Nice vid. He is very generous when he says IDers make 'erroneous claims' -> the ones creating the claims are outright, bald faced liars. Those who follow them are just ignorant. In the end, the only two arguments for creationism are either ignorance or dishonesty.
I don't understand why cretards get so worked up about gaps in the fossil record. Even if there weren't plenty of transitional fossils (which there are), what do they think happened during those gaps? Do they think that new species are created over time in sequence by magic?
Speaking as someone who believed evolution, I want to say God is real ,your standing on the outside and can't see in. I was there too. If you want to know truth you have to read the Word and be diligent you will receive the Holy Spirit and witness the true power of God. Do you think billions of people are crazy?Experiencing God is not just a choice make one day. You don't believe it because the whole experience is closed to you. The only door is Christ. Use the door.
@chestveeg What does evolution has to do with your belief in god ? I think you never actually knew what evolution was.
Ad populum means that basically no matter how many people believe in something, it doesn't make it right. Also, nice build up of a false dilemma. Why would the only solutions would either be those people being insane or god existing.
Finally, we don't want personal experiences because our senses can be fooled easily. Try finding scientific evidence.
Evolution is all gaps because it does not even almost happen.
You are lost in your own fantasy that you believe.
You cannot use design as evidence of no design.
The ordered functions of most of the most common elements require having a Maker. The design of the functions, the making of the functions and the ordering of the functions all require a Maker.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
It has nothing to do with "complexity" it has to do with very simple functions that do not exist without having a Maker.
@JungleJargon What exactly is your claim? Is it that complexity in organisms couldn't exist without a maker? Please take off your theological glasses and listen to what well-studied, well-disciplined, and thoughtful people have found out through 150 years of grueling research and labor. Evolution is real. We observe it daily in microorganisms. The same adaptive mechanisms (mutations) exist in us and, after billions of years, have caused us to be as complex as we are.
@bencamp18 I just said that it has nothing to do with "complexity" and you are asking me if it has to do with complexity.
No, there is nothing "real" about evolution. It is all a fraud. The uniform variations are from the genome itself and limited by the limited information that the genome has.
Even the Bible mentions a man that turned into an animal. That does not disprove Creation and it certainly does not prove evolution.
Ordered functions inside of us prove we have a Maker.
the only reason i see anybody i know claiming to be a christian, is because their parents made them christian. my parents tried to make me a christian, and i love them for that, but they obviously got the message that i didn't believe anything i was told in church and stopped making me go.
Yeah its feels really good when its the truth.1)You are mistaken i have never really even been sick to the point where i cant function,(gotta give it to God he sure knows what we should eat and live like to make healthy .The bible is full of this kind of knowledge.2)Are you trying to say I appeal to authority to get rid of something that occurs naturally? (cosmic joke)this is used to help you understand your own beliefs.Most of you dont even know what you believe.
Yeah, go ahead and rethink that hole inferior human eye statement.Firstly the octopus has an eye made for the water,that is why the blood vessel is in the way in our human eye it is so we dont become blind by the uv light,the water can filter the light hence the octopus has a different eye.This is not a good argument as it is debunked.
The "eye" argument is still valid because species like falcons and owls have better eyesight and live in similar environmental conditions as humans. Also, birds can actually SEE in UV; it's not an automatically damaging wavelength.
"It mainly depends on individual strength to get over most sickness or infection."
Have fun getting jail time for homicide when you kill your kids by refusing treatment.
@TheZooCrew Well lets see what an eagle really sees,ok now that you know our eyes see things in color and without restriction you can move on.Ha Ha that's funny considering i am exempt by law and who said i wouldn't take care of my kids?My 13 year old never been to the doctor or even been sick to the point of worry.Science is making more symptoms than it cures I for one dont enjoy fatty discharge without warning ,suicidal thoughts ,headaches,drowsiness and many other side effects =worse off
I wouldnt put it that way, since he is the smartest and by far the most athletic in his age group at school.The drugs are not a necessity,why do you think they are addictive? Why would you commit your life to an expert that cant even understand we are a creation not a cosmic joke.Look at what they are saying about our structure such as the eye for example,sure an atheist/evolutionist would argue that it is a poor design well i dont see the experts doing any better.What is the bases of comparison
@clawedification Thats what every parent says about their kids. Religion is the cosmic joke. I bet when you get cancer you will be begging the experts to help you.
For an intelligent man, Ayala is certainly being disingenuous or is, at least, out of touch with current debate. No, we cannot reconstruct the Last Common Ancestor; no, we cannot build a clear tree of life. Progress in the understanding of DNA has only brought new difficulties to the effort to construct it.
Ayala must know these things. He has no excuse for not knowing these things.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are things you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.
So the creationist want our children to be exposed to "controversies".
OK then, we can teach them sexual education in schools -they are mature enough to know what to do. We can teach Marxism too; after all, the Chinese are marxists and children will need to understand what make the chinese tick.
His illustration of the different eyes in the animal kingdom is excellent showing the difference between design v. evolved.
We humans DESIGN things like computer software of cars; when a design flaw is discovered ALL computers running that software are affected, or thousands of cars have to be recalled.
By contrast, no disease has been able to kill all of mankind; some survive even after being infected. The little differences introduced by way of evolution make that possible
@leifey ...And one more thing. Despite there being more atheists in the world, the last six major wars we've had have been more destructive than most of the past millennium. Obviously, there's something more to it than just "Religion caused it". 3) It depends who was in charge, like any sort of governance. Islam was a major power in the fields of science and mathematics. Saying religion in general is against science is counter intuitive, as they have nothing to do with each other.
@fcukedupguy The destructiveness of war has more to do with technological advances in weaponry than theism/atheism. And religion may not be against all science, but it definitely is an obstacle. Trying to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or blocking stem cell research or claiming that the earth is 6000 years old are clear examples of religions working against science.
I always welcome balanced common sense, thank goodness for people that don't dump the responsibility for thinking for themselves onto the shoulders of a self made deity.
I always welcome balanced common sense, thank goodness for people that don't dump the responsibility for thinking for themselves onto the shoulders of a fictitious deity.
TO CONSTRUCT AN EYEBALL BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED TO SEE , IS TOO FANTASTIC FOR A LIFE FORM , AND REPLICATING THE SAME OR SIMILAR ON OTHER SPECIES , WAS THERE A WANT TO SEE EXPLOSION? AND THE ONES THAT GOT TO SEE FIRST, SURVIVED , I'M SORRY BUT WHEN I DO THE MATH ,. I . E THE POUCH ON THE KANGAROO , I VOTE FOR SOME KIND ORGANIZED PLAN LEADING TO A FUTURE , BUT MAN IS STILL THE SAME CREATURE , NOT EVOLVING AT ALL SINCE HIS INCEPTION . GIANFRANCO FRONZI / NOV / 24/2010
there we have it evoluition can't accept God because science is smarter than god,
God your fired get out of here......LOL people who are not fed the huge amounts of growth hormones that western cultures are given, have few problems with lack of space for wisdom teeth.
"we can now look at any area of evolutionary history and we can understand it with as much detail as we wish. the methods of molecular biology are so powerful and so quantitative and also so redundant that we can study anything that we want with as much detail as we want."
these are the words that finish off the idiotic creationist claims about any "gaps" ONCE AND FOR ALL.
the terms 'transitional forms' and "species" defined in their original forms are somewhat misleading. It can bee said that we currently are transitional forms, because all organisms are constantly transitioning. Species just means reproductive isolation from other organisms (simply put at least). Without geographical, or other types of barriers to isolate populations from each other, the chances of speciation is slim. @Oreceo
0:00 - 1:47...... WHAT?! you dont have the fossils from before the Cambrian explosion and you say so what? What ever happened to science PROVING what they say and showing how it happened...... thats like saying the moon is mad of cheese.... I have no cheese from the moon but, from my telescope I can see pits in the moons surface so it must be cheese....... give me a break....
Fossil creation is hard, the circumstances have to be right, furthermore there are some organisms, namely flatworms, which we don't have ANY fossils for and probably never will because they are soft body creatures. What would truly be amazing and would definitely count against evolution, would be the discovery of rabbit fossils in a strata before it could have evolved or any anachronistic fossils for that matter.
I said that, but you misunderstood it. I wasn't saying that transitional species are created through different species interbreeding.
I was saying that I thought a transitional form was a species that carried characteristics of the past species it evolved from, and the future species it would yet evolve into.
MicroHive didn't say that either. He just said that transitional forms have gotten sets of chromosomes from each of their parents. He never even implied that, say, ducks and crocodiles mate to create transitional forms.
If you actually read his comments, he gives a rather eloquent explanation for micro evolution to macro evolution, and explaining the scientific term 'transitional form'.
It is simply false to say that every species is a transitional form, for the simple reason that some species die out without ever evolving into something else.
@noodles321321 that is incorrect. Because that transitional being has gotten two sets of chromosomes from both of its parents, meaning that its DNA is a combination of two creatures, and thus its DNA is not 100% alike any of its parents making it different(99% the same but not 100%).
Now, if you continue to do this over lets say a million generations and include micro evolution, which eventually become macro evolution in the long therm, you get different beings in shape and functionality.
I think you missed the point of my argument. I mean that some species are wiped out by natural selection (or natural disasters, or people) before they get the chance to evolve into something else, not that the potential to evolve isn't there.
Every species COULD be a transitional form, but not all species are.
@noodles321321 all generations are still transitions since they've transitioned from a parent and are slightly changed. And even though they die and become instinct they're still transitional forms.
Sometimes you get such cases as people being 2-3 meters tall and some dwarf scale. They're transitional forms even though they don't continue their specific strain of DNA.
It would seem as if your definition of transitional form is that it has to have some signs of macro evolution to count as trans
Surely a transitional form is a species that lies between two other species, and carries characteristics of both? That's how I've always heard the term used.
@noodles321321 the term transitional forms can indicate anything between micro to macro evolution which includes generations in species and the transitional form between two species. That is what the scientific community use the term for but it's more often referred to macro evolution as in links between species.
What I was trying to explain using the dwarf example was to show that no matter how small or big the difference is between parents and the child it's still a transitional form.
I think he explains it pretty well actually... I think that's one of the confusing parts, but its worth bearing in mind complexity is coming gradually - the only features we have are usually progressive features, not immediately functional as is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As we still have no dating methods for fossils or rocks we cannot track anything backwards. We simply fossils in rocks where they died and thats all. We know these creatures used to be alive and are now dead, thats it.
Of course there are methods to date rocks and subsequently fossils (which is just fossilized organic material, i.e. replaced my minerals = rock).
Maybe you should use a search engine to look up "radioactive decay" and means of "radiometric dating" before you spill your ignorance into the internet.
I'm guessing the internet is going to be the nail that finally shuts the coffin on religion in the next few decades. That, and the change in public attitudes towards it (which I think we can thank Bushwhack for) will make it less attractive to the next generation of kids and it will lose the critical mass that still lends some credibility to the industry. Once that's gone it will just be an ugly reminder of a past that we're only too anxious to eventually forget about entirely.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The internet is going to expose the lie of evolution. Just as the germans were brainwashed with Nazism, so goes with Evolution. The internet is the sword to the Truth. You will know this soon.
At the point of a sword no doubt. But I don't worry about it. Were it not for the indoctrination of kid's I'd be your biggest supporter. I see religion as a voluntary tax on morally indolent and scientifically illiterate people. Who would be against that?
As far as I'm concerned you're doing the best you can and I am genuinely grateful that we have evolved an industry that attracts and mostly disarms you folks. We've got to work out some kinks that seem to induce some to go ballistic is all.
Instead of posting verses from the Quran you could have quoted verses from any one of HUNDREDS of 'holy' texts, but to what effect? The SAME science that led us to eradicate smallpox, to learn of gravity and motion, to understand earthquakes, and to make the keyboard on which I now type, also revealed evolution to us. Why don't you fight against the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift? Campaign against meteorology! They're equally 'evil'!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are freakin retarded shitbrain. It doesn't logically follow that one who believes in God, denies science. Was Newton not a scientist? Check your shitbrain logic before you post nonsense, Godless Freak!
At the end of the roman times, it was the deists who saved all the knowledge, knowledge that helped create the renaissance era in the 16th century. Without the church, we would easily be 100+ years behind the times. Imagine if no one after the romans knew mathematics, or even how to read and write. Saying that all religion is backwards is very deceptive.
@fcukedupguy Hmm thats not 100% true. Just because a group of religious people have done something beneficial doesn't mean their religion is neccessarily valid. It simply means that they did something beneficial as a result of the religion, but it doesn't justify or compensate for the religion itself.
Religion has helped in the past during the early stages of civilization, but now it is holding back confirmed theories and ideas simply because these facts go against what they have been taught.
@BlissByIgnorance I'm not debating whether Christianity is right, I was talking to all those people who say all religion has done is start wars. They've done more than start wars and molest children and those beneficial points always seem to be overlooked.
Debating whether we should have religion or if their is a God is a fight I try and avoid because all it leads to is one 50 post flame war that follows you around.
@fcukedupguy Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But for a good person to do bad things, it takes religion (or something like it).
@verzen I added the "something like it" because sometimes all it takes is fanatical devotion for people to do bad things. Nazism or the regime under Stalin are great examples, as would be the Cultural Revolution in China. The best way to make good people do bad things is fanaticism and religion is one of the best ways to curry it.
@leifey And a bad person to do good things requires....Scientology? Atheism?
Good people can be brainwashed by almost anything. Government, Nationalism, Ignorance, Intolerance. The worst one is intolerance. I hate the atheists who are so afraid of the possibility of god they will attack people to change their faith.
(Not all church going grannies are crazy, brainwashed suicide bombers)
And that is why I added the "or something like it." It's not the faith that makes people do crazy things. It's the ridiculous lengths to which people are willing to go in the name of their faith. Zealotry is a big reason good people do bad things, and religion evokes it in ways few other things can.
And atheists aren't afraid of something they don't believe in. They just want people to believe things for good reasons (evidence).
@leifey Atheists don't fear god. They fear the idea of god and religion. They seem to pop up in religious videos to tell everyone there that they are idiots and bigots just because of their beliefs.
Also, faith has nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with faith. It's best to stop using science to fight other peoples beliefs. You don't need evidence for your beliefs and as for god, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
@fcukedupguy Atheists aren't necessarily afraid of anything. They simply don't believe. And if they pop up to call people idiots, it's pretty much the same as when creationists do it to nonbelievers.
You might not need evidence for your beliefs, but I do, and that's why I'm an atheist. And you're right, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but you don't need to prove something isn't real to not believe. You have to prove it exists in order to believe. Burdens of proof.
@leifey You have to prove it exists in order to believe? Belief does not require proof, that's what makes it a belief. And if athiests "just don't believe", why do they attack people (verbally, of coarse) who do believe?
The thing about my beliefs are, they're "MY" beliefs, therefor you don't need to gather any proof about MY beliefs. (And this is why I don't like discussing religion, it always turns into a Atheism vs Monotheism argument).
@fcukedupguy Like I said, you might not have such a high standard for your beliefs, but I generally try to verify that what I believe is actually true. That's why I expect evidence. You have every right to believe, but I hold myself to higher standards.
And I don't see how my lack of belief discounts my right to criticize people who hold certain beliefs. I have issues with their beliefs and the effects they have on society; why shouldn't I vocalize them?
@fcukedupguy Affects on society: religion inherently separate people, creating conflict and violence between factions. It also hampers scientific progress and suppresses people's rights by imposing itself on others. Is this enough examples?
My higher standards mean that I don't accept something to be true unless I have evidence that supports that conclusion. Religious claims do not meet that standard, thus I don't believe. Do I really need to list specifics?
@leifey Right. 1) Religion, even from a scientific point of view, is about bringing people together. That's how it started off, kind of like a community within a community. 2) Religion creates violence, true. Limited resources creates violence. So does marriage, land claims, disparity, ignorance, unemployment, large male populations, large growth rates, depressions, ethnic tensions, border disputes, trade tariffs and embargoes. And I haven't even mentioned what causes civil wars.
@fcukedupguy 1) Religions may want to bring people together, but there are many religions that compete for that goal, which results in division. As for your list, I don't know why you're bringing up all those topics. We're talking about religion, and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Yes, they cause violence, but how does that make religion any less culpable?
@leifey 4) Atheism can impose itself on others just as well. A religion doesn't all of a sudden gain special insight into how to throw itself onto other people. People manage to do that by themselves, no matter what it is their trying to force. Scientific theories, economic policy, forms of government, culture, acceptable behavior, etc.
5) You cannot counter a belief or faith with science no more than I can argue about abiogenesis with the bible.
@fcukedupguy Atheism can certainly be imposed, but not in this country. Your right to believe is protected by the government.
As for belief vs. science, of course you can counter beliefs with science. People used to believe that everything was composed of four elements. Science proved that that belief was wrong.
@fcukedupguy By believing something that has no evidence of existing, gods/unicorns/goblins/whatever and thereby claiming that things like evolution are false, you are holding mankind back with your deluded ideas.
I'm not sure what your PoV is, i'm just expressing what my problem with religious people is. People telling their children not to believe evolution and believe in creationism, noah'sark and the world being 6k years old disgust me.
Here's a pretty good analogy similar to what you said.
when it is dark, a blind man is a good person to help people navigate along a road. However, when the sun has risen, a blind man is often the very worst person to ask for guidance and navigation.
@TheScyy um, the dark ages was only 500 years and that was because 1000 years of science and culture was practically destroyed overnight by the Goths and Visigoths. Nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity didn't gain power until DURING the dark ages, with Charlemagne.
@ueks69 Yes science is progress and a search for knowledge but religion doesn't want knowledge or truth that is evident in the story of Adam and Eve. God didn't want them to eat of the fruit of knowledge. Basically religion will only survive if we stay dumb and that is why it is so against science that contradicts scripture.
@chevroletgt I think the whole Adam and Eve eating of the tree thing was about knowledge gained before they were ready for it. Sort of like how you would trust a 14 year old alone at home but not a 4 year old. I like science, because it's good info, but it would be nice if we didn't have to contradict or clarify past scientific inaccuracies so often. There seems to be a lot of papers and discoveries unveiled before the research is complete on them.
@auryc7 You can never complete research on any given subject because new discoveries normally opens new questions that need to be researched. Science is a self correcting process, when more info is obtained that changes a variable in a theory the theory changes with it giving us better understanding. There is no contradictions just certain things that we found out were wrong and then fixed them. Einstein did that with Newtons Theory and now we know more about gravity but not everything.
@chevroletgt Yeah, but there are indications that people are publishing too early without properly and comprehensively researching the subject they are publishing on. I refer, as one example, to the fact the AMA recently had to remove their approval of certain new stents and devices for the heart when it was discovered that the studies that had tested those devices were in some cases under a hundred subjects
@auryc7 well shit happens and we aren't perfect. Sometimes greed can be an issue when it comes to publishing things. Still would you rather base your medical technologies on bronze age knowledge or the latest research? Science makes mistakes and fixes them. Sometimes the mistakes aren't so obviouse but they are found and corrected.
@chevroletgt Depends on the research...and the quality. I am a great believer in science, but it seems every few years the scientific community has yet ANOTHER scandal where some scientists are not doing proper research or are deliberately screwing with the results. That makes ALL scientists look bad, but nothing ever seems to get done to the people that give science a bad name.
@auryc7 That goes for both sides, but I have seen more protests about scientists who don't follow the peer review process than I hear about religious people protesting other religious people who give all religious people a bad appearance. While I don't like or agree with religion I still think the "modern" religious people should speak out against extremist sects of religion and same goes for any type of group that can be generalized into a catagory.
@chevroletgt Well, if you DO hear religious people protesting against extremists, it comes across as profiling or stereotyping. Let's face it, there aren't many (if any) terrorist Budhhists or even terrorist Christians. For the most part, their religions don't work that way. But focusing on muslims would be profiling....never mind that they are being terrorists BECAUSE of their religion.......
@verzen How do you consider that terrorism? Considering the mindfucks (pardon the language) that the government throws our way, most of the things I've heard from the Christians are downright mundane. Speaking of the scientists....it occurs to me that those particular scientists have a fair amount of political power...how does the rest of the scientific community police that?
@auryc7 okay, I'm an atheist asking: so the country with the most Muslims by population is Indonesia, do you profile southeast Asians because they might be Muslim, how do you know a person from India is a Muslim or not? or okay you say the majority of terrorists are middle eastern, Arab even, do you profile all middle easterners? how do you know they are not Christians or Jews or other religion, you don't, you are profiling by look, not religion.
@Lily2U1515 Actually, it is simpler than that. You don't have to guess religion for the most part. Due to muslim religious practices, there are plenty of physical signs to look for to tell if a foreigner is a practicing muslim. Also, most, if not all of the terrorists have fit a pretty narrow profile. Any compentant risk assessment would let the vast majority of people (innocent muslims included) to get on their way, since very few of them would meet the profile as a probable terrorist.
@auryc7 really? and what are these signs, do you think the supposed 9-11 bombers were wearing clothing that made them look "Muslim", some Muslims wear traditional clothing, some don't, some men grow beards, some don't. what are these outward signs of muslim religion that are so across the board that you have innate ability to see?
@Lily2U1515 Ever see the 'muslim shuffle'? It's common to most muslims, especially in traditionalist countries (like Iraq and Iran, for example) Also, pretty much every terrorist has been within a certain age range and they do not, for example travel with their FAMILIES. A good profile would be single, practicing muslims, with no dependents or family, may show signs of growing up in middle east, travelling solo (or grouped with others like him) with little luggage, maybe one way.
@auryc7 Dude, really? i have had friends who are Persian, and they sure don't shuffle. i ask you again how would you define the outward appearance of in your words " a practicing Muslim" , or "show signs of having grown up in the Middle East" ,get right down to it please.
@Lily2U1515 Did your persian friends grow up in the Middle East as muslims? Have you read up on the appearances or mannerisms of MOST of the recent terrorists? Have you read ANY analysis of ANY of the attacks? The 911 terrorists specifically trained to erase the habitual signs of their upbringing and religion, the mannerisms middle eastern muslims commonly have. ALL of the recent terrorist attacks were extremist muslims.
@auryc7 Again, I quote you "Have you read up on the appearances or mannerisms of MOST of the recent terrorists?" and then I ask you, and by your statement you imply that you have read about these appearances or mannerisms, could you specifically name these "appearances or mannerisms?" Would you please be more specific with the information I know you intend to share?
@Lily2U1515 And what sort of information is that? You cannot tell a practicing muslim by skin color, though it's true most of the terrorists have been middle eastern. You seem to be digging for me to say something specific. You seem to miss that I've already given you a decent number of risk factors, including age, marital status, cultural clues, physical clues (travelling one way or with no luggage)...even clues like who they're travelling with, or in some cases clothing and facial hair..
You're wrong. Scientists found to be dishonest get blackballed from the scientific community. They lose grant money for research and it is almost impossible for them to find a job.
@verzen Really? I'd like to think so, but the UN's CRU was accused of ethical violations (tampering with the peer review process), Data falsification (the math behind the famous 'hockeystick' graph shows a hockey stick REGARDLESS of the data entered) and Data Manipulation (excluding temperature data that didn't agree with what they are trying to prove). I have attempted to see both sides of the issue, but the charges seem legit to me. Are those scientists being blackballed?
@verzen Right! See auryc7 thats what I was talking about when I said the scientific process checks itself. If you are found to produce fraudulent results you get the whole scientific community against you and then you have not credibility. In other words if you get caught lying your career is done and nobody will trust you anymore. In religion if you lie you can just pray and all is forgiven, you kill someone and you can be forgive but if you don't believe your dead. hmmmm
@ueks69 opresses humanity? the only reason religion oppresses humanity is when people misunderstand it and try to search for scientifical proof for it and fight over the SCIENTIFICAL proof of it. so as always it goes back to the constant search for power that science has provided. lies? such as what? how can somehting that cant be proven or disproven be a lie? "science is progress" war and weapons have made a lot of progress oh yea i definitely agree with you on tht.
@ueks69 oh and i forgot to thank scientists for making crack, heroine, and psychosis affecting drugs. also isnt it an accepted fact tht physicist believe they know nothing about the world? so wheres all this knowledge at?
@ueks69 Yeah,lets see this life saving science at work ,the common cold is the most common infection ever or will be,yet the truth is scientific medicine can not remove any cause only symptoms.It mainly depends on individual strength to get over most sickness or infection.Truth is also commonly known as good so why the contradiction in one sentence you undermine yourself.Maybe you should be careful in your quest to prove your an ape you have become a fool.
@clawedification The common cold is not one disease but about 3000 diferent if im not misstaken. The cold itself does not need medication because our body can handle it so why do research on a disease we can handle on our own?
@Sprattelkungen Well,lets look at the facts.The aids virus kills by things like the common cold.I wonder why it would be good to cure it?Oh I see its good to cure because it kills sick people.Do you contend that someone with aids is lesser than you?Think about how many people died because of the common cold Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds.Still dont see why a cure is useful?
"Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds.Still dont see why a cure is useful?"
Do you not understand why we need a new flu vaccine every year?
"The aids virus kills by things like the common cold"
No. AIDS wrecks the immune system, allowing any one of a million diseases or viruses to kill the patient. Alleviating AIDS is much, much more effective than battling rhinovirus.
"Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds."
No, they were mostly wiped out by Europeans (mostly self-proclaimed Christians, I might add) shooting them and forcing them off their lands. Disease merely finished off their culture by reducing their numbers severely after the wars.
"the truth is scientific medicine can not remove any cause only symptoms."
Pretending that antibiotics don't exist isn't an argument. Your entire spiel is an argument from ignorance that will end up with you killing a loved one by refusing treatment.
@clawedification No AIDS kills by knocking out the defenses our body has. A cold or what ever virus or bacteria you have kills you because your body cant defend itself from it. HIV/AIDS is today in the development world not a deathsentence but a life long disease sentence. Native indians did not die of common colds but of smallpox and measels that europeans brought with them. Europeans were immune to the diseases, native indians were not.
@Sprattelkungen If you read my comment you will see that you only repeated what i said.I know its the aids that kills but the common cold is the cause of infection.If you could cure the cold you would pro long the life of the patient,but science cant even tell us how to begin.Mainly because of inner turbulence no one stays on what really matters.Diet pills with fatty discharge,pills to get wood,pills to feel good about reality,pills to rid headaches.All only releave symptoms not causes.
@clawedification No i did not repeat what you said. AIDS is never the cause for a death, in almost all AIDS cases its pneumonia that ends upp killing the patient with AIDS because the body itself cant battle the disease when its weakened from the AIDS. Im having a bit of a hard time understanding what you talk about. What you say is that all medecine treats symptoms of a disease and never a disease am i correct?
The primary reason over-the-counter medicine commonly treats symptoms is that the human body is perfectly capable of handling most influenza viruses and rhinoviruses. However, the methods of dealing with them include the body increasing its own temperature to kill the virus, increasing mucus flow to capture infected cells, and vomited to expel infected cells. While these battle the virus effectively, they also suck for most people.
@clawedification ok your not making any sense. "science can even tell us how to begin." an religion can? your expecting god to hand you the cure to the cold? your not proving anything except your defending religion by attacking science.
@clawedification AIDS is called Aquired IMMUNE Deficiency Syndrome for a reason. It destroys the immune system thus allowing other viruses and bacteria to kill the patient.
@atheistram I know what it is. I am stating the fact that you or any one else in the so called quest for truth can not cure it. In this I show you and all the other atheist that you cant even cure the most common of simple infections,so what makes you think you are so right about origins? It seems pretty obvious to even a simple man ,over thinking an already flawed and ridiculous idea is not what i call truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Francisco Ayala says, that the eye came about through evolution, yet he didn't quite give us the detail we need. How exactly did the Trilobite eye come about?? His explanation on the relationship of eyes between different organisms was utterly worthy an award for the most lackluster and logical explanation ever. I don't understand how he teaches at Urvine. Now that is a miracle!!!
Who is this rhetorical "we" of yours? First of all, to suggest that Ayala didn't give appropriate detail is a lie. Second, to suggest that the validity of a tenet of evolution comes down to the work of a single man in any case is a lie. Third, to single out Ayala makes no sense in terms of scientific relevance, and the only reason you have done so is because a website made the point and you're repeating it. You don't actually know who the man is or what he does, or how he does it.
Big bang -> lots of dust -> dust clumps together due to gravity -> dust forms planets and stars as the chemicals, the dust, reacts with each other -> entire galaxies and solar systems are made -> Earth is right distance/angle in relation to our sun -> chemicals on Earth react to form life-sustaining atmosphere -> more chemicals react and life forms (abiogenesis) -> life evolves to become more suitable for the environment due to the gradual process of evolution.
Great Story!!! I really will believe you now! Lifeless dust and chemicals created the magnificent beauty around us, including giving us a sense of morality. You are a pagan, so keep your pagan stories to yourself, or preach to a child. People should believe in what they want to, but your story requires tremendous faith.
"Magnificent beauty" is not an objective statement i.e. it's simply how you perceive it to be. Things which resemble our image, things that look healthy, places that look like "a nice place to live", things that are symmetrical; tend to be seen as beautiful. It's all about how our brains react to things.
It's funny how you call it beautiful yet still wish for an "after-life", a "heaven".
We needed rules to maintain communities and this may have evolved into morality.
Every fossil and every living organism is a transitional form.
If an organism happens to be very well adapted to a fixed environment, it isnt going to change very much. That wouldn't stop breakaway populations from migrating and adapting into an entirely new species though.
Every fossil of every living organism and extinct organism is a complete organism, not an intermediary. Please read Origin of the Species to learn the definition. I am not being condescending, but it sounds like there is a confusion on what "intermediate" fossil means.
The prediction of finding a half fish, half amphibian in the northern regions of canada and then finding Tiktaalik... a beautiful snapshot of fish to amphibian evolution. How did they fake that O Wise One
Alright, you may think that your found pattern is predicted by evolutionary theory. And yes, it does.
I've tried showing that evoluton thesis also predicts ancestor species to be extant. Reason for this is the fact that we find fossils over periods of millions of years of species and unchanged. I don't think it's likely for all ancestor species to have evolved or all gone extinct.
Anyways, there's really no need for any thesis to form a nested order.
Same is with birds. None of the pre-bird species produced other branches?
Same with spiders. No pre-spider branches.
No pre-whale animals with half legs.
One thing is for sure. Hierarchy clearly shows that evolution did not happen. Evolutionary thesis would predict many, many more sub-branches of the slightly modifying evolution process. We hardly find any.
Where are the pre-snake species with legs getting smaller and smaller, having survived for so long for slowly changing. Nowhere tobe found
« None of the pre-bird species produced other branches? »
Yes they did. And again you base an objection on the simple fact that YOU did not bother to find out what is known about the hierarchy of life as evident from the fossil record.
Jeeeeezus Fucking H. Christ on a stick, dude! We have WAREHOUSES full of them! Did you even bother to look ANYTHING up before you started ranting, or did you just think "hey, it's not in the bible, so there'll be no evidence, QED". You bloody fucking ignorant wanker, really, they should lock people like you up for their own good!
I never said you have to be smart or stron to survive. But humans did evolve - as you claim - by small modifications of mutations. Show me then, with your whole warehouses available to you. Where are the spin off relatives of apes, branched in the process of becomig fully ape? Name them or go play with your darwin wanna be scientist fan club.
Where are the pre-bird spin offs? Of course you will say that all spin offs got extinct and all we find is bones of one single pre-bird. Lame!Bad theory!
« Where are the spin off relatives of apes, branched in the process of becomig fully ape? »
O, good gods. Okay. But this is the last time I'll provide you with any clues. You have internet. Use it.
wiki/Primates#Classification lists the clades within the order of primates, including the family of Hominoidea, the apes, of which the human race is part. In wiki/List_of_fossil_primates you can find a list of various representatives of this clade that went extinct.
Now look at your wiki hierarchy. You see treeshrews, connected to culogus, so some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow? Then it is connected to an extinct species that connects to primates. Now after all those hard times developing gliding, some species decided to get rid of them?
You can classify all you want, but the order of nesting your evolution proces makes no sence.
It's based on genetic information, but is totally illogic to have evolved that way.
Look, Flip, you can look anywhere you want, but as soon as you interpret the phrase
"research on primates, colugos, and treeshrews has shown that the two species of colugos are more closely related to the primates than the treeshrews"
to imply that "some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow" you either have a reading disability, or you're simply a moron.
Who says I was interpreting that phrase? I was not. Look at wiki's hierarchy, which shows colugos as a spin off of treeshew ancestors and primates as a spin off of colugos ancestors. Of course you'd say all those ancestor species evolved some high tech skills or got extinct to make all fit. And that those ancestors were not colugos yet an neither primates.
What ever unproven concept you invent to make all fit your thesis and present it as evidence.Silly! But go ahead and create your fairy tales
« all those ancestor species evolved some high tech skills »
They already had "high tech skills" themselves, or they would not have survived upto that point. You may think flaps of skin are remarkable, or exceptional, but they are no more so than the whiskers on the snout of many carnivores: they're simply adaptations to a particular niche.
Nice vid. He is very generous when he says IDers make 'erroneous claims' -> the ones creating the claims are outright, bald faced liars. Those who follow them are just ignorant. In the end, the only two arguments for creationism are either ignorance or dishonesty.
HeatherSpoonheim 1 month ago
Of course there are gaps in fossil records. Fossils are so hard to form, only under ideal conditions. What do cretards expect?? Jeez
Casshyr 2 months ago
I don't understand why cretards get so worked up about gaps in the fossil record. Even if there weren't plenty of transitional fossils (which there are), what do they think happened during those gaps? Do they think that new species are created over time in sequence by magic?
chrisofnottingham 4 months ago
Speaking as someone who believed evolution, I want to say God is real ,your standing on the outside and can't see in. I was there too. If you want to know truth you have to read the Word and be diligent you will receive the Holy Spirit and witness the true power of God. Do you think billions of people are crazy?Experiencing God is not just a choice make one day. You don't believe it because the whole experience is closed to you. The only door is Christ. Use the door.
chestveeg 5 months ago
@chestveeg What does evolution has to do with your belief in god ? I think you never actually knew what evolution was.
Ad populum means that basically no matter how many people believe in something, it doesn't make it right. Also, nice build up of a false dilemma. Why would the only solutions would either be those people being insane or god existing.
Finally, we don't want personal experiences because our senses can be fooled easily. Try finding scientific evidence.
ivanlagrossemoule 5 months ago
Evolution is all gaps because it does not even almost happen.
You are lost in your own fantasy that you believe.
You cannot use design as evidence of no design.
The ordered functions of most of the most common elements require having a Maker. The design of the functions, the making of the functions and the ordering of the functions all require a Maker.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
It has nothing to do with "complexity" it has to do with very simple functions that do not exist without having a Maker.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon What exactly is your claim? Is it that complexity in organisms couldn't exist without a maker? Please take off your theological glasses and listen to what well-studied, well-disciplined, and thoughtful people have found out through 150 years of grueling research and labor. Evolution is real. We observe it daily in microorganisms. The same adaptive mechanisms (mutations) exist in us and, after billions of years, have caused us to be as complex as we are.
bencamp18 5 months ago
@bencamp18 I just said that it has nothing to do with "complexity" and you are asking me if it has to do with complexity.
No, there is nothing "real" about evolution. It is all a fraud. The uniform variations are from the genome itself and limited by the limited information that the genome has.
Even the Bible mentions a man that turned into an animal. That does not disprove Creation and it certainly does not prove evolution.
Ordered functions inside of us prove we have a Maker.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
all religious people are idiots. fact.
iSmkoeBluntsToMyFace 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
the only reason i see anybody i know claiming to be a christian, is because their parents made them christian. my parents tried to make me a christian, and i love them for that, but they obviously got the message that i didn't believe anything i was told in church and stopped making me go.
zc630 7 months ago
Comment removed
zc630 7 months ago
Yeah its feels really good when its the truth.1)You are mistaken i have never really even been sick to the point where i cant function,(gotta give it to God he sure knows what we should eat and live like to make healthy .The bible is full of this kind of knowledge.2)Are you trying to say I appeal to authority to get rid of something that occurs naturally? (cosmic joke)this is used to help you understand your own beliefs.Most of you dont even know what you believe.
clawedification 7 months ago
Yeah, go ahead and rethink that hole inferior human eye statement.Firstly the octopus has an eye made for the water,that is why the blood vessel is in the way in our human eye it is so we dont become blind by the uv light,the water can filter the light hence the octopus has a different eye.This is not a good argument as it is debunked.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification
The "eye" argument is still valid because species like falcons and owls have better eyesight and live in similar environmental conditions as humans. Also, birds can actually SEE in UV; it's not an automatically damaging wavelength.
"It mainly depends on individual strength to get over most sickness or infection."
Have fun getting jail time for homicide when you kill your kids by refusing treatment.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew Well lets see what an eagle really sees,ok now that you know our eyes see things in color and without restriction you can move on.Ha Ha that's funny considering i am exempt by law and who said i wouldn't take care of my kids?My 13 year old never been to the doctor or even been sick to the point of worry.Science is making more symptoms than it cures I for one dont enjoy fatty discharge without warning ,suicidal thoughts ,headaches,drowsiness and many other side effects =worse off
clawedification 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clawedification
"Well lets see what an eagle really sees,ok now that you know our eyes see things in color and without restriction you can move on."
Is this English?
"My 13 year old never been to the doctor or even been sick to the point of worry."
Lying isn't an argument.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification you have a 13 year old thats never been to the doctor? whats it like in the bronze age?
MrKGatl 7 months ago
I wouldnt put it that way, since he is the smartest and by far the most athletic in his age group at school.The drugs are not a necessity,why do you think they are addictive? Why would you commit your life to an expert that cant even understand we are a creation not a cosmic joke.Look at what they are saying about our structure such as the eye for example,sure an atheist/evolutionist would argue that it is a poor design well i dont see the experts doing any better.What is the bases of comparison
clawedification 7 months ago
@clawedification Thats what every parent says about their kids. Religion is the cosmic joke. I bet when you get cancer you will be begging the experts to help you.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@clawedification If and when your kid gets cancer, you'll be singing an entirely different tune. What are you gonna do, pray the symptoms away?? :D
atheistram 6 months ago
For an intelligent man, Ayala is certainly being disingenuous or is, at least, out of touch with current debate. No, we cannot reconstruct the Last Common Ancestor; no, we cannot build a clear tree of life. Progress in the understanding of DNA has only brought new difficulties to the effort to construct it.
Ayala must know these things. He has no excuse for not knowing these things.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is important to understand that their is a BIG, BIG difference between science and religious belief systems. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are things you believe in. You don't believe in science. Instead, you use it to solve problems just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Science and religious belief systems are completely unrelated and unfit for comparison.
blaisingm 10 months ago
So the creationist want our children to be exposed to "controversies".
OK then, we can teach them sexual education in schools -they are mature enough to know what to do. We can teach Marxism too; after all, the Chinese are marxists and children will need to understand what make the chinese tick.
All4reason 10 months ago
His illustration of the different eyes in the animal kingdom is excellent showing the difference between design v. evolved.
We humans DESIGN things like computer software of cars; when a design flaw is discovered ALL computers running that software are affected, or thousands of cars have to be recalled.
By contrast, no disease has been able to kill all of mankind; some survive even after being infected. The little differences introduced by way of evolution make that possible
All4reason 10 months ago
@leifey ...And one more thing. Despite there being more atheists in the world, the last six major wars we've had have been more destructive than most of the past millennium. Obviously, there's something more to it than just "Religion caused it". 3) It depends who was in charge, like any sort of governance. Islam was a major power in the fields of science and mathematics. Saying religion in general is against science is counter intuitive, as they have nothing to do with each other.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy The destructiveness of war has more to do with technological advances in weaponry than theism/atheism. And religion may not be against all science, but it definitely is an obstacle. Trying to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or blocking stem cell research or claiming that the earth is 6000 years old are clear examples of religions working against science.
leifey 1 year ago
I always welcome balanced common sense, thank goodness for people that don't dump the responsibility for thinking for themselves onto the shoulders of a self made deity.
russpaxman 1 year ago
I always welcome balanced common sense, thank goodness for people that don't dump the responsibility for thinking for themselves onto the shoulders of a fictitious deity.
russpaxman 1 year ago
this guy knows the score
MarcusMeridius 1 year ago
TO CONSTRUCT AN EYEBALL BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED TO SEE , IS TOO FANTASTIC FOR A LIFE FORM , AND REPLICATING THE SAME OR SIMILAR ON OTHER SPECIES , WAS THERE A WANT TO SEE EXPLOSION? AND THE ONES THAT GOT TO SEE FIRST, SURVIVED , I'M SORRY BUT WHEN I DO THE MATH ,. I . E THE POUCH ON THE KANGAROO , I VOTE FOR SOME KIND ORGANIZED PLAN LEADING TO A FUTURE , BUT MAN IS STILL THE SAME CREATURE , NOT EVOLVING AT ALL SINCE HIS INCEPTION . GIANFRANCO FRONZI / NOV / 24/2010
9493760 1 year ago
there we have it evoluition can't accept God because science is smarter than god,
God your fired get out of here......LOL people who are not fed the huge amounts of growth hormones that western cultures are given, have few problems with lack of space for wisdom teeth.
who gave us growth hormones ummm science.
evolution faith based science.
TheKorban 1 year ago
SLAM!!!
freethinker923 1 year ago
"we can now look at any area of evolutionary history and we can understand it with as much detail as we wish. the methods of molecular biology are so powerful and so quantitative and also so redundant that we can study anything that we want with as much detail as we want."
these are the words that finish off the idiotic creationist claims about any "gaps" ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Meskiagkasher 1 year ago
the terms 'transitional forms' and "species" defined in their original forms are somewhat misleading. It can bee said that we currently are transitional forms, because all organisms are constantly transitioning. Species just means reproductive isolation from other organisms (simply put at least). Without geographical, or other types of barriers to isolate populations from each other, the chances of speciation is slim. @Oreceo
levwilmot 1 year ago
0:00 - 1:47...... WHAT?! you dont have the fossils from before the Cambrian explosion and you say so what? What ever happened to science PROVING what they say and showing how it happened...... thats like saying the moon is mad of cheese.... I have no cheese from the moon but, from my telescope I can see pits in the moons surface so it must be cheese....... give me a break....
ironspring 1 year ago
Fossil creation is hard, the circumstances have to be right, furthermore there are some organisms, namely flatworms, which we don't have ANY fossils for and probably never will because they are soft body creatures. What would truly be amazing and would definitely count against evolution, would be the discovery of rabbit fossils in a strata before it could have evolved or any anachronistic fossils for that matter.
levwilmot 1 year ago
@levwilmot so then how do you explain fossils of trees that push through several layers of the evolutionary lines?
ironspring 1 year ago
@ironspring Science continues to look for the answers rather than settling for the wrong ones.
MrThunderbeast 1 year ago
So that's why my teeth are crooked.
prschuster 1 year ago
@Oreceo,
I said that, but you misunderstood it. I wasn't saying that transitional species are created through different species interbreeding.
I was saying that I thought a transitional form was a species that carried characteristics of the past species it evolved from, and the future species it would yet evolve into.
noodles321321 2 years ago
@Oreceo,
MicroHive didn't say that either. He just said that transitional forms have gotten sets of chromosomes from each of their parents. He never even implied that, say, ducks and crocodiles mate to create transitional forms.
If you actually read his comments, he gives a rather eloquent explanation for micro evolution to macro evolution, and explaining the scientific term 'transitional form'.
noodles321321 2 years ago
@Oreceo,
What the hell are you talking about? I never claimed that evolution worked by hybridization.
noodles321321 2 years ago
Note I am not a creationist before I say this.
It is simply false to say that every species is a transitional form, for the simple reason that some species die out without ever evolving into something else.
noodles321321 2 years ago
@noodles321321 that is incorrect. Because that transitional being has gotten two sets of chromosomes from both of its parents, meaning that its DNA is a combination of two creatures, and thus its DNA is not 100% alike any of its parents making it different(99% the same but not 100%).
Now, if you continue to do this over lets say a million generations and include micro evolution, which eventually become macro evolution in the long therm, you get different beings in shape and functionality.
MicroHive 2 years ago
@MicroHive,
I think you missed the point of my argument. I mean that some species are wiped out by natural selection (or natural disasters, or people) before they get the chance to evolve into something else, not that the potential to evolve isn't there.
Every species COULD be a transitional form, but not all species are.
noodles321321 2 years ago
@noodles321321 all generations are still transitions since they've transitioned from a parent and are slightly changed. And even though they die and become instinct they're still transitional forms.
Sometimes you get such cases as people being 2-3 meters tall and some dwarf scale. They're transitional forms even though they don't continue their specific strain of DNA.
It would seem as if your definition of transitional form is that it has to have some signs of macro evolution to count as trans
MicroHive 2 years ago
@MicroHive,
Surely a transitional form is a species that lies between two other species, and carries characteristics of both? That's how I've always heard the term used.
And...wha? Dwarfs are transitional species?
noodles321321 2 years ago
@noodles321321 the term transitional forms can indicate anything between micro to macro evolution which includes generations in species and the transitional form between two species. That is what the scientific community use the term for but it's more often referred to macro evolution as in links between species.
What I was trying to explain using the dwarf example was to show that no matter how small or big the difference is between parents and the child it's still a transitional form.
MicroHive 2 years ago
damn I hate the character limitation...
MicroHive 2 years ago
@MicroHive,
Ah...okay, I get you. Thanks for correcting me.
noodles321321 2 years ago
@noodles321321
i think your getting terms a little confused.
every species is a transitional form but what your talking about sounds more like an intermediate form.
eg.
Tiktaalik = Fish to land tetrapod transitional
Archeopteryx + Microrapter = Dinosaur to bird transition
Ambulocetus = Land mammal to water mammal
types10000 2 years ago
@types10000,
Ah, that makes sense. Thank-you.
noodles321321 2 years ago
Intellectualsword = ignorant hari kari
FFFUUUCCCKKKEEEDDD 2 years ago
I think he explains it pretty well actually... I think that's one of the confusing parts, but its worth bearing in mind complexity is coming gradually - the only features we have are usually progressive features, not immediately functional as is.
ChrisCrockerTime 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As we still have no dating methods for fossils or rocks we cannot track anything backwards. We simply fossils in rocks where they died and thats all. We know these creatures used to be alive and are now dead, thats it.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Of course there are methods to date rocks and subsequently fossils (which is just fossilized organic material, i.e. replaced my minerals = rock).
Maybe you should use a search engine to look up "radioactive decay" and means of "radiometric dating" before you spill your ignorance into the internet.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago 17
we have dating methods for fossils
uberownagemonkey 2 years ago
Yeah and dinosaurs walked the earth alonside man didnt they
FFFUUUCCCKKKEEEDDD 2 years ago
I'm guessing the internet is going to be the nail that finally shuts the coffin on religion in the next few decades. That, and the change in public attitudes towards it (which I think we can thank Bushwhack for) will make it less attractive to the next generation of kids and it will lose the critical mass that still lends some credibility to the industry. Once that's gone it will just be an ugly reminder of a past that we're only too anxious to eventually forget about entirely.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The internet is going to expose the lie of evolution. Just as the germans were brainwashed with Nazism, so goes with Evolution. The internet is the sword to the Truth. You will know this soon.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
At the point of a sword no doubt. But I don't worry about it. Were it not for the indoctrination of kid's I'd be your biggest supporter. I see religion as a voluntary tax on morally indolent and scientifically illiterate people. Who would be against that?
As far as I'm concerned you're doing the best you can and I am genuinely grateful that we have evolved an industry that attracts and mostly disarms you folks. We've got to work out some kinks that seem to induce some to go ballistic is all.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
lol ur an idiot
uberownagemonkey 2 years ago
i am not sure whether you are just ignorant, or completely retarded.
superwowie111 2 years ago
i think we had already a new alternative theory for TOE..
read..
w3 interrelation-theory com
et00et 2 years ago
To; iintellectualsword'.
Instead of posting verses from the Quran you could have quoted verses from any one of HUNDREDS of 'holy' texts, but to what effect? The SAME science that led us to eradicate smallpox, to learn of gravity and motion, to understand earthquakes, and to make the keyboard on which I now type, also revealed evolution to us. Why don't you fight against the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift? Campaign against meteorology! They're equally 'evil'!
derek24hudson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are freakin retarded shitbrain. It doesn't logically follow that one who believes in God, denies science. Was Newton not a scientist? Check your shitbrain logic before you post nonsense, Godless Freak!
intellectualsword 2 years ago
carefull now, someday on of us shitbrained godless freaks, may have to save your fundie life, or do you prefer praying over medicine.
Science is progress, you cannot nitpick it. It is not evil nor good, it is the search for knowdledge and truth.
Religion is backward and stagnant, opresses humanity, and lies all the time.
ueks69 2 years ago 34
At the end of the roman times, it was the deists who saved all the knowledge, knowledge that helped create the renaissance era in the 16th century. Without the church, we would easily be 100+ years behind the times. Imagine if no one after the romans knew mathematics, or even how to read and write. Saying that all religion is backwards is very deceptive.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Hmm thats not 100% true. Just because a group of religious people have done something beneficial doesn't mean their religion is neccessarily valid. It simply means that they did something beneficial as a result of the religion, but it doesn't justify or compensate for the religion itself.
Religion has helped in the past during the early stages of civilization, but now it is holding back confirmed theories and ideas simply because these facts go against what they have been taught.
BlissByIgnorance 1 year ago
@BlissByIgnorance I'm not debating whether Christianity is right, I was talking to all those people who say all religion has done is start wars. They've done more than start wars and molest children and those beneficial points always seem to be overlooked.
Debating whether we should have religion or if their is a God is a fight I try and avoid because all it leads to is one 50 post flame war that follows you around.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But for a good person to do bad things, it takes religion (or something like it).
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey
"But for good people to do bad things? That takes religion."
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen I added the "something like it" because sometimes all it takes is fanatical devotion for people to do bad things. Nazism or the regime under Stalin are great examples, as would be the Cultural Revolution in China. The best way to make good people do bad things is fanaticism and religion is one of the best ways to curry it.
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey And a bad person to do good things requires....Scientology? Atheism?
Good people can be brainwashed by almost anything. Government, Nationalism, Ignorance, Intolerance. The worst one is intolerance. I hate the atheists who are so afraid of the possibility of god they will attack people to change their faith.
(Not all church going grannies are crazy, brainwashed suicide bombers)
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy I never implied as much.
And that is why I added the "or something like it." It's not the faith that makes people do crazy things. It's the ridiculous lengths to which people are willing to go in the name of their faith. Zealotry is a big reason good people do bad things, and religion evokes it in ways few other things can.
And atheists aren't afraid of something they don't believe in. They just want people to believe things for good reasons (evidence).
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey Atheists don't fear god. They fear the idea of god and religion. They seem to pop up in religious videos to tell everyone there that they are idiots and bigots just because of their beliefs.
Also, faith has nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with faith. It's best to stop using science to fight other peoples beliefs. You don't need evidence for your beliefs and as for god, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Atheists aren't necessarily afraid of anything. They simply don't believe. And if they pop up to call people idiots, it's pretty much the same as when creationists do it to nonbelievers.
You might not need evidence for your beliefs, but I do, and that's why I'm an atheist. And you're right, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but you don't need to prove something isn't real to not believe. You have to prove it exists in order to believe. Burdens of proof.
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey You have to prove it exists in order to believe? Belief does not require proof, that's what makes it a belief. And if athiests "just don't believe", why do they attack people (verbally, of coarse) who do believe?
The thing about my beliefs are, they're "MY" beliefs, therefor you don't need to gather any proof about MY beliefs. (And this is why I don't like discussing religion, it always turns into a Atheism vs Monotheism argument).
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Like I said, you might not have such a high standard for your beliefs, but I generally try to verify that what I believe is actually true. That's why I expect evidence. You have every right to believe, but I hold myself to higher standards.
And I don't see how my lack of belief discounts my right to criticize people who hold certain beliefs. I have issues with their beliefs and the effects they have on society; why shouldn't I vocalize them?
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey Affect on society? Higher standards? Here we go again. Which issues specifically.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Affects on society: religion inherently separate people, creating conflict and violence between factions. It also hampers scientific progress and suppresses people's rights by imposing itself on others. Is this enough examples?
My higher standards mean that I don't accept something to be true unless I have evidence that supports that conclusion. Religious claims do not meet that standard, thus I don't believe. Do I really need to list specifics?
And you didn't answer my question.
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey Right. 1) Religion, even from a scientific point of view, is about bringing people together. That's how it started off, kind of like a community within a community. 2) Religion creates violence, true. Limited resources creates violence. So does marriage, land claims, disparity, ignorance, unemployment, large male populations, large growth rates, depressions, ethnic tensions, border disputes, trade tariffs and embargoes. And I haven't even mentioned what causes civil wars.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy 1) Religions may want to bring people together, but there are many religions that compete for that goal, which results in division. As for your list, I don't know why you're bringing up all those topics. We're talking about religion, and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Yes, they cause violence, but how does that make religion any less culpable?
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey 4) Atheism can impose itself on others just as well. A religion doesn't all of a sudden gain special insight into how to throw itself onto other people. People manage to do that by themselves, no matter what it is their trying to force. Scientific theories, economic policy, forms of government, culture, acceptable behavior, etc.
5) You cannot counter a belief or faith with science no more than I can argue about abiogenesis with the bible.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy Atheism can certainly be imposed, but not in this country. Your right to believe is protected by the government.
As for belief vs. science, of course you can counter beliefs with science. People used to believe that everything was composed of four elements. Science proved that that belief was wrong.
leifey 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy By believing something that has no evidence of existing, gods/unicorns/goblins/whatever and thereby claiming that things like evolution are false, you are holding mankind back with your deluded ideas.
I'm not sure what your PoV is, i'm just expressing what my problem with religious people is. People telling their children not to believe evolution and believe in creationism, noah'sark and the world being 6k years old disgust me.
joe80dmanizanerd 11 months ago
@BlissByIgnorance
Here's a pretty good analogy similar to what you said.
when it is dark, a blind man is a good person to help people navigate along a road. However, when the sun has risen, a blind man is often the very worst person to ask for guidance and navigation.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 If that is what you managed to pick up, then you have seriously misinterpreted what I said.
BlissByIgnorance 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy hahahahaha, and if it wasn't for christianity we wouldn't have had nearly 800 years of stagnation in the dark ages.
TheScyy 1 year ago
@TheScyy um, the dark ages was only 500 years and that was because 1000 years of science and culture was practically destroyed overnight by the Goths and Visigoths. Nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity didn't gain power until DURING the dark ages, with Charlemagne.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@ueks69 Yes science is progress and a search for knowledge but religion doesn't want knowledge or truth that is evident in the story of Adam and Eve. God didn't want them to eat of the fruit of knowledge. Basically religion will only survive if we stay dumb and that is why it is so against science that contradicts scripture.
chevroletgt 1 year ago
@chevroletgt
If God is omnipotent, then he wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree otherwise he wouldn't have created the tree in the first place.
verzen 1 year ago
@chevroletgt I think the whole Adam and Eve eating of the tree thing was about knowledge gained before they were ready for it. Sort of like how you would trust a 14 year old alone at home but not a 4 year old. I like science, because it's good info, but it would be nice if we didn't have to contradict or clarify past scientific inaccuracies so often. There seems to be a lot of papers and discoveries unveiled before the research is complete on them.
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 You can never complete research on any given subject because new discoveries normally opens new questions that need to be researched. Science is a self correcting process, when more info is obtained that changes a variable in a theory the theory changes with it giving us better understanding. There is no contradictions just certain things that we found out were wrong and then fixed them. Einstein did that with Newtons Theory and now we know more about gravity but not everything.
chevroletgt 1 year ago
@chevroletgt Yeah, but there are indications that people are publishing too early without properly and comprehensively researching the subject they are publishing on. I refer, as one example, to the fact the AMA recently had to remove their approval of certain new stents and devices for the heart when it was discovered that the studies that had tested those devices were in some cases under a hundred subjects
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 well shit happens and we aren't perfect. Sometimes greed can be an issue when it comes to publishing things. Still would you rather base your medical technologies on bronze age knowledge or the latest research? Science makes mistakes and fixes them. Sometimes the mistakes aren't so obviouse but they are found and corrected.
chevroletgt 1 year ago
@chevroletgt Depends on the research...and the quality. I am a great believer in science, but it seems every few years the scientific community has yet ANOTHER scandal where some scientists are not doing proper research or are deliberately screwing with the results. That makes ALL scientists look bad, but nothing ever seems to get done to the people that give science a bad name.
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 That goes for both sides, but I have seen more protests about scientists who don't follow the peer review process than I hear about religious people protesting other religious people who give all religious people a bad appearance. While I don't like or agree with religion I still think the "modern" religious people should speak out against extremist sects of religion and same goes for any type of group that can be generalized into a catagory.
chevroletgt 1 year ago
@chevroletgt Well, if you DO hear religious people protesting against extremists, it comes across as profiling or stereotyping. Let's face it, there aren't many (if any) terrorist Budhhists or even terrorist Christians. For the most part, their religions don't work that way. But focusing on muslims would be profiling....never mind that they are being terrorists BECAUSE of their religion.......
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7
There are terrorist christians... Christians just do it a different way though. They mess with your mind rather than physically harming you.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen How do you consider that terrorism? Considering the mindfucks (pardon the language) that the government throws our way, most of the things I've heard from the Christians are downright mundane. Speaking of the scientists....it occurs to me that those particular scientists have a fair amount of political power...how does the rest of the scientific community police that?
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 okay, I'm an atheist asking: so the country with the most Muslims by population is Indonesia, do you profile southeast Asians because they might be Muslim, how do you know a person from India is a Muslim or not? or okay you say the majority of terrorists are middle eastern, Arab even, do you profile all middle easterners? how do you know they are not Christians or Jews or other religion, you don't, you are profiling by look, not religion.
Lily2U1515 1 year ago
@Lily2U1515 Actually, it is simpler than that. You don't have to guess religion for the most part. Due to muslim religious practices, there are plenty of physical signs to look for to tell if a foreigner is a practicing muslim. Also, most, if not all of the terrorists have fit a pretty narrow profile. Any compentant risk assessment would let the vast majority of people (innocent muslims included) to get on their way, since very few of them would meet the profile as a probable terrorist.
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 really? and what are these signs, do you think the supposed 9-11 bombers were wearing clothing that made them look "Muslim", some Muslims wear traditional clothing, some don't, some men grow beards, some don't. what are these outward signs of muslim religion that are so across the board that you have innate ability to see?
Lily2U1515 1 year ago
@Lily2U1515 Ever see the 'muslim shuffle'? It's common to most muslims, especially in traditionalist countries (like Iraq and Iran, for example) Also, pretty much every terrorist has been within a certain age range and they do not, for example travel with their FAMILIES. A good profile would be single, practicing muslims, with no dependents or family, may show signs of growing up in middle east, travelling solo (or grouped with others like him) with little luggage, maybe one way.
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 Dude, really? i have had friends who are Persian, and they sure don't shuffle. i ask you again how would you define the outward appearance of in your words " a practicing Muslim" , or "show signs of having grown up in the Middle East" ,get right down to it please.
Lily2U1515 1 year ago
@Lily2U1515 Did your persian friends grow up in the Middle East as muslims? Have you read up on the appearances or mannerisms of MOST of the recent terrorists? Have you read ANY analysis of ANY of the attacks? The 911 terrorists specifically trained to erase the habitual signs of their upbringing and religion, the mannerisms middle eastern muslims commonly have. ALL of the recent terrorist attacks were extremist muslims.
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7 Again, I quote you "Have you read up on the appearances or mannerisms of MOST of the recent terrorists?" and then I ask you, and by your statement you imply that you have read about these appearances or mannerisms, could you specifically name these "appearances or mannerisms?" Would you please be more specific with the information I know you intend to share?
Lily2U1515 1 year ago
@Lily2U1515 And what sort of information is that? You cannot tell a practicing muslim by skin color, though it's true most of the terrorists have been middle eastern. You seem to be digging for me to say something specific. You seem to miss that I've already given you a decent number of risk factors, including age, marital status, cultural clues, physical clues (travelling one way or with no luggage)...even clues like who they're travelling with, or in some cases clothing and facial hair..
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7
You're wrong. Scientists found to be dishonest get blackballed from the scientific community. They lose grant money for research and it is almost impossible for them to find a job.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen Really? I'd like to think so, but the UN's CRU was accused of ethical violations (tampering with the peer review process), Data falsification (the math behind the famous 'hockeystick' graph shows a hockey stick REGARDLESS of the data entered) and Data Manipulation (excluding temperature data that didn't agree with what they are trying to prove). I have attempted to see both sides of the issue, but the charges seem legit to me. Are those scientists being blackballed?
auryc7 1 year ago
@auryc7
yes. Scientists police their own. Even if they don't get in trouble with the law.. They are in trouble with other scientists.
verzen 1 year ago
@verzen Right! See auryc7 thats what I was talking about when I said the scientific process checks itself. If you are found to produce fraudulent results you get the whole scientific community against you and then you have not credibility. In other words if you get caught lying your career is done and nobody will trust you anymore. In religion if you lie you can just pray and all is forgiven, you kill someone and you can be forgive but if you don't believe your dead. hmmmm
chevroletgt 1 year ago
@ueks69 opresses humanity? the only reason religion oppresses humanity is when people misunderstand it and try to search for scientifical proof for it and fight over the SCIENTIFICAL proof of it. so as always it goes back to the constant search for power that science has provided. lies? such as what? how can somehting that cant be proven or disproven be a lie? "science is progress" war and weapons have made a lot of progress oh yea i definitely agree with you on tht.
thegodofpop1 1 year ago
@ueks69 oh and i forgot to thank scientists for making crack, heroine, and psychosis affecting drugs. also isnt it an accepted fact tht physicist believe they know nothing about the world? so wheres all this knowledge at?
thegodofpop1 1 year ago
@ueks69 wrong. some twisted religious people do this not the religion.
driscollcatholic 11 months ago
@ueks69 Yeah,lets see this life saving science at work ,the common cold is the most common infection ever or will be,yet the truth is scientific medicine can not remove any cause only symptoms.It mainly depends on individual strength to get over most sickness or infection.Truth is also commonly known as good so why the contradiction in one sentence you undermine yourself.Maybe you should be careful in your quest to prove your an ape you have become a fool.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification The common cold is not one disease but about 3000 diferent if im not misstaken. The cold itself does not need medication because our body can handle it so why do research on a disease we can handle on our own?
Sprattelkungen 8 months ago
@Sprattelkungen Well,lets look at the facts.The aids virus kills by things like the common cold.I wonder why it would be good to cure it?Oh I see its good to cure because it kills sick people.Do you contend that someone with aids is lesser than you?Think about how many people died because of the common cold Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds.Still dont see why a cure is useful?
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification
"Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds.Still dont see why a cure is useful?"
Do you not understand why we need a new flu vaccine every year?
"The aids virus kills by things like the common cold"
No. AIDS wrecks the immune system, allowing any one of a million diseases or viruses to kill the patient. Alleviating AIDS is much, much more effective than battling rhinovirus.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification
"Aztecs Incas and other Native American cultures almost wiped out all by common colds."
No, they were mostly wiped out by Europeans (mostly self-proclaimed Christians, I might add) shooting them and forcing them off their lands. Disease merely finished off their culture by reducing their numbers severely after the wars.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification
"the truth is scientific medicine can not remove any cause only symptoms."
Pretending that antibiotics don't exist isn't an argument. Your entire spiel is an argument from ignorance that will end up with you killing a loved one by refusing treatment.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification No AIDS kills by knocking out the defenses our body has. A cold or what ever virus or bacteria you have kills you because your body cant defend itself from it. HIV/AIDS is today in the development world not a deathsentence but a life long disease sentence. Native indians did not die of common colds but of smallpox and measels that europeans brought with them. Europeans were immune to the diseases, native indians were not.
Sprattelkungen 8 months ago
@Sprattelkungen If you read my comment you will see that you only repeated what i said.I know its the aids that kills but the common cold is the cause of infection.If you could cure the cold you would pro long the life of the patient,but science cant even tell us how to begin.Mainly because of inner turbulence no one stays on what really matters.Diet pills with fatty discharge,pills to get wood,pills to feel good about reality,pills to rid headaches.All only releave symptoms not causes.
clawedification 8 months ago
@clawedification No i did not repeat what you said. AIDS is never the cause for a death, in almost all AIDS cases its pneumonia that ends upp killing the patient with AIDS because the body itself cant battle the disease when its weakened from the AIDS. Im having a bit of a hard time understanding what you talk about. What you say is that all medecine treats symptoms of a disease and never a disease am i correct?
Sprattelkungen 8 months ago
@clawedification
Again, you're ignoring all antibiotics for no reason. Doesn't surprise me, given your medieval knowledge of medicine.
"If you could cure the cold you would pro long the life of the patient"
Wrong. There are about a million other diseases that would kill the patient instead; some of which aren't even seen in humans normally.
"Diet pills with fatty discharge,pills to get wood,pills to feel good about reality,pills to rid headaches."
None of those involve disease.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification
The primary reason over-the-counter medicine commonly treats symptoms is that the human body is perfectly capable of handling most influenza viruses and rhinoviruses. However, the methods of dealing with them include the body increasing its own temperature to kill the virus, increasing mucus flow to capture infected cells, and vomited to expel infected cells. While these battle the virus effectively, they also suck for most people.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@clawedification ok your not making any sense. "science can even tell us how to begin." an religion can? your expecting god to hand you the cure to the cold? your not proving anything except your defending religion by attacking science.
zc630 7 months ago
@clawedification AIDS is called Aquired IMMUNE Deficiency Syndrome for a reason. It destroys the immune system thus allowing other viruses and bacteria to kill the patient.
atheistram 6 months ago
@atheistram I know what it is. I am stating the fact that you or any one else in the so called quest for truth can not cure it. In this I show you and all the other atheist that you cant even cure the most common of simple infections,so what makes you think you are so right about origins? It seems pretty obvious to even a simple man ,over thinking an already flawed and ridiculous idea is not what i call truth.
clawedification 5 months ago
@clawedification Really?? We can't cure the simplest of infections?? Someone is not very well versed in medical science and it's not me. :P
atheistram 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Francisco Ayala says, that the eye came about through evolution, yet he didn't quite give us the detail we need. How exactly did the Trilobite eye come about?? His explanation on the relationship of eyes between different organisms was utterly worthy an award for the most lackluster and logical explanation ever. I don't understand how he teaches at Urvine. Now that is a miracle!!!
intellectualsword 2 years ago
type there, "lackluster and illogical"...... that is better.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
I agree. I would indeed describe your rhetoric as "lackluster and illogical". At least you KNOW you're full of shit.
supruzr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quran: Surah 109. Al-Kafirun (The Disbelievers, Atheists)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!
2. I worship not that which ye worship,
3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Who is this rhetorical "we" of yours? First of all, to suggest that Ayala didn't give appropriate detail is a lie. Second, to suggest that the validity of a tenet of evolution comes down to the work of a single man in any case is a lie. Third, to single out Ayala makes no sense in terms of scientific relevance, and the only reason you have done so is because a website made the point and you're repeating it. You don't actually know who the man is or what he does, or how he does it.
supruzr 2 years ago
Big bang -> lots of dust -> dust clumps together due to gravity -> dust forms planets and stars as the chemicals, the dust, reacts with each other -> entire galaxies and solar systems are made -> Earth is right distance/angle in relation to our sun -> chemicals on Earth react to form life-sustaining atmosphere -> more chemicals react and life forms (abiogenesis) -> life evolves to become more suitable for the environment due to the gradual process of evolution.
Physics -> chemistry -> biology.
B94241 2 years ago
Great Story!!! I really will believe you now! Lifeless dust and chemicals created the magnificent beauty around us, including giving us a sense of morality. You are a pagan, so keep your pagan stories to yourself, or preach to a child. People should believe in what they want to, but your story requires tremendous faith.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
"Magnificent beauty" is not an objective statement i.e. it's simply how you perceive it to be. Things which resemble our image, things that look healthy, places that look like "a nice place to live", things that are symmetrical; tend to be seen as beautiful. It's all about how our brains react to things.
It's funny how you call it beautiful yet still wish for an "after-life", a "heaven".
We needed rules to maintain communities and this may have evolved into morality.
I = humanist.
I =/= Pagan.
B94241 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you sir are a moron. Enjoy your Atheistic life.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Ever thought people were being brainwashed by religion? (this actually happened a lot trough history)
kyagh 2 years ago 2
I hope you learned something in these three months.
diomedes39 2 years ago
Pagan ? where do you hail from, medival times ;)
It is called science, but i guess had to goto school to know that.
And you call yourself intellectualsword, more fitting would be mindnumbing stupid.
ueks69 2 years ago
Every fossil and every living organism is a transitional form.
If an organism happens to be very well adapted to a fixed environment, it isnt going to change very much. That wouldn't stop breakaway populations from migrating and adapting into an entirely new species though.
danwarb1 2 years ago 5
Every fossil of every living organism and extinct organism is a complete organism, not an intermediary. Please read Origin of the Species to learn the definition. I am not being condescending, but it sounds like there is a confusion on what "intermediate" fossil means.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
All fossils are intermediate forms.
90% of all species that every lived on the earth are extinct.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The prediction of finding a half fish, half amphibian in the northern regions of canada and then finding Tiktaalik... a beautiful snapshot of fish to amphibian evolution. How did they fake that O Wise One
Commander902 2 years ago
Any other evidence? ERVs, fusion, atavism?
Wan't me to show how evolution scientists have presented it so it look as predicted by evolutionary theory?
Name it, what do you want first?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Alright, you may think that your found pattern is predicted by evolutionary theory. And yes, it does.
I've tried showing that evoluton thesis also predicts ancestor species to be extant. Reason for this is the fact that we find fossils over periods of millions of years of species and unchanged. I don't think it's likely for all ancestor species to have evolved or all gone extinct.
Anyways, there's really no need for any thesis to form a nested order.
But believe what you want to, mate :P
phicomingatya 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All fossils are intermediate forms.
90+% of all species that every lived on the earth are extinct.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
Same is with birds. None of the pre-bird species produced other branches?
Same with spiders. No pre-spider branches.
No pre-whale animals with half legs.
One thing is for sure. Hierarchy clearly shows that evolution did not happen. Evolutionary thesis would predict many, many more sub-branches of the slightly modifying evolution process. We hardly find any.
Where are the pre-snake species with legs getting smaller and smaller, having survived for so long for slowly changing. Nowhere tobe found
phicomingatya 2 years ago
« None of the pre-bird species produced other branches? »
Yes they did. And again you base an objection on the simple fact that YOU did not bother to find out what is known about the hierarchy of life as evident from the fossil record.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« We hardly find any. »
Jeeeeezus Fucking H. Christ on a stick, dude! We have WAREHOUSES full of them! Did you even bother to look ANYTHING up before you started ranting, or did you just think "hey, it's not in the bible, so there'll be no evidence, QED". You bloody fucking ignorant wanker, really, they should lock people like you up for their own good!
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
I never said you have to be smart or stron to survive. But humans did evolve - as you claim - by small modifications of mutations. Show me then, with your whole warehouses available to you. Where are the spin off relatives of apes, branched in the process of becomig fully ape? Name them or go play with your darwin wanna be scientist fan club.
Where are the pre-bird spin offs? Of course you will say that all spin offs got extinct and all we find is bones of one single pre-bird. Lame!Bad theory!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
« Where are the spin off relatives of apes, branched in the process of becomig fully ape? »
O, good gods. Okay. But this is the last time I'll provide you with any clues. You have internet. Use it.
wiki/Primates#Classification lists the clades within the order of primates, including the family of Hominoidea, the apes, of which the human race is part. In wiki/List_of_fossil_primates you can find a list of various representatives of this clade that went extinct.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Now look at your wiki hierarchy. You see treeshrews, connected to culogus, so some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow? Then it is connected to an extinct species that connects to primates. Now after all those hard times developing gliding, some species decided to get rid of them?
You can classify all you want, but the order of nesting your evolution proces makes no sence.
It's based on genetic information, but is totally illogic to have evolved that way.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
« You see treeshrews, connected to culogus, so some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow? »
Good gods... you have a reading disability of some kind, don't you?
Look at the bloody hierarchy under #Classification, you moron!
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
You talk about a nested hierarchy. So by definition, there is more to it above primates.
Who are you to tell me I can't look there, you imbecile!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
« So by definition, there is more to it above primates. »
Of course there is. There's probably a diagram of the complete tree of life to be found somewhere on the internet. Fire up google and go to it!
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Who are you to tell me I can't look there »
Look, Flip, you can look anywhere you want, but as soon as you interpret the phrase
"research on primates, colugos, and treeshrews has shown that the two species of colugos are more closely related to the primates than the treeshrews"
to imply that "some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow" you either have a reading disability, or you're simply a moron.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Who says I was interpreting that phrase? I was not. Look at wiki's hierarchy, which shows colugos as a spin off of treeshew ancestors and primates as a spin off of colugos ancestors. Of course you'd say all those ancestor species evolved some high tech skills or got extinct to make all fit. And that those ancestors were not colugos yet an neither primates.
What ever unproven concept you invent to make all fit your thesis and present it as evidence.Silly! But go ahead and create your fairy tales
phicomingatya 2 years ago
« Who says I was interpreting that phrase? »
It follows from the fact that the page said
"research on primates, colugos, and treeshrews has shown that the two species of colugos are more closely related to the primates than the treeshrews"
and you commented on that saying
"some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow"
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« which shows colugos as a spin off of treeshew ancestors and primates as a spin off of colugos ancestors »
Damn, you're right. So it does, in the summarized cladistics diagram under Evolutionary history. Sorry, wasn't paying attention there.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« some treeshrews evolved gliding skills somehow »
So indeed, some of the species who were ancestors of the treeshrews did evolve "gliding skills".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Comment removed
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« all those ancestor species evolved some high tech skills »
They already had "high tech skills" themselves, or they would not have survived upto that point. You may think flaps of skin are remarkable, or exceptional, but they are no more so than the whiskers on the snout of many carnivores: they're simply adaptations to a particular niche.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago