tell me something what came first the Chicken or the egg? Sense neither can exist without the other but we know they exist that can only mean they were created. You very DNA contradicts with EVERYTHING the evolutin theory says. We all know our DNA is real. Evolution is Speculation. It was created by ATHEIST to prove why they believe God isnt real. When in actuality Our very exsistence prove their in fact a creator...
It's interesting to note that Sanford's book gives a scientific foundation for the inmorality of non marital sex, since it increases the mutations in the male germline by increasing the rate of meiosis. And just as we dislike the genetic diseases mankind is suffering right now, we should hold fast to the word of God if we care for the future generations.
No amount of mutations with as much time as you want are going to turn a fish into a mammal. The theory is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are duped by it.
@9pt9 evolution is ridiculous? and you believe in a magic man in the sky, creating a man with a handful of dirt and a women from a rib & talking snakes? The thing is evolution is consistent with empirical data, dna sequencing, fossils, embryology and what not.. n thats the only reason, universities all over the globe teach and study this. As Dobzhansky puts it, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
@9pt9 This is really a stupid comment, since the creation of earth, there was amoeba, a single celled organism, from this there was EVOLUTION which created different species, depending on their climate they would adapt to living in that environment efficiently, some moved onto land and EVOLVED to that specific climate in order to survive and have the largest possible chance of surviving, they didnt pop out of no where due to "GOD" which we cant see hear or touch!
You are also forgetting that beneficial mutations are rare also due to the ethical reasons that we don't experiment on human beings. How do we assess if a mutation is beneficial vs neutral if we can't do experiment on people???
If a man is taller than average, the mutation inside of him causing that could be a beneficial to survival and reproduction. As genes are past on there might be a slight increased chance of those with the mutated genetic code for extra height to pass on reproduce, until almost all within that family, or species have the new genetic change. These changes can be so subtle you wouldn't know if you compared one individual to another due to the massive time these changes take before they are visible.
A human is equaly different from a chimp as it is from a bonobo.
A gorrila varies equally from humans, chimps and bonobos.
Orangetang equally between gorrilas, humans, chimps and bonobos.
A lemur equally between orangetang, gorrilas, humans, chimps and bonobos.
Using phylogeny in this way exactly matches tree branching for nested hierarchy using both the fossil record and radiometric dating and it does so for every species within margin of error
I also think that human genetic fittness is now deteriating, this is due to a VERY low selective preasure.
A survival rate of 10% in nature is very high, natural selection rapidly takes care of virtually every damaging dominant mutation and among sexually reproducing animals benificial genes spread extremely fast.
Most asexual lifeforms breed extremely fast and then get all but wiped out, also a great way to put evolution in to over drive.
"MOST mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small NEGATIVE impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case REGARDLESS whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not. This is shown by Uppsala University scientists in an article being published November 5 in the journal Science." --ScienceDaily 2010
@jshowa2 You know, here I am presenting the view of Dr. J.C. Sanford. I tried to remain within the sources which he presented for the most part, so I'm not even all that concerned about the journal's validity as much as accurately presenting Dr. Sanford position accurately until I can debunk his position. That said, I do think these sources are fairly good.
@jshowa2 Which papers are you referring to specifically? I understand that scientists don't always agree and that the research presented in journals are not always correct. I did try to read the sources and look for alternative views, but I am not an expert, so it is very possible that I missed something.
@BladedArrowTBGamer you are right.Please explain to me then,when has the Dna of an animal ever changed its dna coding due to a mutation.No,not re arrangement,or the lack of certain parts of dna,the GAINING of new dna.
@urbman29 you seem to not understand what exactly DNA is. Or how evolution works in the first place. Over MILLIONS of years the DNA will change extremely slowly. Think of POND. Point of Noticeable Difference. Everything is slight like the speed of a melting glacier , only thousands of times slower. If you think evolution is fake then you would have ti disprove every other field of biology because evolution is the backbone. While new evidence being contrary to evolution is always welcome
but that thats not give one merit to simply state lies just so there is a controversy. All mutations are rearrangement. Where you say lacking a part isnt entirely correct. its simply having a different part. There is no guideline to which part goes where. thats where survival of the fittest comes into play. While gaining DNA is simply a new part being slowly accumulated over time and bam! we realize its completely different. look up irreducible complexity and the flagellum
@BladedArrowTBGamer its sad,but none of this has EVER been seen.Lol,over millions of years.Adaptation is one thing(like insects gaining immunity to a toxin)but evolving is completely different(the claim that archaeopteryx was half bird half repitle,which was discredited by scientists years ago,yet people still persist,.)Hopefully within a couple decades we will have new information,then look back at our great imagination that we had.
@urbman29 actually look into flies. there have been TONS of speciation between flies that we have observed. as in the new fly cant mate with the original fly or some other derivative of the ancestor fly which is making a entirely new species
@urbman29 and as far as something being haslf way one animal thats insanity. it might seem fairly transitional but what it is is what it is. if a dog gave birth to a half dog/cat hybrid , outside of a lab, that would break evolution. We dont notice that a animal might evolve into a different one because that different doesnt exist yet!
@urbman29 and because this is pertaining to creationism that means we all came from Adam and eve, because lets face it creationism in which the creator is obviously the judeo christian god Yahweh. Then he made us on daaaaaaaay 3? i think iut was day 3 but anyhow that means we would have EXTREMELY similar DNA , wincest , you could look and see how much cheetahs are inbreed it actually leads to a high infancy death rate because they cannot adapt/evolve to the different disease around them
@urbman29 and because this is pertaining to creationism that means we all came from Adam and eve, because lets face it creationism in which the creator is obviously the judeo christian god Yahweh. Then he made us on daaaaaaaay 3? i think iut was day 3 but anyhow that means we would have EXTREMELY similar DNA , wincest , you could look and see how much cheetahs are inbreed it actually leads to a high infancy death rate because they cannot adapt/evolve to the different disease around them
You do realize the source you have quoted disagrees with your videos?
Your source says "The enormous amount of phenotypic diversity among different phyla or classes of organisms is a product of accumulation of novel mutations and their conservation that have facilitated adaptation to different environments."
Mutationists would agree with you. Modern synthesis disagrees with you because heritable variation in gene pools does not come from mutations alone and has many many other sources.
If you do not reject the idea that variations in the gene pool come from mutations alone then do you accept that the modern evolutionary synthesis does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness which means modification through common decent by the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow.
@f0xfree Theodosius Dobzhansky was actually a major part of the modern synthesis and he said:
“The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”
So, it's not just mutationists who claim this. That said, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say evolution "does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness." Are you talking about mendelian genetics?
Dobzhansky did say that... but you are quote mining without seeing what he eventually concluded. The modern synthesis concluded differently and Dobzhansky agreed with their findings. It found that there are many mechanisms of evolution and that gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection even without mutations can evolve new traits and new genes that contribute to adaptive fitness. The modern synthesis used mendelian genetics. You don't seem to be aware of non-mutation evolution.
@f0xfree 2) I mean, any change to the genetic material is called a mutation. You can have changes without mutations by interactions of different chromosomes and things like that, but the changes ultimately derive from mutations.
No, not any change to genetical material is called a mutation. Genetic recombination is an example. For example, I do not look like my mother or my father. My genome is different although it shares similarities with both my parents. Natural selection can and does act on genetic variation that doesn't derive from recent mutations. Another example would be the breeding of wolves to dogs and breeds of dogs like the great dana to the chiwawa. Another example is speciation polyploidy.
it all comes down to our intepretations of scientific data. I agree that evolution is the genetic CHANGE of an organism over time but I disagree in that mutations cause a gain in g. information There is actually a loss of genetic information since mutations cause abnormal functions / info communication in genes. Ie: evolutionists claim that a weed's adaption to be resistant to herbicides is evolutionary adaption but really, the plant just LOSS the ability to absorb that herbicide
@ timecode 0:48 "Mutations are the driving force of evolution".
No matter what you add to after or before this statement, this is clearly the MUTATIONIST view of evolution. The modern synthesis rejected it. It is not the driving force of evolution in the modern synthesis. So even if you mention neutral mutations the modern synthesis doesn't view what you said @ 0:48 is replaced by a better picture of evolution - i.e, the modern synthesis.
@f0xfree "However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance."
Nei, M. 2007. The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:12235–12242.
@f0xfree Mutationism isn't mentioned in my video and I don't think I called this Dawinian evolution. The sources I provide for the heavy emphasis on neutral mutations are not from before the Modern Synthesis, so it should be clear that you are mistaken.
The #1 driver of evolution isn't mutation, it's natural selection. Mutation are just an added bonus that inevitably changes the gene pools over time. If you believe in mutation, then you consequently believe that species will genetically change over time, for better, worse, or most commonly neutral. What be done or not done with these changes is left up to the other functions, such as natural selection.
@PoliticalHell Correct me if I am wrong, I made this video over a year ago, but I believe I said the driving force. That natural selection is the driving force is an old view which was held by Darwin and is held by neo-Darwinists. The view I hold, however, and the view I think most scientists are leaning towards today - is the view that mutations are much more important to evolution than is natural selection. Source: pnas(dot)org/content/104/30/12235(dot)full
@owchywawa Well as you pointed out yourself, most of mutations are neutral. Natural selection isn't a myth, or a scientific guess, it's stuff you can see in nature. It's as observable as you can get when it comes to science. That being said, natural selection is the most obvious, and logical method in which a population will adapt, and thereby inevitably change over time. You don't need mutations to alter gene pools.
@PoliticalHell Just because they are selectively neutral doesn't mean they don't have any effect.
You make it sound like evolution has some kind of goal towards adaptation. Although adaptation through positive Darwinian selection is a part of evolution, it is a relatively small part. I provide sources for this claim in my second video.
@owchywawa I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm simply saying it is just a means of new genetic material, which is random and may be significant, but usually isn't.
I'll watch your second video, but as far as I understand, evolution is the name for a collection of mechanisms that constantly operate on life to keep it trying to reach a balanced state (which of course will never actually happen). Number one element of balance is adapting to changes if you ask me.
@owchywawa Actually you are wrong on this part and PoliticalHell is right. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and most biologists agree with this. The scientists you are thinking about as saying that mutations are the driving force are fringe scientists and their ideas are not fully accepted by the worldwide scientific community. While there is a growing idea about just how much mutations affect mutation the driving force has always been natural selection.
@shldflght Well, maybe I was wrong that most scientist agree with the neutralist's position (I am not sure what the demographics are), but I wouldn't think it reasonable to call these scientists who support the position "fringe." The scientists who do hold these views are well respected and the debate is a considerable one.
@owchywawa Well these scientists are in a dissenting opinion from the mass majority of other scientists about a position that has little evidence supporting it (the position that mutations are the driving force and that natural selection is very weak). I'd call that fringe. Now I do completely agree, however, that mutations play a HUGE role in evolution, I just don't see how this in any way takes away from what natural selection does.
LMAOOOOOO XD "Beneficial mutations are too rare to accurately measure."??!! So I suppose homologous characteristics and vestigial structures don't account for anything.... Nor do traits that vary in species dependant on location such as white fur on rabbits in snowy areas vs brown fur on the same species of rabbits in wooded areas?
@StyxSurfer "LMAOOOOOO XD "Beneficial mutations are too rare to accurately measure."??!"
To measure their rate and strength and plot a graph (which is what I was talking about), yes. We have an idea, but not with as much certainty as the deleterious mutations.
"So I suppose homologous characteristics and vestigial structures don't account for anything...."
Do you know at what rate and strength homologous characteristics are acquired? If not, no.
A mutation is simply the result of DNA that didn't make a perfect copy. Infact, you probably have about a dozen gene mutations that make you different from both of your parents. The result can lead to vareation. Not some surreal science fiction army of teenage mutant ninja turtles. That only happens when millions of bad gene mutations go wrong. Bad mutations lead to diseases and deformed bodies while good ones can lead to slightly larger brains, legs, or better fitness. That's how we evolve.
@owchywawa instead of asking random people on youtube, maybe you should do some actual research on the subject of your interested, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
@errskin For your information, I am in a college level genetics class right now and my professor does research in the field, so some random person on the internet needs to explain himself.
@BASSonSTEROIDS94 if the question is what are mutations caused by then im not going to answer it. thats a question that needs to be researched. the fact that people like that ask these kind of questions shows their complete ignorance towards the subject. asking basic questions about science in a youtube forum expecting to get reasonable answers isn't reasonable. youtube cant take the place of basic education.
they are abnormal functioning cells that generally occur during mitosis and meiosis yet can also be created by environmental factors such as UV radiation. And beacuse of the cell's inabliity to function properly, it can create a phenotypical change in an organism IF enough mutations can be 'combined.' A 'minor' instance of mutations is usually neutral but a 'major' instance of them can cause harmful effects on the organism - ie: cancer.
Doesn't the liklihood of beneficial mutations depend on your definition of 'beneficial'? And the environment in which the 'mutated' organism is living? Being blind (due to a mutation) may not be considered beneficial to a human, but what about to a mole? Longer, slimmer fingers may not be considered useful to a boxer, but what about a pianist? How has 'beneficial' been defined?
@LewisPearson Beneficial by the definition geneticists use which is measured in fitness. They don't just look at a mutation and decide whether they like it or not.
@owchywawa Ah I see. Even so, what would happen in the case of a mole losing it's eye sight? I'm just struggling to see how fitness can be defined and used to establish whether a mutation is beneficial. I'm born with plenty of mutations, I am slimmer and taller than my parents, couldn't these both be considered either beneficial or detrimental depending on my environment.
my view on this is that to each different species, a mutation can be either neutral, harmful, or beneficial. Benefical mutations are mutations that can change an organism's internal / external functions, etc for the BETTER or at least better than the functions could have been performed prior to. But always keep in mind that all mutations are a LOSS of genetic information in that an organism either lost the ability to do a particular function, functions differently than before etc
It's impossible for just about anyone or anything but Laplace's Daemon to determine the distribution of mutations along the beneficial-deleterious axis since the nature of deleterious and beneficial vary significantly (sometimes even being pointed in opposite directions) depending on an organism's environment.
Since all I can find of Kimura's thing is a crappy abstract that doesn't help and refers to things with which I'm unfamiliar, I can say with certainty that this needs to be addressed.
@dildace Kimura's article is rather old anyway. I used the graph only because it is easier to understand. There is a more recent article and it answers your question. Idk if you have access the Nature, but I'll send you a relevant quote by pm. Here's the source: Eyre-Walker. "The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations." Nature Reviews Genetics. August 2007. 8: 610–618.
@TheHomelessCripple As I said: "In this video I will only give basic, but necessary information on mutations." I didn't give any more or any less than I said I would.
I love the "read it for yourself," smoke screen. "Mistake" is a matter of projecting your own idea on what's happening. Of course, if you can't explain what the evolutionists are saying then you apparently "read it yourself."
@yogurtking Huh? :\ I was saying that my video is not going to cover everything in biology, but if you don't understand what I am saying, then wikipedia will have all the information you need. Idk what exactly you're trying to read out of that, but I only mean what I say.
can you explain why we dont see a predominance of mutational meltdown in both wild and controlled experiments? they can occur, but not all the time as you are trying to posit.
Mutational Meltdown in Primary Endosymbionts: Selection Limits Muller's Ratchet
Mutational meltdown in laboratory yeast populations
Sidestepping Mutational Meltdown
it seems that the program isnt taking in all factors possibly
I provided sources, if you have sources which contradict them, I will be willing to take a look. Even 1-2 deleterious mutations per-person seems to be a significant problem.
it wont let me post the links, but apparently even the mutation rates vary from study to study. however, the deleterious mutation rates was based on the Drosophila (nature05388). everything i found was from nature, pubmed and physorg articles from the past few years
in any case, there is an interesting article called 'Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes' by genome research. it seems that its still pretty difficult to sort the deleterious mutations
One notable problem is the treatment of mutations as if they are black or white, good, bad or ugly. But whether a mutations is neutral, deleterious or positive depends entirely on the environment that the organism is subject to. You may call sickle cell anemia a deleterious mutation, but it is beneficial in an environment overun with malaria. Is that accounted for?
@masterfushi89 Well, I don't think all mutations can change from nearly neutral to beneficial, but even if they could, mutations would also be able to become nearly neutral or even bad due to changing in environment. You can't just assume a significant number of mutations would be come beneficial and the problem would be solved.
@owchywawa No, but you label mutations as good, bad, or neutral. Is their any account for the fact mutations are subject to their environment? How can you put an overall figure on something that is dependent upon so many other factors?
As far as I know, the figures I use are the ones used by mainstream scientists. If you know of any others which include changing environments, I will definitely check it out. Either way though, this would not stop the decline in fitness because a drastically changing environment doesn't happen enough even assuming that would result in a net gain, which it wouldn't in my opinion, but again, I would be happy to see sources that refute me.
I have to echo Philip0209 here. You can talk all you like about the numbers game i.e. the mechanism but Evolution is fact. There can be no other explanation as to why organisms become more complex over geological time. Everyone knows that mutations are largely neutral and there are more deleterious than beneficial. Why are you looking for beneficial mutations within a single human lifespan? You won't detect it. . Evolution does not work in one or a handful of generations.
should this be "why the theory of evolution is wrong"? i mean its fact that evolution happens whether or not we have a theory that accurately describes the process.
Well, that name was mostly for attention lol, but these videos I have presented so far are just background information. The third video is the one where I will begin presenting creationist arguments for rebuttal.
Common decent could still be true if mutation and natural selection isn't sufficient, but that would be a major change in the theory of evolution.
"Theory of Evolution: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species - perhaps a self-replicating molecule - that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." - Coyne; Why Evolution Is True
First sentence. Mutations are the driving force of Evolution.
Wrong
Natural Selection is the driving force of evolution, it acts on variation already there. That is what Darwin discovered, and he didn't know about mutations.
@gregrutz Natural selection is more of a filter than a driving force. Say natural selection is the driving force would be like saying the steering wheel is the driving force of the car rather than the gas. Either way, this is kind of trivial.
@owchywawa No, actually gregrutz is right. Random mutations can't be a driving force at all...just consider it for a moment: once a good mutation happens, what causes it to pass on to the next host? Natural selection. Got another explanation that ONLY involves mutations?
Even middle/high schoolers that learn evolution will say that Natural Selection is the driving force. It's common knowledge.
Just because mutations are necessary for evolution doesn't mean they're the driving force.
Yes, that view was first brought about by Darwin before he even knew about mutations and was continued into the present day. Now scientists appear to be moving towards a more neutral theory of evolution; where mutations are more important. I explain this in my videos, but it really isn't important what we call the driving force of evolution.
@wunksta I'm not very well versed in it personally. I'll admit when I'm ignorant on things. Are you saying that it's how mutations are proposed as a driving force or what is it pertaining to?
mutations are the driving force in a way, some are selected, some are removed while others just propagate around. not everything has to be naturally selected it would seem. just look up genetic drift for more information
@Kairusan I agree. The raw material are genetic switches and mutations, the driving force, which is what directs evolution and pushes it this way or another is natural selection.
I appreciate the chuck norris reference. I am a teacher and told my students if they are completely lost on an essay question and have nothing meaningful to write just put down "Chuck Norris". Teacher can't mark it wrong because Chuck Norris is never wrong.
No they don't at all - at least with me. They still get the question wrong. It does however save me the time of reading ramblings of incoherent pseudointellectual science babble.
@snakeguy76 That's good. Yeah, as a teacher, I'd rather read "Chuck Norris" than an attempt at BSing the answer with a bunch of babble. They get it wrong either way, at least one wastes less time and is funny. :)
The only true way to unbiasedly look at evidence for evolution is to first forget everything you know about religion. Pretend Bible, Quran, or whatever religion you are, pretend you never heard of them. And also put your belief of God aside. Pretend you don't know God. Forget all of this.
Then now, look at the evidence at hand. See if this still point to creationism. Try this exercise, if your brain can handle it.
Casshyr 2 days ago
@AlanaPower Lol the chicken and the egg paradox is one of the dumbest creationists arguments, I've ever heard off. But to put it in simple terms it is the egg, since the first chicken came from the egg of an animal slightly different from a chicken, depending on where we draw the speciation. As for everything else you said, that's not an argument, just petty slander on the theory that you made up. Your ignorance on the matter doesn't really help out those statements either. Evolution was create
kyekire 6 days ago
Comment removed
rapplejab 2 weeks ago
@rapplejab you spelled "adenine" wrong again.
314violin 2 days ago
So where's the proof evolutions wrong?
kyekire 1 month ago
@kyekire You believe in evolution? Lol so tell me something what came first the Chicken or the egg? Sense neither can exist without the other but we know they exist that can only mean they were created. You very DNA contradicts with EVERYTHING the evolutin theory says. We all know our DNA is real. Evolution is Speculation. It was created by ATHEIST to prove why they believe God isnt real. When in actuality Our very exsistence prove their in fact a creator...
AlanaPower111 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's interesting to note that Sanford's book gives a scientific foundation for the inmorality of non marital sex, since it increases the mutations in the male germline by increasing the rate of meiosis. And just as we dislike the genetic diseases mankind is suffering right now, we should hold fast to the word of God if we care for the future generations.
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
uh oh creationists .. marine life can't go onto land? you might wanna see this!! XD
/watch?v=FjQr3lRACPI
inconsp1cuous1515 2 months ago
No amount of mutations with as much time as you want are going to turn a fish into a mammal. The theory is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are duped by it.
9pt9 3 months ago
@9pt9 evolution is ridiculous? and you believe in a magic man in the sky, creating a man with a handful of dirt and a women from a rib & talking snakes? The thing is evolution is consistent with empirical data, dna sequencing, fossils, embryology and what not.. n thats the only reason, universities all over the globe teach and study this. As Dobzhansky puts it, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
DoubterApe 2 months ago
@9pt9 This is really a stupid comment, since the creation of earth, there was amoeba, a single celled organism, from this there was EVOLUTION which created different species, depending on their climate they would adapt to living in that environment efficiently, some moved onto land and EVOLVED to that specific climate in order to survive and have the largest possible chance of surviving, they didnt pop out of no where due to "GOD" which we cant see hear or touch!
StoreyNUFC 1 month ago
You are also forgetting that beneficial mutations are rare also due to the ethical reasons that we don't experiment on human beings. How do we assess if a mutation is beneficial vs neutral if we can't do experiment on people???
Casshyr 3 months ago
Beneficial mutations are rare, but they do exist, and speciation events have been observed.
Casshyr 3 months ago
Ever hear or a little scientist called Richard Lenski and his study of e.coli hmm? Guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have made this video.
Finty290 3 months ago
If a man is taller than average, the mutation inside of him causing that could be a beneficial to survival and reproduction. As genes are past on there might be a slight increased chance of those with the mutated genetic code for extra height to pass on reproduce, until almost all within that family, or species have the new genetic change. These changes can be so subtle you wouldn't know if you compared one individual to another due to the massive time these changes take before they are visible.
1992jamo 4 months ago
When looking at genetic average snp difference.
A human is equaly different from a chimp as it is from a bonobo.
A gorrila varies equally from humans, chimps and bonobos.
Orangetang equally between gorrilas, humans, chimps and bonobos.
A lemur equally between orangetang, gorrilas, humans, chimps and bonobos.
Using phylogeny in this way exactly matches tree branching for nested hierarchy using both the fossil record and radiometric dating and it does so for every species within margin of error
YesIamJames 5 months ago
I also think that human genetic fittness is now deteriating, this is due to a VERY low selective preasure.
A survival rate of 10% in nature is very high, natural selection rapidly takes care of virtually every damaging dominant mutation and among sexually reproducing animals benificial genes spread extremely fast.
Most asexual lifeforms breed extremely fast and then get all but wiped out, also a great way to put evolution in to over drive.
YesIamJames 5 months ago
Beneficial mutations occur enough over the course of millions of years to cause macro evolution. This has been proven scientific fact for years.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
Yet more EXPERIMENTAL support:
"MOST mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small NEGATIVE impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case REGARDLESS whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not. This is shown by Uppsala University scientists in an article being published November 5 in the journal Science." --ScienceDaily 2010
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@jshowa2 You know, here I am presenting the view of Dr. J.C. Sanford. I tried to remain within the sources which he presented for the most part, so I'm not even all that concerned about the journal's validity as much as accurately presenting Dr. Sanford position accurately until I can debunk his position. That said, I do think these sources are fairly good.
owchywawa 8 months ago
@jshowa2 Which papers are you referring to specifically? I understand that scientists don't always agree and that the research presented in journals are not always correct. I did try to read the sources and look for alternative views, but I am not an expert, so it is very possible that I missed something.
owchywawa 8 months ago
I really good series on this subject is...Evolution:The Grand Experiment.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
i love how everyone flags it down because it is an alternative to an evolutionists idea.Way to be blind
urbman29 10 months ago
@urbman29 actually just because something is a alternative doesnt make it right. but this will make you into a retard
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer you are right.Please explain to me then,when has the Dna of an animal ever changed its dna coding due to a mutation.No,not re arrangement,or the lack of certain parts of dna,the GAINING of new dna.
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 you seem to not understand what exactly DNA is. Or how evolution works in the first place. Over MILLIONS of years the DNA will change extremely slowly. Think of POND. Point of Noticeable Difference. Everything is slight like the speed of a melting glacier , only thousands of times slower. If you think evolution is fake then you would have ti disprove every other field of biology because evolution is the backbone. While new evidence being contrary to evolution is always welcome
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
but that thats not give one merit to simply state lies just so there is a controversy. All mutations are rearrangement. Where you say lacking a part isnt entirely correct. its simply having a different part. There is no guideline to which part goes where. thats where survival of the fittest comes into play. While gaining DNA is simply a new part being slowly accumulated over time and bam! we realize its completely different. look up irreducible complexity and the flagellum
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer its sad,but none of this has EVER been seen.Lol,over millions of years.Adaptation is one thing(like insects gaining immunity to a toxin)but evolving is completely different(the claim that archaeopteryx was half bird half repitle,which was discredited by scientists years ago,yet people still persist,.)Hopefully within a couple decades we will have new information,then look back at our great imagination that we had.
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 actually look into flies. there have been TONS of speciation between flies that we have observed. as in the new fly cant mate with the original fly or some other derivative of the ancestor fly which is making a entirely new species
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@urbman29 and as far as something being haslf way one animal thats insanity. it might seem fairly transitional but what it is is what it is. if a dog gave birth to a half dog/cat hybrid , outside of a lab, that would break evolution. We dont notice that a animal might evolve into a different one because that different doesnt exist yet!
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@urbman29 and because this is pertaining to creationism that means we all came from Adam and eve, because lets face it creationism in which the creator is obviously the judeo christian god Yahweh. Then he made us on daaaaaaaay 3? i think iut was day 3 but anyhow that means we would have EXTREMELY similar DNA , wincest , you could look and see how much cheetahs are inbreed it actually leads to a high infancy death rate because they cannot adapt/evolve to the different disease around them
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@urbman29 and because this is pertaining to creationism that means we all came from Adam and eve, because lets face it creationism in which the creator is obviously the judeo christian god Yahweh. Then he made us on daaaaaaaay 3? i think iut was day 3 but anyhow that means we would have EXTREMELY similar DNA , wincest , you could look and see how much cheetahs are inbreed it actually leads to a high infancy death rate because they cannot adapt/evolve to the different disease around them
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
hope that cleared some stuff up :)
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
GAIN-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS @ GOOGLE SCHOLAR.
Just look them up. This is NOT the loss of genetic information. That is a LOSS-OF-FUNCTION.
f0xfree 1 year ago
You do realize the source you have quoted disagrees with your videos?
Your source says "The enormous amount of phenotypic diversity among different phyla or classes of organisms is a product of accumulation of novel mutations and their conservation that have facilitated adaptation to different environments."
Mutationists would agree with you. Modern synthesis disagrees with you because heritable variation in gene pools does not come from mutations alone and has many many other sources.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree I never claimed variation in the gene pools come from mutations alone.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
If you do not reject the idea that variations in the gene pool come from mutations alone then do you accept that the modern evolutionary synthesis does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness which means modification through common decent by the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree Theodosius Dobzhansky was actually a major part of the modern synthesis and he said:
“The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”
So, it's not just mutationists who claim this. That said, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say evolution "does not require new mutations in order for evolution to occur in terms of adaptive fitness." Are you talking about mendelian genetics?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
Dobzhansky did say that... but you are quote mining without seeing what he eventually concluded. The modern synthesis concluded differently and Dobzhansky agreed with their findings. It found that there are many mechanisms of evolution and that gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection even without mutations can evolve new traits and new genes that contribute to adaptive fitness. The modern synthesis used mendelian genetics. You don't seem to be aware of non-mutation evolution.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree 2) I mean, any change to the genetic material is called a mutation. You can have changes without mutations by interactions of different chromosomes and things like that, but the changes ultimately derive from mutations.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
No, not any change to genetical material is called a mutation. Genetic recombination is an example. For example, I do not look like my mother or my father. My genome is different although it shares similarities with both my parents. Natural selection can and does act on genetic variation that doesn't derive from recent mutations. Another example would be the breeding of wolves to dogs and breeds of dogs like the great dana to the chiwawa. Another example is speciation polyploidy.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree
it all comes down to our intepretations of scientific data. I agree that evolution is the genetic CHANGE of an organism over time but I disagree in that mutations cause a gain in g. information There is actually a loss of genetic information since mutations cause abnormal functions / info communication in genes. Ie: evolutionists claim that a weed's adaption to be resistant to herbicides is evolutionary adaption but really, the plant just LOSS the ability to absorb that herbicide
BASSonSTEROIDS94 1 year ago
@BASSonSTEROIDS94
All one needs is one example of any gain-of-function mutation to completely undermine what you say can't happen.
LPL-S447X is but one example to show that it happens. There are many more gain-of-function mutations that do not meet what you have described.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree
dude, could you please explain the function of LPL-S447X?
BASSonSTEROIDS94 1 year ago
@ timecode 0:48 "Mutations are the driving force of evolution".
No matter what you add to after or before this statement, this is clearly the MUTATIONIST view of evolution. The modern synthesis rejected it. It is not the driving force of evolution in the modern synthesis. So even if you mention neutral mutations the modern synthesis doesn't view what you said @ 0:48 is replaced by a better picture of evolution - i.e, the modern synthesis.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree "However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance."
Nei, M. 2007. The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:12235–12242.
You were saying?
owchywawa 1 year ago
Video makes confused MUTATIONISM with Darwinian Evolution.
Mutationists were disproved by the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Mutations are not the driving force of evolution.
They are the raw material from which natural selection can act upon but are not necessary for evolution to occur.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree Mutationism isn't mentioned in my video and I don't think I called this Dawinian evolution. The sources I provide for the heavy emphasis on neutral mutations are not from before the Modern Synthesis, so it should be clear that you are mistaken.
owchywawa 1 year ago
The #1 driver of evolution isn't mutation, it's natural selection. Mutation are just an added bonus that inevitably changes the gene pools over time. If you believe in mutation, then you consequently believe that species will genetically change over time, for better, worse, or most commonly neutral. What be done or not done with these changes is left up to the other functions, such as natural selection.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@PoliticalHell Correct me if I am wrong, I made this video over a year ago, but I believe I said the driving force. That natural selection is the driving force is an old view which was held by Darwin and is held by neo-Darwinists. The view I hold, however, and the view I think most scientists are leaning towards today - is the view that mutations are much more important to evolution than is natural selection. Source: pnas(dot)org/content/104/30/12235(dot)full
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Well as you pointed out yourself, most of mutations are neutral. Natural selection isn't a myth, or a scientific guess, it's stuff you can see in nature. It's as observable as you can get when it comes to science. That being said, natural selection is the most obvious, and logical method in which a population will adapt, and thereby inevitably change over time. You don't need mutations to alter gene pools.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@PoliticalHell Just because they are selectively neutral doesn't mean they don't have any effect.
You make it sound like evolution has some kind of goal towards adaptation. Although adaptation through positive Darwinian selection is a part of evolution, it is a relatively small part. I provide sources for this claim in my second video.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I'm not saying it has no effect, I'm simply saying it is just a means of new genetic material, which is random and may be significant, but usually isn't.
I'll watch your second video, but as far as I understand, evolution is the name for a collection of mechanisms that constantly operate on life to keep it trying to reach a balanced state (which of course will never actually happen). Number one element of balance is adapting to changes if you ask me.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@owchywawa Actually you are wrong on this part and PoliticalHell is right. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and most biologists agree with this. The scientists you are thinking about as saying that mutations are the driving force are fringe scientists and their ideas are not fully accepted by the worldwide scientific community. While there is a growing idea about just how much mutations affect mutation the driving force has always been natural selection.
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght Well, maybe I was wrong that most scientist agree with the neutralist's position (I am not sure what the demographics are), but I wouldn't think it reasonable to call these scientists who support the position "fringe." The scientists who do hold these views are well respected and the debate is a considerable one.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Well these scientists are in a dissenting opinion from the mass majority of other scientists about a position that has little evidence supporting it (the position that mutations are the driving force and that natural selection is very weak). I'd call that fringe. Now I do completely agree, however, that mutations play a HUGE role in evolution, I just don't see how this in any way takes away from what natural selection does.
shldflght 1 year ago
LMAOOOOOO XD "Beneficial mutations are too rare to accurately measure."??!! So I suppose homologous characteristics and vestigial structures don't account for anything.... Nor do traits that vary in species dependant on location such as white fur on rabbits in snowy areas vs brown fur on the same species of rabbits in wooded areas?
StyxSurfer 1 year ago
@StyxSurfer "LMAOOOOOO XD "Beneficial mutations are too rare to accurately measure."??!"
To measure their rate and strength and plot a graph (which is what I was talking about), yes. We have an idea, but not with as much certainty as the deleterious mutations.
"So I suppose homologous characteristics and vestigial structures don't account for anything...."
Do you know at what rate and strength homologous characteristics are acquired? If not, no.
owchywawa 1 year ago
A mutation is simply the result of DNA that didn't make a perfect copy. Infact, you probably have about a dozen gene mutations that make you different from both of your parents. The result can lead to vareation. Not some surreal science fiction army of teenage mutant ninja turtles. That only happens when millions of bad gene mutations go wrong. Bad mutations lead to diseases and deformed bodies while good ones can lead to slightly larger brains, legs, or better fitness. That's how we evolve.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
@oldblubblub That's what I said in the video...
owchywawa 1 year ago
Theodosius Dobzhansky died in 1975 . There are a number of other mechanisms to give rise to genetic variability than mutations
robertmike57 1 year ago
Mutations are mistakes? Explain.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Mutations are formed by a copying error.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa no, mutations aren't caused by a copying error
errskin 1 year ago
@errskin What are they caused by then?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa instead of asking random people on youtube, maybe you should do some actual research on the subject of your interested, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
errskin 1 year ago
@errskin For your information, I am in a college level genetics class right now and my professor does research in the field, so some random person on the internet needs to explain himself.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@errskin
'owychywawa' asked you "What are they caused by then?"
Are you going to avoid this question for lack of a plausible / reasonable answer or are you going to make an attempt?
BASSonSTEROIDS94 1 year ago
@BASSonSTEROIDS94 if the question is what are mutations caused by then im not going to answer it. thats a question that needs to be researched. the fact that people like that ask these kind of questions shows their complete ignorance towards the subject. asking basic questions about science in a youtube forum expecting to get reasonable answers isn't reasonable. youtube cant take the place of basic education.
errskin 1 year ago
@HybridD91
they are abnormal functioning cells that generally occur during mitosis and meiosis yet can also be created by environmental factors such as UV radiation. And beacuse of the cell's inabliity to function properly, it can create a phenotypical change in an organism IF enough mutations can be 'combined.' A 'minor' instance of mutations is usually neutral but a 'major' instance of them can cause harmful effects on the organism - ie: cancer.
BASSonSTEROIDS94 1 year ago
Doesn't the liklihood of beneficial mutations depend on your definition of 'beneficial'? And the environment in which the 'mutated' organism is living? Being blind (due to a mutation) may not be considered beneficial to a human, but what about to a mole? Longer, slimmer fingers may not be considered useful to a boxer, but what about a pianist? How has 'beneficial' been defined?
LewisPearson 1 year ago
@LewisPearson Beneficial by the definition geneticists use which is measured in fitness. They don't just look at a mutation and decide whether they like it or not.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Ah I see. Even so, what would happen in the case of a mole losing it's eye sight? I'm just struggling to see how fitness can be defined and used to establish whether a mutation is beneficial. I'm born with plenty of mutations, I am slimmer and taller than my parents, couldn't these both be considered either beneficial or detrimental depending on my environment.
LewisPearson 1 year ago
@LewisPearson its simple, goups of organsims that are mosy likey to survive do survive and reproduce.
errskin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@errskin "its simple, goups of organsims that are mosy likey to survive do survive and reproduce."
... yes, I know. The author is suggesting that the mutations that apply are mainly detrimental. I am unsure how this has been established.
LewisPearson 1 year ago
@LewisPearson
my view on this is that to each different species, a mutation can be either neutral, harmful, or beneficial. Benefical mutations are mutations that can change an organism's internal / external functions, etc for the BETTER or at least better than the functions could have been performed prior to. But always keep in mind that all mutations are a LOSS of genetic information in that an organism either lost the ability to do a particular function, functions differently than before etc
BASSonSTEROIDS94 1 year ago
It's impossible for just about anyone or anything but Laplace's Daemon to determine the distribution of mutations along the beneficial-deleterious axis since the nature of deleterious and beneficial vary significantly (sometimes even being pointed in opposite directions) depending on an organism's environment.
Since all I can find of Kimura's thing is a crappy abstract that doesn't help and refers to things with which I'm unfamiliar, I can say with certainty that this needs to be addressed.
dildace 1 year ago
@dildace Kimura's article is rather old anyway. I used the graph only because it is easier to understand. There is a more recent article and it answers your question. Idk if you have access the Nature, but I'll send you a relevant quote by pm. Here's the source: Eyre-Walker. "The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations." Nature Reviews Genetics. August 2007. 8: 610–618.
owchywawa 1 year ago
This video does nothing to disprove evolution. If anything it's supporting evolution.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple As I said: "In this video I will only give basic, but necessary information on mutations." I didn't give any more or any less than I said I would.
owchywawa 1 year ago
I love the "read it for yourself," smoke screen. "Mistake" is a matter of projecting your own idea on what's happening. Of course, if you can't explain what the evolutionists are saying then you apparently "read it yourself."
yogurtking 1 year ago
@yogurtking Huh? :\ I was saying that my video is not going to cover everything in biology, but if you don't understand what I am saying, then wikipedia will have all the information you need. Idk what exactly you're trying to read out of that, but I only mean what I say.
owchywawa 1 year ago
Funny that you mention wisdom teeth. The mutation in this case happens to be a lack of wisdom teeth...which by the way is beneficial.
BTW mutation is what accounts for diversity, selection acts on variations that already exist.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@Keeban3 I know.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa damnit, now I'm going to have to actually watch the series rather than assuming your argument from scratch.
Keeban3 1 year ago
LOL LMAO! "Chuck norris IS evolution" Oh man, thanks for the chuck norris joke xD
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
can you explain why we dont see a predominance of mutational meltdown in both wild and controlled experiments? they can occur, but not all the time as you are trying to posit.
Mutational Meltdown in Primary Endosymbionts: Selection Limits Muller's Ratchet
Mutational meltdown in laboratory yeast populations
Sidestepping Mutational Meltdown
it seems that the program isnt taking in all factors possibly
wunksta 1 year ago
mutation rates for humans are more around 60 per individual
and the mutation rates for other species can vary. it would only make sense that deleterious rates also vary.
however, deleterious rates appear to be much lower, around 1-2 for each individual
wunksta 1 year ago
I provided sources, if you have sources which contradict them, I will be willing to take a look. Even 1-2 deleterious mutations per-person seems to be a significant problem.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
it wont let me post the links, but apparently even the mutation rates vary from study to study. however, the deleterious mutation rates was based on the Drosophila (nature05388). everything i found was from nature, pubmed and physorg articles from the past few years
in any case, there is an interesting article called 'Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes' by genome research. it seems that its still pretty difficult to sort the deleterious mutations
wunksta 1 year ago
One notable problem is the treatment of mutations as if they are black or white, good, bad or ugly. But whether a mutations is neutral, deleterious or positive depends entirely on the environment that the organism is subject to. You may call sickle cell anemia a deleterious mutation, but it is beneficial in an environment overun with malaria. Is that accounted for?
masterfushi89 1 year ago
@masterfushi89 Well, I don't think all mutations can change from nearly neutral to beneficial, but even if they could, mutations would also be able to become nearly neutral or even bad due to changing in environment. You can't just assume a significant number of mutations would be come beneficial and the problem would be solved.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa No, but you label mutations as good, bad, or neutral. Is their any account for the fact mutations are subject to their environment? How can you put an overall figure on something that is dependent upon so many other factors?
masterfushi89 1 year ago
As far as I know, the figures I use are the ones used by mainstream scientists. If you know of any others which include changing environments, I will definitely check it out. Either way though, this would not stop the decline in fitness because a drastically changing environment doesn't happen enough even assuming that would result in a net gain, which it wouldn't in my opinion, but again, I would be happy to see sources that refute me.
owchywawa 1 year ago
I have to echo Philip0209 here. You can talk all you like about the numbers game i.e. the mechanism but Evolution is fact. There can be no other explanation as to why organisms become more complex over geological time. Everyone knows that mutations are largely neutral and there are more deleterious than beneficial. Why are you looking for beneficial mutations within a single human lifespan? You won't detect it. . Evolution does not work in one or a handful of generations.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
should this be "why the theory of evolution is wrong"? i mean its fact that evolution happens whether or not we have a theory that accurately describes the process.
Philip0209 1 year ago
Well, that name was mostly for attention lol, but these videos I have presented so far are just background information. The third video is the one where I will begin presenting creationist arguments for rebuttal.
Common decent could still be true if mutation and natural selection isn't sufficient, but that would be a major change in the theory of evolution.
owchywawa 1 year ago
"Theory of Evolution: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species - perhaps a self-replicating molecule - that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." - Coyne; Why Evolution Is True
DiwataMan 1 year ago
First sentence. Mutations are the driving force of Evolution.
Wrong
Natural Selection is the driving force of evolution, it acts on variation already there. That is what Darwin discovered, and he didn't know about mutations.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz Natural selection is more of a filter than a driving force. Say natural selection is the driving force would be like saying the steering wheel is the driving force of the car rather than the gas. Either way, this is kind of trivial.
owchywawa 2 years ago
@owchywawa
Natural selction is why things get more complex.
Mutations will only make things follow the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, more ramdom.
Creationist use a strawman arguments like this.
''Mutations are the driving force and good ones don't happen fast enough''
nice try
gregrutz 2 years ago
@owchywawa No, actually gregrutz is right. Random mutations can't be a driving force at all...just consider it for a moment: once a good mutation happens, what causes it to pass on to the next host? Natural selection. Got another explanation that ONLY involves mutations?
Even middle/high schoolers that learn evolution will say that Natural Selection is the driving force. It's common knowledge.
Just because mutations are necessary for evolution doesn't mean they're the driving force.
Kairusan 1 year ago
Yes, that view was first brought about by Darwin before he even knew about mutations and was continued into the present day. Now scientists appear to be moving towards a more neutral theory of evolution; where mutations are more important. I explain this in my videos, but it really isn't important what we call the driving force of evolution.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Interesting...I'm not a scientist so I wouldn't know whether they are or not.
In the end, the main point is understanding them and how evolution works, not which is more important as a "driving force"; both are very important.
Kairusan 1 year ago
@Kairusan
too many people forget genetic drift for some reason
wunksta 1 year ago
@wunksta I'm not very well versed in it personally. I'll admit when I'm ignorant on things. Are you saying that it's how mutations are proposed as a driving force or what is it pertaining to?
Kairusan 1 year ago
@Kairusan
mutations are the driving force in a way, some are selected, some are removed while others just propagate around. not everything has to be naturally selected it would seem. just look up genetic drift for more information
wunksta 1 year ago
@wunksta Alright. Sounds interesting. I'll see what I can research on it.
Kairusan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wunksta Alright. Sounds interesting. I'll see what I can research on it.
Kairusan 1 year ago
@Kairusan I agree. The raw material are genetic switches and mutations, the driving force, which is what directs evolution and pushes it this way or another is natural selection.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
I appreciate the chuck norris reference. I am a teacher and told my students if they are completely lost on an essay question and have nothing meaningful to write just put down "Chuck Norris". Teacher can't mark it wrong because Chuck Norris is never wrong.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
Lol I wish I had you as my teach in biology :P
owchywawa 2 years ago
@snakeguy76 That's hilarious! (though I do hope that students don't get away with it very much, for their sake)
Kairusan 1 year ago
@Kairusan
No they don't at all - at least with me. They still get the question wrong. It does however save me the time of reading ramblings of incoherent pseudointellectual science babble.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 That's good. Yeah, as a teacher, I'd rather read "Chuck Norris" than an attempt at BSing the answer with a bunch of babble. They get it wrong either way, at least one wastes less time and is funny. :)
Kairusan 1 year ago