Hey! i came on this to troll baha, then its the good guys:P Woo first science movie ive found that wasnt made by dumbass theologists trying to disprove reality, well done. Humanity is making progress:D
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
But I don't think that you are fully appreciating that as an irreducibly complex system changes, natural selection only applies to the steps that confer selective advantage. From the demonstration above, it looks like there would be no advantage to any of the steps except the last one (adding a second signal). So the other 6 0r 7 steps would have to happen by blind chance. And this demonstration is much more simple that most biochemical cascades.
@smitty0521 The other steps would have occurred via neutral genetic drift. It has long been argued by many geneticists that the majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular/genetic level occur via neutral processes. The Wikipedia article "Neutral theory of molecular evolution" provides a good summation of the idea.
Well, neutral genetic drift cannot account for biological systems that could only have been evolved by a fairly large number of individually non-adaptive mutations. There are equations out there that show the odds of a neutral mutation becoming fixed in a population of N size, and of course the odds of two, specific neutral mutations being fixed in the population is multiplied by the odds of one neutral mutation being fixed in the population.
flagellum motor has over 30 parts. when the first 2 parts went together, then what? it would of been useless so why would it continue evolving because it wouldnt know that a motor would be the outcome. the first parts would of had to have a purpose for the bacteria to keep it
IC: take one part away and it stops functioning AS IT WAS.
IC: there are systems that can not be simplified and be viable for existence or any type of functioning, asserting that they MUST have always been that way.
One definition is useless for being obvious and self-evident, and therefore irrelevant (the one we can agree on). The other is wrong by presence of evidence against it and its failure to present valid evidence for itself.
No matter which one you choose, IC is a waist of time.
The system becoming something else when you take a part away flies in the face of ID/creationism because the system is adapting with what it has and forms a new function that could be too become "IC". ID/creationism can't account for that. ID/creationism can't account for any increasing complexity in the gradual evolution of animals. (i.e. bacteria->fish->amphibians->reptiles->birds/mammals). The increased complexity of animals match a Darwinian view of evolution and the fossil record.
Nothing is irreducibly complex. A patch of light sensitive cells is not as good as a fully functioning eye, but its still better than nothing. In a concave shape, its even better as you can judge angles. Two are even better, as you can judge distances. Two with a lens covering them are even better, etc etc.
Normally I'm a huge fan of your videos, but this one wasn't really great, it just made a hypothesis of a system changing into another one by selected modifications. I get your point, trying to say that it is possible for IC to be created, but I was expecting an demonstration like "Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker"...
Of course, something like that must be insanely hard to create, so I understand why you just kept it in theories.
No, I mean, in some videos, he created awesome computer simulations to demonstrate the principles, and in this one he only told us how it works. I was kind of hoping for a video with computer simulated irreducible complexity emerging from random mutations, instead of an video explaining how it could happen. I understand it is too much to ask, but he has done it in other videos, and it was truly awesome.
@gregrutz but but... 1) this entire video is about how irreducible complexity can emerge from small, continuous steps,
2) yeah, I suppose I should have said random mutations + natural selection - but the point is in this video he didn't made that, he only told us how it could have happened
3) yeah, his other videos are awesome, this is why I'm saying this one isn't that great. (I set my expectations bar to high)
Some time ago a research showed some bacteria that evolved in the lab to eat some diferent food ... It was an example of IC happening right in front of our eyes, dawkins talked about it in one of his latest books... Do you have any video about that ? It would be grate because it´s right there, on everyones faces
IC's modern form was made by a creationist (Behe's a Roman Catholic), and has become a replacement for Creation Science, which was booted out of school curricula. It is dressed up to *look* like science, but the rest of the biology community has easily torn IC to shreds.
Shanks and Joplin of East TN State Univ make an excellent point of how Behe took 'snapshots' of systems to build his argument, ignoring the redundant complexity that arises as novel combinations are made as a system evolves.
The ultimate point is that IC's true purpose is for creationists to point to IC and say "here is proof of a designer."
Therefore, when you're trying to defend IC, even if you're trying to get it and evolution to jive, you're helping fundamentalist christianity to pollute science education.
IC is rejected by the the scientific community for good reasons. Don't help the fundies ignore that and, in turn, harm future generations by making them scientifically illiterate.
Informative video, but lose the ear-grating music. You should have use the example of the HEAD as an IC. You remove the HEAD from most organisms (who have heads), they die. Yet, obviously, heads evolved.
tha main difference ..when they talk about a pocket phone..is designed and so must be man, is that a pocket phone was made in a factory in under half an hour...we had to evolve to what we are now in several billions of years...
gene selection is not random. Bodies are a representation of the extended phenotype of the gene. God is not really, and most certainly had nothing to do with this process. Those who define themselves under god, and deny evolution and the power of natural selection are too deluded and self indulgent to recognize how insignificant the "body" is. The gene is the agent upon which natural select acts, not the individual body. There is no chance any of you arguing against have read anything about bio
Aah... humans feeble attempt to discover how life came to be... is it so hard to accept a divine creator? its more logical to assume we evolved so perfectly into the beings we are today? at RANDOM??? i dont know.... if it came down to taht, id Go with the divine creator... which is also too complex for the human mind to grasp, no matter how intelligent anybody assumes they are... the ''truth'' cannot be PROVEN 1 way or the other, why not have faith in God?
Dude I recommend a thorogh research!!! there is prove that evolution is facing problems!!! just like the static model of the universe....i'm more inclined towards ID!!! Y do u disregard anything just because religion is assigned to it.....read about the transitional fossils if you find solid proof for them as currently its under threat!! contact me if you need links!!!! Solid information is based by listening to both sides!!!
no actually there isn't any evidence that evolution is facing problems. seriously do some research outside of creationist sites. you can do a search of scientific journals (peer reviewed, which means hundreds of other people RECREATED the experiments and CONFIRMED their efficacy) you'll find tens of thousands of papers ALL FOR evolution. you'll find maybe 5 papers that mention creationism, 4 of them are discrediting creationism, and 1 of them is ambiguous and simply referring to creationism.
define perfectly. cause... humans are incredibly flawed in design and dna. seriously do half a lick of research, a huge portion of our dna is junk dna, useless broken dna, remnants of what we used to be. want more? the horrible curvature of our spine? who designs an upright animal with a spine bent so gruesomely? if the designer was so intelligent he would have made our spine straight so we wouldn't suffer from back pain as we get old or be so vulnerable to back injuries. i could go on....
"The truth cannot be PROVEN 1 way or the other, why not have faith in God?" Because if we left it at that, we wouldn't have electricity, we wouldn't have heat, we wouldn't have indoor plumbing, and we sure as heck wouldn't have these computers to type on. See what we can create and learn if we use our brains instead of just having "faith in God?"
First of all, what God? There are literally thousands of religions in existence.
Second of all, nothing can be proven in the way you suggest, sure. But that is why we study the natural world in the first place; to learn. Furthermore, the idea that nothing can be proven or known may be an assertion within itself.
Lastly, the agnoistic angle is not evidence for any god or theism anyway, so even if nothing can be proven - WHY have faith in a god, sir?
So the eye has evolved through gradual improvement ??? is this a joke???? And the bombardement beetle "most likely" evolved by constantly improving its defence mechanism...yes , right , the beetle has a lot of chimestry PH.D and it keeps invistigating to improve its defence system ... I can believe that really , so logical , thanks for the enlightement .
Unfortunately, simply asking, "is this a joke????" Is pointless if you do nothing to explain why the concept is laughable, which you didn't.
Haven't you ever heard of NATURAL SELECTION? An individual beetle doesn't have to experiment. Evolution works (mostly) by random mutations and non-random selection over successive generations. I'm sorry, but since you don't even understand the basic mechanism of evolution, you're in no position to comment on it.
Yes it's a joke, for me, it's the same as pretending that a Kodak Easy share has evolved by random and gradual improvement..! so, why should I consider the case of the eye diferent?? and my freind, I've heard and read a lot about natural selection, but I've never seen anyone who could explain how can a so sofisticated organ, emerge by rondom and blind changes. you are using "natural selection" exactly as the creationists use the word "GOD",it's a magic power which creats, evolves, changes ...
Cameras do not reproduce. They do not have genomes subject to mutation, frameshift, gene duplication etc. Living things do, so to compare cameras to eyes is absurd. Also, natural selection is not random! There's a myriad of peer reviewed papers on the evolution of complex organ systems. In fact DonExodus2 posted a response to this very video explaining how the eye evolved.
I am familiar with probability theory and thermodynamics, but I don't know what either has to do with evolution.
We humans , with all our intellegence , we had to use knowledge in optics , electricity, biochemistry and lot more in order to understand how does an eye function, I said JUST to understand,and you want me to believe it was the result of some kind of blind process??? because blind process in our daily life only creat chaos. And let me ask you, have you ever heard of Probability calculus? or the second law of thermodynamics?
I cannot read minds, but your mention of probability calculus and the 2nd law of thermodynamics fits with a pattern I have seen before in debating Creationists.
Will you allege that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Please
watch?v=lABiuUt-OT4
Will you allege that probability calculus renders evolution impossible?
Hi, this is the big problem of evolutionist, the ability to extrapolate conclusions with an astonishing ease. Can you explain how a mutation can create light sensitive cells, put a cornea and lens as a focus system, ciliary muscles to adjust the refractive indice of the lens by changing their shape so that image always comes to a sharp focus at the retina
Yes. all that can be explained, just because you are too ignorant to understand the basic chemistry behind it or just too ignorant to care does not mean that it is possible and well very true and realistic (seeing as it DID happen whether or not your religion believes it). All that did evolve through simple natural selection, and a NECESSITY to change to fit a changing environment, that in itself can be considered a definition of evolution, change when it is needed to better survive.
LOL!!! well its not based on randomness then......however you are trying to tell me that the cell needed to survive so it led to the formation of thousands of species with extremely complex systems based on randomness....due u need to look at a dice....try reading ID...may be u'll change you're thinking cause evolution is under threat....just like the static model....
Even if we find out tomorrow that evolution is completely wrong and Darwin was a complete idiot, It still would not mean that (Insert alternative here - ID, magic, essence, etc.) is correct by any means.
Attacking evolutionary theory as ammunition for intelligent design (which, ironically, could be more cleverly argued as the driving force for evolution anyway) is merely a straw-man argument and an utter assertion at best.
(you must agree that mutations must have knowledge about the geometrical optics laws long before René Descartes),well I dont have to ask about the rest of functions, because they are far more complex. (sorry for my English, Im not a native speaker)
I don't have the knowledge to answer all of those questions you asked. Isn't that a bit like stopping a movie half way through and asking someone who just walked in to sum up everything that's happened, and will happen? Obviously it's not one mutation that creates all of the diversity and specialization, but the living process of evolution that is billions of years old, perhaps maybe even eternal?
you fail, go check the kitzmiller vs dover case where Behe get owned for his stupid ideas of IC by scientists. Since Behe believes in ID i.e. Creationist, he fails from the start just as he did in the case.
Behe was forced to admit in court that his definition of science that allowed ID to be taught in science classes would also allow astrology to be classed as science.
Who said creationists dont play fast and loose with reality.
Now all one has to do is divide the number of cells by the age of the earth and then factor in the meandering and exponentional varitations of life forms and massive extinction events that took us to humanity as we are now and you will find this answer ....TIMES UP
Evolution could never have happened so fast.... times up.
realistromeo... do you really think that the scientific community hasn't considered this? or maybe, you are so smart that you have single handedly disarmed evolution. congrats.
I think that you will find that further research will alleviate your assumptions.
I disagree with the implication. I know several very smart, well educated people (with MAs in both arts & sciences) who are so dyslexic that they spell like a 9 year old. Furthermore, not everyone can be bothered to correct a typo in something as transient as a youtube comments box.
Right, and not everyone can be bothered to have a fully thought out and logically consistent ideology for every joke they make about an idiot's uneducated youtube comment.
Although errors in mitosis are rare, the process may go wrong, especially during early cellular divisions in the zygote. Mitotic errors can be especially dangerous to the organism because future offspring from this parent cell will carry the same disorder.
The effect of these genetic abnormalities depends on the specific nature of the error. It may range from no noticeable effect to cancer induction, or organism death.
Your equation was to estimate how much cells each ancestor would need during each mutation per year.
It's good that you understand about the matter of mitosis. If you understand how evolution works, which is the differing in genetic information through either errored mitosis or sexual drift you'll understand your question was stupid.
Everything start at 1 cell before it starts developing through mitosis. Evolution is what makes the process change.
If there is no God than how was the earth made? Matter can't make matter = first law of thermodynamics. And it couldn't have always been here for thousands of years = second law of thermodynamics (entropy)!!! Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!! Mathematically you can't go wrong with the bible with all that it has predicted = ONLY JESUS SAVES......BELIEVE IN HIM!!
What an appropriate soundtrack for a truth about which people should awaken. I would have played "Freedom" because the revolutionary thing about evolution is it's ability to set free the human condition from the shackles of superstition and mental slavery. Evolution necessarily debunks the Creation myth and unravels the Bible, hence the disingenuous way by which Creationists seek to reintroduce their fiction into our classrooms.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not being rude by ignoring AgentOrange's posts, nor am I even reading them, tho I can see with a cursory glance that he keeps sending them to me. I have a policy that I will keep responding to evolutionists'
posts until they start getting insulting. Insults, ad hominems &, really, verbal abuse are counter productive in science debates. I told AgentOrange I would no loinger read his posts, once he started the insults, but if he wants to keep sending them, oh well.
« I am not being rude by ignoring AgentOrange's posts »
« I am not ignoring XGralgathor's posts to me out of rudeness »
Of course you're not.
We've seen agentorange20 patiently trying to explain to you what a transitional fossil is, and encourage you to pick up a few standard reference works, so that you will no longer have to repeat your flawed definition.
But in your eyes, anything that disagrees with your beliefs is insulting, and you ignore it. We understand completely.
The phrase from XG that seems to have started you on the path of ignoring XG: "That can only be called a blatant lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself."
You were misquoting Gould and twisting what he said. XG used lots of courtesy over the course of the discussion. The whole exchange is here.
Ignoring XG at this point is equivalent to admitting defeat in this debate, eg., you concede that XG's points are correct.
THEDAGIT - I did not misquote Gould. If he wanted to retract and try to weasle out of sone statements later, which he did, possibly because creationists got ahold of them, that in no way invalidates what he said initially up front. Dr. Colin Patterson, who was part of the exchange in which they both acknowledge the lack of transitional fossils,is not misquoted either, though evolutionists try to make a case that he is, very, very poorly to say the least. XG is ignored due to verbal abuse.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not ignoring XGralgathor's posts to me out of rudeness & certainly not because of having nothing to say in response. His posts are not being read by me because he has shown a pattern of verbal abuse. Tho I have told him I will no longer read his posts, and I do not, he keeps spamming me with them over and over on 2 separate videos. They are are just being ignored.
Oh enough of your rambling, you ask for evidence & I mention genetic evidence like ERV's, GULO, human chromosome 2 fusion & you're not even botherign to retort on them, why should I or anyone take you seriously now.
"Show me the afore described mouse trap, w/o it's major parts, killing mice"
already told you lady, WE DON'T HAVE TO, so long as it has *other fuctions* (tie clip) w/ removed parts it's not IC.
That's okay. We've already established that you are ignoring my comments. But that won't stop me from addressing your unsubstantiated or fallacious claims as you make them.
TO ANYONE CURIOUS - XGrakrathor keeps leaivng me posts tho I have told him I will not, and I do not, read them. This is not because of anything he has said - how can I know what he said if I don't read them - but because I shun verbal abuse.
It is unscientific and I don't have to put up with it, and will not put up with it. Hope YOU can do better. All people who use ad hominems, insults & nasty sarcasm go on a list of "delete posts w/o reading & just pray for them."
"if you can show me mice killed with a mousetrap that is missing"
no need to, all we have to do is show how the related parts of the mouse trap minus some parts still have other functions (tie clip) & like the Type III SS, they do.
we can show modularity of the system & therefore said system isn't IC at all.
agent - Evolution has told us that we don't have to have any actual, you know, ev-d-dence such as is called for in the scientific method through completed experiments to test a hypothesis. They say we just have to theorize about something entirely unrelated. Show me the afore described mouse trap, w/o it's major parts, killing mice. Complete the experiment. Words alone do not science make. In fact words alone lead to psuedo science. We both know an incomplete mouse trap will not catch mice.
Point #4 in this vid. It says, "Later I will show how the flagellum most likely evolved." Then it is claimed there is "a hypothesis supported by a mountain of evidence." 1st, words like "most likely" "probably" "scientists generally agree" etc. are what evolution is founded on, not evidence. 2nd, with "a mountain of evidence" you wouldn't need "most likely". There is no evidence at all, actually, that the flagellum ever was, or could function, in a less complex state.
« with "a mountain of evidence" you wouldn't need "most likely" »
You are confusing the words evidence and proof. Proof, in its strict definition, is something only applicable in mathematics and formal logic. Evidence is defined as an independently verifiable observation consistent with predictions following logically from the hypothesis being tested. While an observation may disprove a model, it may never prove it, as there are always alternative explanations.
False: it has been determined that parts of the genetic structures coding for the flagellum have independent function other structures, thereby confirming a prediction following logically from the hypothesis of descent with modification.
BS, it's emprically testable, when we find a group of older species (fish) which we think is related to a extant one (amphibians) we can then test this by finding those in between (tiktaalik) which demostrates intermediate traits. we can go even further & use past evidence on where they lived to test where they like evolved (again in tiktaaliks case) which doesn't seem likely if it weren't valid.
Point #3, Cont. Trilobytes are said by evolutionists to be among the first life forms on the planet. However, their eyes are incredibly more complex than our own!
Trilobytes are easy to find in many areas, for example on the tops of hills all over Ky.
Over 1 billion of just 1 type of nautiloid alone is found in the Grand Canyon. All these animals have eyes & bodies that look like cookie cutter samples. The evidence shows they have stayed the same from the start, & none shows them evolving.
'Trilobytes are said by evolutionists to be among the first life forms on the planet'
nope, not even close, the first life forms 9self replicating systems' were organisms like Stromatolites, around 3.85 BYA, whereas Trilobytes appeared around 600 MYA.
'their eyes are incredibly more complex than our own!'
No they're not! See, I can use the exclimation too. Really though, they had a form of compound eyes, so they lacked great visual acuity and dept perpection.
agent - The so-called Cambrian period is commonly said to include animals among the 1st on the planet. I am aware that evolutionists say that they found some "preCambrian" life forms such as you mentioned.
You will notice there is nothing in the fossil record showing those turning into Cambrian creatures. There is no certainty as to what they even are, only conflicting theories. Yes, trilobyte eyes were far more complex than our own and supposedly far earlier than our own.
Sorry, but this is wrong. absolutely, unqestionably wrong. the first evidence we find for organisms on earth are stromatolites dating back 3.85 BYA.
'I am aware that evolutionists say that they found some "'
I take it you're also aware that some of this pre-cambrian life (around 635 MYA) was also nominally complex (primitve eyes, primitve limbs, etc.) & not merely simple celled organisms at this time.
so why ask for something whcih is able to perform the fuction now (space shuttle) for something (skateboard) which you know now can't. if you were to ask, can this skateboard be added to, modulated & so on to where something could then go forth in space, then the answer is yes.
agent - I was using the rocket ship as an example of irreducible complexity. I was using an analogy to show that, if built up over time, the way cells and all life form systems are said to do so by evolution, then there would be problems that interfere with function instead of systems that lead to a more and more perfect and viable, animated, lifeform. If you didn't understand that it is because people are having a hard time understanding the concept of irreducible complexity.
'then there would be problems that interfere with function instead of systems '
The fuction of the sub-system or indeed the whole system changes per the relative fitness it provides, just like how the Type 3 SS was modulated for another future fuction.
We don't need the whole mousetrap to catch mice, & certainly it has other fuctions even when reduced in parts, so to say that a less complexs system can't have fuction & thus can't exist is wrong.
agent - "We don't need the whole mousetrap to catch mice." Reall? I'd like to see how many mice are being caught without the spring, or without the hammer. A life form cannot go from "having other functions" like a mousetrap's hammer being used for a tie clip. It couldn't just switch from one function to another, nor is that the way evolution is supposed to work anyway.
And why not? Science isn't restricted to what we can actively see or witness, so long as we have emprical testable data it can be used.
we never actively saw the mountains rise, but there is plenty of evidence showing how tectonic plate movement gradually forms them. w/ evolutonary big changes over time its the same principle. small changes + long amounts of time = large macro changes.
agent - There is no evidence however that can come about from saying, "Fossil A looks like fossil B, so A came from B." This is because we have no evidence showing one species can turn into another, not in animal husbandry, in nature or in labs (which, tho would be intelligent design.) We see things happen in nature all the time to mountains. We don't see new species emerging anywhere, tho we do see them going extinct. There is lots of evidence for extinction.
'have no evidence showing one species can turn into another'
but we do, just google observed instaces of speciation. some in the lab and wild, and no you wont find any creationist monikers like a monkey giving birth to a fully formed human, only they expect such ludicrous things in a single generation.
agent - Good ol' Talkorigins says "there's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators". That last statement is appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, not science. They also say "Test for speciation: sterile offspring & lack of interbreedin affinity." This is hilarious. Sterile offspring can be seen mating a donkey & a horse. A mule is not a new species. How are "sterility & lack of interbreeding affinity" proof of a new species? It's a dead end, not an "evolving" species!
Agent - Don't you see, they are just talking about evidence. Twice. They talk about evidence, but they don't show any! They use 2 appeals to authority. See the difference between that and real evidence? Where is the real evidence? Nowhere!
ok, having lost on saying that the scientists contend that speciation wasn't occuring, when it actually was, but you omitted it (basically lying on your part) you now complain that they don't cite evidence? Ugh, lady if you're so inclined refer to the bloody articles they cite review them & in detail & THEN come bac & complain about not citing evidence.
agent - Perhaps I did move the goalpost on the Stickleback fish, tho not intentionally. I will have to read up on that animal and get back w/you hopefully tomorrow.
Point #3: "In this earlier video I showed how the eye evolved through gradual steps, each improving vision." What was really shown were animals with less complex eyes designed for their particular lifestyles. One is expected to connect dots and say "Oh, our eye went thru those stages." There is 0 evidence for that. Fossils abound in uncounted billions. Even jelly fish and single celled organisms have been preserved. Where are the trilobyte, dog, human etc. eyes
Tectonic plates move, uplift, thus hills/mountains formin w/ said species on top.
'oh, our eyes went thru those stages'
no, but eyes of many species did evolve in that manner. humans & dogs already inherited eyes, they're weren't existing w/out eyes and then gradually evolved eyes. The eye is inherited, so you're questions makes no sense.
age. - Saying they evolved is one thing. Where is the evidence? Where are the less complex, :"emerging" eyes or "emerging" anything seen for a species? Where are there squid with short stumpy tentacles? Seashells that aren't quite symmetrical yet? Nautioloids whose spirals areen't quite perfectly formred? Billionis of pieces of evidence for these things in tact and continuing, ditto their eyes, are there. The evidence for them evolving is based on theories not anything tangible.
agent - Stop right there & think friend. You've heard the usual line: Fossil A looks sorta like Fossil B, therefore we just knooooow B came from A. Where is the evidence A ever reproduced anything other than its own kind and that it isn't just an extinct lifeform? "Well it kinda looks like a trilobyte & an expert said that it was an ancestor for a trilobyte" is passing for scientific evidence in the evolutionary community. That's not evidence or real science. Btw where are the transitions?
No, not quite. A transitional fossil is not required to be a direct descendant of A, nor a direct ancestor to B. It is merely required to show that there has existed a lifeform which shows the characteristics consistent with a progression from A to B. In other words, you've been misinformed about what a transitional fossil is.
XGral - "Shows the characteristics of" is evidence? That is the same as "Looks kinda like one to me." Once again, those fossils that they tell you are "transitional" cannot be told from fossils that became extinct w/unchanged progeny. Yet you're told to believe they are evidence. There is a cop out in evolution: "Well, we don't have to provide a chain of transitional fossils, just take our word for it, Fossil A looks like Fossil B, kinda. End of story!" Again, that is not true science.
It's based on morpological similarities and differences, some deduction. IE, if you review my vids 'Evidence for evolution: hominid fossils' you'll see there is a natural progression from one species to the next, though you asking for a direct life, eyewitness account will never be fufilled.
agent - A cheezeholder is not an independently moving object so is not analogous to life.. What evidence do you have that the Stickleback fish is turning into another species? Farmers, and observers of nature have known from the beginning that there is a certain - but very limited - genetic ability that can be used to transform animals. Look at those goldfish from Japan with bizarre eyes and tails. Guess what? They are still goldfish. Evolution is supposedly about the origin of...speciesl
no it's not, it's the reality of how rare fossilization is. if one (like you) ignores this and then pretends & demands there should be 1000's for each species, they're doing so only so they don't have to explain the other transitionals.
'nautiloid '
hard calcified shells tend to fossilze just a bit better than organisms that decay in the open oxidization of the air w/ scavengers picking away at them.
agent - Okay great about the nautiloid. (By the way I assume you know that they look exactly the same today.) Since we do have so many billions of copies for them, where is any transition showing that they every looked any different in the past?
agent - I have copied and saved your last 3 posts. Unless something unexpectedly interupts, on the next Sabbath I will respond to them. That is when I will have enough time. They will take a bit of research & time. Trust you will understand, and have a nice week.
agent - There are fossils evolutionists will say look like horse shoe crabs, sand dollars, etc. However, "A looks like B, so B came from A" is theory not evidence. One has to show the so-called earlier fossils produced any progeny whatsoever different from itself. This has never been done w/uncounted fossil billions. Google: Quote Colin Patterson no transitional fossils. If you say its out of context, show in what ways. Patterson was head paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum.
'evolutionists will say look like horse shoe crabs, sand dollars,'
so now you've moved from denying they exist, b/c surely they do, to complaining that overall morpological similarities aren't enough to substantaite relatedness. well, sorry lady, but you can't have it both ways.
Agent - One last post, then I think I will answer no more of yours until next Sabbath as so many responses just multiply too fast for me to handle. Show me where I ever said those types of animals did not exist. I did not. I said there is no evidence that they are transitional fossils. "Overall morphological similarities" is not evidence. It's a theory. Finding no intermediate links, evolutionists say they are "missing." They're somewhat similar but different kinds of animals, not links..
"where I ever said those types of animals did not exist."
initially you stated intermediate fossils don't exist, then (moved goal posts) when such ones are clearly intermediate in morphology you decry we can't know for sure since we didn't physically observe the many speciations over millions of years in real time. IE your level of acceptance for evidence is nonsense, it's like stating we can't deduce moutaint formation since we also don't witness them form in a single life.
"Overall morphological similarities" is not evidence"
So if i say, hey what kind of morphology should we find for intermediate species between us & the proposed apes, we should find species which have moprhology 1/2 way, craniums 1/2 way, & so on, & we find this in many species all progessively becomming more and more 'human' & less 'ape' over time. now why would that be if it were not true?
"A cheezeholder is not an independently moving object so is not analogous to life."
it's part of the 5 parts, well then tell Behe that, go tell him his mousetrap analogy is defunct in princple AND analogy. You can't now retract & say 'oh no, well that part, yeah, that doesn't count'. that IS a cop out.
either it's IC as it is or its not. it's not logical to later retract on the stance that not *all* the parts are required whilst pumping your fist its IC. can't have it both ways...
agent - Not sure to which statement of mine you are referring. This string has gotten very long. However, if you can show me mice killed with a mousetrap that is missing either the hammer, the spring, the bait or the board to hold the mechanism, please do so.
I'm not talking about a different kind of mouse trap, like one with sticky paper or something (that would have the same IC, namely glue, paper, something to attract the mouse etc.) but the standard mouse trap. Waiting to see dead mice.
& they never said it was. it's a test (hypothesis) lady, which turns out to explain why when species become too genetically different they can no longer re-combine to further their line of descent.
thus, at this point all changes in each gene pool (each species group) evolve independently & on their own trajectory & thus increases the amount of divergence over time.
Agent - "...which turns out to explain why when species become too genetically different they can no longer re-combine to further their line of descent."
Please stop & think. Let's say you're doing an experiment to show how something can improve and increase (as in "evolving"). Then the result of your experiment showed sterililty, end of the line. Would you have the nerve to tell the prof "See? That proves my hypothesis that those methods can lead to new and improved life!"
"Then the result of your experiment showed sterililty"
ok, you misinterpreted the review/resutls of the experiments. It wasn't to demonstrate the hybridization = a new species, rather it demonstrates that at a certain point when species are too genetically different they can no longer produce vialbe offspring, which means that post divergence species invariably become more & more genetically different as they evolve on their own trajectories.
Ha-larious!.... for a lady who puts on a big show about not taking verbal abuse from others, your comment of stop & think is implying I'm not thinking. Effffen priceless!
" I have a policy that I will keep responding to evolutionists'"
yeah, a one way policy it appears. move along lady, you've had your ass handed to you, you're done.
agent - Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. To honestly say "Fossil A is an earlier, transtional link for Fossil B" you have to show fossil evidence that Fossil A ever had any kinds of progeny that were different from itself and moving more in the direction of Fossil B. All they really have, w/uncounted billions of fossils, is no such thing ever, just "Fossil A looks like Fossil B and the other links are missing."
No evidence is ever offered for how we tell "missing" from "never existed."
« you have to show fossil evidence that Fossil A ever had any kinds of progeny »
And AGAIN, a transitional fossil is a fossil showing that certain TRAITS existed; it does not necessitate direct descent or ancestry. Why do you maintain this lie?
"No evidence is ever offered for how we tell "missing" from "never existed." "
we dont know till we look, & we wont know till we find. but w/ our past finds we do find older species trending in morphology to current extant or others whcih later went extant, this is how it's deduced. this is how the test of looking for a intermediate like tiktaalik was expected to be found in the area it was found in. such a test w/ verifcation comes w/ predictability based on morphology.
Apparently, you don't understand what the word evidence means.
An observation which is consistent with predictions following logically from a model being tested is evidence for that model.
Evolutionary theory predicts that species have existed which show characteristics halfway between A and B. We find such a species. The find confirms the prediction. It is evidence.
Evidence is an observation that matches a prediction by the model being tested. The model is there: evolutionary theory. It predicts certain things being observed: nested hierarchies, transitional fossils. It can get very specific in its predictions, even. We then observe those things. The model is confirmed.
Seems to me you are making the following error.
First believe evolution is true.
Contingent complexity exists.
Therefore it must have evolved because evolution is true.
Job done.
Why do people who believe as you do assume that any changes required to create the observable existing complexity are stable ?
I mean over the aeons of time required for evolution to act.
Why dont such changes mutate along the way ?
More likely than sitting idle awaiting their day to miraculously fit as req'd.
divvy1400yam600 1 month ago
Hey! i came on this to troll baha, then its the good guys:P Woo first science movie ive found that wasnt made by dumbass theologists trying to disprove reality, well done. Humanity is making progress:D
TheAllien111 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
achilles197474 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
But I don't think that you are fully appreciating that as an irreducibly complex system changes, natural selection only applies to the steps that confer selective advantage. From the demonstration above, it looks like there would be no advantage to any of the steps except the last one (adding a second signal). So the other 6 0r 7 steps would have to happen by blind chance. And this demonstration is much more simple that most biochemical cascades.
smitty0521 9 months ago
@smitty0521 The other steps would have occurred via neutral genetic drift. It has long been argued by many geneticists that the majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular/genetic level occur via neutral processes. The Wikipedia article "Neutral theory of molecular evolution" provides a good summation of the idea.
MrRobotoToo 8 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@MrRobotoToo
Well, neutral genetic drift cannot account for biological systems that could only have been evolved by a fairly large number of individually non-adaptive mutations. There are equations out there that show the odds of a neutral mutation becoming fixed in a population of N size, and of course the odds of two, specific neutral mutations being fixed in the population is multiplied by the odds of one neutral mutation being fixed in the population.
FirstFreedomFighter 5 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Why doesn't the science agree with you?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
It does.
FirstFreedomFighter 4 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Apparently it doesn't. Haven't seen teh inside of a textbook, eh?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
I have.
FirstFreedomFighter 4 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Not too astutely.
Your religious protests haven't been taken seriously...
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata FTW!
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@odinata I would contend that just because something is in a textbook, doesn't make it science. That goes for evolutionism as well as creationism.
jasm707 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jasm707
You can contend anything you like.
That doesn't make it science.
odinata 3 months ago
flagellum motor has over 30 parts. when the first 2 parts went together, then what? it would of been useless so why would it continue evolving because it wouldnt know that a motor would be the outcome. the first parts would of had to have a purpose for the bacteria to keep it
bassline20 9 months ago
@bassline20
"the first parts would of had to have a purpose for the bacteria to keep it"
They did.
odinata 4 months ago
@DrSunnz you're clearly ignorant and someone who doesn't understand biology
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
IC: take one part away and it stops functioning AS IT WAS.
IC: there are systems that can not be simplified and be viable for existence or any type of functioning, asserting that they MUST have always been that way.
One definition is useless for being obvious and self-evident, and therefore irrelevant (the one we can agree on). The other is wrong by presence of evidence against it and its failure to present valid evidence for itself.
No matter which one you choose, IC is a waist of time.
elploky 1 year ago
The system becoming something else when you take a part away flies in the face of ID/creationism because the system is adapting with what it has and forms a new function that could be too become "IC". ID/creationism can't account for that. ID/creationism can't account for any increasing complexity in the gradual evolution of animals. (i.e. bacteria->fish->amphibians->reptiles->birds/mammals). The increased complexity of animals match a Darwinian view of evolution and the fossil record.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Shame about the music. Nice science, though.
uriituw 1 year ago
Isn't it already irreducible at 3:05?
tifforo1 1 year ago
epic vid
Plausiblesarge 1 year ago
Another good one, thank you.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Nothing is irreducibly complex. A patch of light sensitive cells is not as good as a fully functioning eye, but its still better than nothing. In a concave shape, its even better as you can judge angles. Two are even better, as you can judge distances. Two with a lens covering them are even better, etc etc.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
This is too complicated. I think I'll stick with the simplest explanation, god created everything.
DrSunnz 1 year ago
@DrSunnz God creating everything sounds way more complex to me.
thybigballs 1 month ago
Normally I'm a huge fan of your videos, but this one wasn't really great, it just made a hypothesis of a system changing into another one by selected modifications. I get your point, trying to say that it is possible for IC to be created, but I was expecting an demonstration like "Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker"...
Of course, something like that must be insanely hard to create, so I understand why you just kept it in theories.
weeecrap 1 year ago
@weeecrap You don't know what a Scientific Theory is, it is not a best guess.
Theories can be proven to be a fact, like evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
What?
No, I mean, in some videos, he created awesome computer simulations to demonstrate the principles, and in this one he only told us how it works. I was kind of hoping for a video with computer simulated irreducible complexity emerging from random mutations, instead of an video explaining how it could happen. I understand it is too much to ask, but he has done it in other videos, and it was truly awesome.
weeecrap 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz but but... 1) this entire video is about how irreducible complexity can emerge from small, continuous steps,
2) yeah, I suppose I should have said random mutations + natural selection - but the point is in this video he didn't made that, he only told us how it could have happened
3) yeah, his other videos are awesome, this is why I'm saying this one isn't that great. (I set my expectations bar to high)
Are you taking me for a creationist?
weeecrap 1 year ago
@gregrutz ...the process of evolution is a theory, its fact that it happens.
mit871chell 1 year ago
Some time ago a research showed some bacteria that evolved in the lab to eat some diferent food ... It was an example of IC happening right in front of our eyes, dawkins talked about it in one of his latest books... Do you have any video about that ? It would be grate because it´s right there, on everyones faces
DaluZwasUnavailable 1 year ago
The only thing IC is proof of, is the irreducible stupidity of creationists
PEDRONNIAL 1 year ago
I personally liked the RATM music in the background in this video, but that's just me. xD
("Wake Up" by Rage Against the Machine)
Great vid, as always.
chadachada123 1 year ago
IC's modern form was made by a creationist (Behe's a Roman Catholic), and has become a replacement for Creation Science, which was booted out of school curricula. It is dressed up to *look* like science, but the rest of the biology community has easily torn IC to shreds.
Shanks and Joplin of East TN State Univ make an excellent point of how Behe took 'snapshots' of systems to build his argument, ignoring the redundant complexity that arises as novel combinations are made as a system evolves.
trevorzlee 1 year ago
Also,
The ultimate point is that IC's true purpose is for creationists to point to IC and say "here is proof of a designer."
Therefore, when you're trying to defend IC, even if you're trying to get it and evolution to jive, you're helping fundamentalist christianity to pollute science education.
IC is rejected by the the scientific community for good reasons. Don't help the fundies ignore that and, in turn, harm future generations by making them scientifically illiterate.
trevorzlee 1 year ago
Informative video, but lose the ear-grating music. You should have use the example of the HEAD as an IC. You remove the HEAD from most organisms (who have heads), they die. Yet, obviously, heads evolved.
duck24x 1 year ago
Nature is FAR too beautiful and subtle and complex
to have been created by your god.
He has very few ideas:
people grumble? Kill 'em!
people follow other gods? Kill 'em!
people eat the wrong food? Kill 'em!
people work on the wrong day of the week? Kill 'em!
people wear mixed-fibre clothes? Kill 'em!
What a one-track mind.
No creativity or complexity there.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
tha main difference ..when they talk about a pocket phone..is designed and so must be man, is that a pocket phone was made in a factory in under half an hour...we had to evolve to what we are now in several billions of years...
they dont gasp the principle of evolution.
robot014 1 year ago
I love Rage Against The Machine.
wiz9496 1 year ago
gene selection is not random. Bodies are a representation of the extended phenotype of the gene. God is not really, and most certainly had nothing to do with this process. Those who define themselves under god, and deny evolution and the power of natural selection are too deluded and self indulgent to recognize how insignificant the "body" is. The gene is the agent upon which natural select acts, not the individual body. There is no chance any of you arguing against have read anything about bio
TheMuscleShark 1 year ago
Aah... humans feeble attempt to discover how life came to be... is it so hard to accept a divine creator? its more logical to assume we evolved so perfectly into the beings we are today? at RANDOM??? i dont know.... if it came down to taht, id Go with the divine creator... which is also too complex for the human mind to grasp, no matter how intelligent anybody assumes they are... the ''truth'' cannot be PROVEN 1 way or the other, why not have faith in God?
nicwright01 2 years ago
@nicwright01
Yes science is more logical. Logic is a science.
No one said it's random and no one thinks we are perfectly evolved.
I'm afraid your extraordinary GOD requires extraordinary evidence...
Like - say, HIM peeking from behind the clouds and announcing, "Here I AM!"
But He only reveals HIMSELF to the occasional visionary in History, right? Yeah... Some GOD.
hybridamerica 2 years ago
Dude I recommend a thorogh research!!! there is prove that evolution is facing problems!!! just like the static model of the universe....i'm more inclined towards ID!!! Y do u disregard anything just because religion is assigned to it.....read about the transitional fossils if you find solid proof for them as currently its under threat!! contact me if you need links!!!! Solid information is based by listening to both sides!!!
khawarazaidi 2 years ago
no actually there isn't any evidence that evolution is facing problems. seriously do some research outside of creationist sites. you can do a search of scientific journals (peer reviewed, which means hundreds of other people RECREATED the experiments and CONFIRMED their efficacy) you'll find tens of thousands of papers ALL FOR evolution. you'll find maybe 5 papers that mention creationism, 4 of them are discrediting creationism, and 1 of them is ambiguous and simply referring to creationism.
kingbane2 1 year ago
except it's not random if you look at it...
SheepRCool17 2 years ago
@nicwright01
You assume too much.
Yes, it is too hard to accept a "divine creator".
It is an EXTRAordinary claim. It is just as 'easy' to accept the Tooth Faerie.
Who said evolution was random- no one says that but Creationists.
"Faith" is a cop out and a giving up on inquiry and discovery. It is the evil of incuriousness and it's horrific by-product.
hybridamerica 2 years ago
define perfectly. cause... humans are incredibly flawed in design and dna. seriously do half a lick of research, a huge portion of our dna is junk dna, useless broken dna, remnants of what we used to be. want more? the horrible curvature of our spine? who designs an upright animal with a spine bent so gruesomely? if the designer was so intelligent he would have made our spine straight so we wouldn't suffer from back pain as we get old or be so vulnerable to back injuries. i could go on....
kingbane2 1 year ago
"The truth cannot be PROVEN 1 way or the other, why not have faith in God?" Because if we left it at that, we wouldn't have electricity, we wouldn't have heat, we wouldn't have indoor plumbing, and we sure as heck wouldn't have these computers to type on. See what we can create and learn if we use our brains instead of just having "faith in God?"
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
First of all, what God? There are literally thousands of religions in existence.
Second of all, nothing can be proven in the way you suggest, sure. But that is why we study the natural world in the first place; to learn. Furthermore, the idea that nothing can be proven or known may be an assertion within itself.
Lastly, the agnoistic angle is not evidence for any god or theism anyway, so even if nothing can be proven - WHY have faith in a god, sir?
EarthsFinalWinter 1 year ago
cdkoo7,
YOUR VIDEOS ARE MASTERLY.
Thank you very much for this brief summary on IC.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
So the eye has evolved through gradual improvement ??? is this a joke???? And the bombardement beetle "most likely" evolved by constantly improving its defence mechanism...yes , right , the beetle has a lot of chimestry PH.D and it keeps invistigating to improve its defence system ... I can believe that really , so logical , thanks for the enlightement .
dirak1974 2 years ago
Unfortunately, simply asking, "is this a joke????" Is pointless if you do nothing to explain why the concept is laughable, which you didn't.
Haven't you ever heard of NATURAL SELECTION? An individual beetle doesn't have to experiment. Evolution works (mostly) by random mutations and non-random selection over successive generations. I'm sorry, but since you don't even understand the basic mechanism of evolution, you're in no position to comment on it.
RamblingOfScience 2 years ago
Yes it's a joke, for me, it's the same as pretending that a Kodak Easy share has evolved by random and gradual improvement..! so, why should I consider the case of the eye diferent?? and my freind, I've heard and read a lot about natural selection, but I've never seen anyone who could explain how can a so sofisticated organ, emerge by rondom and blind changes. you are using "natural selection" exactly as the creationists use the word "GOD",it's a magic power which creats, evolves, changes ...
dirak1974 2 years ago
Cameras do not reproduce. They do not have genomes subject to mutation, frameshift, gene duplication etc. Living things do, so to compare cameras to eyes is absurd. Also, natural selection is not random! There's a myriad of peer reviewed papers on the evolution of complex organ systems. In fact DonExodus2 posted a response to this very video explaining how the eye evolved.
I am familiar with probability theory and thermodynamics, but I don't know what either has to do with evolution.
RamblingOfScience 2 years ago
We humans , with all our intellegence , we had to use knowledge in optics , electricity, biochemistry and lot more in order to understand how does an eye function, I said JUST to understand,and you want me to believe it was the result of some kind of blind process??? because blind process in our daily life only creat chaos. And let me ask you, have you ever heard of Probability calculus? or the second law of thermodynamics?
dirak1974 2 years ago
dirak1974,
I cannot read minds, but your mention of probability calculus and the 2nd law of thermodynamics fits with a pattern I have seen before in debating Creationists.
Will you allege that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Please
watch?v=lABiuUt-OT4
Will you allege that probability calculus renders evolution impossible?
Please
watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ
especially from 4:37 on.
If you were not going to make those arguments, please forgive and correct.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
dirak1974
"because blind process in our daily life only creat chaos"
Have you heard of emergence?
Please
watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g
where you will hear Neil deGrasse Tyson explain that complex systems can indeed arise (emerge) from very simple rules.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
The mutant individuals that have better defense mechanisms have a better chance of surviving and passing on their DNA. How is that illogical?
MorayEel 2 years ago
Hi, this is the big problem of evolutionist, the ability to extrapolate conclusions with an astonishing ease. Can you explain how a mutation can create light sensitive cells, put a cornea and lens as a focus system, ciliary muscles to adjust the refractive indice of the lens by changing their shape so that image always comes to a sharp focus at the retina
dirak1974 2 years ago
Yes. all that can be explained, just because you are too ignorant to understand the basic chemistry behind it or just too ignorant to care does not mean that it is possible and well very true and realistic (seeing as it DID happen whether or not your religion believes it). All that did evolve through simple natural selection, and a NECESSITY to change to fit a changing environment, that in itself can be considered a definition of evolution, change when it is needed to better survive.
bftjosh 2 years ago
LOL!!! well its not based on randomness then......however you are trying to tell me that the cell needed to survive so it led to the formation of thousands of species with extremely complex systems based on randomness....due u need to look at a dice....try reading ID...may be u'll change you're thinking cause evolution is under threat....just like the static model....
khawarazaidi 2 years ago
Even if we find out tomorrow that evolution is completely wrong and Darwin was a complete idiot, It still would not mean that (Insert alternative here - ID, magic, essence, etc.) is correct by any means.
Attacking evolutionary theory as ammunition for intelligent design (which, ironically, could be more cleverly argued as the driving force for evolution anyway) is merely a straw-man argument and an utter assertion at best.
EarthsFinalWinter 1 year ago
(you must agree that mutations must have knowledge about the geometrical optics laws long before René Descartes),well I dont have to ask about the rest of functions, because they are far more complex. (sorry for my English, Im not a native speaker)
dirak1974 2 years ago
I don't have the knowledge to answer all of those questions you asked. Isn't that a bit like stopping a movie half way through and asking someone who just walked in to sum up everything that's happened, and will happen? Obviously it's not one mutation that creates all of the diversity and specialization, but the living process of evolution that is billions of years old, perhaps maybe even eternal?
MorayEel 2 years ago
PS Just because someone doesn't trust the Christian bible, doesn't mean they are godless.
MorayEel 2 years ago
you fail, go check the kitzmiller vs dover case where Behe get owned for his stupid ideas of IC by scientists. Since Behe believes in ID i.e. Creationist, he fails from the start just as he did in the case.
SpawnINRI 2 years ago
Behe was forced to admit in court that his definition of science that allowed ID to be taught in science classes would also allow astrology to be classed as science.
Who said creationists dont play fast and loose with reality.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Where I come from it's not, atleast in Canada. Is it just in U.S.A. that in some states ID is tought in science classes or even astrology?
SpawnINRI 2 years ago
Glad to hear it , Canadians seem a lot more rational about ID than their American neighbours.
It's not actually taught in America afaik, thats what the Dover trial was about, whether they could teach ID in class.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Why did you put a music track over it? Is it just to piss people off or to show us all how cool you are?
ToiletsnifferV 2 years ago
Why do you sniff toilets? Is it just because you like piss or to show us all how much of tool you are?
Do you know what a false dilemma is, or are you just a douche?
wearealltubes 2 years ago
Without douches like him, the world would be filled with dirty cunts like you.
SlashIStheShit 2 years ago
Douches do keep c*nts clean, i'll grant you that.
wearealltubes 2 years ago
haha yeah. I wanted to use that for a while. no hard feelings. haha
SlashIStheShit 2 years ago
I don't know man, all this talk of dirty c*nts is giving me some hard feelings...
I'll be on Redtube for a while if anyone needs me (it better be bloody important though)
wearealltubes 2 years ago
simple equasion
earth = 4.5 billion years old.
cells in humans body =50-100 trillion.
Now all one has to do is divide the number of cells by the age of the earth and then factor in the meandering and exponentional varitations of life forms and massive extinction events that took us to humanity as we are now and you will find this answer ....TIMES UP
Evolution could never have happened so fast.... times up.
realistromeo 2 years ago
Lol what? Individual cells in human body dont need to evolve all by themselves.
pifase 2 years ago
realistromeo... do you really think that the scientific community hasn't considered this? or maybe, you are so smart that you have single handedly disarmed evolution. congrats.
I think that you will find that further research will alleviate your assumptions.
PowerfulSplicer 2 years ago
lol evolution is an assumption.
but evolutioniosts can do the work for me for i have not a lifetime to spend.
realistromeo 2 years ago
no, it isn't. it is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence. but, thank you for proving your willful ignorance.
"evolutionists can do the work for me"
how can you debate a subject if you aren't willing to learn about it?
PowerfulSplicer 2 years ago
Lol you know someone's comment is going to be well educated when they start with "simple equasion."
npeffer 2 years ago
I disagree with the implication. I know several very smart, well educated people (with MAs in both arts & sciences) who are so dyslexic that they spell like a 9 year old. Furthermore, not everyone can be bothered to correct a typo in something as transient as a youtube comments box.
wearealltubes 2 years ago
Right, and not everyone can be bothered to have a fully thought out and logically consistent ideology for every joke they make about an idiot's uneducated youtube comment.
npeffer 2 years ago
I agree - calling him an uneducated idiot would have sufficed for me!
wearealltubes 2 years ago
This is the stupidest logic I've seen in a while.
Raherin 2 years ago
It's so easy... even a caveman can do it.
realistromeo 2 years ago
That doesn't change that fact that it's stupid logic, and any scientist (not creation scientist (that's an oxymoron)) would agree.
Raherin 2 years ago
Fail, ever heard of mitosis?
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
Although errors in mitosis are rare, the process may go wrong, especially during early cellular divisions in the zygote. Mitotic errors can be especially dangerous to the organism because future offspring from this parent cell will carry the same disorder.
The effect of these genetic abnormalities depends on the specific nature of the error. It may range from no noticeable effect to cancer induction, or organism death.
realistromeo 2 years ago
Your equation was to estimate how much cells each ancestor would need during each mutation per year.
It's good that you understand about the matter of mitosis. If you understand how evolution works, which is the differing in genetic information through either errored mitosis or sexual drift you'll understand your question was stupid.
Everything start at 1 cell before it starts developing through mitosis. Evolution is what makes the process change.
You should understand your question was stupid.
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is no God than how was the earth made? Matter can't make matter = first law of thermodynamics. And it couldn't have always been here for thousands of years = second law of thermodynamics (entropy)!!! Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!! Mathematically you can't go wrong with the bible with all that it has predicted = ONLY JESUS SAVES......BELIEVE IN HIM!!
TCAP4444 2 years ago
good.
kusalaviro 2 years ago
Nice vid, I like the music on top of it also.
338dmac 2 years ago
Comment removed
draggeddownthehole 2 years ago
cdk007 you still rock.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
lol u fail stfu
murrymurrymurrymurry 2 years ago
What an appropriate soundtrack for a truth about which people should awaken. I would have played "Freedom" because the revolutionary thing about evolution is it's ability to set free the human condition from the shackles of superstition and mental slavery. Evolution necessarily debunks the Creation myth and unravels the Bible, hence the disingenuous way by which Creationists seek to reintroduce their fiction into our classrooms.
ExposingTheGOP 2 years ago
I like this video and agree with it, but claiming to be the irrefutable truth just ruins it...
mateuskahler 2 years ago
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not being rude by ignoring AgentOrange's posts, nor am I even reading them, tho I can see with a cursory glance that he keeps sending them to me. I have a policy that I will keep responding to evolutionists'
posts until they start getting insulting. Insults, ad hominems &, really, verbal abuse are counter productive in science debates. I told AgentOrange I would no loinger read his posts, once he started the insults, but if he wants to keep sending them, oh well.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
« I am not being rude by ignoring AgentOrange's posts »
« I am not ignoring XGralgathor's posts to me out of rudeness »
Of course you're not.
We've seen agentorange20 patiently trying to explain to you what a transitional fossil is, and encourage you to pick up a few standard reference works, so that you will no longer have to repeat your flawed definition.
But in your eyes, anything that disagrees with your beliefs is insulting, and you ignore it. We understand completely.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
The phrase from XG that seems to have started you on the path of ignoring XG: "That can only be called a blatant lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself."
You were misquoting Gould and twisting what he said. XG used lots of courtesy over the course of the discussion. The whole exchange is here.
Ignoring XG at this point is equivalent to admitting defeat in this debate, eg., you concede that XG's points are correct.
thedagit 2 years ago
THEDAGIT - I did not misquote Gould. If he wanted to retract and try to weasle out of sone statements later, which he did, possibly because creationists got ahold of them, that in no way invalidates what he said initially up front. Dr. Colin Patterson, who was part of the exchange in which they both acknowledge the lack of transitional fossils,is not misquoted either, though evolutionists try to make a case that he is, very, very poorly to say the least. XG is ignored due to verbal abuse.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not ignoring XGralgathor's posts to me out of rudeness & certainly not because of having nothing to say in response. His posts are not being read by me because he has shown a pattern of verbal abuse. Tho I have told him I will no longer read his posts, and I do not, he keeps spamming me with them over and over on 2 separate videos. They are are just being ignored.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"Evolution has told us"
Oh enough of your rambling, you ask for evidence & I mention genetic evidence like ERV's, GULO, human chromosome 2 fusion & you're not even botherign to retort on them, why should I or anyone take you seriously now.
"Show me the afore described mouse trap, w/o it's major parts, killing mice"
already told you lady, WE DON'T HAVE TO, so long as it has *other fuctions* (tie clip) w/ removed parts it's not IC.
agentorange20 2 years ago
« His posts are not being read by me »
That's okay. We've already established that you are ignoring my comments. But that won't stop me from addressing your unsubstantiated or fallacious claims as you make them.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Excellent video, worthy of classroom time.
qsucvatz 2 years ago
TO ANYONE CURIOUS - XGrakrathor keeps leaivng me posts tho I have told him I will not, and I do not, read them. This is not because of anything he has said - how can I know what he said if I don't read them - but because I shun verbal abuse.
It is unscientific and I don't have to put up with it, and will not put up with it. Hope YOU can do better. All people who use ad hominems, insults & nasty sarcasm go on a list of "delete posts w/o reading & just pray for them."
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"if you can show me mice killed with a mousetrap that is missing"
no need to, all we have to do is show how the related parts of the mouse trap minus some parts still have other functions (tie clip) & like the Type III SS, they do.
we can show modularity of the system & therefore said system isn't IC at all.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Evolution has told us that we don't have to have any actual, you know, ev-d-dence such as is called for in the scientific method through completed experiments to test a hypothesis. They say we just have to theorize about something entirely unrelated. Show me the afore described mouse trap, w/o it's major parts, killing mice. Complete the experiment. Words alone do not science make. In fact words alone lead to psuedo science. We both know an incomplete mouse trap will not catch mice.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Point #4 in this vid. It says, "Later I will show how the flagellum most likely evolved." Then it is claimed there is "a hypothesis supported by a mountain of evidence." 1st, words like "most likely" "probably" "scientists generally agree" etc. are what evolution is founded on, not evidence. 2nd, with "a mountain of evidence" you wouldn't need "most likely". There is no evidence at all, actually, that the flagellum ever was, or could function, in a less complex state.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
« with "a mountain of evidence" you wouldn't need "most likely" »
You are confusing the words evidence and proof. Proof, in its strict definition, is something only applicable in mathematics and formal logic. Evidence is defined as an independently verifiable observation consistent with predictions following logically from the hypothesis being tested. While an observation may disprove a model, it may never prove it, as there are always alternative explanations.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« There is no evidence at all »
False: it has been determined that parts of the genetic structures coding for the flagellum have independent function other structures, thereby confirming a prediction following logically from the hypothesis of descent with modification.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Please learn the difference between verbal abuse and true scientific debate »
I am not interested in having a word-fight with you. I am merely correcting inaccurate statements.
« You are, as I already said, on my list of "delete w/o reading" »
You are free to ignore my comments. I am free to respond to your comments.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
'is theory not evidence.'
BS, it's emprically testable, when we find a group of older species (fish) which we think is related to a extant one (amphibians) we can then test this by finding those in between (tiktaalik) which demostrates intermediate traits. we can go even further & use past evidence on where they lived to test where they like evolved (again in tiktaaliks case) which doesn't seem likely if it weren't valid.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Point #3, Cont. Trilobytes are said by evolutionists to be among the first life forms on the planet. However, their eyes are incredibly more complex than our own!
Trilobytes are easy to find in many areas, for example on the tops of hills all over Ky.
Over 1 billion of just 1 type of nautiloid alone is found in the Grand Canyon. All these animals have eyes & bodies that look like cookie cutter samples. The evidence shows they have stayed the same from the start, & none shows them evolving.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'Trilobytes are said by evolutionists to be among the first life forms on the planet'
nope, not even close, the first life forms 9self replicating systems' were organisms like Stromatolites, around 3.85 BYA, whereas Trilobytes appeared around 600 MYA.
'their eyes are incredibly more complex than our own!'
No they're not! See, I can use the exclimation too. Really though, they had a form of compound eyes, so they lacked great visual acuity and dept perpection.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - The so-called Cambrian period is commonly said to include animals among the 1st on the planet. I am aware that evolutionists say that they found some "preCambrian" life forms such as you mentioned.
You will notice there is nothing in the fossil record showing those turning into Cambrian creatures. There is no certainty as to what they even are, only conflicting theories. Yes, trilobyte eyes were far more complex than our own and supposedly far earlier than our own.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'to include animals among the 1st on the planet'
Sorry, but this is wrong. absolutely, unqestionably wrong. the first evidence we find for organisms on earth are stromatolites dating back 3.85 BYA.
'I am aware that evolutionists say that they found some "'
I take it you're also aware that some of this pre-cambrian life (around 635 MYA) was also nominally complex (primitve eyes, primitve limbs, etc.) & not merely simple celled organisms at this time.
agentorange20 2 years ago
so why ask for something whcih is able to perform the fuction now (space shuttle) for something (skateboard) which you know now can't. if you were to ask, can this skateboard be added to, modulated & so on to where something could then go forth in space, then the answer is yes.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - I was using the rocket ship as an example of irreducible complexity. I was using an analogy to show that, if built up over time, the way cells and all life form systems are said to do so by evolution, then there would be problems that interfere with function instead of systems that lead to a more and more perfect and viable, animated, lifeform. If you didn't understand that it is because people are having a hard time understanding the concept of irreducible complexity.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'then there would be problems that interfere with function instead of systems '
The fuction of the sub-system or indeed the whole system changes per the relative fitness it provides, just like how the Type 3 SS was modulated for another future fuction.
We don't need the whole mousetrap to catch mice, & certainly it has other fuctions even when reduced in parts, so to say that a less complexs system can't have fuction & thus can't exist is wrong.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - "We don't need the whole mousetrap to catch mice." Reall? I'd like to see how many mice are being caught without the spring, or without the hammer. A life form cannot go from "having other functions" like a mousetrap's hammer being used for a tie clip. It couldn't just switch from one function to another, nor is that the way evolution is supposed to work anyway.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
' that is not true science'
And why not? Science isn't restricted to what we can actively see or witness, so long as we have emprical testable data it can be used.
we never actively saw the mountains rise, but there is plenty of evidence showing how tectonic plate movement gradually forms them. w/ evolutonary big changes over time its the same principle. small changes + long amounts of time = large macro changes.
deduction there too...
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - There is no evidence however that can come about from saying, "Fossil A looks like fossil B, so A came from B." This is because we have no evidence showing one species can turn into another, not in animal husbandry, in nature or in labs (which, tho would be intelligent design.) We see things happen in nature all the time to mountains. We don't see new species emerging anywhere, tho we do see them going extinct. There is lots of evidence for extinction.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'have no evidence showing one species can turn into another'
but we do, just google observed instaces of speciation. some in the lab and wild, and no you wont find any creationist monikers like a monkey giving birth to a fully formed human, only they expect such ludicrous things in a single generation.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Due to limited time, please give a URL that shows the presumed speciation to which you refer.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'Due to limited time, please give a URL '
Google - observed instances of speciation.
tinyurl . com / d5vvwj
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Good ol' Talkorigins says "there's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators". That last statement is appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, not science. They also say "Test for speciation: sterile offspring & lack of interbreedin affinity." This is hilarious. Sterile offspring can be seen mating a donkey & a horse. A mule is not a new species. How are "sterility & lack of interbreeding affinity" proof of a new species? It's a dead end, not an "evolving" species!
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"Talkorigins says "there's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators".
Don't omit the final line lady...
"Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise"
Ooooohhhhh, buuuurned.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Agent - Don't you see, they are just talking about evidence. Twice. They talk about evidence, but they don't show any! They use 2 appeals to authority. See the difference between that and real evidence? Where is the real evidence? Nowhere!
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'but they don't show any'
ok, having lost on saying that the scientists contend that speciation wasn't occuring, when it actually was, but you omitted it (basically lying on your part) you now complain that they don't cite evidence? Ugh, lady if you're so inclined refer to the bloody articles they cite review them & in detail & THEN come bac & complain about not citing evidence.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"Don't you see, they are just talking about evidence"
then go pick up some books, or refer to the articles they cite, or better yet go to the museums & see the evidence for your self.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"evidence do you have that the Stickleback fish is turning into another species?"
moving the goalposts again lady? I didn't say it was. you said: (functionality) 'it couldn't just swtich from one fuction to another'
ok, so we need novel fuctionality, & the stickleback delivers. *new fuctionality doesn't not translate to *new species lady.
'Evolution is supposedly about the origin of...speciesl'
indeed it is, by changees in genetic diversity, not the same as life originating though.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Perhaps I did move the goalpost on the Stickleback fish, tho not intentionally. I will have to read up on that animal and get back w/you hopefully tomorrow.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Point #3: "In this earlier video I showed how the eye evolved through gradual steps, each improving vision." What was really shown were animals with less complex eyes designed for their particular lifestyles. One is expected to connect dots and say "Oh, our eye went thru those stages." There is 0 evidence for that. Fossils abound in uncounted billions. Even jelly fish and single celled organisms have been preserved. Where are the trilobyte, dog, human etc. eyes
shown "evolving"? (Cont.)
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Tectonic plates move, uplift, thus hills/mountains formin w/ said species on top.
'oh, our eyes went thru those stages'
no, but eyes of many species did evolve in that manner. humans & dogs already inherited eyes, they're weren't existing w/out eyes and then gradually evolved eyes. The eye is inherited, so you're questions makes no sense.
agentorange20 2 years ago
age. - Saying they evolved is one thing. Where is the evidence? Where are the less complex, :"emerging" eyes or "emerging" anything seen for a species? Where are there squid with short stumpy tentacles? Seashells that aren't quite symmetrical yet? Nautioloids whose spirals areen't quite perfectly formred? Billionis of pieces of evidence for these things in tact and continuing, ditto their eyes, are there. The evidence for them evolving is based on theories not anything tangible.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
' there is nothing in the fossil record showing those turning into Cambrian creatures. '
Parvancorina minchami, there is your ancestor to triobites.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Stop right there & think friend. You've heard the usual line: Fossil A looks sorta like Fossil B, therefore we just knooooow B came from A. Where is the evidence A ever reproduced anything other than its own kind and that it isn't just an extinct lifeform? "Well it kinda looks like a trilobyte & an expert said that it was an ancestor for a trilobyte" is passing for scientific evidence in the evolutionary community. That's not evidence or real science. Btw where are the transitions?
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"therefore we just knooooow B came from A"
No, not quite. A transitional fossil is not required to be a direct descendant of A, nor a direct ancestor to B. It is merely required to show that there has existed a lifeform which shows the characteristics consistent with a progression from A to B. In other words, you've been misinformed about what a transitional fossil is.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGral - "Shows the characteristics of" is evidence? That is the same as "Looks kinda like one to me." Once again, those fossils that they tell you are "transitional" cannot be told from fossils that became extinct w/unchanged progeny. Yet you're told to believe they are evidence. There is a cop out in evolution: "Well, we don't have to provide a chain of transitional fossils, just take our word for it, Fossil A looks like Fossil B, kinda. End of story!" Again, that is not true science.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'"Looks kinda like one to me."'
It's based on morpological similarities and differences, some deduction. IE, if you review my vids 'Evidence for evolution: hominid fossils' you'll see there is a natural progression from one species to the next, though you asking for a direct life, eyewitness account will never be fufilled.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - "similarities and difference, some deduction" is not science.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
yes, really. w/ the cheezeholder for sure, even then it was *other* fuctions if not as a trap w/ out said parts, ergo its still viable.
'it couldn't just swtich from one fuction to another'
if using accumulated changes, gradually it could, assuming the new changes helped its relative fitness. Stickleback fish did just that.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - A cheezeholder is not an independently moving object so is not analogous to life.. What evidence do you have that the Stickleback fish is turning into another species? Farmers, and observers of nature have known from the beginning that there is a certain - but very limited - genetic ability that can be used to transform animals. Look at those goldfish from Japan with bizarre eyes and tails. Guess what? They are still goldfish. Evolution is supposedly about the origin of...speciesl
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'It is an evolutionary cop out to ...'
no it's not, it's the reality of how rare fossilization is. if one (like you) ignores this and then pretends & demands there should be 1000's for each species, they're doing so only so they don't have to explain the other transitionals.
'nautiloid '
hard calcified shells tend to fossilze just a bit better than organisms that decay in the open oxidization of the air w/ scavengers picking away at them.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Okay great about the nautiloid. (By the way I assume you know that they look exactly the same today.) Since we do have so many billions of copies for them, where is any transition showing that they every looked any different in the past?
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'about the nautiloid'
there are some, like evolution of horse shoe crabs, evolution of sand dollars, the marine snail linage, or the jurrasic oyster Gryphaea.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - I have copied and saved your last 3 posts. Unless something unexpectedly interupts, on the next Sabbath I will respond to them. That is when I will have enough time. They will take a bit of research & time. Trust you will understand, and have a nice week.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
agent - There are fossils evolutionists will say look like horse shoe crabs, sand dollars, etc. However, "A looks like B, so B came from A" is theory not evidence. One has to show the so-called earlier fossils produced any progeny whatsoever different from itself. This has never been done w/uncounted fossil billions. Google: Quote Colin Patterson no transitional fossils. If you say its out of context, show in what ways. Patterson was head paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
'evolutionists will say look like horse shoe crabs, sand dollars,'
so now you've moved from denying they exist, b/c surely they do, to complaining that overall morpological similarities aren't enough to substantaite relatedness. well, sorry lady, but you can't have it both ways.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Agent - One last post, then I think I will answer no more of yours until next Sabbath as so many responses just multiply too fast for me to handle. Show me where I ever said those types of animals did not exist. I did not. I said there is no evidence that they are transitional fossils. "Overall morphological similarities" is not evidence. It's a theory. Finding no intermediate links, evolutionists say they are "missing." They're somewhat similar but different kinds of animals, not links..
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"where I ever said those types of animals did not exist."
initially you stated intermediate fossils don't exist, then (moved goal posts) when such ones are clearly intermediate in morphology you decry we can't know for sure since we didn't physically observe the many speciations over millions of years in real time. IE your level of acceptance for evidence is nonsense, it's like stating we can't deduce moutaint formation since we also don't witness them form in a single life.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"Overall morphological similarities" is not evidence"
So if i say, hey what kind of morphology should we find for intermediate species between us & the proposed apes, we should find species which have moprhology 1/2 way, craniums 1/2 way, & so on, & we find this in many species all progessively becomming more and more 'human' & less 'ape' over time. now why would that be if it were not true?
agentorange20 2 years ago
"A cheezeholder is not an independently moving object so is not analogous to life."
it's part of the 5 parts, well then tell Behe that, go tell him his mousetrap analogy is defunct in princple AND analogy. You can't now retract & say 'oh no, well that part, yeah, that doesn't count'. that IS a cop out.
either it's IC as it is or its not. it's not logical to later retract on the stance that not *all* the parts are required whilst pumping your fist its IC. can't have it both ways...
.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Not sure to which statement of mine you are referring. This string has gotten very long. However, if you can show me mice killed with a mousetrap that is missing either the hammer, the spring, the bait or the board to hold the mechanism, please do so.
I'm not talking about a different kind of mouse trap, like one with sticky paper or something (that would have the same IC, namely glue, paper, something to attract the mouse etc.) but the standard mouse trap. Waiting to see dead mice.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"a mule is not a new species"
& they never said it was. it's a test (hypothesis) lady, which turns out to explain why when species become too genetically different they can no longer re-combine to further their line of descent.
thus, at this point all changes in each gene pool (each species group) evolve independently & on their own trajectory & thus increases the amount of divergence over time.
agentorange20 2 years ago
Agent - "...which turns out to explain why when species become too genetically different they can no longer re-combine to further their line of descent."
Please stop & think. Let's say you're doing an experiment to show how something can improve and increase (as in "evolving"). Then the result of your experiment showed sterililty, end of the line. Would you have the nerve to tell the prof "See? That proves my hypothesis that those methods can lead to new and improved life!"
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"Then the result of your experiment showed sterililty"
ok, you misinterpreted the review/resutls of the experiments. It wasn't to demonstrate the hybridization = a new species, rather it demonstrates that at a certain point when species are too genetically different they can no longer produce vialbe offspring, which means that post divergence species invariably become more & more genetically different as they evolve on their own trajectories.
agentorange20 2 years ago
"Please stop & think."
Ha-larious!.... for a lady who puts on a big show about not taking verbal abuse from others, your comment of stop & think is implying I'm not thinking. Effffen priceless!
" I have a policy that I will keep responding to evolutionists'"
yeah, a one way policy it appears. move along lady, you've had your ass handed to you, you're done.
agentorange20 2 years ago
'One has to show the so-called earlier fossils produced any progeny whatsoever '
you're asking for an utterly untested hypothesis, you're asking for fossils to create life? uuuh, FAIL.
agentorange20 2 years ago
agent - Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. To honestly say "Fossil A is an earlier, transtional link for Fossil B" you have to show fossil evidence that Fossil A ever had any kinds of progeny that were different from itself and moving more in the direction of Fossil B. All they really have, w/uncounted billions of fossils, is no such thing ever, just "Fossil A looks like Fossil B and the other links are missing."
No evidence is ever offered for how we tell "missing" from "never existed."
LoricaLady 2 years ago
« you have to show fossil evidence that Fossil A ever had any kinds of progeny »
And AGAIN, a transitional fossil is a fossil showing that certain TRAITS existed; it does not necessitate direct descent or ancestry. Why do you maintain this lie?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"No evidence is ever offered for how we tell "missing" from "never existed." "
we dont know till we look, & we wont know till we find. but w/ our past finds we do find older species trending in morphology to current extant or others whcih later went extant, this is how it's deduced. this is how the test of looking for a intermediate like tiktaalik was expected to be found in the area it was found in. such a test w/ verifcation comes w/ predictability based on morphology.
agentorange20 2 years ago
« "Shows the characteristics of" is evidence? »
Apparently, you don't understand what the word evidence means.
An observation which is consistent with predictions following logically from a model being tested is evidence for that model.
Evolutionary theory predicts that species have existed which show characteristics halfway between A and B. We find such a species. The find confirms the prediction. It is evidence.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XG - You are using circular reasoning.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
« You are using circular reasoning »
No, not really.
Evidence is an observation that matches a prediction by the model being tested. The model is there: evolutionary theory. It predicts certain things being observed: nested hierarchies, transitional fossils. It can get very specific in its predictions, even. We then observe those things. The model is confirmed.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago