This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:
Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked at the fact see The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.
there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory"
1/10 to the 10 power is not a problem for you as you have faith evolution is true no matter how unlikely the odds are stacked against it. You have great faith so LOL there is no power
I need evidence to believe and don't have your faith in evolution Sorry
@jman3000 don't waste too much of your time with evolutionists. If they can't see their mistake in believing this garbage there is no point. They say creation is crazy yet super what is possibly thw most retarded theory in existence. They think they have some short of moral and intellectual highground yet they lack the basic reasoning skills needed to disagree with evolution
@semitope I guess you prefer fairy tales to facts. Evolution did happen. In science theory means explanatios. Evolution is supported my mountains of research from every corner of the scientific community, that have been peer reviewed and reached a consensus. There is no other theory that has even come close. Evolutionists? I guess you might as well call me a gravitists, since I believe in gravity as well. Im hoping that you not America, we have enough retarded creationists already
@MrKGatl You should worry more about your retarded evolutionists and the fact that your populations intelligence is so low that people would gladly eat up the garbage that is the evolutionary theory. There is nothing that confirms evolution but random facts that have nothing to do with it. Fools often use natural selection and mutations to support evolution without realizing just how massive that claim is. The conclusion is not representative of the evidence.
@semitope Why do so many professors and educated people believe in evolution? The highest concentration of people who believe in evolution are college campuses. The highest concentration of people who do not believe in evolution are trailer parks. So I dont think we are the unintellegent ones. You're either too unintellegent or too uneducated to get evolution. The conclusion is representative of the evidence. It only takes common sense to get it. You just prefer fairy tales I guess
@MrKGatl "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" There are many scientists who don't agree with evolution. A collection of videos can be found here if you want to see evolutionofthehoax.blogspot.com/
When you make up lies about who rejects evolution your A bigot & fail
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
The highest concentration of people who do not believe in evolution are trailer parks
You know you just made up this comment without any evidence it is true
I guess lying comes natural to militant atheists when their faith in evolution is chanledged.
I don't bother making up stories about how atheist dogfaces have complete faith in evolution despite the new evidence that shows the odds of creating a new spicies is 1 in 100 milllion. A person would have to been and idiot to believe this is so
Wrong "evolution" dumbass. These fools need to stop pushing evolutionary theory like this. You DO NOT need the evolutionary theory to understand these processes that just happen to fall into the general definition of the word evolution (change). So enfuriating
@All4reason unfortunately the creationists dont like to understand terms. they have the wrong definition of a lot of words. E.G. "Atheist" (or evolution vs abiogenesis)
The best proof for evolution is driving creationists extinct
Let's push creationists harder and harder; evolution is driven by environmental challenge. If we make things hard enough for them, they either "evolve" and become part of a thinking mankind or -most likely- will become extinct.
hey idiot These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated
@MrKGatl Let me show you why i dont believe in atheist philosophy about a new men godless. Read your own comment : "Just because Russia has a lot of corruption, doesnt mean that corruption and atheism are in any way linked..." Now read your comment in this youtube channel: "Or we could just burn them at the stake like they wouldnt have done to us a few hundred years ago..." That's why I say that american atheist are 90% inmoral liar, and stupid people. Now, stop send me you comments, please.
You'll never gain a debate with a creationist; for me it would be like trying to convince a nazi that jews are as worthy as every other human being.
Claims of "liberal bias " of science made by conservatives reveal that they do not care about science; they just dress their "claims" "as-if" they were scientific with the ultimate goal of eliminating everything that does not fit their worldview.
The problem is that most evolutionist don't act as skeptics for their own theories. They only wish to challenge what they already disagree with. If an evolutionist would honestly look at the myriad of holes in evolutionary theory, they would find it a bit depressing. That's not to say that creation is the answer either. It is only to say that the problem is still far more complex than most scientist want to admit. And if they ever did prove the theory, it would only explain change, not existence
@bilgerburg I think the problem is more likely to be that you don't know who these "evolutionists" are, how much skepticism they apply to their own ideas and how much their peers more importantly apply for them, what any of these "holes" are, whether they're any real problem for neo-Darwinism and why, how complex scientists think the problems of origins are, or how complex those problems actually are.
Or, in short, that you are talking directly out your ass.
@bilgerburg There are holes in the theory of gravity. So what? That's like implying that if science doesn't have 100% comprehensive answers to everything, then it must be wrong on the areas it can give answers to also.
"And if they ever did prove the theory, it would only explain change, not existence"
Only mathematics deal with proofs. Proofs are absolute, absolutism wouldn't let science advance. And so what if it only explains change? It has never even claimed it explained existence.
This is the point I'm trying to make. Creationists don't have problem with this ("evolving" resistance through natural selection). We have a problem with saying that all life evolved from the same common ancestor (or some similar idea). This is my problem at least (I can't speak for all creationist)
The main assumption (I think) that creation makes is that life was created perfect and fully developed and gradually, over the many centuries, obtained flaws in the genetic code
@Jman3000 You would believe in the Adam and Eve story suggesting we all descended from them and if they only had 2 sons as their children then the "flaws in the genetic code" would be a result of many generations of incest wouldn't it? And if you have problems"with saying that all life evolved from the same common ancestor" why can you believe every human came about from 2 people. I don't mean to challenge your faith, you are free to believe! I simply challenge the reasoning you use to defend it
@iscooliscool You are asking a good question I will do my best to explain what I believe. First Adam and Eve did not only have 2 sons, they had at least 3 sons according to Gen 4. Gen 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Adams sons married Adams daughters as far as I can tell. Yes, I guess it is incest. Today if a man marries his sister, then there is a rick of genetic deformation in their children...
... But Adam and Eve were genetically perfect being that, from what I can tell, they were physically flawless. As this their genetic code was passed on, this code began to deteriorate. A simple example of this can be done using a copy machine. If you photo copy a picture then copy the copy of the picture picture and so on, information will begin to disappear. Since Adam, a lot of copying has been going one. As many different families branched out, different genetic changes began to arise...
This is why there are many different traits through out the Human race, such as red hair, blonde hair, different color eyes and different color skin colors, etc. Now, this may sound like evolution and that is because it is. I do not have a problem with the concept of change over time. My problem is how much and how long things have changed over time. I believe that God created every *kind of animal we see today. People point out that there are billions of species of animals around today...
Granted, but how many kinds are there? I am not an animal expert by any means and have no understanding of how to determine what animals belong to what kind, but using a little common sense I can see how horses and zebras are related. I think there are many species of horses, but I would classify all of these species as the "horse kind." Did all the "horse kind" come from a single common horse ancestor? Seems quite probable. But did monkeys come from the same ancestor? Seems VERY unlikely...
...While it COULD be possible, I am not aware of any physical data that would support that claim (that monkeys and horses are related). In essence it makes more sense to me that a big bolder (Adam, genetically speaking) can be broken into little rocks (me and you) rather than little rocks (micro organisms) can be put together to form a big rock (man).
I hope that cleared something up. Thanks for the question!
@Jman3000 Thank you very much for answering my question. I appreciate the time you have taken to give thought to my question.
It is certainly an interesting concept the story of creation. I think creation and evolution can coexist no problem if one has a flexible approach. Similar to the big bang theory, evolution's theory does not explain how life started, simply what life did once it got here. So for me i see evolution explaining how life exists&adapts and creation telling me why life exists
I don't agree with the big bang or the order "science" says things were created. For origins I look to the Bible. Another good question is how long this "evolution" would take. People say millions of years, but we got our dog breeds in a few hundred. There are many variables that could have been in place to isolate groups of animals causing them to inbreed resulting in species change. I have no Idea what the exact variables were, but we can guess. I see no reason for is to take millions of years
@Jman3000 1 reason for it to take millions of years is the difference between natural selection and the deliberate actions of humans to force the hand of evolution. Humans weren't around to select species of animals they wanted to survive while letting others die out millions of years ago.Your example of breeding dogs similarly farmers do it with stock is an example of taking deliberate steps to ensure the survival of species we perceive appropriate.I could discuss more but limited by characters
@iscooliscool lol, that character limit is so annoying :D
I am aware that the dog breeds are a result of men using selective breeding. I believe that nothing happens randomly or by accident. Also remember that I believe that God created fully formed kinds of animals at relatively the same time which then lost genetic information as generations passed by. We can't know how long it took an animal to evolve unless we know what they started as. Meaning, how many changes has taken place?
I do not believe that any animals ever evolved wings, legs or other similar kinds of structures. Unless we know the difference between the original animal and the descendant that exists today. I'm not sure we have a way of knowing how fast it would take certain animals to gain or lose certain traits. I think of natural selection to be a constant thing, established by God, ensuring the survival of a kind of animal. Curtain traits can be suppressed in different situations for example.
@Jman3000 You are again right on the money, I guess evolution takes the bottom up approach in understanding which suggests it should look at the fossil record over time to see how the species evolved from whatever they started as. It sounds like you prefer the top down approach which would suggest something designed species as they are and changes over time are a result of the environment. I could point to evidence that suggests structures did evolve, but no point if you don't believe it ;)
@Jman3000 oh come on man, how can you believe this after all the evidence that's been gathered? You re living in the distant past, man. Time to face the facts. it really isn't that scary. Honest.
@Jman3000 Put down you bible and pick up something else if you want to learn. Thats the difference between religious ignorance and scientifically literate people. You beleive in stuff but we know and understand it.
The question is, how much information did the first viruses have and how fast they are losing this information?
I find it very reasonable to conclude that viruses once contained more information than viruses today. As the centuries went by, the viruses devolved making them unrecognizable to our bodies, thus making them more difficult to kill.
Actually you are wrong. When a virus replicates itself inside a cell, it sometimes incorporates a part of the host's DNA. This can have a neutral, positive, or negative effect on the virus, and is a very essential part in viral evolution.
"I'm a young man who loves God and learning the truth about everything. I am always looking to learn and gain understanding about life and the universe I have been born into."
quote taken directly from your channel... if you like to learn the truth about things how about you stop denying facts. People keep showing you more evidence but you dismiss it. Those bible blinders you have on must be runnin at full blast or something. There is a little place called reality, find your way into it...
What do you mean by saying that viruses add no new info when inside a cell, Warriorprince? Have you ever heard of the swine flu? It crossed over into humans because of antigenic shift. That term means two different strains can exchange genes and come up with a new virulent strain which can cross from one species of host to another. The pandemic of 1918 was an earlier example. These cell parasites are excellent vectors for carrying genes from one host to another. This is serious evolution.
What lab was swine flu conjured up in? Who made this virus? Do you even have a clue as to what antigenic shifts entail? Did you know that the same kind of genetic mix may occur between nonhuman animals like birds & swine? What would you call that? Swine made?
This switching of genes happens inside cells independent of human designs.
Viruses are not living as humans are, Evolutionism is a claim that demands animals gaining new information which we know is impossible. Natural selection is part of creation and never ever leads to new information. Try again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Viruses do not evolve the devolve and in the paradise viruses will not be able to harm mankind. Hiv virus, I think he meant, losses data and thus becomes harder to kill by unatural means. I am sure there are natural cures for HIV just like we have found for all other illnesses.
and there is nothing to believe about it. either you understand what is going on or you don't. the occurrence of evolution does not depend on anybody's belief.
How smart are you? Are you smart enough to know that you don't know it all Of couse you are Only a proper fool believes that they know it all Very few people can investigate without bias Walter Vieth on Utube taught evolution for years Why did he change his view? Don't feel bad if you don't give a damn Because thats how most people are I have an inquiring mind But do you too I mean a really inquiring mind Check out Walter Vieth's testimony on utube But I bet you won't Am I right?
evolution is a religion disguised as science ...evolving viruses? .viruses mutate to adapt to carry on ..unless a trail of a double neg may occur for an antiviral effect could be used to counter ..MUTATION...gimme a break...1977 i insisted to many this stuff would manifest to this caliber of status people...goes to show -indoctrinate idiots over time & they will bleed that very doctrine ..read the text below this one ..read it!..he sais it like "as a matter of fact" ..ha ha ha ha ha ha. scary
oh no...hu uh..no way ..u did it to yerself ..uve had more than one attempted dialogue reach out from the "crutch" people .enough cryin out ..it is up to you ...snap outta it quick ...but i will have a drink with someone who is a fractional financial backing to dawkins & others which prompted this evolutionary indoctrinated alterior goaled success theyre havin ..but not by me ...so we'll read these texts with u & many from the past month & theyll laugh..but not at my caliber..u are their success
Yeah, creationism is wide-spread only in poor third-world countries and the USA. You never see any creationists in the public debate in Western Europe, for instance. : )
playnine. Err..no, there are no creationists over here in Scandinavia for instance, none in Japan, none in any country with a combination of a high average level of scientific literacy, high average education, and a high standard of living. Lots and lots of research has been done on this, and we see the same trends, tendencies all over the world. And America has started becoming smarter, too..did you know that the percentage of atheists has actually doubled in The United States since 1995? : )
playnine, even the christians in this country accept evolution as a fact, just like The Pope and The Roman Catholic Church does, you know. There are no creationists here, and you never ever hear about it in the media or anywhere, and nobody mentions "God" anywhere either. Nobody in the media, no politicians, nobody. By the way, our prime minister, mr. Jens Stoltenberg, is an atheist and so are most members of the current government. Sounds like a paradise compared to America, doesn't it?: )
You are severely misguided. The Christians in THIS country do not differ from the Christians in yours.
There are creationists in your country, as evidenced by the poll that I posted. I sourced it and it was a valid poll. You simply made up numbers without giving a valid reference.
You must be quite sheltered to believe that you don't have creationists or Christians (which are NOT the same thing, as you imply) in your country.
You sound like the Iranian president claiming he has no gays.
Fucktard, the poll you showed me said there were christians in this country, not creationists! The christians in this country accept the fact of evolution. Don't you know what a creationist is? Look it up, then
Fucktard, we're still talking about c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-m! Are you mentally challenged or something? Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are creationists, they "don't believe in" evolution, even though evolution is a fact. In my country the christians accept evolution. Jeez, if you don't understand this message, have someone with a three-digit IQ explain it for you! Man, this is one of the worst cases I've seen on YouTube! You need help, man..
Sorry, evolution is a theory, not a fact. The speed of light is a fact, special relativity is a theory. It is a fact that within the theory of special relativity clocks slow down at high speeds. Within the *theory* of evolution is it a fact that generic changes occur within populations over time.
The distinction between facts and theory is something that this series of videos has addressed repeatedly.
Evolution is the change in living things over time. That this has happened is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is Natural selection, which describes the process by which the change (fact) has occurred.
That's not correct. Evolution is change in the **genetic material** of organisms from one generation to the next and NOT "change in living things over time", otherwise aging would be "evolution". Natural selection is the process which causes "helpful traits" to be retained as the organisms with that trait are more likely to reproduce. Natural select does NOT "describes the process by which the change (fact) has occurred."
For example, mutations ("change in genetic material") caused by radiation is in no way "natural selection". Changes in the genetic material caused by nutritional deficiencies is also not "natural selection". However, both could be considered evolution. Although such changes to the genetic material are usually small, the cumulative effect may result in new species. That genetic material changes over time is a fact, evolution is a scientific theory.
Mutation is mutation if caused by radiation, poisoning, or errors in meiosis or mitosis. Neither is considered evolution, only mutations. If the mutation were to increase in frequency in the population, that woud be evolution.
My point is, that this type of change happens. That's a fact. The mechanism by which this occurs is Natural Selection, which is the theory of evolution. And by "theory" I don't mean supposition, I mean well tested and documented process accepted as the best explanation.
Well you made no mention of common decent. Actually you kind of confabulated the word evolution. There are many definitions of it. I suspect you mean the scientific theory of biological evolution? In the scientific theory of biological evolution natural selection, mutation and genetic drift are the methods by which evolution occurs. All three are established facts.
Thank you! I needed you to point out the difference to me between decent and descent. It was something my small mind couldn't grasp after the first time you corrected me, but your elaboration has shown me the light and now i can bask in the glory that is Meskiagkasher!!!
Well, to be more specific, evolution is not change in genetic material either, that is mutation. Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. This may result in a visible change in the modal phenotype of that population over generations.
Hmmm. And what are alleles? Different versions of a given gene! When you have a different allele, you have different genetic material.
And YES, changes to generic material/new DNA sequences (e.g. creation of new alleles) can be caused by radiation, posioning, changes in nutrients or replication errors. Those are ALL mutations and are ALL evolution.
Sounds to me that you are simply cut-n-pasting from some web site and you really don't understand the material.
Mutation is NOT evolution. If the new version of a gene (an allele) spreads through the population over generations, that is evolution. The mutation itself is not evolution.
As for my credentials, I have a graduate degree in paleontology and additional grad studies in evolutionary biology. And in fact I had lunch with Eugenie Scott and Brian Alters just last week.
BudgetAstronomer/Ed: I stand corrected. My apologies. It's always a good day when you learn something new.
melreynolds: It was pretty easy to verify most of what he said. The reason he "gives a shit" what people say on YouTube is that in at least one of his profiles he says:
That was a GOOD 1. Hate anger & when confronted with these labels THEY react even more hateful & elementary with their rebut when challenged ..while THAT alone should be enough to expose their error ..but blindly refusing to acknowledge that,TOO exposes their irrational behaviour which in conclusion would ultimately "evolve" in some kinda violent act {PRIDE}..evolution is a religion smokescreened as a science..& NOW some of them see that. squirming {at best}..after being outspoken in the past.
Woah, woah, big fella. Just because I'm pointing out the error in winterstellar's ways doesn't mean that I disagree with the foundation of his dream.
Evolution is a byproduct of natural selection, and is a proven fact. "God did it", on the other hand, has been the fall-back answer for every unexplainable phenomenon since...well, since we invented gods.
Please don't be ignorant by saying that evolution is a religion. Please do more research. If you're interested in science, peruse it. Until then, don't talk about things you know nothing about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i refuse to give u or any indoctrinated self ignorant person any references ..you must break out of the brainwashing yourself kinda like a drug addict has to do..if you will, then have the ears to hear what info has been oppressed and the truth behind what was deliberately givin {from those who dont evenm believe evolution} to the public for a coming climate..REGARDLESS u WILL - see it willingly or ignorantly..yer choice..dont reply to me ..go seek..or dont...they actually pulled it off..ha ha.
Are you high right now? That completely unintelligible response reaffirms my belief that there really are completely incompetent people walking this planet. How did you make it to 35 years old?
What is an "indoctrinated self ignorant person?" Did you just think of words that you thought sounded cunning and type them in your response?
Please, please tell me that there aren't people who take you seriously.
And those numbers are bullshit. In Sweden 85 percent answered they do not believe in God, and in Norway it was 75 percent. We have a problem with christianity still in rural parts of western/southwestern Norway. But like in every western, developed country, the percentage of christians is decreasing year by year. So we will get rid of them in the end: )
Actually, there are movements in the Middle East that basically goes with the same vein as Christian creationism, except with the Koran taking over the OT and NT.
He said most countries. Not surprisingly, the Middle East isn't one of them, being arguably the founding place of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
According to many historians, meaning they actually did the research, Jesus was born in what is now Israel. This makes me wonder why he is always depicted as white; wouldn't he be darker skinned and be geographically considered Western Asian?
@Ozzyman200 Yup here in Australia it's not a debate, evolution is taught in every year of science from grades 7-10 when science is a mandatory subject taken in most schools. Even our catholic high schools teach evolution. American evangelicals, and people that blindly believe creation over evolution make me want to cry.
I don't see the point in thinking that creationism and evolution should fight against each other. I hear about that in american movies ONLY. In Europe I know lots of Christians who just believe that it is God who made the evolution happen!
Oh... Ok. I thought that Christians thought that those days were not really "24 hours", since the sun or light wasn't supposed to have been created yet. Is it actually written in the Bible that it was 6000 years ago anyway?
No. It's written nowhere in the bible. The timeline was created by some guy that I forgot who just added up all the begats and came up with that figure.
It also doesn't say that God created the world and whatever in 24-hour days. That's what those crazy-ass YECs want you to believe.
Haha.. I heard about irreducible complexity and it's strongest case was the flagella of a protozoa. They said the flagellum was made of some 50 odd parts and each part alone was useless and since the mechanism worked there must be an intelligent design behind it. Then a scientist came in, looked at each protein described in the parts list of the flagellum and owned the creationists saying that you could remove each part and the flagellum would still have partial motlie function.
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
But, yeah, Deaven, we students of science understand the biological reasoning. The question was directed to the "goddidit" crowd. If we were designed by God, it simply makes no sense for everyone to start off as female and grow mammary glands. That's wasteful. It's hard to accept that an all knowing God would design us so badly.
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man.
someone please answer this question. if evolution is wrong, which im sure it is, then whats the opposite arguement? where are all these new animals come from? how does a wolf turn into a chow? what is ACTUALLY happening then, if its not evolution?
lol im pretty sure christians arent advocation lamarckism....
yknow, not a single person on youtube can answer my question? i probably phrased it better before, but its pretty simple. what...is....really...happening then?
i don't get it. Why are you asking people who DON'T believe in evolution how else this could happen? And you said that you think it's wrong. Evolution involves genetic mutation, reproduction, and natural selection.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"Epicurus
Mi always has some Ma effect, whether Ma always involves Mi is currently being studied. ID tries to manipulate this questioning process into an article of faith and thus frame science as a religion. Hilarious but for the obvious harm it does to the pursuit of truth, the antithesis of ID.
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is an outright fraud. It is not there. It does not happen. It is not science.
Mutations do not accumulate. They do not work together to order anything.
You cannot understand what does not happen and evolution does not happen.
If evolution had any factual basis, you wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars to try to promote it.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon please watch this
watch?v=G2a-oMNbei4
and take your dumb video down afterwards
cause4reason 4 months ago
Will "clones" who behave, think, act and feel like humans be considered under the "Creationist" heading or the "Evolutionary" heading?
This kind of questioning might already be happening in high school science classes. What kind of answer should the science teacher give the kids?
ruffomaldito 5 months ago
@wickedman6
Evolution is a fucking FACT .
note the vile atheist scum bag
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:
Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked at the fact see The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.
SuperTruthlover 6 months ago
@SuperTruthlover
"there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory"
lol, no there isn't.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndividualParties
there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory"
1/10 to the 10 power is not a problem for you as you have faith evolution is true no matter how unlikely the odds are stacked against it. You have great faith so LOL there is no power
I need evidence to believe and don't have your faith in evolution Sorry
SuperTruthlover 5 months ago
@jman3000 don't waste too much of your time with evolutionists. If they can't see their mistake in believing this garbage there is no point. They say creation is crazy yet super what is possibly thw most retarded theory in existence. They think they have some short of moral and intellectual highground yet they lack the basic reasoning skills needed to disagree with evolution
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope I guess you prefer fairy tales to facts. Evolution did happen. In science theory means explanatios. Evolution is supported my mountains of research from every corner of the scientific community, that have been peer reviewed and reached a consensus. There is no other theory that has even come close. Evolutionists? I guess you might as well call me a gravitists, since I believe in gravity as well. Im hoping that you not America, we have enough retarded creationists already
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl You should worry more about your retarded evolutionists and the fact that your populations intelligence is so low that people would gladly eat up the garbage that is the evolutionary theory. There is nothing that confirms evolution but random facts that have nothing to do with it. Fools often use natural selection and mutations to support evolution without realizing just how massive that claim is. The conclusion is not representative of the evidence.
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope Why do so many professors and educated people believe in evolution? The highest concentration of people who believe in evolution are college campuses. The highest concentration of people who do not believe in evolution are trailer parks. So I dont think we are the unintellegent ones. You're either too unintellegent or too uneducated to get evolution. The conclusion is representative of the evidence. It only takes common sense to get it. You just prefer fairy tales I guess
MrKGatl 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrKGatl "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" There are many scientists who don't agree with evolution. A collection of videos can be found here if you want to see evolutionofthehoax.blogspot.com/
semitope 6 months ago
When you make up lies about who rejects evolution your A bigot & fail
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
SuperTruthlover 6 months ago
The highest concentration of people who do not believe in evolution are trailer parks
You know you just made up this comment without any evidence it is true
I guess lying comes natural to militant atheists when their faith in evolution is chanledged.
I don't bother making up stories about how atheist dogfaces have complete faith in evolution despite the new evidence that shows the odds of creating a new spicies is 1 in 100 milllion. A person would have to been and idiot to believe this is so
SuperTruthlover 6 months ago
Wrong "evolution" dumbass. These fools need to stop pushing evolutionary theory like this. You DO NOT need the evolutionary theory to understand these processes that just happen to fall into the general definition of the word evolution (change). So enfuriating
semitope 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins observed that evolution DOES NOT try to explain the origins of life; perhaps we will never be able to explain it.
Evolution contents itself with explaining the ORIGINS of the different SPECIES.
All4reason 10 months ago
@All4reason unfortunately the creationists dont like to understand terms. they have the wrong definition of a lot of words. E.G. "Atheist" (or evolution vs abiogenesis)
Read this ignorance...
bit (dot) ly / ajNuf0
apparently every science is evolution
skwerl23 9 months ago
The best proof for evolution is driving creationists extinct
Let's push creationists harder and harder; evolution is driven by environmental challenge. If we make things hard enough for them, they either "evolve" and become part of a thinking mankind or -most likely- will become extinct.
All4reason 10 months ago
@All4reason Or we could just burn them at the stake like they wouldnt have done to us a few hundred years ago.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
hey idiot These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated
SuperTruthlover 6 months ago
@MrKGatl Let me show you why i dont believe in atheist philosophy about a new men godless. Read your own comment : "Just because Russia has a lot of corruption, doesnt mean that corruption and atheism are in any way linked..." Now read your comment in this youtube channel: "Or we could just burn them at the stake like they wouldnt have done to us a few hundred years ago..." That's why I say that american atheist are 90% inmoral liar, and stupid people. Now, stop send me you comments, please.
sanyo1974 6 months ago
You'll never gain a debate with a creationist; for me it would be like trying to convince a nazi that jews are as worthy as every other human being.
Claims of "liberal bias " of science made by conservatives reveal that they do not care about science; they just dress their "claims" "as-if" they were scientific with the ultimate goal of eliminating everything that does not fit their worldview.
All4reason 10 months ago
I'd love to spend a few hours with these guys. I'd soak up their teachings like a sponge ;)
Linkacious1 1 year ago
The problem is that most evolutionist don't act as skeptics for their own theories. They only wish to challenge what they already disagree with. If an evolutionist would honestly look at the myriad of holes in evolutionary theory, they would find it a bit depressing. That's not to say that creation is the answer either. It is only to say that the problem is still far more complex than most scientist want to admit. And if they ever did prove the theory, it would only explain change, not existence
bilgerburg 1 year ago
@bilgerburg I think the problem is more likely to be that you don't know who these "evolutionists" are, how much skepticism they apply to their own ideas and how much their peers more importantly apply for them, what any of these "holes" are, whether they're any real problem for neo-Darwinism and why, how complex scientists think the problems of origins are, or how complex those problems actually are.
Or, in short, that you are talking directly out your ass.
DuhIdiot1 1 year ago
@bilgerburg There are holes in the theory of gravity. So what? That's like implying that if science doesn't have 100% comprehensive answers to everything, then it must be wrong on the areas it can give answers to also.
"And if they ever did prove the theory, it would only explain change, not existence"
Only mathematics deal with proofs. Proofs are absolute, absolutism wouldn't let science advance. And so what if it only explains change? It has never even claimed it explained existence.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@wickedman6 10,000 clergy members even signed a letter admitting evolution as scientific truth
dude131138 1 year ago
@wickedman6 And how will they laugh
McAnkkuli 1 year ago
What are viruses evolving into?
Jman3000 2 years ago
To nothing, but they are evolving... They are becoming resistant drugs...
h333333333h 1 year ago
This is the point I'm trying to make. Creationists don't have problem with this ("evolving" resistance through natural selection). We have a problem with saying that all life evolved from the same common ancestor (or some similar idea). This is my problem at least (I can't speak for all creationist)
The main assumption (I think) that creation makes is that life was created perfect and fully developed and gradually, over the many centuries, obtained flaws in the genetic code
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 You would believe in the Adam and Eve story suggesting we all descended from them and if they only had 2 sons as their children then the "flaws in the genetic code" would be a result of many generations of incest wouldn't it? And if you have problems"with saying that all life evolved from the same common ancestor" why can you believe every human came about from 2 people. I don't mean to challenge your faith, you are free to believe! I simply challenge the reasoning you use to defend it
iscooliscool 1 year ago
@iscooliscool You are asking a good question I will do my best to explain what I believe. First Adam and Eve did not only have 2 sons, they had at least 3 sons according to Gen 4. Gen 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Adams sons married Adams daughters as far as I can tell. Yes, I guess it is incest. Today if a man marries his sister, then there is a rick of genetic deformation in their children...
Jman3000 1 year ago
... But Adam and Eve were genetically perfect being that, from what I can tell, they were physically flawless. As this their genetic code was passed on, this code began to deteriorate. A simple example of this can be done using a copy machine. If you photo copy a picture then copy the copy of the picture picture and so on, information will begin to disappear. Since Adam, a lot of copying has been going one. As many different families branched out, different genetic changes began to arise...
Jman3000 1 year ago
This is why there are many different traits through out the Human race, such as red hair, blonde hair, different color eyes and different color skin colors, etc. Now, this may sound like evolution and that is because it is. I do not have a problem with the concept of change over time. My problem is how much and how long things have changed over time. I believe that God created every *kind of animal we see today. People point out that there are billions of species of animals around today...
Jman3000 1 year ago
Granted, but how many kinds are there? I am not an animal expert by any means and have no understanding of how to determine what animals belong to what kind, but using a little common sense I can see how horses and zebras are related. I think there are many species of horses, but I would classify all of these species as the "horse kind." Did all the "horse kind" come from a single common horse ancestor? Seems quite probable. But did monkeys come from the same ancestor? Seems VERY unlikely...
Jman3000 1 year ago
...While it COULD be possible, I am not aware of any physical data that would support that claim (that monkeys and horses are related). In essence it makes more sense to me that a big bolder (Adam, genetically speaking) can be broken into little rocks (me and you) rather than little rocks (micro organisms) can be put together to form a big rock (man).
I hope that cleared something up. Thanks for the question!
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 Adam and Eve never existed. If you beleive that you must be dumb enough to beleive in talking snakes.
ray38montreal 1 year ago
@Jman3000 Thank you very much for answering my question. I appreciate the time you have taken to give thought to my question.
It is certainly an interesting concept the story of creation. I think creation and evolution can coexist no problem if one has a flexible approach. Similar to the big bang theory, evolution's theory does not explain how life started, simply what life did once it got here. So for me i see evolution explaining how life exists&adapts and creation telling me why life exists
iscooliscool 1 year ago
I don't agree with the big bang or the order "science" says things were created. For origins I look to the Bible. Another good question is how long this "evolution" would take. People say millions of years, but we got our dog breeds in a few hundred. There are many variables that could have been in place to isolate groups of animals causing them to inbreed resulting in species change. I have no Idea what the exact variables were, but we can guess. I see no reason for is to take millions of years
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 1 reason for it to take millions of years is the difference between natural selection and the deliberate actions of humans to force the hand of evolution. Humans weren't around to select species of animals they wanted to survive while letting others die out millions of years ago.Your example of breeding dogs similarly farmers do it with stock is an example of taking deliberate steps to ensure the survival of species we perceive appropriate.I could discuss more but limited by characters
iscooliscool 1 year ago
@iscooliscool lol, that character limit is so annoying :D
I am aware that the dog breeds are a result of men using selective breeding. I believe that nothing happens randomly or by accident. Also remember that I believe that God created fully formed kinds of animals at relatively the same time which then lost genetic information as generations passed by. We can't know how long it took an animal to evolve unless we know what they started as. Meaning, how many changes has taken place?
Jman3000 1 year ago
I do not believe that any animals ever evolved wings, legs or other similar kinds of structures. Unless we know the difference between the original animal and the descendant that exists today. I'm not sure we have a way of knowing how fast it would take certain animals to gain or lose certain traits. I think of natural selection to be a constant thing, established by God, ensuring the survival of a kind of animal. Curtain traits can be suppressed in different situations for example.
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 You are again right on the money, I guess evolution takes the bottom up approach in understanding which suggests it should look at the fossil record over time to see how the species evolved from whatever they started as. It sounds like you prefer the top down approach which would suggest something designed species as they are and changes over time are a result of the environment. I could point to evidence that suggests structures did evolve, but no point if you don't believe it ;)
iscooliscool 1 year ago
Comment removed
iscooliscool 1 year ago
@iscooliscool I would be interested in what evidence you see
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 oh come on man, how can you believe this after all the evidence that's been gathered? You re living in the distant past, man. Time to face the facts. it really isn't that scary. Honest.
turningofthetide1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turningofthetide1
What evidence is there and what does it prove?
Jman3000 1 year ago
@Jman3000 Put down you bible and pick up something else if you want to learn. Thats the difference between religious ignorance and scientifically literate people. You beleive in stuff but we know and understand it.
ray38montreal 1 year ago
@ray38montreal Please provide and example something that is "known and understood" (I assume by science) to help me understand how much I don't know.
Jman3000 1 year ago
If we accept that viruses lose information when they reproduce, then eventually viruses would become weaker and reproduce into nothing. Amazing.
jussitank 2 years ago
The question is, how much information did the first viruses have and how fast they are losing this information?
I find it very reasonable to conclude that viruses once contained more information than viruses today. As the centuries went by, the viruses devolved making them unrecognizable to our bodies, thus making them more difficult to kill.
Jman3000 2 years ago
no-.-
h333333333h 1 year ago
A virus never adds information, it loses it. No virus an survive a strong immune system.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Actually you are wrong. When a virus replicates itself inside a cell, it sometimes incorporates a part of the host's DNA. This can have a neutral, positive, or negative effect on the virus, and is a very essential part in viral evolution.
Alakrit 2 years ago 4
The cell does not add new information and the virus is only alive when inside a cell. Thus no evolution there.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
"I'm a young man who loves God and learning the truth about everything. I am always looking to learn and gain understanding about life and the universe I have been born into."
quote taken directly from your channel... if you like to learn the truth about things how about you stop denying facts. People keep showing you more evidence but you dismiss it. Those bible blinders you have on must be runnin at full blast or something. There is a little place called reality, find your way into it...
LemUUU 1 year ago
What do you mean by saying that viruses add no new info when inside a cell, Warriorprince? Have you ever heard of the swine flu? It crossed over into humans because of antigenic shift. That term means two different strains can exchange genes and come up with a new virulent strain which can cross from one species of host to another. The pandemic of 1918 was an earlier example. These cell parasites are excellent vectors for carrying genes from one host to another. This is serious evolution.
prschuster 1 year ago 6
Swine flu is man made. All viruses lose information.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
"Swine flu is man made." ...
Warriorprince
What lab was swine flu conjured up in? Who made this virus? Do you even have a clue as to what antigenic shifts entail? Did you know that the same kind of genetic mix may occur between nonhuman animals like birds & swine? What would you call that? Swine made?
This switching of genes happens inside cells independent of human designs.
prschuster 1 year ago 2
Viruses are not living as humans are, Evolutionism is a claim that demands animals gaining new information which we know is impossible. Natural selection is part of creation and never ever leads to new information. Try again.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Yes a virus is not an animal so it is not relevant to the debate. And no a virus does not add information, it loses it.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Virus = Not an animal, nor new information.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Viruses replicate and grow, they DO NOT evolve.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
@warriorprince1010 what about multiresistant tuberculosis ? or it's just gossip and conspiracy?)))
ok, this is bacterial disease, but what does it change ?
ofcourse, there is no reproductional barrier for single-cellular organisms but so what.
fandaal 2 years ago
A virus is not an animal or even alive until it parasites a cell.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Viruses do not evolve the devolve and in the paradise viruses will not be able to harm mankind. Hiv virus, I think he meant, losses data and thus becomes harder to kill by unatural means. I am sure there are natural cures for HIV just like we have found for all other illnesses.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
birthdayfeliz 2 years ago 3
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Go back to school before trying to disprove widely accepted scientific fact.
freshhh1994 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go back to trolling as you clearly have nothing important to say. Creation fits and will continue to do so.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
wow, you are completely lost.
superwowie111 2 years ago
my college offers evolution as a course you can take in adition to ecology. the ecology class is evolution based as are the biology classes.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
0h noez I can has grammarz!!! PLEEEZZ!!1oneone12two21! D0nt sent mah up teh rivarz!1
madzyzome 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't believe in evolution. Period. Out of the question.
...but that's just me.
SashaConnor 2 years ago
can you at all put in words what evolution is?
and there is nothing to believe about it. either you understand what is going on or you don't. the occurrence of evolution does not depend on anybody's belief.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago 2
is that by any chance becuase youre ridiculously stupid?
blackstonewielder19 2 years ago
evolution is plane evil. i know if i was in charge of thy world i'l mix the poor with the rich and kill people when it feel okay to.
narupiece 2 years ago
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
Comment removed
SCgibbo 2 years ago
i viewed his testimony. big deal. people go crazy around the world all the time. he's an idiot
yamimakaiz 2 years ago
evolution is a religion disguised as science ...evolving viruses? .viruses mutate to adapt to carry on ..unless a trail of a double neg may occur for an antiviral effect could be used to counter ..MUTATION...gimme a break...1977 i insisted to many this stuff would manifest to this caliber of status people...goes to show -indoctrinate idiots over time & they will bleed that very doctrine ..read the text below this one ..read it!..he sais it like "as a matter of fact" ..ha ha ha ha ha ha. scary
dubvishun 2 years ago
« viruses mutate to adapt to carry on »
Viruses mutate, and AS A RESULT they adapt and carry on.
And you'll have to show that a virus cannot through successive small changes alter significantly.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
oh no...hu uh..no way ..u did it to yerself ..uve had more than one attempted dialogue reach out from the "crutch" people .enough cryin out ..it is up to you ...snap outta it quick ...but i will have a drink with someone who is a fractional financial backing to dawkins & others which prompted this evolutionary indoctrinated alterior goaled success theyre havin ..but not by me ...so we'll read these texts with u & many from the past month & theyll laugh..but not at my caliber..u are their success
dubvishun 2 years ago
« u did it to yerself »
... Did what, exactly? What are you rambling about?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
XGral, you can't get into a debate or a remotely intelligible conversation with dubvishun...don't even try.
I think he's really high or on mushrooms - or maybe he's just an evangelical. All three deteriorate and erode your mind.
playnine99 2 years ago
Yeah, creationism is wide-spread only in poor third-world countries and the USA. You never see any creationists in the public debate in Western Europe, for instance. : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
I hope you're being sarcastic
playnine99 2 years ago
playnine. Err..no, there are no creationists over here in Scandinavia for instance, none in Japan, none in any country with a combination of a high average level of scientific literacy, high average education, and a high standard of living. Lots and lots of research has been done on this, and we see the same trends, tendencies all over the world. And America has started becoming smarter, too..did you know that the percentage of atheists has actually doubled in The United States since 1995? : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
To claim that Scandinavia is immune to the disease of creationism is ignorant.
According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2005:
* 32% of Norwegian citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
* 47% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
* 17% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
* 4% answered that they "do not know".
Also, look up Shinto. It is Japan's most dominant religion. MULTIPLE gods.
playnine99 2 years ago
playnine, even the christians in this country accept evolution as a fact, just like The Pope and The Roman Catholic Church does, you know. There are no creationists here, and you never ever hear about it in the media or anywhere, and nobody mentions "God" anywhere either. Nobody in the media, no politicians, nobody. By the way, our prime minister, mr. Jens Stoltenberg, is an atheist and so are most members of the current government. Sounds like a paradise compared to America, doesn't it?: )
winterstellar 2 years ago
You are severely misguided. The Christians in THIS country do not differ from the Christians in yours.
There are creationists in your country, as evidenced by the poll that I posted. I sourced it and it was a valid poll. You simply made up numbers without giving a valid reference.
You must be quite sheltered to believe that you don't have creationists or Christians (which are NOT the same thing, as you imply) in your country.
You sound like the Iranian president claiming he has no gays.
playnine99 2 years ago
Fucktard, the poll you showed me said there were christians in this country, not creationists! The christians in this country accept the fact of evolution. Don't you know what a creationist is? Look it up, then
winterstellar 2 years ago
Way to be an immature brat about this. No need for the insults, son.
Anyway, the poll I showed you was a valid poll that has nothing to do with Christianity. The word Christian is not listed anywhere in that poll.
You simply made up random numbers instead of referring me to a source.
Christians in your country do not believe anything different than the Christians in other countries. They are all governed by the same body.
Please, pull your head out of your ass before you reply.
playnine99 2 years ago
Fucktard, we're still talking about c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-m! Are you mentally challenged or something? Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are creationists, they "don't believe in" evolution, even though evolution is a fact. In my country the christians accept evolution. Jeez, if you don't understand this message, have someone with a three-digit IQ explain it for you! Man, this is one of the worst cases I've seen on YouTube! You need help, man..
winterstellar 2 years ago
"even though evolution is a fact"
Sorry, evolution is a theory, not a fact. The speed of light is a fact, special relativity is a theory. It is a fact that within the theory of special relativity clocks slow down at high speeds. Within the *theory* of evolution is it a fact that generic changes occur within populations over time.
The distinction between facts and theory is something that this series of videos has addressed repeatedly.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Evolution is the change in living things over time. That this has happened is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is Natural selection, which describes the process by which the change (fact) has occurred.
BudgetAstronomer 2 years ago
'The "theory of evolution" is Natural selection'
That's not correct. Evolution is change in the **genetic material** of organisms from one generation to the next and NOT "change in living things over time", otherwise aging would be "evolution". Natural selection is the process which causes "helpful traits" to be retained as the organisms with that trait are more likely to reproduce. Natural select does NOT "describes the process by which the change (fact) has occurred."
jimmo42 2 years ago
PT 2.
For example, mutations ("change in genetic material") caused by radiation is in no way "natural selection". Changes in the genetic material caused by nutritional deficiencies is also not "natural selection". However, both could be considered evolution. Although such changes to the genetic material are usually small, the cumulative effect may result in new species. That genetic material changes over time is a fact, evolution is a scientific theory.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Mutation is mutation if caused by radiation, poisoning, or errors in meiosis or mitosis. Neither is considered evolution, only mutations. If the mutation were to increase in frequency in the population, that woud be evolution.
My point is, that this type of change happens. That's a fact. The mechanism by which this occurs is Natural Selection, which is the theory of evolution. And by "theory" I don't mean supposition, I mean well tested and documented process accepted as the best explanation.
BudgetAstronomer 2 years ago
Evolution (common decent, change over time) is a fact.
madzyzome 2 years ago
It's actually helpful to read the complete thread before commenting on someone's post. But maybe that's just me.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Well you made no mention of common decent. Actually you kind of confabulated the word evolution. There are many definitions of it. I suspect you mean the scientific theory of biological evolution? In the scientific theory of biological evolution natural selection, mutation and genetic drift are the methods by which evolution occurs. All three are established facts.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Like I said, helpful to read the *complete* thread before commenting on someone's post.
jimmo42 2 years ago
I told you, your post was confusing and I did read the whole thing.
madzyzome 2 years ago
deScent
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
Are you the grammar police?
madzyzome 2 years ago
no, but decent is something else. it's even pronounced differently.
someone may be a decent person irrespective of descent.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
Thank you! I needed you to point out the difference to me between decent and descent. It was something my small mind couldn't grasp after the first time you corrected me, but your elaboration has shown me the light and now i can bask in the glory that is Meskiagkasher!!!
madzyzome 2 years ago
i am not natively speaking, reading, or writing english. why do i know how to spell and you do not?
i tell you why. because i know what the words mean that i use.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
Do you know what sarcasm means?
madzyzome 2 years ago
Yes. Do you know what education means?
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
No fuckstick I don't!
Tool.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Well, to be more specific, evolution is not change in genetic material either, that is mutation. Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. This may result in a visible change in the modal phenotype of that population over generations.
BudgetAstronomer 2 years ago
Hmmm. And what are alleles? Different versions of a given gene! When you have a different allele, you have different genetic material.
And YES, changes to generic material/new DNA sequences (e.g. creation of new alleles) can be caused by radiation, posioning, changes in nutrients or replication errors. Those are ALL mutations and are ALL evolution.
Sounds to me that you are simply cut-n-pasting from some web site and you really don't understand the material.
jimmo42 2 years ago
Mutation is NOT evolution. If the new version of a gene (an allele) spreads through the population over generations, that is evolution. The mutation itself is not evolution.
As for my credentials, I have a graduate degree in paleontology and additional grad studies in evolutionary biology. And in fact I had lunch with Eugenie Scott and Brian Alters just last week.
Where do you get your info?
BudgetAstronomer 2 years ago
"I have a graduate degree in paleontology and additional grad studies in evolutionary biology"
Yeah and I'm Prince of Wales. What a load of crap. If you REALLY had those credentials would you really give a shit what people say on YouTube?
melreynolds61 2 years ago
BudgetAstronomer/Ed: I stand corrected. My apologies. It's always a good day when you learn something new.
melreynolds: It was pretty easy to verify most of what he said. The reason he "gives a shit" what people say on YouTube is that in at least one of his profiles he says:
I would like to ...
help others learn
jimmo42 2 years ago
Evidently, yes.
BudgetAstronomer 2 years ago
Right, mutation does not equal evolution. But
Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution.
Mutation is random, natural selection is not.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
That was a GOOD 1. Hate anger & when confronted with these labels THEY react even more hateful & elementary with their rebut when challenged ..while THAT alone should be enough to expose their error ..but blindly refusing to acknowledge that,TOO exposes their irrational behaviour which in conclusion would ultimately "evolve" in some kinda violent act {PRIDE}..evolution is a religion smokescreened as a science..& NOW some of them see that. squirming {at best}..after being outspoken in the past.
dubvishun 2 years ago
Woah, woah, big fella. Just because I'm pointing out the error in winterstellar's ways doesn't mean that I disagree with the foundation of his dream.
Evolution is a byproduct of natural selection, and is a proven fact. "God did it", on the other hand, has been the fall-back answer for every unexplainable phenomenon since...well, since we invented gods.
playnine99 2 years ago 2
Please don't be ignorant by saying that evolution is a religion. Please do more research. If you're interested in science, peruse it. Until then, don't talk about things you know nothing about.
playnine99 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i refuse to give u or any indoctrinated self ignorant person any references ..you must break out of the brainwashing yourself kinda like a drug addict has to do..if you will, then have the ears to hear what info has been oppressed and the truth behind what was deliberately givin {from those who dont evenm believe evolution} to the public for a coming climate..REGARDLESS u WILL - see it willingly or ignorantly..yer choice..dont reply to me ..go seek..or dont...they actually pulled it off..ha ha.
dubvishun 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about, dub?
Are you high right now? That completely unintelligible response reaffirms my belief that there really are completely incompetent people walking this planet. How did you make it to 35 years old?
What is an "indoctrinated self ignorant person?" Did you just think of words that you thought sounded cunning and type them in your response?
Please, please tell me that there aren't people who take you seriously.
playnine99 2 years ago 2
stfu and learn something before a stupid assertion like that.
pctopgs 2 years ago
And those numbers are bullshit. In Sweden 85 percent answered they do not believe in God, and in Norway it was 75 percent. We have a problem with christianity still in rural parts of western/southwestern Norway. But like in every western, developed country, the percentage of christians is decreasing year by year. So we will get rid of them in the end: )
winterstellar 2 years ago
Thanks for this video.
I'm embedding it on my blog.
onotheo 2 years ago
Amazing there're still people closed-minded enough to deny evolution. The evidence is so overwhelming, and mounts up every year.
In most countries the science vs creationism debate isn't even a debate, people just accept the truth.
Ozzyman200 3 years ago 27
Actually, there are movements in the Middle East that basically goes with the same vein as Christian creationism, except with the Koran taking over the OT and NT.
whop9 3 years ago 3
He said most countries. Not surprisingly, the Middle East isn't one of them, being arguably the founding place of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
According to many historians, meaning they actually did the research, Jesus was born in what is now Israel. This makes me wonder why he is always depicted as white; wouldn't he be darker skinned and be geographically considered Western Asian?
TheGreatCandyman 2 years ago
"wouldn't he be darker skinned and be geographically considered Western Asian?"
Touché!
Off course he was.
LindoPulgoso69 2 years ago
NO! White people are God's chosen people. He wouldn't send his only son as a...DARKEY!! Then again... we did kill him... maybe he was!
limpdogg 2 years ago
@Ozzyman200 Yup here in Australia it's not a debate, evolution is taught in every year of science from grades 7-10 when science is a mandatory subject taken in most schools. Even our catholic high schools teach evolution. American evangelicals, and people that blindly believe creation over evolution make me want to cry.
iscooliscool 1 year ago
Why is there controversy with AIDS? I hate conspiracy theorists...
bootsielon 3 years ago 5
There's a controversy for everything. Except sometimes one side is just plain wrong.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago 9
I don't see the point in thinking that creationism and evolution should fight against each other. I hear about that in american movies ONLY. In Europe I know lots of Christians who just believe that it is God who made the evolution happen!
TheStarlessSky 3 years ago
creationism is the belief that world was created in 6 days 6000 years a go etc. that's why...
mrbtardation 3 years ago
Oh... Ok. I thought that Christians thought that those days were not really "24 hours", since the sun or light wasn't supposed to have been created yet. Is it actually written in the Bible that it was 6000 years ago anyway?
TheStarlessSky 3 years ago
No. It's written nowhere in the bible. The timeline was created by some guy that I forgot who just added up all the begats and came up with that figure.
It also doesn't say that God created the world and whatever in 24-hour days. That's what those crazy-ass YECs want you to believe.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago 6
"James Ussher"
Apparently early Christian theologians saw the creation myth as an allegory it's only in later times that it was read literally.
DefaultPosition 3 years ago 3
i love how people who believe in the bible choose what the bible means to them instead of taking it for what it says.
alanaldasucks 3 years ago 3
Haha.. I heard about irreducible complexity and it's strongest case was the flagella of a protozoa. They said the flagellum was made of some 50 odd parts and each part alone was useless and since the mechanism worked there must be an intelligent design behind it. Then a scientist came in, looked at each protein described in the parts list of the flagellum and owned the creationists saying that you could remove each part and the flagellum would still have partial motlie function.
Lot3ch 4 years ago
This video from Ken Miller explains this perfectly.
youtube DOT com / watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
bktennis2006 3 years ago
This guy is so misled, no information is gained, mutations are just a scrambling of information, no info can be gained, its impossible.
skihas1 4 years ago
so..viruses dont gain resistance? sickle cell disease, is not new mutation? my pet rats cant live in the wild because......why?
grendelee 4 years ago 2
genetic information can be gained in reproductive cells during the process of meiosis, when the genetic information isn't split evenly.
murraythefrog22 4 years ago
why do man have nipples?
grendelee 4 years ago
"why do man have nipples?"
Cuz God made you that way to... uhm... well... you see it's like... God works in mysterious ways!
UltraSWG 4 years ago
lol it sucks, because if i find the perfect question, of course its success means that noone answers......
grendelee 4 years ago
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
DeavenMorris24 4 years ago
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
DeavenMorris24 4 years ago
Doesn't explain why Adam would have nipples...
But, yeah, Deaven, we students of science understand the biological reasoning. The question was directed to the "goddidit" crowd. If we were designed by God, it simply makes no sense for everyone to start off as female and grow mammary glands. That's wasteful. It's hard to accept that an all knowing God would design us so badly.
UltraSWG 4 years ago 2
lol! good gueston
gaagagas 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man. Also men can lactate, it is rare but has happened.
DeavenMorris24 4 years ago
all humans start out as femals in the embryotic stage, the Y chromosome kicks in later on in development.
murraythefrog22 4 years ago
Because Men and women both start as female. The sexual organs grow 3 to 4 weeks after nipples appear,then you either stay a woman or the Y chromosone appears(as well as testosterone) and you grow a penis and become a man.
DeavenMorris24 4 years ago
u know darwin has a posse
huhuhuhuh
i can make up dumb shit anecdotes too huhuhuhuhhu
lolololoololool
Jackass.
supruzr 4 years ago
you know darwin believed that women are under evolved, and that men are higher on the evolution scale, wierd
RonyHeat 4 years ago
did you know that the first firefighters used to drink alot and think women are under evolved too? so much for that "putting out fires" theory.
grendelee 4 years ago
did you know that almost every pope in history tortured people and had sex with underrage girls....or boys....
grendelee 4 years ago
so who hasn't
oz1john 4 years ago 3
yeah it's nice isn't it
rincewind3336 4 years ago
"you know darwin believed that women are under evolved, and that men are higher on the evolution scale, wierd "
That's a blatant lie. Point me to the source you got that information from.
murraythefrog22 4 years ago
someone please answer this question. if evolution is wrong, which im sure it is, then whats the opposite arguement? where are all these new animals come from? how does a wolf turn into a chow? what is ACTUALLY happening then, if its not evolution?
grendelee 4 years ago
"if evolution is wrong, which i'm sure it is, then what's the opposite argument?"
There is none left. The only alternative scientific idea that was considered for a while is Lamarckism.
pik7sieben 4 years ago 2
lol im pretty sure christians arent advocation lamarckism....
yknow, not a single person on youtube can answer my question? i probably phrased it better before, but its pretty simple. what...is....really...happening then?
grendelee 4 years ago
that was directed at people who dont believe in evolution.
grendelee 4 years ago
i don't get it. Why are you asking people who DON'T believe in evolution how else this could happen? And you said that you think it's wrong. Evolution involves genetic mutation, reproduction, and natural selection.
murraythefrog22 4 years ago
i'm pretty sure youtube is not the place to look for such an answer. ask a scientist.
gardnersonfire 4 years ago
your not making sense
gaagagas 4 years ago
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"Epicurus
wanderingsociologist 4 years ago
Mi always has some Ma effect, whether Ma always involves Mi is currently being studied. ID tries to manipulate this questioning process into an article of faith and thus frame science as a religion. Hilarious but for the obvious harm it does to the pursuit of truth, the antithesis of ID.
hardluck 4 years ago