Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Amazing! Thank you sir for putting this up. Whale evolution is probably the most interesting story of evolution since its a return to the scene of the "crime", so to speak.... ;)
The sigmoid process mentioned at 06:00 in this clip could simply be from an animal unrelated to whale evolution that also had the same/similar sigmoid process, and which later died and became extinct. This does not imply ancestry or transitional forms. I'll continue watching though. Glad the videos is on youtube though - keeps the gears spinning.
The reconstruction on the whole is very suspect in my eyes.
Let me get this straight. This whole Rodhocetus theory of rat morphs to whale is built upon nothing more than a few pieces of skull and the scientist behind it all no longer believes it ever had any such tail? Sounds like all of the other Piltdowmn Man type evolution hoaxes and there's been many. This is NOT science. A wale of a tale. Notice how alll the evolutionists boast about "science is settled" and anyone who disagrees gets attacked. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, you are an idiot.
@staxmarshall rat? rat? first of all, it was hoved carnivore about the size of modern dog. allso scientist never belived Piltdown man was part of human evolution bechose it made no sence in geografical location. when we found about other ancestors it turned out that it was fake, and that was discoverd by evolutionist scientists, not creationists. we have now 10ns of hominid ancestors and cousins, and hundersd of fossils of each species, so it is beond a doupd that you are fucking monkey mate.
LIMITS OF EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survive with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 DUH! of course evolution across species isnt possible i.e., worm to human who said that? Evolution is a tree of life not a linear movement.. small microevolutionary changes over 100s and thousands of generations will make a species unrecognizable from its origins, and unable to reproduce with original species.. There is no reason to suggest evolution doesnt happen bc you don't go from worm to human. remember...... BRANCHES!! NOT A LINEAR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Oh yes, the walking whale. Yes the fish walked on land, grew legs, lungs. Then got board and decided to go swim in the ocean. You know with that logic If I wanted to become a water critter, all I has to do is start swimming for a million years. Why by then I should grow a tail, and my nose should move to the top of my head, right?
@Joshuajlawn not yours. some distant ansewstor whuld. you clearly dont understand evolution. lungs came before landing on the land. when fish moved in to rivers they faced a proplem, the oxigen got low in these places, so they develop swiming plater that is cabaple of taking oxigen out of air. our lungs are techincaly improved swiming platers.
@gethsoftware Question, how does having lungs twenty feet under water benefit the creature? Sounds to me like he would drown before he even got to the surface for his first breath.
@Joshuajlawn bechose it did not live in twenty feet under water. just as i expleaned. when fish moved in to shalow rivers and ponds, the level of oxigen in water whuld become unstable, in dry seasons they whuld start to sufer from loss of oxigen. the gills allready have some ability to get oxigen from air as long as they are wet. allso having lungs does not mean you culd not have gills at the same time. so lungs evolved as secondary function in case of low oxigen in water.
@Joshuajlawn awnser compresed. like modern lung fish, the early inland fish whuld have both lungs, and gills. allso there are other wasy to breath like trough your skin. allso you seeme to think that evolution works like POPS and it has lungs. no, it works like growing up. babys go trough stages of development. same thing with evolution. in same way we culd study every image of you and never see the point where you are compleatly an adult and whuld not have any traits of a child.
@Joshuajlawn if you look at the fossil record you see a migration of the nose to the top of the head.. If you knew how natural selection worked, you wouldnt have such a hard time understanding... If you want to grow a tail, just activate the gene to do so.. If you look at human chromosome 2, out of our 46 pairs, you can clearly see that its the fusion of chromosome 13 (48 pairs) in an ape. explaining where the extra pair went and also why we don't still have a tail (deactivated genes)
I've been swimming in the lake outside ever since I was a kid and I started developing webs on my toes. My two year old son has fins instead of hands too, It all started when we happened to go fishing and swimming.
This video is bullshit. The Mayans were right; their concept of the world being destroyed and recreated many times completely fits what we find - species unchanging for millennia, dying out, and new species being created. Stupid darwinists, when will you learn?
@Centredge> species unchanging for millennia, NO VERY MANY, dying out, MOST SPECIES ARE EXTINCT, and new species being created, THAT'S EVOLUTION. And nothing to do with the Mayan or any other religion.
@TylerNull And in true conspiratorial cover-up fashion, all of the backlogs of scientific literature, as well as the raw specimens, are secreted away from the public in deep vaults and obscured by red tape lest the truth be revealed.
...Oh, wait. Anyone can examine them as they wish.
And if you did, you'd find, as many paleontologists have done, that fossils do NOT "remain unchanged" over the course of their existence.
That is NOT what paleontologists, e.g., of this rat-to-whale tale claim. And I've explained this in detail, and repeatedly. Try letting reality seep into your Darwinist hoax. Either that or try yet another 3 post evasion of that fact.
@TylerNull Then you are mistaken, and at odds with every paleontologist and biologist consulted on the issue to date.
Whether you merely misunderstand the data, or deliberately misrepresent it to some end I don't care to speculate, I know not. It's clear that you have no interest in facts, and that this will elicit yet another multi-post tirade of denial, so there is nothing more to say to you--your persecution complex runs too deep. I hope that someday you can see reason. "E pur si muove!"
By "the data", you mean bone fragments from DISTINCT SPECIES -Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, ... - each of which suddenly appeared/disappeared, each living UNCHANGED FOR MILLENNIA, all found to be merely mutually adjacent in space & time?
The data isn't even congruous with your earlier claims of such data. Setting that aside, the CONCLUSION that one "evolved" into the other is baseless. Setting that aside, the statement that such is due to "the environment" is meaningless.
I believe that "evolution" & "creationism" may be a trait of all plants, fungi, animals, & protista. In the beginning the EternalCreator infused into the universe a plan of infinite possibilities in a finite university. So no matter how long evolution takes for a creature to evolve it already has the ability for infinite change in a bounded university. Consider a round birthday cake & 6 billion at your party. the cake could be sliced almost infintely while the boundary of the cake is finite.
@desasterz That's a lie, and you probably know it's a lie. Where we do have polystrate trees we know the reasons, or perhaps you don't. You don't seem to know much at all.
The Darwinist tale from rat to whale doesn't even reconcile with its own fossil record. Instead of the near-infinite number of infinitesimal changes predicted & required by "natural selection", the fossil record reveals that a UNIQUE species SUDDENLY appears, exists UNCHANGED FOR MILLENNIA, then vanishes just as suddenly.
That pattern is repeated over & over, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, in the fossil record. Such is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Darwin's notions.
Forget Darwin. Think new science. Darwin had something called the "Theory of Evolution". We now have something called the "fact of evolution". And is only disputed by dumb, ignorant, retarded, religious nuts.
First, neither Darwin nor any actual scientist, either then or now or anytime in between, EVER published ANY scientific theory by your bogus title of "Theory of Evolution".
There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY for such. There are a wide range of competing scientific theories of specific evolutionary processes; however, none of them spin any of Darwin's fantasies, such as this silly rat-to-whale tale.
Second, "fact of evolution" isn't even science. It's just a vapid decree.
Evidence of what? You're looping around to your supposition in trying to support it. (Not good.)
"Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" -- synthesis is specifically the ABSENCE of theory.
Its author is J. Huxley; a UN bureaucrat. He was a racist advocating eugenics & population control, and propping it up with junk science. His "synthesis" was a desperate attempt to revive Darwin's notions following their embarrassing failure by the fossil record and the discovery of genetics.
Evolution. More precisely: common descent. You know, the pattern we see all trough the fossil record, in genetics and in the geological distribution of life on earth. That evidence.
"You're looping around"
How so? YOU are the one who obviously hasn't looked at the evidence.
"synthesis is specifically the ABSENCE of theory"
No, it's the mix of various theories from various disciplines. They all match up.
@TylerNull You didn't offer any ort of "evidence". Besides that you idiots clearly state you wont accept any olid evidence since it goes against your dogmatic nonsense. As a christian I find your behavior deplorable.
A fossil is an organism that had all or most of it's organic compounds replaced by minerals. Either that or it's an imprint of a once-living animal/plant/fungus/bacteria. The comparison of a man to another man is hardly anything of the sort. And you call me ignorant?
Your "EVIDENCE" was comparing the president to the mascot of Mad Magazine....that is by far the dumbest creationist take on evolution I have ever heard.
Look, evolution is entirely falsafiable. Any "Darwinist" (it is still beyond stupid to lable folks like that. If it's supposed to be an insult, use something coherent) will admit that. To do so find a fossil where it doesn't belong. And no, don't just say you found a 65 million year old human skull, because we would require evidence of where it was found. this means having to use the peer review process, which the likes of you refuse to aknowledge.
Furthermore, this evidence will have to be testable meaning it has to be properly dated (fossils over 50,000 years old can't be carbon dated, so radiometric dating is used instead. Besides carbon dating is used in archeology since civilization as we know it didn't begin until at least 8,000 BC). Your evidence must also be subject to examination by other scientists so they can see if your discovery is valid.
If your "evidence" is supported it can be accepted. Furthermore, for Creationism to even to be considered a valid theory and thus replace Darwinian evolutionary theory it has to still ue Darwin' theory in some form to help it along. Einstein's theory of relativity may have repalced Newtonian physics but they still use Newton's theories of gravity and motion as a base. For creationism to be accepted, it has to use Darwin's theory to support it. something you folks wont ever do.
I'm aware science isn't a two party system, yet you talk like it is. And what I went on to say is to tell you how you can properly refute evolution in a way that logical people will accept. I hardly consider that "failing to adress anything". You consider the scientific method a novelty? Then you know nothing of science.
I expose the Darwinist hoax using the Darwinists' own measures and reasoning, and Darwinists reply by squealing "Creationist". Just like you just did.
Trying to pin the blame on me? Cute. Not all religious folk are creationists, I will freely admit. I am christian myself, but I don't buy the story of genesis given the geologic record, the progression of biologic variety seen in the fossil record, as well as clearly defined extinct animals exhibiting clear transitions like the ones shown in this video, as well as others such as Microraptor or tiktaalik. However, all creationists are religious, though not limited to one particular faith.
a) Creationist, or some idiot who beleives in intelligent design (which is creationism with another name)
b) A scientologist, who have even more screwed up beleifs than the most fundamentalist religious person.
If this STILL doesn't apply to you, why still discredit evolution? Even without fossils we have DNA evidence which further supports evolution more than even a fossil could. Not to mention obervable data seen in the last 100 years.
Last I checked, the one trying to tell people anything fallicious was you by saying "EVOLUTION CAN'T HAPPEN, NO EVIDENCE". If you want to show evolution can't happen, do what I said to try and disprove it. Use the scientific method to show scientists that you are right. Evolution is entirely falsafiable, that's why it's a theory. Science deals with theories because they're the strongest form of evidence they deal with. Why is it the scientific method frightens you?
You are saying I made up the peer review process??????? That alone proves you know nothing of science and are in no position to question evolution or ANY theory for that matter. This debate is over.
Anyone can say anything, as long as we don't let socialists criminalize speech; however, only some statements have veracity. Your demonstrated inabilities aren't anyone else's lies.
I'm not going to bother asking how socialists fit into all this. Unless you can actually show evidence that evolution does not happen, you are wrong. Science deals with hard evidence, and the evidence shows evolution occurs.
@NUTCASE71733 Admitting your political illiteracy doesn't mask your scientific illiteracy as well as you might hope.
Yes, "evolution occurs". (That's 'not science.)
If you had the ability to address any point I've made thereof, then you would have done so by now. You're just another charlatan. Sue whatever teachers' labor union so defrauded your parents out of all that tax money, assuming they paid.
@NUTCASE71733 dont bother with retards like tyler, the beautiful thing about science and by default evolution is that you dont have to believe in it for it to be true
its quite clear that some people spend too much time demonstrating their ignorance on youtube and not enough time reading/learning about the truth
@NUTCASE71733 Evolution does not happen. Just because people carelessly throw the word at every thing. Now theres what they call "micro-evolution" which should be really called adaptation of a species. But the idea that all life came from on single cell amiba 20 billion years ago makes as much sense as a blind man flying an airplane. Evolution is the only religion funded by the government.
@TylerNull Yep. Hitler, Stalin, and just about anybody who has tried to wipe out a whole race of man have been evolutionists. Margret Sanger who started Planned parent hood was an evolutionist to her core and she wanted to use abortion to wipe out the black man from the face of the earth (she didn't like black people). Evolution was invented by sex perverts who wanted a way to get rid of God because they knew if theres a God they would have to stand before him.
Well noted. Here's a timely online article on the topic; an excerpt; you can Google the title ...
"
THE FLASH MOB METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
... Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate "unsubstantiated just-so stories" of evolution and ignore "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs" because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. "We cannot," Lewontin said, "allow a divine foot in the door."
@TylerNull there ithe scientific theory of evolution of fact it is a fact the evolution happen and is going on now and is science a mountains of evidence is there and growing can you disprove it or tested wrong before attempt to do it so has to be with evidence not based in a holy book nor divine anything this thing is not silly is real but thinking a snake talk is very real thanks
Animals evolve and change in order to survive. If they've already obtained a body plan that lets them survive the changes that occur already, then what need to they have to change? It is rather rare that a species doesn't need to change, but it happens.
And yes, Darwin was wrong on many occasions. Hence why it's not called "Darwinism." I cringe whenever anyone uses that term. Darwin had no idea of the finds that we would make to support Evolution.
You can't have it both ways. Anyway, it's the fossil evidence, not a lack of evidence, that disproves Darwinism.
The fossil record, even where it's replete in all dimensions & across an entire class of species, such as with Trilobita, shows the exact opposite of what's claimed / predicted by natural selection.
The fossil record shows a specific, distinct, species suddenly (dis)appearing and existing unchanged for tens of millennia. That pattern repeats, without exception.
"it's the fossil evidence, not a lack of evidence, that disproves Darwinism."
We have far more fossils than we ever need as evidence for Darwin's theory. Then again, Darwin presented his theory more than 150 years ago, so it is hardly valid anymore in its original form. Science marches on.
Actually, the exact opposite claim is used by Darwinists to defend their tales. Whenever it's pointed out that all they have are two similar species, they drone on about how rare their fossils are. As I already detailed, anywhere there exists a replete record, it evidences nothing of Darwin's claim.
"Whenever it's pointed out that all they have are two similar species, they drone on about how rare their fossils are."
Again: a fossil doesn't have to be in a direct lineage. Look up the meaning of transitional fossil.
And yes, fossilization is very rare, but we still have found more than enough fossils to make a strong case for evolution. But even without a single fossil there would still be more than enough evidence in the genomes of all organisms.
"transitional fossil" -- another good example of Darwinist-invented lingo for their fuzzy notions. Depending on what frantic wiki-rewrite is displayed on any given political news cycle, the entire Darwinist concept of transitional species/fossils/links is declared as either evidence or a "creationist plot", depending on whether it helps or hurts their mythology of the moment.
Darwinism 101: frantically invent new terms whenever your last was debunked, reverse your own position on your own invented words, and then squeal "creationist" at anyone who notices.
Again, what you refer to as "evidence" is shown to be nothing of the sort. You have yet to address that plain observation.
"invent new terms whenever your last was debunked"
Transitional fossils are not a new term. They are predicted by the theory and scientists find them all over the world. Furthermore, you haven't debunked anything. You simply deny the existence of transitional fossils without good reason.
"evidence is shown to be nothing of the sort."
Explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms.
I don't deny the ever-evolving terms. Rather, I'm pointing to the circular idiocies at the core of their fuzzy notions, and the fact that they keep flip-flopping on their own claims.
Hint: If you're going to ape men of science, try to steer clear of political & legal lingo like "you deny". Science is about intellectual inquiry. Nothing is holy writ. The only people you convince with your lingo are scientifically illiterate dupes, and you had them at their magical E-word.
"Science is about intellectual inquiry. Nothing is holy writ."
The last 150 years the idea of evolution by natural selection has been tested again and again and again, with literally thousands of scientists trying to dismantle it. It's still standing strong. And you know why? Because it works! Darwin's rudimentary theory has been built upon and our insights change when new evidence comes in, but the basic idea still stands. None your whining will change any of that
The IDEA of Natural Selection will remain "standing strong" for the same reason the IDEA of Santa Claus remains so. Neither rises to the level of a scientific theory.
Further, the notion of Natural Selection is so broad & vague that one could apply it to any dynamic process in all of creation, both in the physical universe and in the universe of ideas. In fact, it's just as insightful to say the Earth orbits the Sun by Natural Selection.
@TylerNull Well, here again you make an accusation, but do not present an arguement.
I haven't seen an argument from you, or any evidence, just wild claims of desperation, and I'm sure even yopu know that 'rats to whales' is a straw man.
By the way: first you are complaining that scientists change their ideas when new evidence comes in, then you are complaining that they consider a theory to be "holy writ". Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
There you presume Darwinists are logical, and then suggest it is for me to show how so.
They aren't, and I'm not the one to explain their lunacy. Rather, I merely observe and detail what is demonstrably so of their tales and their hoaxes.
By "trace the morphological changes", you mean point to the rat that lived next to some other species that suddenly appeared at about the time the rat suddenly vanished, to proclaim the one "evolved" from the other.
Yeah, that's my point. The tale is all so very scientific-y. Only nothing of actual science.
Pakicetus was likely a sister or cousin species of the real predecessor of modern whales. It doesn't matter, since it still counts as evidence for the existence of intermediate forms between land mammals and whales. You'd better inform yourself about the subject of transitional fossils.
"Only nothing of actual science."
Do you know of a better model for whale evolution?
What point? All you ever do is shout "nu-uh". That's hardly a point by any stretch of the imagination.
So again: explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms. Tell me about an alternative scientific model that can explain the data just as well, if not better.
You refuse to even acknowledge my point, and yet you request several more on your new claims.
Even if we took your bogus claims as holy writ, your request implies a debunked theory isn't debunked until some other theory comes along. That is NOT a trait of science. Science isn't a two party system.
Simply shouting "no, it isn't" is not a point. It's childish nonsense.
Again: explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms. Tell me about an alternative scientific model that explains the data just as well, if not better. Failing to answer these questions shows you're full of it.
Nope. What we see are successions of species changing over time. This is exactly what would be expected from evolution. The older species are less like modern whales and over time the transitional forms become more and more like modern whales, again, exactly as expected. The fossil record and genetics clearly show evolution happens. Why are you so misinformed on this subject?
@TylerNull See, the problem with this is that fossilization rarely occurs--and those species of which we have cataloged many fossils over millennia DO, in fact, exhibit slight changes in morphology (outside of the changes that would normally be expected within a particular population, that is). Some taxons are known with several transitional forms, others are not, indeed because some creatures' lifestyles and habitats lend themselves better to fossilization than others.
@TylerNull If you wish to ignore the evidence, that's your prerogative.
In the meantime, I'll lean on the rigorous, peer-reviewed and publicly-available data and studies of the materialist-secular-socialist-darwinist cabal that are nonetheless more qualified to make those judgments than yourself.
The Nazi scientists were all "peer reviewed" too. Appealing to authority is nothing to brag about, and it's not science.
As for "ignore the evidence", I'm the only one here NOT ignoring it. Specifically, this rat-to-whale tale shows distinct species which suddenly appear, live unchanged for millennia, and then suddenly disappear. There is no science to claim the one evolved into the other; just proximity. That's the Darwinist's gimmick.
@TylerNull Godwin's Law is a pretty common charge, but nonetheless empty. It lends no credence to any of your arguments here.
"Ignoring" the evidence, perhaps not--you at least purport to stay informed on fossil specimens--but your interpretation of the evidence is nevertheless incorrect (for what motives I won't presume to speculate).
Pointing out the historical record of Darwinists isn't any kind of wrong, regardless of your stale use of a trendy attempt at inoculating the reader from its reality.
@TylerNull Likewise, some fossil taxons do indeed appear suddenly, remain unchanged, and vanish--and some life forms persist unchanged for millennia. Not all selective pressures are created equal. But the fact remains that there is ample evidence even in the fossil record there is a continuum of variation as would be expected from natural selection.
The rest of the evidence is in molecular and phylogenetic studies, and even by direct observation of certain species.
The fossil record is so absolutely devoid of "continuum" that Darwinists came up for a scientific-y sounding name to explain their failure thereof. They termed it "punctuated equillibrium".
Cute, aren't they?
As for "natural selection", there is no actual science thereof. It's a fuzzy notion having such a broad scope that it can be said of anything, real or imagined. After all, there is NOTHING that is NOT affected by "the environment"; planets, phones, . . . serendipity.
@TylerNull The fossil record is fragmentary, indeed. The fact that so many transitional forms exist even in spite of that is truly fascinating.
And as I said, the fossil record is only part of the supporting evidence. Phylogenetic analysis has corroborated fossil records handily. Moreover, natural selection can be readily observed in nature, and reproduced in the laboratory.
@TylerNull The fact of the matter is that evolution by mutation and natural selective pressures DOES occur, and has been observed in nature and reproduced in the lab.
The EXACT course of speciation and evolution of life on earth is subject to less precise interpretation, naturally, as we of course don't yet have time travel to directly observe it. But fossil evidence in tandem with cladistic and genetic analysis corroborates it in such a way that we have a pretty solid idea of it.
"natural selective pressure" -- let's tug on that bit of Darwinist mysticism.
When a government forces its citizenry to sponsor the children of the most violent and stupid populations whilst economically punishing the smartest and most successful. is that considered one such "natural selective pressure", or is the human species supernatural, as in the eco-atheist wing of Darwinist dogma?
@TylerNull Have you nothing left in your arsenal other than to brand me a thug of some alleged Darwinist cabal bent on indoctrinating everyone into materialist atheism?
It's clear that no one is going to convince you. We're apparently at odds with our interpretations of the evidence (whether fossils, genetic studies, long-term E. coli cultures, etc.)--and you're certainly free to interpret as you wish--but your attempts to politicize scientific discourse only hurt your credibility, not mine.
""brand me a . . ." -- that's all you, as they say. I merely referenced on of the endless scientific hoaxes peddled by genocidal Darwinists. And I did so to suggest to any lucid, though naive, young minds that mindlessly accepting fuzzy notions as "science" doesn't always end well. It's never a good idea, anyway.
It's about logic and reason, not "interpretations". This isn't a brain teaser. Your off-topic listing is irrelevant to my point of this rat-to-whale tale..
@TylerNull You are absolutely correct: it is about logic and reason. It just so happens that logic and reason point to evolution being the more likely and parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Furthermore, your characterization of this fossil as a "rat" due to its superficial (if poor) similarity to a rodent betrays your poor understanding of paleontology and physiology. Sling all the mud and invoke Godwin all you like, but the writing's on the wall. E pur si muove.
Evolution isn't an explanation. Nor is it science. It's a decree. It's just a noun; a synonym for change.
Indeed, it's so very "parsimonious" that Darwinists don't even offer a scientific theory for "it". The closest they came to one was a "synthesis" , which is fancy way of saying they don't have a scientific theory. And that wasn't even from a scientist, but rather from a UN bureaucrat, who favored eugenics, named J. Huxley. Complain all you like, but reality exists.
@TylerNull It can be--and has been--observed, tested, and reproduced. That's as scientific as anything can get.
Darwinian evolution as a justification for eugenics is no more incriminating of the theory itself than of the Old Testament for mistreatment of non-Christians in past centuries. An aside: Julian Huxley WAS, in fact, a scientist--quite a renowned biologist of Oxford schooling, actually.
"It" being change. Got it. Change happens. How very, very scientific-y. What is the SCIENCE thereof? As we see from this video, their conclusions often fail quite spectacularly.
Huxley was certainly as much a "scientist" as the Nazi scientists. The point is that he penned his "Modern Synthesis" hoax as a UN BUREAUCRAT to peddle eugenics. He and his fellow Darwinists were in a blind panic since the Christian monk (Mendel) fathered the science -- actual science -- of genetics.
@TylerNull If you bothered to study Mendel's work (incidentally, Mendel was very fond of Darwin's theory, and sought to explain the inheritance mechanisms to help refine it), you would readily extrapolate that natural selection follows as a consequence of genetics.
Genetic studies CONFIRM the changes in morphology and intermediate forms exhibited in the fossil record, as predicted by Darwinian evolution.
Either Mendelian genetics is true, or evolution by natural selection is false. Pick one.
"natural selection follows" ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, from planets to shoes, since it's just the broadest of fuzzy notions. After all, there is nothing that is NOT affected by "the environment". That is to say, it's meaningless.
Darwinists simply can't let it go because that would allow science to seep in. I'm sure Mendel, like most people, was "fond" of all those before him who failed to discover the SCIENCE of genetics. Why would he make Darwin an exception?
@TylerNull I'm pretty sure you have no idea how DNA works.. Mentioning its complex and implying its designed has nothing to do with science at all. And how is it that every single biologist and geneticist with no religious agenda agrees it is just the result of complex chemistry?
@TylerNull As for Huxley's views on race and eugenics--his view was not out of character even for non-secular figures of his day (and, after all, Hitler was a Catholic, if we're going that route). Few of his era were so keen to refute the notion of "race" as a biologically significant one.
Reality does exist, certainly. I see that it has become uncomfortable for you and your ilk, who resort to fomenting unscientific romanticism in an attempt to politicize science and fabricate a controversy.
By "politicize science", you must be referring to the formation of a government sponsored monopoly of labor unions that proselytize their politically steered "science" as holy writ to everyone's children for 12+ years, and spew derision at anyone who dares to dissent?
Oh, wait, atheist-socialists done-be-did all that already!
@TylerNull If presenting reproducible and freely-available scientific data and fact as truth is some massive indoctrination effort, I hope they succeed. Students are free to believe as they wish, but the present "alternatives" to Darwinian evolution have no place in the science classroom, period.
Certainly better than disguising Genesis as "science" after being struck down by the Supreme Court and screaming "racist-eugenicist-Darwinist-atheist conspiracy" at anyone who notices.
Genetic Drift is one of several scientific and "present alternatives" to Darwinist evolution. Further, science isn't a 2 party system. One theory is considered no more valid by the failure of another. Each must stand on its own merits.
Darwinism is proselytized as holy writ. High school students graduate with an immaculate scientific illiteracy. Your depiction is the polar opposite of the reality.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ......... thats a rather naive view ... you dont require evidence ... you cannot recreate an entire Skeleton from a small piece of a scull of an animal for which there are no other examples
"you cannot recreate an entire Skeleton from a small piece of a scull of an animal"
Recreating a whole skeleton might be hard, but you can reconstruct fragments by making educated guesses, comparing them to the morphology of similar animals. Of course, this kind of reconstruction is not needed for scientific research and mostly done for illustrative purposes.
well al gore said that in the history of planet earth, all geological evidence has claimed that the earth;s temeprature was not as high as now for the past millions of years.
sharks only bite people for a very brief time and then let go, but it's pretty risky, since if your arm is very thick, then would the shark eat you, or the orcas? I know sharks can sense fish blood, and fish juice, but when you drop human blood, the sharks don't take a notice.... but seals are mammals though and they get eaten.
any idea that since Pakistan is undergoing a flood, the only solution is to become obese and create a thick layer of blubber, then swim in cold water and eat sharks with our bare hands.
interesting video and very informative
thejameskan 5 days ago
love the video man
TheKcsmithy 1 week ago
some sweet info here
samjenkinssam 1 week ago
some sweet info here
rodswebdesign 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 4 weeks ago
Funny how a strait up educational video gets turned in to a venue for crackpots to "debate" evolution.
Ansonidak 2 months ago
Amazing! Thank you sir for putting this up. Whale evolution is probably the most interesting story of evolution since its a return to the scene of the "crime", so to speak.... ;)
MrGangeticus 3 months ago
Really interesting. Just wish somebody had told the toffy nosed narrator that Michigan is pronounced mishigan....cant have everything!
arbinka999 4 months ago
My suspicions about the reconstruction are validated in the following link:
Darwinismrefuted(DOT)com/natural_history_2_15.html
just replace the (DOT) with a real dot.
Movies4Christ 4 months ago
The sigmoid process mentioned at 06:00 in this clip could simply be from an animal unrelated to whale evolution that also had the same/similar sigmoid process, and which later died and became extinct. This does not imply ancestry or transitional forms. I'll continue watching though. Glad the videos is on youtube though - keeps the gears spinning.
The reconstruction on the whole is very suspect in my eyes.
Movies4Christ 4 months ago
Let me get this straight. This whole Rodhocetus theory of rat morphs to whale is built upon nothing more than a few pieces of skull and the scientist behind it all no longer believes it ever had any such tail? Sounds like all of the other Piltdowmn Man type evolution hoaxes and there's been many. This is NOT science. A wale of a tale. Notice how alll the evolutionists boast about "science is settled" and anyone who disagrees gets attacked. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, you are an idiot.
staxmarshall 4 months ago
@staxmarshall Your sources are lying to you.
djarm67 4 months ago 6
@djarm67 Your sources are lying to you...and you know it : ) Toodles
staxmarshall 4 months ago
@staxmarshall rat? rat? first of all, it was hoved carnivore about the size of modern dog. allso scientist never belived Piltdown man was part of human evolution bechose it made no sence in geografical location. when we found about other ancestors it turned out that it was fake, and that was discoverd by evolutionist scientists, not creationists. we have now 10ns of hominid ancestors and cousins, and hundersd of fossils of each species, so it is beond a doupd that you are fucking monkey mate.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@staxmarshall Maybe this would have been a fine statement to make 100 years ago.
wideheadofknowledge 3 months ago 2
is there a 3d version?
brandonashplant 5 months ago
LIMITS OF EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survive with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 DUH! of course evolution across species isnt possible i.e., worm to human who said that? Evolution is a tree of life not a linear movement.. small microevolutionary changes over 100s and thousands of generations will make a species unrecognizable from its origins, and unable to reproduce with original species.. There is no reason to suggest evolution doesnt happen bc you don't go from worm to human. remember...... BRANCHES!! NOT A LINEAR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Johnf85 5 months ago
u just saved me sometime thx HEAPS for posting this thank u thank you thank you
jobrobieberlove 6 months ago
Comment removed
jobrobieberlove 6 months ago
Oh yes, the walking whale. Yes the fish walked on land, grew legs, lungs. Then got board and decided to go swim in the ocean. You know with that logic If I wanted to become a water critter, all I has to do is start swimming for a million years. Why by then I should grow a tail, and my nose should move to the top of my head, right?
Joshuajlawn 6 months ago
@Joshuajlawn not yours. some distant ansewstor whuld. you clearly dont understand evolution. lungs came before landing on the land. when fish moved in to rivers they faced a proplem, the oxigen got low in these places, so they develop swiming plater that is cabaple of taking oxigen out of air. our lungs are techincaly improved swiming platers.
gethsoftware 6 months ago
@gethsoftware Question, how does having lungs twenty feet under water benefit the creature? Sounds to me like he would drown before he even got to the surface for his first breath.
Joshuajlawn 6 months ago
@Joshuajlawn bechose it did not live in twenty feet under water. just as i expleaned. when fish moved in to shalow rivers and ponds, the level of oxigen in water whuld become unstable, in dry seasons they whuld start to sufer from loss of oxigen. the gills allready have some ability to get oxigen from air as long as they are wet. allso having lungs does not mean you culd not have gills at the same time. so lungs evolved as secondary function in case of low oxigen in water.
gethsoftware 6 months ago
@Joshuajlawn awnser compresed. like modern lung fish, the early inland fish whuld have both lungs, and gills. allso there are other wasy to breath like trough your skin. allso you seeme to think that evolution works like POPS and it has lungs. no, it works like growing up. babys go trough stages of development. same thing with evolution. in same way we culd study every image of you and never see the point where you are compleatly an adult and whuld not have any traits of a child.
gethsoftware 6 months ago
@Joshuajlawn if you look at the fossil record you see a migration of the nose to the top of the head.. If you knew how natural selection worked, you wouldnt have such a hard time understanding... If you want to grow a tail, just activate the gene to do so.. If you look at human chromosome 2, out of our 46 pairs, you can clearly see that its the fusion of chromosome 13 (48 pairs) in an ape. explaining where the extra pair went and also why we don't still have a tail (deactivated genes)
Johnf85 5 months ago
@Johnf85 I want this, so I evolved this, I want that, so I evolved that, hehe... some scientific fact. .
archilles1195 3 months ago
sounded like the narrator came from pakistan too..
kieferkippy 7 months ago
I've been swimming in the lake outside ever since I was a kid and I started developing webs on my toes. My two year old son has fins instead of hands too, It all started when we happened to go fishing and swimming.
thespybreaker 8 months ago
@thespybreaker
I see you didn't quite get the idea of how evolution works ...
HerrDerDinge 7 months ago
Hey guys just because evolution is true, that doesn't disprove religion because the old testiment is mostly symbolic. Even the pope said it.
Also, Mendel's theories fit right in with those of Darwin
xtcarnage15586 8 months ago
LOL I'm learning from both the Video and the comments XD
HyperSweety18 9 months ago
oh, that sound at 01:13 .....me gusta
Basolutno 9 months ago
CROCODILE OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE
Shabasky1 9 months ago
This video is bullshit. The Mayans were right; their concept of the world being destroyed and recreated many times completely fits what we find - species unchanging for millennia, dying out, and new species being created. Stupid darwinists, when will you learn?
Centredge 10 months ago
@Centredge Was that sarcasm?…
xoxILoveCatsxox 10 months ago
@Centredge> species unchanging for millennia, NO VERY MANY, dying out, MOST SPECIES ARE EXTINCT, and new species being created, THAT'S EVOLUTION. And nothing to do with the Mayan or any other religion.
This video is the TRUTH.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Naw dawg, I'm pretty sure satan invented fossils.
tfaironpirate 8 months ago
@TylerNull And in true conspiratorial cover-up fashion, all of the backlogs of scientific literature, as well as the raw specimens, are secreted away from the public in deep vaults and obscured by red tape lest the truth be revealed.
...Oh, wait. Anyone can examine them as they wish.
And if you did, you'd find, as many paleontologists have done, that fossils do NOT "remain unchanged" over the course of their existence.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
That is NOT what paleontologists, e.g., of this rat-to-whale tale claim. And I've explained this in detail, and repeatedly. Try letting reality seep into your Darwinist hoax. Either that or try yet another 3 post evasion of that fact.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull Then you are mistaken, and at odds with every paleontologist and biologist consulted on the issue to date.
Whether you merely misunderstand the data, or deliberately misrepresent it to some end I don't care to speculate, I know not. It's clear that you have no interest in facts, and that this will elicit yet another multi-post tirade of denial, so there is nothing more to say to you--your persecution complex runs too deep. I hope that someday you can see reason. "E pur si muove!"
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
By "the data", you mean bone fragments from DISTINCT SPECIES -Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, ... - each of which suddenly appeared/disappeared, each living UNCHANGED FOR MILLENNIA, all found to be merely mutually adjacent in space & time?
The data isn't even congruous with your earlier claims of such data. Setting that aside, the CONCLUSION that one "evolved" into the other is baseless. Setting that aside, the statement that such is due to "the environment" is meaningless.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Hey remember when I sent you that link showing cancer in Fallujah is worse than Hiroshima in 1945 and you didn't reply because you're a chickenshit?
You gonna reply to that sometime?
AndroidPolitician 2 days ago
the earth is fuckin crazyyyyyyyyy
realitities 11 months ago
Notice the shark animation at the beginning. It pounces and stops like it was on land. Silly animator. lol Great vid. Thanks.
derman077 11 months ago
I believe that "evolution" & "creationism" may be a trait of all plants, fungi, animals, & protista. In the beginning the EternalCreator infused into the universe a plan of infinite possibilities in a finite university. So no matter how long evolution takes for a creature to evolve it already has the ability for infinite change in a bounded university. Consider a round birthday cake & 6 billion at your party. the cake could be sliced almost infintely while the boundary of the cake is finite.
aellarex 1 year ago
2:15 "Each Layer of rock is a time capsule" Just so you know, there are fossilized trees that stand up threw over a hundred different layers.
desasterz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desasterz
"there are fossilized trees that stand up threw over a hundred different layers"
Indeed. So?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@desasterz That's a lie, and you probably know it's a lie. Where we do have polystrate trees we know the reasons, or perhaps you don't. You don't seem to know much at all.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
The Darwinist tale from rat to whale doesn't even reconcile with its own fossil record. Instead of the near-infinite number of infinitesimal changes predicted & required by "natural selection", the fossil record reveals that a UNIQUE species SUDDENLY appears, exists UNCHANGED FOR MILLENNIA, then vanishes just as suddenly.
That pattern is repeated over & over, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, in the fossil record. Such is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Darwin's notions.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Forget Darwin. Think new science. Darwin had something called the "Theory of Evolution". We now have something called the "fact of evolution". And is only disputed by dumb, ignorant, retarded, religious nuts.
jordie0bogart 1 year ago
@jordie
Wrong. Twice.
First, neither Darwin nor any actual scientist, either then or now or anytime in between, EVER published ANY scientific theory by your bogus title of "Theory of Evolution".
There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY for such. There are a wide range of competing scientific theories of specific evolutionary processes; however, none of them spin any of Darwin's fantasies, such as this silly rat-to-whale tale.
Second, "fact of evolution" isn't even science. It's just a vapid decree.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
Who cares what Darwin might have called it? It's known as the theory of evolution, or better yet: modern evolutionary synthesis.
"There are a wide range of competing scientific theories of specific evolutionary processes"
Nope. Try again.
"Second, fact of evolution isn't even science"
Then explain all the evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Evidence of what? You're looping around to your supposition in trying to support it. (Not good.)
"Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" -- synthesis is specifically the ABSENCE of theory.
Its author is J. Huxley; a UN bureaucrat. He was a racist advocating eugenics & population control, and propping it up with junk science. His "synthesis" was a desperate attempt to revive Darwin's notions following their embarrassing failure by the fossil record and the discovery of genetics.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"Evidence of what?"
Evolution. More precisely: common descent. You know, the pattern we see all trough the fossil record, in genetics and in the geological distribution of life on earth. That evidence.
"You're looping around"
How so? YOU are the one who obviously hasn't looked at the evidence.
"synthesis is specifically the ABSENCE of theory"
No, it's the mix of various theories from various disciplines. They all match up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"You know, the pattern ..."
B. Hussein Obama looks like Alfred E. Neuman; therefore he descended from him.
Yes, so very, very scientific-y.
Only nothing of ACTUAL science.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"B. Hussein Obama looks like Alfred E. Neuman; therefore he descended from him."
Now you're just being stupid. I'll bow out of this one. Have fun in your fantasy world while I go back to reality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Indeed, pointing to two similar and adjacent things as "evidence" of descent is truly stupid. Welcome back to reality.
Now, explain that to Darwinists.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull You didn't offer any ort of "evidence". Besides that you idiots clearly state you wont accept any olid evidence since it goes against your dogmatic nonsense. As a christian I find your behavior deplorable.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
The fossil evidence I reference isn't evidence?
"As a christian I find your . . ."
As a YouTuber I find your demonstrated inabilities to be as typical as your ignorance.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
A fossil is an organism that had all or most of it's organic compounds replaced by minerals. Either that or it's an imprint of a once-living animal/plant/fungus/bacteria. The comparison of a man to another man is hardly anything of the sort. And you call me ignorant?
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
You're avoiding your own complaint.
You claimed that I "didn't offer any [s]ort of evidence", even though I explicitly reference, amongst other things, the fossil record.
Fossils are "evidence".
You are either ignorant or suffer from mental dysfunctions. Pick one.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Your "EVIDENCE" was comparing the president to the mascot of Mad Magazine....that is by far the dumbest creationist take on evolution I have ever heard.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
THAT is precisely the logic (not evidence) used by Darwinists.
Yes, THAT is "the dumbest". Congratulations on puzzling your way through that brain teaser.
Now, go explain THAT to your fellow Darwinist devotees, Nutcase.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Look, evolution is entirely falsafiable. Any "Darwinist" (it is still beyond stupid to lable folks like that. If it's supposed to be an insult, use something coherent) will admit that. To do so find a fossil where it doesn't belong. And no, don't just say you found a 65 million year old human skull, because we would require evidence of where it was found. this means having to use the peer review process, which the likes of you refuse to aknowledge.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Furthermore, this evidence will have to be testable meaning it has to be properly dated (fossils over 50,000 years old can't be carbon dated, so radiometric dating is used instead. Besides carbon dating is used in archeology since civilization as we know it didn't begin until at least 8,000 BC). Your evidence must also be subject to examination by other scientists so they can see if your discovery is valid.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@TylerNull
If your "evidence" is supported it can be accepted. Furthermore, for Creationism to even to be considered a valid theory and thus replace Darwinian evolutionary theory it has to still ue Darwin' theory in some form to help it along. Einstein's theory of relativity may have repalced Newtonian physics but they still use Newton's theories of gravity and motion as a base. For creationism to be accepted, it has to use Darwin's theory to support it. something you folks wont ever do.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Your three post novella fails to address ANYTHING I've posted in my dozen-plus posts.
Oh, and science isn't a two-party system. This isn't a choice between Darwinists and Creationists.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
I'm aware science isn't a two party system, yet you talk like it is. And what I went on to say is to tell you how you can properly refute evolution in a way that logical people will accept. I hardly consider that "failing to adress anything". You consider the scientific method a novelty? Then you know nothing of science.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
". . . and yet you talk like it is."
You're projecting.
I expose the Darwinist hoax using the Darwinists' own measures and reasoning, and Darwinists reply by squealing "Creationist". Just like you just did.
TylerNull 11 months ago
Trying to pin the blame on me? Cute. Not all religious folk are creationists, I will freely admit. I am christian myself, but I don't buy the story of genesis given the geologic record, the progression of biologic variety seen in the fossil record, as well as clearly defined extinct animals exhibiting clear transitions like the ones shown in this video, as well as others such as Microraptor or tiktaalik. However, all creationists are religious, though not limited to one particular faith.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
"Trying to blame me? Cute."
Your posts are visible to all, Nutcase.
You're just another shameless charlatan.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
With this in mind, you are either;
a) Creationist, or some idiot who beleives in intelligent design (which is creationism with another name)
b) A scientologist, who have even more screwed up beleifs than the most fundamentalist religious person.
If this STILL doesn't apply to you, why still discredit evolution? Even without fossils we have DNA evidence which further supports evolution more than even a fossil could. Not to mention obervable data seen in the last 100 years.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Try reading my posts and addressing . . . ANYTHING thereof, Nutcase.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Last I checked, the one trying to tell people anything fallicious was you by saying "EVOLUTION CAN'T HAPPEN, NO EVIDENCE". If you want to show evolution can't happen, do what I said to try and disprove it. Use the scientific method to show scientists that you are right. Evolution is entirely falsafiable, that's why it's a theory. Science deals with theories because they're the strongest form of evidence they deal with. Why is it the scientific method frightens you?
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Unable to address anything I've posted, you're now just inventing things, putting them in quotes, and mocking THAT.
Almost cute.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
You are saying I made up the peer review process??????? That alone proves you know nothing of science and are in no position to question evolution or ANY theory for that matter. This debate is over.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
"You are saying . . . "
Oops, you did it again.
(This isn't a debate.)
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
I can say the same thing, kid. You must work for Fox News given how many lies you've told in just one night.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Anyone can say anything, as long as we don't let socialists criminalize speech; however, only some statements have veracity. Your demonstrated inabilities aren't anyone else's lies.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
I'm not going to bother asking how socialists fit into all this. Unless you can actually show evidence that evolution does not happen, you are wrong. Science deals with hard evidence, and the evidence shows evolution occurs.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Admitting your political illiteracy doesn't mask your scientific illiteracy as well as you might hope.
Yes, "evolution occurs". (That's 'not science.)
If you had the ability to address any point I've made thereof, then you would have done so by now. You're just another charlatan. Sue whatever teachers' labor union so defrauded your parents out of all that tax money, assuming they paid.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 dont bother with retards like tyler, the beautiful thing about science and by default evolution is that you dont have to believe in it for it to be true
its quite clear that some people spend too much time demonstrating their ignorance on youtube and not enough time reading/learning about the truth
ricin82 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Evolution does not happen. Just because people carelessly throw the word at every thing. Now theres what they call "micro-evolution" which should be really called adaptation of a species. But the idea that all life came from on single cell amiba 20 billion years ago makes as much sense as a blind man flying an airplane. Evolution is the only religion funded by the government.
Joshuajlawn 5 months ago
@Joshuajlawn
You have no idea what you're talking about and thus you are in no position to comment.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@TylerNull Yep. Hitler, Stalin, and just about anybody who has tried to wipe out a whole race of man have been evolutionists. Margret Sanger who started Planned parent hood was an evolutionist to her core and she wanted to use abortion to wipe out the black man from the face of the earth (she didn't like black people). Evolution was invented by sex perverts who wanted a way to get rid of God because they knew if theres a God they would have to stand before him.
Joshuajlawn 5 months ago
@Joshuajlawn
Well noted. Here's a timely online article on the topic; an excerpt; you can Google the title ...
"
THE FLASH MOB METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
... Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate "unsubstantiated just-so stories" of evolution and ignore "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs" because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. "We cannot," Lewontin said, "allow a divine foot in the door."
"
TylerNull 5 months ago
@TylerNull god's fake,shut up
BerZerker97 5 months ago
@Joshuajlawn wow you sad deluted imbecile. blaming other as usual
IamKingOfHearts 4 months ago
@TylerNull there ithe scientific theory of evolution of fact it is a fact the evolution happen and is going on now and is science a mountains of evidence is there and growing can you disprove it or tested wrong before attempt to do it so has to be with evidence not based in a holy book nor divine anything this thing is not silly is real but thinking a snake talk is very real thanks
legolasgreenleaff 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Animals evolve and change in order to survive. If they've already obtained a body plan that lets them survive the changes that occur already, then what need to they have to change? It is rather rare that a species doesn't need to change, but it happens.
And yes, Darwin was wrong on many occasions. Hence why it's not called "Darwinism." I cringe whenever anyone uses that term. Darwin had no idea of the finds that we would make to support Evolution.
twilightguardian 1 year ago
@TylerNull What we find in the fossil record are rare examples. They are snapshots of change, not video.
bamafader 1 year ago
@bamafader
You can't have it both ways. Anyway, it's the fossil evidence, not a lack of evidence, that disproves Darwinism.
The fossil record, even where it's replete in all dimensions & across an entire class of species, such as with Trilobita, shows the exact opposite of what's claimed / predicted by natural selection.
The fossil record shows a specific, distinct, species suddenly (dis)appearing and existing unchanged for tens of millennia. That pattern repeats, without exception.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"it's the fossil evidence, not a lack of evidence, that disproves Darwinism."
We have far more fossils than we ever need as evidence for Darwin's theory. Then again, Darwin presented his theory more than 150 years ago, so it is hardly valid anymore in its original form. Science marches on.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Actually, the exact opposite claim is used by Darwinists to defend their tales. Whenever it's pointed out that all they have are two similar species, they drone on about how rare their fossils are. As I already detailed, anywhere there exists a replete record, it evidences nothing of Darwin's claim.
Address the facts.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"Whenever it's pointed out that all they have are two similar species, they drone on about how rare their fossils are."
Again: a fossil doesn't have to be in a direct lineage. Look up the meaning of transitional fossil.
And yes, fossilization is very rare, but we still have found more than enough fossils to make a strong case for evolution. But even without a single fossil there would still be more than enough evidence in the genomes of all organisms.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"transitional fossil" -- another good example of Darwinist-invented lingo for their fuzzy notions. Depending on what frantic wiki-rewrite is displayed on any given political news cycle, the entire Darwinist concept of transitional species/fossils/links is declared as either evidence or a "creationist plot", depending on whether it helps or hurts their mythology of the moment.
Flippity-floppity.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"another good example of Darwinist-invented lingo for their fuzzy notions."
Creationism 101: reject all terms and definitions, so you don't even have to look at the evidence.
"their mythology of the moment."
If it's mythology, then it's the only mythology with evidence in its favor.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Darwinism 101: frantically invent new terms whenever your last was debunked, reverse your own position on your own invented words, and then squeal "creationist" at anyone who notices.
Again, what you refer to as "evidence" is shown to be nothing of the sort. You have yet to address that plain observation.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"invent new terms whenever your last was debunked"
Transitional fossils are not a new term. They are predicted by the theory and scientists find them all over the world. Furthermore, you haven't debunked anything. You simply deny the existence of transitional fossils without good reason.
"evidence is shown to be nothing of the sort."
Explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms.
.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I don't deny the ever-evolving terms. Rather, I'm pointing to the circular idiocies at the core of their fuzzy notions, and the fact that they keep flip-flopping on their own claims.
Hint: If you're going to ape men of science, try to steer clear of political & legal lingo like "you deny". Science is about intellectual inquiry. Nothing is holy writ. The only people you convince with your lingo are scientifically illiterate dupes, and you had them at their magical E-word.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"Science is about intellectual inquiry. Nothing is holy writ."
The last 150 years the idea of evolution by natural selection has been tested again and again and again, with literally thousands of scientists trying to dismantle it. It's still standing strong. And you know why? Because it works! Darwin's rudimentary theory has been built upon and our insights change when new evidence comes in, but the basic idea still stands. None your whining will change any of that
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
The IDEA of Natural Selection will remain "standing strong" for the same reason the IDEA of Santa Claus remains so. Neither rises to the level of a scientific theory.
Further, the notion of Natural Selection is so broad & vague that one could apply it to any dynamic process in all of creation, both in the physical universe and in the universe of ideas. In fact, it's just as insightful to say the Earth orbits the Sun by Natural Selection.
In other words, it's fluff.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull The facts are that nobodsy has ever produced any evidence that contradicts Darwin, not one.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@gamesbok
None of you Darwiniaks in these comments are scientifically literate.
Not one.
TylerNull 2 weeks ago
@TylerNull Again you make a claim that you cannot back, and accuse others of being unscientific.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@gamesbok
Here you demonstrate my point by proving your ignorance of the very concept of evidence.
Thanks Darwiniak!
TylerNull 2 weeks ago
@TylerNull Well, here again you make an accusation, but do not present an arguement.
I haven't seen an argument from you, or any evidence, just wild claims of desperation, and I'm sure even yopu know that 'rats to whales' is a straw man.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@TylerNull
"the fossil record reveals that a UNIQUE species SUDDENLY appears"
Except for all the species that don't, of course.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Name one.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"Name one."
Whales.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Whales" isn't a species.
However, even if we take any one whale species, you still have no point.
In my earlier posts, I elaborated on the observation of your failed claim.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
By the way: first you are complaining that scientists change their ideas when new evidence comes in, then you are complaining that they consider a theory to be "holy writ". Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
There you presume Darwinists are logical, and then suggest it is for me to show how so.
They aren't, and I'm not the one to explain their lunacy. Rather, I merely observe and detail what is demonstrably so of their tales and their hoaxes.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"rat to whale"
The terrestrial predecessor of modern whales is not a rat. Get your facts straight.
"the near-infinite number of infinitesimal changes predicted & required "
Yet we can still trace the morpholigical changes throughout the fossil record. How about that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Pakicetus, "rat" -- tom-A-toe, tom-atoe
By "trace the morphological changes", you mean point to the rat that lived next to some other species that suddenly appeared at about the time the rat suddenly vanished, to proclaim the one "evolved" from the other.
Yeah, that's my point. The tale is all so very scientific-y. Only nothing of actual science.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"Pakicetus"
... was not even a rodent.
"to proclaim the one evolved from the other."
Pakicetus was likely a sister or cousin species of the real predecessor of modern whales. It doesn't matter, since it still counts as evidence for the existence of intermediate forms between land mammals and whales. You'd better inform yourself about the subject of transitional fossils.
"Only nothing of actual science."
Do you know of a better model for whale evolution?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Call it whatever you like, my point stands.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
"my point stands."
What point? All you ever do is shout "nu-uh". That's hardly a point by any stretch of the imagination.
So again: explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms. Tell me about an alternative scientific model that can explain the data just as well, if not better.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You refuse to even acknowledge my point, and yet you request several more on your new claims.
Even if we took your bogus claims as holy writ, your request implies a debunked theory isn't debunked until some other theory comes along. That is NOT a trait of science. Science isn't a two party system.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TylerNull
"You refuse to even acknowledge my poin"
Simply shouting "no, it isn't" is not a point. It's childish nonsense.
Again: explain why we find the exact fossils precisely where we expect them. Explain the branching tree pattern in the genomes of all organisms. Tell me about an alternative scientific model that explains the data just as well, if not better. Failing to answer these questions shows you're full of it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@TylerNull
Nope. What we see are successions of species changing over time. This is exactly what would be expected from evolution. The older species are less like modern whales and over time the transitional forms become more and more like modern whales, again, exactly as expected. The fossil record and genetics clearly show evolution happens. Why are you so misinformed on this subject?
BicyclingGuitarist 11 months ago
@TylerNull See, the problem with this is that fossilization rarely occurs--and those species of which we have cataloged many fossils over millennia DO, in fact, exhibit slight changes in morphology (outside of the changes that would normally be expected within a particular population, that is). Some taxons are known with several transitional forms, others are not, indeed because some creatures' lifestyles and habitats lend themselves better to fossilization than others.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"rarely occurs"
That stale argument tries to have it both ways. EITHER there is sufficient evidence to prop up a theory, OR there is not.
Pick one.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull If you wish to ignore the evidence, that's your prerogative.
In the meantime, I'll lean on the rigorous, peer-reviewed and publicly-available data and studies of the materialist-secular-socialist-darwinist cabal that are nonetheless more qualified to make those judgments than yourself.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
The Nazi scientists were all "peer reviewed" too. Appealing to authority is nothing to brag about, and it's not science.
As for "ignore the evidence", I'm the only one here NOT ignoring it. Specifically, this rat-to-whale tale shows distinct species which suddenly appear, live unchanged for millennia, and then suddenly disappear. There is no science to claim the one evolved into the other; just proximity. That's the Darwinist's gimmick.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull Godwin's Law is a pretty common charge, but nonetheless empty. It lends no credence to any of your arguments here.
"Ignoring" the evidence, perhaps not--you at least purport to stay informed on fossil specimens--but your interpretation of the evidence is nevertheless incorrect (for what motives I won't presume to speculate).
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"Godwin's Law"
Pointing out the historical record of Darwinists isn't any kind of wrong, regardless of your stale use of a trendy attempt at inoculating the reader from its reality.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull Likewise, some fossil taxons do indeed appear suddenly, remain unchanged, and vanish--and some life forms persist unchanged for millennia. Not all selective pressures are created equal. But the fact remains that there is ample evidence even in the fossil record there is a continuum of variation as would be expected from natural selection.
The rest of the evidence is in molecular and phylogenetic studies, and even by direct observation of certain species.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
The fossil record is so absolutely devoid of "continuum" that Darwinists came up for a scientific-y sounding name to explain their failure thereof. They termed it "punctuated equillibrium".
Cute, aren't they?
As for "natural selection", there is no actual science thereof. It's a fuzzy notion having such a broad scope that it can be said of anything, real or imagined. After all, there is NOTHING that is NOT affected by "the environment"; planets, phones, . . . serendipity.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull The fossil record is fragmentary, indeed. The fact that so many transitional forms exist even in spite of that is truly fascinating.
And as I said, the fossil record is only part of the supporting evidence. Phylogenetic analysis has corroborated fossil records handily. Moreover, natural selection can be readily observed in nature, and reproduced in the laboratory.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"transitional forms"
What is "readily observed" is that if it weren't for fuzzy, subjective notions, Darwinists would have no notions at all.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull The fact of the matter is that evolution by mutation and natural selective pressures DOES occur, and has been observed in nature and reproduced in the lab.
The EXACT course of speciation and evolution of life on earth is subject to less precise interpretation, naturally, as we of course don't yet have time travel to directly observe it. But fossil evidence in tandem with cladistic and genetic analysis corroborates it in such a way that we have a pretty solid idea of it.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"natural selective pressure" -- let's tug on that bit of Darwinist mysticism.
When a government forces its citizenry to sponsor the children of the most violent and stupid populations whilst economically punishing the smartest and most successful. is that considered one such "natural selective pressure", or is the human species supernatural, as in the eco-atheist wing of Darwinist dogma?
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull Have you nothing left in your arsenal other than to brand me a thug of some alleged Darwinist cabal bent on indoctrinating everyone into materialist atheism?
It's clear that no one is going to convince you. We're apparently at odds with our interpretations of the evidence (whether fossils, genetic studies, long-term E. coli cultures, etc.)--and you're certainly free to interpret as you wish--but your attempts to politicize scientific discourse only hurt your credibility, not mine.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
""brand me a . . ." -- that's all you, as they say. I merely referenced on of the endless scientific hoaxes peddled by genocidal Darwinists. And I did so to suggest to any lucid, though naive, young minds that mindlessly accepting fuzzy notions as "science" doesn't always end well. It's never a good idea, anyway.
It's about logic and reason, not "interpretations". This isn't a brain teaser. Your off-topic listing is irrelevant to my point of this rat-to-whale tale..
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull You are absolutely correct: it is about logic and reason. It just so happens that logic and reason point to evolution being the more likely and parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Furthermore, your characterization of this fossil as a "rat" due to its superficial (if poor) similarity to a rodent betrays your poor understanding of paleontology and physiology. Sling all the mud and invoke Godwin all you like, but the writing's on the wall. E pur si muove.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
Evolution isn't an explanation. Nor is it science. It's a decree. It's just a noun; a synonym for change.
Indeed, it's so very "parsimonious" that Darwinists don't even offer a scientific theory for "it". The closest they came to one was a "synthesis" , which is fancy way of saying they don't have a scientific theory. And that wasn't even from a scientist, but rather from a UN bureaucrat, who favored eugenics, named J. Huxley. Complain all you like, but reality exists.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull It can be--and has been--observed, tested, and reproduced. That's as scientific as anything can get.
Darwinian evolution as a justification for eugenics is no more incriminating of the theory itself than of the Old Testament for mistreatment of non-Christians in past centuries. An aside: Julian Huxley WAS, in fact, a scientist--quite a renowned biologist of Oxford schooling, actually.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"It" being change. Got it. Change happens. How very, very scientific-y. What is the SCIENCE thereof? As we see from this video, their conclusions often fail quite spectacularly.
Huxley was certainly as much a "scientist" as the Nazi scientists. The point is that he penned his "Modern Synthesis" hoax as a UN BUREAUCRAT to peddle eugenics. He and his fellow Darwinists were in a blind panic since the Christian monk (Mendel) fathered the science -- actual science -- of genetics.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull If you bothered to study Mendel's work (incidentally, Mendel was very fond of Darwin's theory, and sought to explain the inheritance mechanisms to help refine it), you would readily extrapolate that natural selection follows as a consequence of genetics.
Genetic studies CONFIRM the changes in morphology and intermediate forms exhibited in the fossil record, as predicted by Darwinian evolution.
Either Mendelian genetics is true, or evolution by natural selection is false. Pick one.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
"natural selection follows" ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, from planets to shoes, since it's just the broadest of fuzzy notions. After all, there is nothing that is NOT affected by "the environment". That is to say, it's meaningless.
Darwinists simply can't let it go because that would allow science to seep in. I'm sure Mendel, like most people, was "fond" of all those before him who failed to discover the SCIENCE of genetics. Why would he make Darwin an exception?
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull DNA is now the best proof of Evolution. It clearly shows how animals and plants are related.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz
"related"
Yeah, the question is how.
TylerNull 8 months ago
@TylerNull Look at the DNA, it will show who is more ralated to whom. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to Gorillas. Think about that.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
If Darwinists allowed for thinking, then they'd start by acknowledging the quaternary code of DNA is of an overwhelmingly intelligent design.
TylerNull 8 months ago
@TylerNull My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she did it.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
Which is to say that Darwinists clearly do NOT allow for thinking.
TylerNull 8 months ago
@TylerNull What's a Darwiniiniiiist ?
gregrutz 8 months ago
@TylerNull Darwin's ideas are 150 years out of date, try and keep up.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Some aspects are out of date, Natural Selection, which was his greatest contribution is as strong as ever
TLOZfreak 7 months ago
@TLOZfreak Yes, natural seletion is a fact.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz thats what i was implying..
TLOZfreak 7 months ago
@TylerNull I'm pretty sure you have no idea how DNA works.. Mentioning its complex and implying its designed has nothing to do with science at all. And how is it that every single biologist and geneticist with no religious agenda agrees it is just the result of complex chemistry?
TLOZfreak 7 months ago
@TylerNull As for Huxley's views on race and eugenics--his view was not out of character even for non-secular figures of his day (and, after all, Hitler was a Catholic, if we're going that route). Few of his era were so keen to refute the notion of "race" as a biologically significant one.
Reality does exist, certainly. I see that it has become uncomfortable for you and your ilk, who resort to fomenting unscientific romanticism in an attempt to politicize science and fabricate a controversy.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
By "politicize science", you must be referring to the formation of a government sponsored monopoly of labor unions that proselytize their politically steered "science" as holy writ to everyone's children for 12+ years, and spew derision at anyone who dares to dissent?
Oh, wait, atheist-socialists done-be-did all that already!
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull If presenting reproducible and freely-available scientific data and fact as truth is some massive indoctrination effort, I hope they succeed. Students are free to believe as they wish, but the present "alternatives" to Darwinian evolution have no place in the science classroom, period.
Certainly better than disguising Genesis as "science" after being struck down by the Supreme Court and screaming "racist-eugenicist-Darwinist-atheist conspiracy" at anyone who notices.
SevenSixTwoNato 11 months ago
@SevenSixTwoNato
Genetic Drift is one of several scientific and "present alternatives" to Darwinist evolution. Further, science isn't a 2 party system. One theory is considered no more valid by the failure of another. Each must stand on its own merits.
Darwinism is proselytized as holy writ. High school students graduate with an immaculate scientific illiteracy. Your depiction is the polar opposite of the reality.
EVOLVE.
TylerNull 11 months ago
they base an entire animals anatomy on a fraction of a scull .... i have sympathy for creationists here
ShalloeThought 1 year ago
@ShalloeThought
"they base an entire animals anatomy on a fraction of a scull"
It's called: knowing what you're talking about. You should try it sometime.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ......... thats a rather naive view ... you dont require evidence ... you cannot recreate an entire Skeleton from a small piece of a scull of an animal for which there are no other examples
ShalloeThought 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@ShalloeThought
"you cannot recreate an entire Skeleton from a small piece of a scull of an animal"
Recreating a whole skeleton might be hard, but you can reconstruct fragments by making educated guesses, comparing them to the morphology of similar animals. Of course, this kind of reconstruction is not needed for scientific research and mostly done for illustrative purposes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
global warming?
well al gore said that in the history of planet earth, all geological evidence has claimed that the earth;s temeprature was not as high as now for the past millions of years.
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
sharks only bite people for a very brief time and then let go, but it's pretty risky, since if your arm is very thick, then would the shark eat you, or the orcas? I know sharks can sense fish blood, and fish juice, but when you drop human blood, the sharks don't take a notice.... but seals are mammals though and they get eaten.
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
any idea that since Pakistan is undergoing a flood, the only solution is to become obese and create a thick layer of blubber, then swim in cold water and eat sharks with our bare hands.
Chachaman111 1 year ago