When somebody tries to justify religion with science, their argument is immediately fucked if they are talking to somebody with actual scientific knowledge. Of course, remaining with the answer, "God did it," is detrimental to the argument as well. I can't wait for religion to die.
I am not a Christian, but really reasons to believe, really has good science references. I ignore the religious side of it, but they do teach you a lot of science.
There is one and ONLY one difference between so-called "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, and that is time. It is the exact same mechanism of mutation and natural selection. Macroevolution is nothing more than repetition of microevolution.
This "rapid" change you demand to see happen is only "rapid" on a geological or evolutionary time scale, which is still much, much larger than the lifespan of several human generations.
Your example of bear fur is, as you said, simple. Why not give a shot at explaining the origin of feathers? Fuz Rana doesn't ignore those transitional forms. Try searching Ambulocetus or another transition. Relative to young earh creationsim the fossil record indeed does point to evolution. But an old earth creationism position (like Fuz's) completely accounts for the change over time in the fossil record. Try judging the fossil record by old-earth vs. evolution not young earth vs. evolution.
Just one question that I am still troubled with: what is the most resonable theory on how the information/DNA came together--ie chemical attraction; temperature cahnges etc...
It's beyond bizarre how creationists have latched onto punctuated equilibrium as if it were some kind of evidence against evolution, when the concept was put forward by one of the world's most renowned evolutionary scientists.
Yeah I found that weird as well. Even though (as I said before) I am religious, (catholic) I have always believed in evolution in some shape or form, punctuated equilibria is by far my favorite. I want to learn more about this.
LAS MARIPOSAS(MICROEVOLUCION) EL ÚNICO CIERTO EN EL SISTEMA EVOLUTIVO, LOS OSOS(SELECCIÓN NATURAL) PERO ESTO ES SEGÚN SU GENERO Y SEGÚN SU ESPECIE NO CAMBIA A UN CAMALEÓN ESTO LO IMPIDE LA GENÉTICA,(VER LOS VÍDEOS CIENTÍFICOS), LAS MUTACIONES NO GENERAN NINGÚN CAMBIO EN EL SISTEMA GENÉTICO MAS BIEN DESESTABILIZAD CROMOSOMATICA (Pregúntale a: Gordon Taylor, Morgan, Goldschmit,Muller ,etc) cientificos que hicieron experimento científicos a factor radiación Y NADA...
I would consider what you're saying since I'm honestly interested in studying molecular biology and don't have the background to understand the different viewpoints but I think your presentation here can do without the ad hominems. I've read a few of Rana's stuff and never once does he resort to insulting others. Even if his ideas are wrong the least you can do to help your case is to be respectful.
@dessdinovakj LAS MARIPOSAS(MICROEVOLUCION) EL ÚNICO CIERTO EN EL SISTEMA EVOLUTIVO, LOS OSOS(SELECCIÓN NATURAL) PERO ESTO ES SEGÚN SU GENERO Y SEGÚN SU ESPECIE NO CAMBIA A UN CAMALEÓN ESTO LO IMPIDE LA GENÉTICA,(VER LOS VÍDEOS CIENTÍFICOS), LAS MUTACIONES NO GENERAN NINGÚN CAMBIO EN EL SISTEMA GENÉTICO MAS BIEN DESESTABILIZAD CROMOSOMATICA (Pregúntale a: Gordon Taylor, Morgan, Goldschmit,Muller ,etc) cientificos que hicieron experimento científicos a factor radiación Y NADA...
don't destroy the environment of a species your trying to protect. Obviously its paraphrased, but good words DonExodus. I would like to think that would be common sense for most people though. It's kinda sad you had to say that at all.
This stuff is so simple, it was covered in High school Bio. We did an example with red and white beans. There is no way that people can be so stupid that they still argue against this stuff. It's systematic brainwashing, seriously. THESE CHANGES ARE WELL DOCUMENTED, EVEN RECENTLY.
Actually strictly speaking any change in allele frequency in a population is evolution because that is the very defintion of biological evolution. You just don't find it compelling
"The change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean."
"Allopatric speciation suggests that species which are composed of large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the genetic process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's size and are unable to reach fixation due to factors such as constantly changing environments."
toobsucker---what tube have you been sucking? Nice quote from Raup, whom you clearly misunderstand, as he supports punctuated equilibrium (or did you just edit it to APPEAR that he did not, in usual creotard fashion?) See the post about liars...Lederberg is not supportive of your point either---they could not show pre-existing resistence. YOU did not read the Berkeley site, but lied about it as a quote mine--see the post about liars. We await your retraction.
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. , ....... some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."
DonExodus2 also never explains HOW the information got on file so it could be naturally selected for to begin with.
ToE needs a valid information generator, not a valid information selector or injector or shuffler.
He also does not seem to know P.E. is not about the same species with slightly different characteristics such as N.S. produces. but the myriad of quotes about this matter are clear. the species goes extinct, then is replaced with something novel. NOT a slight variation
Populations gradually accumulate new alleles.Say you have two individuals. And lets say they have a simple mendelian trait for brown fur. Any two brown individuals have genes that are most likely nearly identical.
Say one through drift has a DNA base substitution that makes it translated a bit faster because it's a "good" codon. The result is more brown pigment is made so the individual is slightly darker.
I already explained in my hypothetical example how a DNA base substitution (something that DNA polymerase does by accident all the time) changes the chemistry of the protein and therefore the phenotype. The performance of that phenotype to create differences in reproductive success is proportional to how many new bodies that allele finds itself in the next generation.
please look up point mutation, in particular insertion and deletion point mutations and try to understand the vast difference in end product that results from this single point mutation. So when you get gene duplication + mutations that cause an amino acid change here or there + a frame shift mutation, therefore allows information to be added that did not previously exist.
And now lets assume you actually understand evolution and the differences between us and our closest ancestors (bonobo chimpanzees) the largest differences are not the genes themselves but the level of expression of certain genes, now this has more than one level of regulation - the promoter can be enhanced or decreased, RNA interference can shut down translation (inhibiting expression), or RNA binding proteins can hold it and store it for later use.
Very good summation. I'd just had to add my critical notion that it's a little too early to say if the majority of changes are in expression or gene constitution at this point.
Thanks, I was a little drunk when i went on that rant and I understand that it still is early days. However I would like to say from the evidence I have read the majority of changes are in expression levels as there is only ~1.24% difference in genomic DNA sequence between humans and chimpanzees. Yet there are great physiological and mental differences (Marquès-Bonet, T., et al. 2004).
I think though that the thinking now is that since it used to be thought that organisms like flies and humans were vastly different, having almost nothing in common that now the pendulum has swung a little too far the other direction.
I mean one DNA base out of a thousand in one gene can have dramatic differences in the biochemistry of that protein.
Most human and chimpanzee proteins are remarkably similar and the bulk of differences in DNA sequence are in non coding regions (Oldham, M, C., et al. 2009). Combining with this the analysis of microarray data that shows differences in gene expression of the brain between humans and chimpanzees. Sets of genes in the human brain have increased expression levels (Gu, J., and Gu, X., 2002),
Yeah that's what I'd sort of expect. Chimps and humans are really close and the time since divergence is so recent and the populations have been small and generation times have been long, individual reproductive rates are very low.
I think that really given those constraints and how chimps and humans I think maybe the only way to get enough selectable variation would be these epigenetic shortcuts.
Sure, i'd agree. I just don't know if this really applies broadly to evolution at large.
and I know that there would most likely be alot of differences between genes that are both methylated and non-methylated but that would also come down to an expression level change. But I do agree it is early days and I'm sure that we will find even more differences as our knowledge advances.
And all these things can be enhanced or suppressed through a simple point mutation, which changes the effects of how efficiently a protein binds to the promoter region or how efficiently the RNA compliment binds its DNA or RNA regulatory region without changing all the proteins and therefore polypeptide or enzyme completely.
Now understand how all of this combines over millions upon millions of years of natural selection of fitter organisms to slowly produce different species. And if that's not enough please look at the fossil record (PROPERLY) and see how we evolved if you need to do it quickly then check out Donexodus2 people who dont accept evolution.
so imagine this also holds for anatomical features(it does). What we see is that populations get filled with slightly different alleles. Competition and selection almost always hinges on slight differences. Now over time one allele might get to a higher frequency.
That's gradualism.
Now PE would be the total variation get summed together in just a few generations. Maybe due to harem breeding or strong natural or sexual selection. Maybe female criteria changes. stuff like that
DonExodus2 starts off immediately with a commonly believed lie that environment forces adaptation.
The Lederberg experiment proved but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." for survival, unlike what is commonly taught
"The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.
telling one lie, makes you a liar. stealing one thing, makes you a thief. JESUS said if you look upon a woman to lust for her, you have committed adultery already with her in your heart! rev. 21v8 says "all liars wil have their part in the lake of fire" no thief, or adulterer will enter heaven! you broke GODs holy laws,but JESUS paid your fine! you must repent,turn from all sin and trust in him alone! if not you will have to pay for your own sins against GOD in hell forever!
In the mere first minute of this movie, a disaster in another video I just watched would have been avoided simply and gracefully. Dr. Steve Kumar (Ph.D in philosophical theology from the California Graduate School of Theology) was having a discussion with djarm67. In the second part of the video Dr. Steve Kumar claims that because Steven Gould advocates punctuated equilibrium and that someone like Richard Dawkins advocates gradualism, evolution is nothing but a philosophy with no consensus.
populations gradually grow in diversity. However this diversity can be rapidly summed together with sexual reproduction and quick reductions in population size and lead to rapid punctuated adaptive radiation.
See it's rapid bits interspersed into a gradual equilibrium
you can actually set up a simulated PE experiment with the critters you can download at swimbots (dot) com. You can save bots and run repeatable experiments from your desktop
PE actually adds a lot and is probably the greatest addition to evolutionary theory since darwin.
PE makes a lot of sense. It better explains the fossil record and can integrate better with evolutionary ecology.
The reason why "species" exist as opposed to just endless radiation out is because species conform to ecological niches.
Now when a niche is disturbed it's much easier for small subsets of the population to flow into a new niche and experience morphological change rapidly
I've never understood how evolutionary gradualism & punctuated equilibrium "oppose" each other. Its like saying uniformitarianism denies that catastrophes occur. OF COURSE they do and can have drastic affects on the planet (Look at the Toba eruption for example). As you point out, evolution is the same and can be both gradual and catastrophic.
I've never understood why Dawkins is so luke warm about PE.
As for creationists, they're not going to let rational thought get in the way of bollox.
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
Bears with wings would be scary as shit. I think they would have to develop more hollow bones first though. I doubt that would work out, because that would them more fragile I believe. But maybe I just don't get evolution :P
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Washington University's biology department would NOT be happy to have their research used by Dr. Rana like this.
The theory of evolution provides the answer to SCIENTIFIC questions about the origin of life. Atheism provides an answer to RELIGIOUS questions about what happens after death. Belief in the theory of evolution has no more to do with atheism than the theory that the Earth orbits the sun has to do with atheism.
But isn't it a little sad that we have to visit Youtube for our education, rather than it being provided for us by our government funded high schools?
For millions the answers to some of the most fundamental questions will always be:
@Gcarse If only subjects like this were in school now nand when i was younger, i actually would have done so well, apart from drama and science, i hated every single subject in school, and it wasnt because i found them difficult, i just didnt care if i failed. I found out about a subject called Cymatics a few months ago and boy, thats the kind of topic i would actually go in to school on a saturday to learn
It has nothing to do with the price of a microphone. Apparently, you haven't dealt with any audio/video editing. This could be much better, he just didn't want to do any re-takes.
I love it when you get a little stopped up by how shockingly moronic some of these people are.. To say that the stupidity expressed leaves one speechless is a gross understatement...
Speculation = proof of something existing. Extrapolation = working with that proof. Assumptions = not working with proof. You're way out of your league here, talking about science.
Creationist "science": imaginative story fabrications, interpretations and variations of said fabrications, assertions of said fabrications.
Open a book and join the educated community, or go back to your pews and TV and have someone else do your thinking for you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Typical Darwinist reply. Holding on to your nineteenth century fairy tales, aren't you? I am amuzed by you pseudo-intellectuals that assume everyone that disagrees with you is uneducated. I have degrees in zoology, microbiology and an MD. I teach anatomy and physiology at a graduate level in a well-known university. My particular area of interest is in information theory, which Darwinists are at a complete loss to address. And, yes, this video is 90% assumption and speculation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, I learned the tenets of Darwinism quite well but later realized that it is important only to Darwinists. Medicine and related disciplines depend not an iota on Darwinism.
My son served in Iraq and some of those videos are of him behind his .50 cal. I'm quite proud of what he has done.
Yes, I suppose that you are skeptical of my credentials. If you wish your can read my blog posts at dakotavoice(dot)com. I'm sure you'd find some of the discussions stimulating.
I have already reviewed your website and commend your pro-liberty stance; however, I'm rather confused as to why you would endorse your son fighting an immoral war, in the same breath as you assert a constitutional republic.
Also, I don't know of this "Darwinism" talk, like hard evidence is somehow equivalent to faith. There is no Darwinism, but there is taxonomy, paleontology, cosmology, biology, and many more which proves, through rational thinking, that the universe came about naturally.
dude i was saying that to make a point that evolution isnt a beleif system its just a scientific fact one everyone should accept im not saying i disbeleive evolution as umm i fuckin accept it
"Dude", learn how to use punctuation. Perhaps if you can do that to even a rudimentary extent, you won't give the impression that you're an imbecile.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory, yes. I am well aware of this as I am a fervent advocate of educating people about the evidence in favor of it.
The fact remains, however, that it is (by the very definition of the word) a belief.
If you accept somethings validity, then you believe in it. The word has nothing to do with faith.
By one definition, yes, evolution is a belief. However according to the scientific definition of the word 'theory' it is a model which is supported by empirical evidence which explains a natural phenomenon(in this case evolution). The scientific word for an idea is hypothesis, and the definition is rather strict and not all ideas or beliefs fit the definition.
@Tavereen : Perhaps your time would be better spent educating someone who needs it than arguing semantics with me.
To address your comment, though. To say to a person "I believe you", what it means is "I accept what you say as true". To say "I believe in evolution" you're saying "I accept evolution is true."
Don't twist the word belief into something other than it is. Yes, it can mean faith, but that's not it's only definition. Don't waste my time with something you can look up yourself.
good thing you don't subscribe to the seventeenth century idea of "gravity" that Newton invented, eh?
your background is about as honest as me claiming that I am an Air Force test pilot with master degrees in nuclear physics and English literature from Harvard and Yale (respectively). I also am scheduled to go to space in the next NASA mission and am a key person in planning the next Mars mission.
fuck man now i gotta get involved in scientific shit again thanks for makin me reinterested in biology n evolution though i makin me smart all over again
Um, Dr. Rana had a point. I'm not sure why you dismissed it so readily. Small populations _are_ more prone to extinction, but they are also more prone to evolution. Slice a species up, and by Rana's conclusions, most slices will die off. However, some won't, and that is the source of speciation. Rana's research is valid; his conclusions about creationism are not. But nonetheless, don't dismiss what he says simply because he's a creationist. He makes a valid point to incorporate into Punc. Eq.
Darwin seems to have anticipated 'punctuated equilibrium' in his parallel between evolution of language and speciation - some experience stability over time and some experience lots of adaptations and splitting.
Just like how you can predict the average rainfall that a square mile in Brazil will get in a given year. You can closely estimate the amount from lots of data, but cannot predict what particular days it will rain on from knowing the rates.
Well you kind of might, if rainfall is high enough to reach the yearly average you could predict that on average it would have to rain once a day.
The good book says that what you are doing is WRONG. I found it in Jethro 282:17. Thou shalt haveth no intelligence or face the eternal damnation of hell fire.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2 Hezekiah 19:3
Thus saith the Lord, "I am unto my people a God, and they shall honor me and preserve their soul in my thoughts, and shall not pursue the ends of their own minds."
a quote from a man written 2000 years ago in Palestine/Rome (nobody knows). A man that know very little about the world as we know it today - he thought the earth was flat that an angry god created storms and demons created illness. He was not even a great thinker for his time trying to use fear of the unknown to control the population. What wisdom do you expect this man to give to me or anyone else with this simplistic attempt to instill fear - god is created by man, god is imaginary
so that's why creationists/creation"science"proponents /Intelligent Designers keep losing their court cases in the usa...because theyre ignorant fools
They stopped taking live calls because their show was accually converting christians into logical thought bearing people....i guess a show dedicated to keeping people ignorant by having scientific debates with intellegent minds wasnt thte greatest approch for the success of their show. makes me laugh. keep thinking everyone and maybe someday we can rid ourselves of hate mongering religious point of veiws.
PE can happen if the mutations in the organism are present prior to or after the event that places selective pressure on them (i.e. warming of the earth, in your polar bear example) however it smarter to say that a dormant trait (not an atavism) comes back into functionality and is used in a different way, this is a much more powerful driving force, then than existing traits or mutations (not to say that it cant happen with them as well)
What is the E-mail or web site for the person in this video? He seemed distraught that Fuz was hiding from him. Perhaps I can help. Fuz is a friend, and does debate publicly and with biology profs (I've attended myself).
The problem with creationists is that they will read the article beign spoken about and believe it even though it is a complete load of hogwash and no matter how many times you show them the facts a or point them towards this video they will continue to believe in their pseudo-scientific 'facts'.
Ring species are a great way of refuting creotards. They cannot deny the existence of intermediate forms. They cannot claim the intermediate forms were different species with a chance resemblance. They cannot refute one species changing into another one.
Best of all, they cannot explain why God chose to create such an oddity except as yet more evidence that we should not believe in creationism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Punctuated equilibrium was proposed do to the lack of evidence for gradualism, there is not real evidence for PE.
Claiming that PE and gradualism act together sounds like an excuse, for not providing mathematical models supporting evolution.
¿What percentage of ´´evolution´´ is do to PE and what percentage is due to gradualism? evolutionists won´t answer to this, because any specific answer would immediately be tested and disproved
What a remarkable stupid question, congratulations! What makes you think there should be a mathematical equation describing evolution in all the myriad of different circumstances and timescales it occurs? There are innumerable tests of evolution that have been passed with flying colours over the past 150 years, but this isn't and couldn't be one of them - unless you're complaining that we haven't provided an exhaustive account of every single organism that ever lived yet - you're not are you?
´´What makes you think there should be a mathematical equation´´
Because evolution has variables (time, mutations, natural selection...) and evolution is suppose to be a scientific theory, that is why we would expect to have equations supporting evolution. or else, please explain why is evolution the only scientific theory that is not supported by equations?
how long does it take to re-gain genetic varyation after losing it due to rapid enviromental change?
quantum8kid 2 months ago
@Law19157 No, that, ironically, is what you believe.
laserindie 7 months ago
When somebody tries to justify religion with science, their argument is immediately fucked if they are talking to somebody with actual scientific knowledge. Of course, remaining with the answer, "God did it," is detrimental to the argument as well. I can't wait for religion to die.
Andy32268 8 months ago
"You have a gang/counter-gang set up between the Darwinians and the Creationists..."
ObamaKilledNASA 9 months ago
happy 2 year B-day Don Exodus 2 to bad Don lost your brother Don Exodus 1
isrealjason 10 months ago
Sorry microorganisms remained microorganisms for billions of years.No evolution here.
pppaaaooo13 10 months ago
I am not a Christian, but really reasons to believe, really has good science references. I ignore the religious side of it, but they do teach you a lot of science.
KevZen2000 11 months ago
If punctuated equilibrium is true then we should still see that rapid change happen today
Law19157 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Law19157
"If punctuated equilibrium is true then we should still see that rapid change happen today"
- We do. We see it daily with viruses, but we also occasionally see it in other populations, such as in the Italian wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru.
Atriviality 10 months ago
@Law19157
Keep in mind that rapid and 'rapid' are quite different things when we are talking in the span of a life time or the span of lifes history.
ryonalionthunder 10 months ago
@Law19157
We do. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a perfect example of rapid evolution in the event of a radical environmental change.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew Macro Evolution dude Macro
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157
There is one and ONLY one difference between so-called "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, and that is time. It is the exact same mechanism of mutation and natural selection. Macroevolution is nothing more than repetition of microevolution.
This "rapid" change you demand to see happen is only "rapid" on a geological or evolutionary time scale, which is still much, much larger than the lifespan of several human generations.
TheZooCrew 9 months ago
@TheZooCrew belief in the unseen
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157
Well... you know, there's fossiles, which a pretty much observable...
There's no worst blind than the one who refuses to see, has they say...
G0parra 9 months ago
@Law19157 We did several times. And rapid in terms of evolution is usually still 100000 years or more.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 really when and where?
Law19157 6 months ago
@Law19157 Ensatinas around the Central Valley, the greenish warbler around the Himalaya, just a few examples.
Helge129 6 months ago
The person who made this video talks too fast.
slikgas 11 months ago
Your example of bear fur is, as you said, simple. Why not give a shot at explaining the origin of feathers? Fuz Rana doesn't ignore those transitional forms. Try searching Ambulocetus or another transition. Relative to young earh creationsim the fossil record indeed does point to evolution. But an old earth creationism position (like Fuz's) completely accounts for the change over time in the fossil record. Try judging the fossil record by old-earth vs. evolution not young earth vs. evolution.
1truth55 1 year ago
I'm catholic, but I believe in punctuated equilibria. It makes so much more sense than anything else I've ever studied.
Jortopia 1 year ago
Just one question that I am still troubled with: what is the most resonable theory on how the information/DNA came together--ie chemical attraction; temperature cahnges etc...
jmquark1 1 year ago
That sounds a little bit like a cop out...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
It's beyond bizarre how creationists have latched onto punctuated equilibrium as if it were some kind of evidence against evolution, when the concept was put forward by one of the world's most renowned evolutionary scientists.
criskity 1 year ago
@criskity
Yeah I found that weird as well. Even though (as I said before) I am religious, (catholic) I have always believed in evolution in some shape or form, punctuated equilibria is by far my favorite. I want to learn more about this.
Jortopia 1 year ago
LAS MARIPOSAS(MICROEVOLUCION) EL ÚNICO CIERTO EN EL SISTEMA EVOLUTIVO, LOS OSOS(SELECCIÓN NATURAL) PERO ESTO ES SEGÚN SU GENERO Y SEGÚN SU ESPECIE NO CAMBIA A UN CAMALEÓN ESTO LO IMPIDE LA GENÉTICA,(VER LOS VÍDEOS CIENTÍFICOS), LAS MUTACIONES NO GENERAN NINGÚN CAMBIO EN EL SISTEMA GENÉTICO MAS BIEN DESESTABILIZAD CROMOSOMATICA (Pregúntale a: Gordon Taylor, Morgan, Goldschmit,Muller ,etc) cientificos que hicieron experimento científicos a factor radiación Y NADA...
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
I would consider what you're saying since I'm honestly interested in studying molecular biology and don't have the background to understand the different viewpoints but I think your presentation here can do without the ad hominems. I've read a few of Rana's stuff and never once does he resort to insulting others. Even if his ideas are wrong the least you can do to help your case is to be respectful.
dessdinovakj 1 year ago
@dessdinovakj LAS MARIPOSAS(MICROEVOLUCION) EL ÚNICO CIERTO EN EL SISTEMA EVOLUTIVO, LOS OSOS(SELECCIÓN NATURAL) PERO ESTO ES SEGÚN SU GENERO Y SEGÚN SU ESPECIE NO CAMBIA A UN CAMALEÓN ESTO LO IMPIDE LA GENÉTICA,(VER LOS VÍDEOS CIENTÍFICOS), LAS MUTACIONES NO GENERAN NINGÚN CAMBIO EN EL SISTEMA GENÉTICO MAS BIEN DESESTABILIZAD CROMOSOMATICA (Pregúntale a: Gordon Taylor, Morgan, Goldschmit,Muller ,etc) cientificos que hicieron experimento científicos a factor radiación Y NADA...
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
Just beacause sex redistributes alleles you people fill the huge gaps with imaginations?
Seriously, vulgar atheists need to study horizontal gene transfer, mendel's laws and genetic drift before trolling with imaginations!
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
I doubt the creationist read the paper regarding the collared lizards and what does that have to do with Evolution being wrong?
HybridD91 1 year ago 3
don,ty for this vid i REALLY needed.
wowheed 1 year ago
Clear example of the snapshot fallacy and maybe quote mine (confirmation bias)?
shaneho78 1 year ago
don't destroy the environment of a species your trying to protect. Obviously its paraphrased, but good words DonExodus. I would like to think that would be common sense for most people though. It's kinda sad you had to say that at all.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
This stuff is so simple, it was covered in High school Bio. We did an example with red and white beans. There is no way that people can be so stupid that they still argue against this stuff. It's systematic brainwashing, seriously. THESE CHANGES ARE WELL DOCUMENTED, EVEN RECENTLY.
janaoo4 1 year ago 8
Actually strictly speaking any change in allele frequency in a population is evolution because that is the very defintion of biological evolution. You just don't find it compelling
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
The below statements are on Wikipedia and describe the criticism those who heavily advocate Punctuated Equilibrium have against Phyletic Gradualism.
Many professionals believe these statements to be wrong, but how are they wrong?
It seems to make sense, especially in a large population like the United States.
crazysoccerman14 1 year ago
"The change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean."
"Allopatric speciation suggests that species which are composed of large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the genetic process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's size and are unable to reach fixation due to factors such as constantly changing environments."
Poster, can you refute these statements?
crazysoccerman14 1 year ago
Lmao at the beginning statement of this vid!
crazysoccerman14 1 year ago
toobsucker---what tube have you been sucking? Nice quote from Raup, whom you clearly misunderstand, as he supports punctuated equilibrium (or did you just edit it to APPEAR that he did not, in usual creotard fashion?) See the post about liars...Lederberg is not supportive of your point either---they could not show pre-existing resistence. YOU did not read the Berkeley site, but lied about it as a quote mine--see the post about liars. We await your retraction.
TheLizardPeople 1 year ago
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. , ....... some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."
(Raup, David M.
Ran out of room but look up the entire quote
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker show these fantasy animals stop deluding and fooling these people look up at donexodus2 fossils vids
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
The natural selection of information ALREADY ON FILE does not prove ToE.
Showing the mechanism behind how this new information arose so it could be naturally selected for would prove ToE.
Your one and ONLY candidate (random copying errors) fail at every attempt to show the mechanism valid
toobsucker 1 year ago
Has DonExodus2 EVER ONCE did a search for
"fossil record quotes"
there are HUNDREDS of quotes like this
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker yeh there all wrong u idiot
patrickledford420 1 year ago
DonExodus2 also never explains HOW the information got on file so it could be naturally selected for to begin with.
ToE needs a valid information generator, not a valid information selector or injector or shuffler.
He also does not seem to know P.E. is not about the same species with slightly different characteristics such as N.S. produces. but the myriad of quotes about this matter are clear. the species goes extinct, then is replaced with something novel. NOT a slight variation
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Populations gradually accumulate new alleles.Say you have two individuals. And lets say they have a simple mendelian trait for brown fur. Any two brown individuals have genes that are most likely nearly identical.
Say one through drift has a DNA base substitution that makes it translated a bit faster because it's a "good" codon. The result is more brown pigment is made so the individual is slightly darker.
Okay, with me so far?
Now imagine those slight changes
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Yes but that is the selection process of information already on file.
Recombinations, genetic drift etc.. just shuffle existing information.
Naturalism (goo to you ToE) can not use shuffling of existing information to prove Darwinian evolution.
Random mutations + natural selection are the only "natural" sources of information Darwinian evolution can have
Shuffling existing information has nothing to do with naturalism (life without an intelligent designer)
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Yeah mutations make new alleles. It's why for example why white people exist or why people in ireland have red hair.
It's why for example different strains of corn have genes the others don't have. They've gained them since being cultivated.
Then various selective forces change the frequency. This is seen all the time.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@toobsucker
I already explained in my hypothetical example how a DNA base substitution (something that DNA polymerase does by accident all the time) changes the chemistry of the protein and therefore the phenotype. The performance of that phenotype to create differences in reproductive success is proportional to how many new bodies that allele finds itself in the next generation.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Part 1
please look up point mutation, in particular insertion and deletion point mutations and try to understand the vast difference in end product that results from this single point mutation. So when you get gene duplication + mutations that cause an amino acid change here or there + a frame shift mutation, therefore allows information to be added that did not previously exist.
stressgranule 1 year ago
Part 2
And now lets assume you actually understand evolution and the differences between us and our closest ancestors (bonobo chimpanzees) the largest differences are not the genes themselves but the level of expression of certain genes, now this has more than one level of regulation - the promoter can be enhanced or decreased, RNA interference can shut down translation (inhibiting expression), or RNA binding proteins can hold it and store it for later use.
stressgranule 1 year ago
@stressgranule
Very good summation. I'd just had to add my critical notion that it's a little too early to say if the majority of changes are in expression or gene constitution at this point.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Thanks, I was a little drunk when i went on that rant and I understand that it still is early days. However I would like to say from the evidence I have read the majority of changes are in expression levels as there is only ~1.24% difference in genomic DNA sequence between humans and chimpanzees. Yet there are great physiological and mental differences (Marquès-Bonet, T., et al. 2004).
stressgranule 1 year ago
Yeah it's very inferential at this point.
I think though that the thinking now is that since it used to be thought that organisms like flies and humans were vastly different, having almost nothing in common that now the pendulum has swung a little too far the other direction.
I mean one DNA base out of a thousand in one gene can have dramatic differences in the biochemistry of that protein.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Most human and chimpanzee proteins are remarkably similar and the bulk of differences in DNA sequence are in non coding regions (Oldham, M, C., et al. 2009). Combining with this the analysis of microarray data that shows differences in gene expression of the brain between humans and chimpanzees. Sets of genes in the human brain have increased expression levels (Gu, J., and Gu, X., 2002),
stressgranule 1 year ago
Yeah that's what I'd sort of expect. Chimps and humans are really close and the time since divergence is so recent and the populations have been small and generation times have been long, individual reproductive rates are very low.
I think that really given those constraints and how chimps and humans I think maybe the only way to get enough selectable variation would be these epigenetic shortcuts.
Sure, i'd agree. I just don't know if this really applies broadly to evolution at large.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
and I know that there would most likely be alot of differences between genes that are both methylated and non-methylated but that would also come down to an expression level change. But I do agree it is early days and I'm sure that we will find even more differences as our knowledge advances.
Cheers, Mark
stressgranule 1 year ago
Part 3
And all these things can be enhanced or suppressed through a simple point mutation, which changes the effects of how efficiently a protein binds to the promoter region or how efficiently the RNA compliment binds its DNA or RNA regulatory region without changing all the proteins and therefore polypeptide or enzyme completely.
stressgranule 1 year ago
Now understand how all of this combines over millions upon millions of years of natural selection of fitter organisms to slowly produce different species. And if that's not enough please look at the fossil record (PROPERLY) and see how we evolved if you need to do it quickly then check out Donexodus2 people who dont accept evolution.
Cheers, Mark
stressgranule 1 year ago
part 2
so imagine this also holds for anatomical features(it does). What we see is that populations get filled with slightly different alleles. Competition and selection almost always hinges on slight differences. Now over time one allele might get to a higher frequency.
That's gradualism.
Now PE would be the total variation get summed together in just a few generations. Maybe due to harem breeding or strong natural or sexual selection. Maybe female criteria changes. stuff like that
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
DonExodus2 starts off immediately with a commonly believed lie that environment forces adaptation.
The Lederberg experiment proved but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." for survival, unlike what is commonly taught
"The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.
Read the Berkeley site on this
toobsucker 1 year ago
telling one lie, makes you a liar. stealing one thing, makes you a thief. JESUS said if you look upon a woman to lust for her, you have committed adultery already with her in your heart! rev. 21v8 says "all liars wil have their part in the lake of fire" no thief, or adulterer will enter heaven! you broke GODs holy laws,but JESUS paid your fine! you must repent,turn from all sin and trust in him alone! if not you will have to pay for your own sins against GOD in hell forever!
EXALTEDDIRT 2 years ago
@EXALTEDDIRT
Amen!
... heh, just joking. Piss off ;)
wolfmweh 2 years ago
@EXALTEDDIRT looks like someone has a crush on Ray
fcdog555 2 years ago
@EXALTEDDIRT
Doing one good thing makes you a good person following your stupid logic.
vava54own 2 years ago
@EXALTEDDIRT I almost spit my oatmeal out. I appreciate that you can quote from the greatest story ever told, but nobody here believes that crap.
AmazinKC 2 years ago
I was hoping to hear you totaly pown those radio creastionist bastards you should find another station and rip them a new one
stantheman42069 2 years ago
In the mere first minute of this movie, a disaster in another video I just watched would have been avoided simply and gracefully. Dr. Steve Kumar (Ph.D in philosophical theology from the California Graduate School of Theology) was having a discussion with djarm67. In the second part of the video Dr. Steve Kumar claims that because Steven Gould advocates punctuated equilibrium and that someone like Richard Dawkins advocates gradualism, evolution is nothing but a philosophy with no consensus.
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
here's the link:
/watch?v=N25XHfmqT-4
and then compare it to this:
/watch?v=Qd17iRmiE4o
Why won't creationism go away :(
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
Whoops, typo: that's Stephen Jay Gould, the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
Both can be valid at the same time. See
populations gradually grow in diversity. However this diversity can be rapidly summed together with sexual reproduction and quick reductions in population size and lead to rapid punctuated adaptive radiation.
See it's rapid bits interspersed into a gradual equilibrium
you can actually set up a simulated PE experiment with the critters you can download at swimbots (dot) com. You can save bots and run repeatable experiments from your desktop
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
PE actually adds a lot and is probably the greatest addition to evolutionary theory since darwin.
PE makes a lot of sense. It better explains the fossil record and can integrate better with evolutionary ecology.
The reason why "species" exist as opposed to just endless radiation out is because species conform to ecological niches.
Now when a niche is disturbed it's much easier for small subsets of the population to flow into a new niche and experience morphological change rapidly
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
I gave this 5 stars before even seeing the whole vid, the moment the obama/darwin poster came up. I rofled. Thank you so much!
mornmeril 2 years ago 2
this video was so complicated...
matthewpng 2 years ago
"When you're trying to keep a species from going extinct, it's a good idea not to set their homes on fire." WIN.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago 2
I've never understood how evolutionary gradualism & punctuated equilibrium "oppose" each other. Its like saying uniformitarianism denies that catastrophes occur. OF COURSE they do and can have drastic affects on the planet (Look at the Toba eruption for example). As you point out, evolution is the same and can be both gradual and catastrophic.
I've never understood why Dawkins is so luke warm about PE.
As for creationists, they're not going to let rational thought get in the way of bollox.
EASYTIGER10 2 years ago 2
why is there no 1% of the flying bear population?
joemadly 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
In order to be able to fly, a bear would have to... not be a bear.
In the present time, there is no animal that large that can fly, or even glide.
Female black bears weigh 175 to 500 pounds, and grizzlies weigh 900 pounds.
tifforo1 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Some evidence is obvious intellectual stuff such as the the universe itself being created from nothingness, the infinitesimal mathematical probability of the laws of physics being set during the Big Bang to allow life to exist, the life of the historical Jesus as recorded by first century biographers, and the God impulse that's implanted in every human being. The most compelling evidence is the personal connection many Christians have made with God..but that's for us to know and you to find out.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Bears with wings would also have survived because they would have just been able to fly away when it got too cold.
mayartay 2 years ago
Bears with wings would be scary as shit. I think they would have to develop more hollow bones first though. I doubt that would work out, because that would them more fragile I believe. But maybe I just don't get evolution :P
ScissorHand26 2 years ago
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Washington University's biology department would NOT be happy to have their research used by Dr. Rana like this.
tifforo1 2 years ago
Not Trolling/ Flaming.. Can please you elaborate?
fatboySRK 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
The theory of evolution provides the answer to SCIENTIFIC questions about the origin of life. Atheism provides an answer to RELIGIOUS questions about what happens after death. Belief in the theory of evolution has no more to do with atheism than the theory that the Earth orbits the sun has to do with atheism.
tifforo1 2 years ago 2
Another excellent video.
But isn't it a little sad that we have to visit Youtube for our education, rather than it being provided for us by our government funded high schools?
For millions the answers to some of the most fundamental questions will always be:
"God did it."
That's pretty lamentable.
Gcarse 2 years ago 37
@Gcarse Why do you think they are trying to censor the internet?
CanadianPride8 1 year ago
@Gcarse If only subjects like this were in school now nand when i was younger, i actually would have done so well, apart from drama and science, i hated every single subject in school, and it wasnt because i found them difficult, i just didnt care if i failed. I found out about a subject called Cymatics a few months ago and boy, thats the kind of topic i would actually go in to school on a saturday to learn
toonyloons2006 11 months ago
Another excelent effort, thanks!
DEZZIELIGHTBULB007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who puts an imperfect speech audio on their video? Stutter, stammer, mispronounce... very irritating when dealing with an academic topic.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago
Not everyone can afford proper microphones, and he's easy to understand anyway, stop complaining.
Abazigal 2 years ago 3
It has nothing to do with the price of a microphone. Apparently, you haven't dealt with any audio/video editing. This could be much better, he just didn't want to do any re-takes.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago
I love it when you get a little stopped up by how shockingly moronic some of these people are.. To say that the stupidity expressed leaves one speechless is a gross understatement...
FlightIsLife 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So that's how science works! Speculation, extrapolation, and assumptions make it true! Who knew!?
drewas55 2 years ago
Oops, try again. Unless you're being ironic:P
Iwannabubbletube 2 years ago
Speculation = proof of something existing. Extrapolation = working with that proof. Assumptions = not working with proof. You're way out of your league here, talking about science.
Creationist "science": imaginative story fabrications, interpretations and variations of said fabrications, assertions of said fabrications.
Open a book and join the educated community, or go back to your pews and TV and have someone else do your thinking for you.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Typical Darwinist reply. Holding on to your nineteenth century fairy tales, aren't you? I am amuzed by you pseudo-intellectuals that assume everyone that disagrees with you is uneducated. I have degrees in zoology, microbiology and an MD. I teach anatomy and physiology at a graduate level in a well-known university. My particular area of interest is in information theory, which Darwinists are at a complete loss to address. And, yes, this video is 90% assumption and speculation.
drewas55 2 years ago
Mm hmm, zoology, microbiology, medical doctor. All rather reliant on modern evolutionary theory, wouldn't you say?
And, you know, every post-grad I've met uploads only videos of marines in Iraq.
I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say you're full of crap.
Typical creationist who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a Darwinist.
Let's keep fighting unconstitutional wars; it fits right in with the religious right's agenda of holy war.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, I learned the tenets of Darwinism quite well but later realized that it is important only to Darwinists. Medicine and related disciplines depend not an iota on Darwinism.
My son served in Iraq and some of those videos are of him behind his .50 cal. I'm quite proud of what he has done.
Yes, I suppose that you are skeptical of my credentials. If you wish your can read my blog posts at dakotavoice(dot)com. I'm sure you'd find some of the discussions stimulating.
drewas55 2 years ago
I have already reviewed your website and commend your pro-liberty stance; however, I'm rather confused as to why you would endorse your son fighting an immoral war, in the same breath as you assert a constitutional republic.
Also, I don't know of this "Darwinism" talk, like hard evidence is somehow equivalent to faith. There is no Darwinism, but there is taxonomy, paleontology, cosmology, biology, and many more which proves, through rational thinking, that the universe came about naturally.
neonsilkworm 2 years ago 3
If you had learned them, you would not be calling it "Darwinism" like another creationist retard.
Evolution. Evolutionist.
We believe in Evolution. We are Evolutionists. Get it right.
DietBroccoli 2 years ago 2
we dont beleive in evolution we accept it as scientific fact beleif requires faith this needs no faith as it has proof
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
Believe: Verb
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of
Don't get into a battle of words with me. You'll lose.
Faith requires belief, but belief does not require faith.
I, and all other intellectuals, believe in evolution.
DietBroccoli 2 years ago
dude i was saying that to make a point that evolution isnt a beleif system its just a scientific fact one everyone should accept im not saying i disbeleive evolution as umm i fuckin accept it
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
"Dude", learn how to use punctuation. Perhaps if you can do that to even a rudimentary extent, you won't give the impression that you're an imbecile.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory, yes. I am well aware of this as I am a fervent advocate of educating people about the evidence in favor of it.
The fact remains, however, that it is (by the very definition of the word) a belief.
If you accept somethings validity, then you believe in it. The word has nothing to do with faith.
DietBroccoli 2 years ago
your fucking reiterateing what im trying to say there is no fucking point in this arguement
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
By one definition, yes, evolution is a belief. However according to the scientific definition of the word 'theory' it is a model which is supported by empirical evidence which explains a natural phenomenon(in this case evolution). The scientific word for an idea is hypothesis, and the definition is rather strict and not all ideas or beliefs fit the definition.
Tavereen 2 years ago
@Tavereen : Perhaps your time would be better spent educating someone who needs it than arguing semantics with me.
To address your comment, though. To say to a person "I believe you", what it means is "I accept what you say as true". To say "I believe in evolution" you're saying "I accept evolution is true."
Don't twist the word belief into something other than it is. Yes, it can mean faith, but that's not it's only definition. Don't waste my time with something you can look up yourself.
DietBroccoli 2 years ago
What nonsense! "Darwinism" is a perfectly acceptable term.
SLRL1A1 2 years ago
Why does it exist? It's not like we call physicists Newtonists, or physics Newtonism.
123Atheist 2 years ago
Maybe because it isn't a word.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
It's a bit outdated considering Darwin lived 150 years ago and didn't know about DNA and all those new fancy things that support Evolution.
gagaplex 2 years ago
"My son served in Iraq and some of those videos are of him behind his .50 cal. I'm quite proud of what he has done."
Tell your son that I thank him for protecting me by killing some brown people who posed no threat to me
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 12
"Medicine and related disciplines depend not an iota on Darwinism."
Except that evolution is one of the foundations of modern biology and is the basis for many biotechnologies.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago 3
Isn't making up fake credentials fun?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
You don't have any of those degrees, and you don't teach anything at a university.
Keep lies simple and believeable, please.
Abazigal 2 years ago
good thing you don't subscribe to the seventeenth century idea of "gravity" that Newton invented, eh?
your background is about as honest as me claiming that I am an Air Force test pilot with master degrees in nuclear physics and English literature from Harvard and Yale (respectively). I also am scheduled to go to space in the next NASA mission and am a key person in planning the next Mars mission.
1n354a 2 years ago
So that's how science works! Evidence, reasoning, and observations of reality make is true! Who knew!?
riseofatheism 2 years ago
Just for the record, high cholesterol is only linked to heart disease in middle aged males. :D
High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis
U. Ravnskov Delete Comment
qwerudo 2 years ago
Oh yeah, that was in response to 6:16
qwerudo 2 years ago
quite interresting but very boring :|
Depresijus 2 years ago
haha... happy belated anniversary!
harshm2u 2 years ago
fuck man now i gotta get involved in scientific shit again thanks for makin me reinterested in biology n evolution though i makin me smart all over again
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
Um, Dr. Rana had a point. I'm not sure why you dismissed it so readily. Small populations _are_ more prone to extinction, but they are also more prone to evolution. Slice a species up, and by Rana's conclusions, most slices will die off. However, some won't, and that is the source of speciation. Rana's research is valid; his conclusions about creationism are not. But nonetheless, don't dismiss what he says simply because he's a creationist. He makes a valid point to incorporate into Punc. Eq.
SerdnaSagrav 2 years ago
Darwin seems to have anticipated 'punctuated equilibrium' in his parallel between evolution of language and speciation - some experience stability over time and some experience lots of adaptations and splitting.
proudfootz 2 years ago 2
DAMN you whitty! No more Zen??
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
Just like how you can predict the average rainfall that a square mile in Brazil will get in a given year. You can closely estimate the amount from lots of data, but cannot predict what particular days it will rain on from knowing the rates.
Well you kind of might, if rainfall is high enough to reach the yearly average you could predict that on average it would have to rain once a day.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
The good book says that what you are doing is WRONG. I found it in Jethro 282:17. Thou shalt haveth no intelligence or face the eternal damnation of hell fire.
JoeMurphus01 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2 Hezekiah 19:3
Thus saith the Lord, "I am unto my people a God, and they shall honor me and preserve their soul in my thoughts, and shall not pursue the ends of their own minds."
SerdnaSagrav 2 years ago
then the lord encourages idiocy great reason to not beleive in him i say
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago 2
Dudes, Hezekiah isn't a book in the Bible. I made it up!
SerdnaSagrav 2 years ago
dude really i had no fucking clue it sounded very biblical
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
lol
SerdnaSagrav 2 years ago
69 Dawkins 4:20
Thus, the lord Darwin said, "Creationists need to do better then random bible passages"
Can I get a RAman?
ScrewLimbBizkit 2 years ago 7
69 Dawkins 6:25
And so it came to pass, whence
Thunderf00t hat pwned all creationists of the lands, Dawkins did smile, and all atheists looked upon the spoils of war and were filled with joy.
Thus they did feast and drank of wine, in which James Randi turned from water.
RAmen..
KarinMikazuki 2 years ago 3
RAmen!! I still can't believe my original comment has 8 thumbs down. OMFSM people really don't the Bible.
SerdnaSagrav 2 years ago
RAmen.
AllergicToPain 2 years ago 2
RAman
AnarchisticAttitude 2 years ago
RAmen and hail Pwnage!
VulcanFleet 2 years ago
RAmen
SCRulerShinoda 2 years ago
Well Shit. Great vid but I accidentally 1 stared. deserved a 5.
jermck13 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let's see how fast you can delete comments.
bluecheesejoe 2 years ago
Ahh, like drinking a fresh cool beer on a hot summers day.
I feel a smart/stupid shift in favour of smart occurring.
Thank you for posting.
deefsound 2 years ago 4
Well done sir. Well done.
Echidnia 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Proverbs 3:35
The wise will inherit honor, but fools get disgrace.
ABShock 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gen 6,6
Cuythulu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
geh 4,3
illuzion30 2 years ago
oooh, what a multi-faceted comeback.
mikebott 2 years ago
Matthew 5:22 "But whosoever shall say 'Thou [a] fool' shall be in danger of hell fire."
tsrox20 2 years ago
a quote from a man written 2000 years ago in Palestine/Rome (nobody knows). A man that know very little about the world as we know it today - he thought the earth was flat that an angry god created storms and demons created illness. He was not even a great thinker for his time trying to use fear of the unknown to control the population. What wisdom do you expect this man to give to me or anyone else with this simplistic attempt to instill fear - god is created by man, god is imaginary
coldwarkid007 2 years ago 5
so that's why creationists/creation"science"proponents /Intelligent Designers keep losing their court cases in the usa...because theyre ignorant fools
dancingnature 2 years ago 11
They stopped taking live calls because their show was accually converting christians into logical thought bearing people....i guess a show dedicated to keeping people ignorant by having scientific debates with intellegent minds wasnt thte greatest approch for the success of their show. makes me laugh. keep thinking everyone and maybe someday we can rid ourselves of hate mongering religious point of veiws.
maglioiscool 2 years ago 5
You ROCK
DavidPrime83 2 years ago
does anyone know if that radio station conversation DonE was talking about was recorded... I can't find it on his channel?
billymatronics 2 years ago
PE can happen if the mutations in the organism are present prior to or after the event that places selective pressure on them (i.e. warming of the earth, in your polar bear example) however it smarter to say that a dormant trait (not an atavism) comes back into functionality and is used in a different way, this is a much more powerful driving force, then than existing traits or mutations (not to say that it cant happen with them as well)
ShikaNinja 2 years ago
4star...
this vid layout is actually very good, with succinct yet clear explanation. the only concern is the sound, which I think a bit too low.
caseyrainer 2 years ago
What is the E-mail or web site for the person in this video? He seemed distraught that Fuz was hiding from him. Perhaps I can help. Fuz is a friend, and does debate publicly and with biology profs (I've attended myself).
thiloyoung 2 years ago
i'd rate it 6 / 5 if i could
thegyger 2 years ago
Awesome video :-D
JohnnyKubark 2 years ago
happy 2nd birthday :D
Jtking3000 2 years ago
Great video, great explanations, and great job getting through it all in what sounded like one breath. :) Thanks.
Mykeyta 2 years ago
congrats on the 2 years..
here's to 2 more.. and 2 more after that... and 2... oh u get the idea
axemurderer27 2 years ago
The problem with creationists is that they will read the article beign spoken about and believe it even though it is a complete load of hogwash and no matter how many times you show them the facts a or point them towards this video they will continue to believe in their pseudo-scientific 'facts'.
WaxItYourself 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
10,000 transitional vaginas preserved in sandstone forever
yeah transitioning into mah moufth
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Ring species are a great way of refuting creotards. They cannot deny the existence of intermediate forms. They cannot claim the intermediate forms were different species with a chance resemblance. They cannot refute one species changing into another one.
Best of all, they cannot explain why God chose to create such an oddity except as yet more evidence that we should not believe in creationism.
bdf2718 2 years ago 4
Top shelf DonExodus2 ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Needz moar debunking!
TwilightAronXD 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Punctuated equilibrium was proposed do to the lack of evidence for gradualism, there is not real evidence for PE.
Claiming that PE and gradualism act together sounds like an excuse, for not providing mathematical models supporting evolution.
¿What percentage of ´´evolution´´ is do to PE and what percentage is due to gradualism? evolutionists won´t answer to this, because any specific answer would immediately be tested and disproved
a01011399 2 years ago
What a remarkable stupid question, congratulations! What makes you think there should be a mathematical equation describing evolution in all the myriad of different circumstances and timescales it occurs? There are innumerable tests of evolution that have been passed with flying colours over the past 150 years, but this isn't and couldn't be one of them - unless you're complaining that we haven't provided an exhaustive account of every single organism that ever lived yet - you're not are you?
Slabbers 2 years ago
´´What makes you think there should be a mathematical equation´´
Because evolution has variables (time, mutations, natural selection...) and evolution is suppose to be a scientific theory, that is why we would expect to have equations supporting evolution. or else, please explain why is evolution the only scientific theory that is not supported by equations?
a01011399 2 years ago
Actually, many equations are available. Not all questions have a simple formula however. This is not a requirement for a scientific theory.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
The Percent would just depend on the environment. If you want to know an overall average from all life