There are many problems with this. 1. We don't see this variation thingy happening. People have been people for as long as we know. 2. A group of long-necked and short necked animlas that live together and mate together will have both long-necked and short necked children. The video pretends that Long-Necked parents give birth to long-necked children. This is not so. Of course the video presenter is slick and glosses over details that ruin his fantasy.
@MrPeterpott "1. We don't see this variation thingy happening. People have been people for as long as we know." Yes, you're right there. Every single person on the planet is exactly the same. Indistinguishable. I keep committing adultery inadvertently due to the fact that my wife is identical to every other female human. Well said. Maybe.
@MrPeterpott "2. A group of long-necked and short necked animlas that live together and mate together will have both long-necked and short necked children" Yes, and the short-necked ones are less likely to survive to an age where they can reproduce in an environment where having a longer neck is an advantage. Hence the allele frequency in the population will change in favour of the long-necks. That's called evolution.
oh one more thing buddy, explain this: why arent there any other THIRD level of intelligence on earth. its eather animal or human. yep there are 1,000,000,000 kinds of animals but they all despite their difference are all ONE in intelligence, behaviour etc.. the human on the other hand is on his way to destroy earth and beyond. cmon something is waaaaaaaaaay fucking off here, you are blind if you dont see that.
please please explane to me how new species come by! everysingle vide skips it and only focus on natural selection which fine. natural selection is alright and very logical and real ofcourse. no evidence needed there. a a species can change over millions of years but it can never grow wings or fins just natural selection! please am I right? I am not a God hugger
@leviterande Birds and whales did not "grow" anything... their arms and fingers were already there, then they just changed them. Birds started growing feathers out of scales, and had all their fingers fused into one. Whales basically covered their hands with skin and flesh. If you look at an x-ray of a whale's flipper, you'll see the bones of the arm, wrist and fingers, the same as ours.
@danoso0931 first thanx for the polite reply and not being a jerk. Ok, if we suppose that is true then there is still a pretty large problem unsolved. what exactly makes a feather transform from a scale. Mutation over millions of years you say? but make a little thinking experiment and you will see that even with millions of individuals the chance of a good mutation to and continue and develop from a father to a child is pretty higher then astronomical
@leviterande Sure it's astronimcal... but so is wining the lottery. If you have, as you say, millions of individuals, now spread them over MILLIONS of years too. Then it is not so surprising. If you doubt this, check out Lenski's long term evolution experiment, where he does just that on bacteria. Plus, feathers didn't just spring up as we know them today.. it was gradual. In fact, we have fossils showing the several steps necessary to go from a scale to a modern feather, so we know the stages.
@leviterande Anyway, in Lenski's experiment, after 20 years, one of his cultures of bacteria suddenly began to digest citrate. Turns out, this process required 2 cumulative mutations, so if a culture developed only the first mutation, it could not digest nitrate. So, at some point in one of those cultures, that mutation stuck around via genetic drift.. then a second mutation came along and boom!, the population exploded. Genetic drift is another mechanism for natural selection.
i don't dispute the theory in any way,could you tell me why people who are deaf or in some way mentally disabled have continued to be born when a lot of the time this is genetic.please don't think that i am trying to offend anyone i am just curious
@hanghang71 I am by far not an expert on the subject, but it's basically this: Random mutations that can cause problems such as Down Syndrome, that do not trasmit themselves between generations. There is also forms of colorblindness which are a genetically inherited trait. The reason it is still around is because it either: doesn't really create a big disadvantage, or it arose after humans started mating with whomever they wanted to, or the one that would've died off without modern medicine.
@MegaBlaidddrwg my point was really that if the creationist hadfaith in a god who did not evolve ,why did the have faith that the universe did not evolve it just came into being with a big bang and nothing before it
@MegaBlaidddrwg Is downs syndrome the result of a mutation? I thought it was the result of an error in meosis, more specifically in anaphase or chromosome separation, where one extra copy of a chromosome is pulled to one side than should be...Would this be considered a mutation as such? Or just an error in meiosis (after recomination has occurred)?
Sorry but it take that much to just have some long neck creators ? and the human brain can you give us an exmple how it did evolved basing on environment or whatever you like ? or tell us a bit about the millions predicted fossils that the transitions left behind ?
@YamiYami17 It's simple. And it's explained in the video. If a greater brain mass confers a survival advantage on an individual, then it is likely to survive to reproductive age and pass on its genes.
As for 'millions of fossils', why would we expect those? The conditions required for fossilisation are rare, and it is estimated that for land creatures only one in a million or so ends up fossilised.
@Misterb0z But how did it went from a small to a big brain ? how the environment or the mutations by error or by radiations did influence the brain to get more power in order to survive ?
..
Nice then how about the bones we found a lot of dinosaurs bones.
@YamiYami17 There is natural variation between members of all populations. You and I have a different brain mass from each other. But it seems to me less likely that it was brain size that drove development rather than vice versa. Those with brains better adapted to prediction, for example, would have survived better, and this driven brain growth. However, I'm way outside my area of expertise here. Nonetheless, the mechanism driving the change is the same - as described in this video.
@Misterb0z Yes i want to hear about the mechanism coz it's the most important information and i think even if you let go your imagination to figure out how brains evolved and get new functions you want find a reasonable explanation. well thanks for your time sir pleasure talking to you ^^
@YamiYami17 "Nice then how about the bones we found a lot of dinosaurs bones" Yes, we have. How long were dinosaurs around for? Some 100 times longer than we've been around for. And are we lacking in hominid fossils? Paleoanthropologists don't seem to think so. They describe an embarrassment of riches, with heated arguments about classifying specimens.
@Misterb0z When you say "we been around for" you mean all the species that evolved from the time of the dinosaurs to this day ? it's been 65 millions years of evolution! so yeah it seems that we have a huge lack of bones.and yes hominid like what lucy toumai ? and ? from an ape to a human following the evolution porcess we should find quite a lot. This video didn't make any sense for me it always get down to the neck stuff ? it seems that science is closing up to the argumants of evolution.
@YamiYami17 The neck example is a simple example that shows how small variations in a population can lead to an advantage for individuals with certain characteristics in a given environment.
Hominids have been around for about 6 million years. Dinosaurs were around for about 200 million.
Where do you get this idea that we lack fossil evidence? We have plenty. And even if there were none, the story of our evolutionary past is written in our dna.
@YamiYami17 "from an ape to a human following the evolution porcess we should find quite a lot" We do have a lot... for neanderthals only, we have a little more than 400 specimens, with the obvious implications that there were thousands or millions living at some point. Even Lucy was found with around 15 more specimens (called 'first family'); she was just the first one found. In all, we know of about 26 species between us and our last common ancestor with chimps. I'd say that's a lot
Evolution can help explain how matter organizes itself into particular forms, but Living things cannot arise spontaneously from non living matter, science actually proves this. & There is no evidence that the "naturalistic" process can produce design. Every living creature is furnished w/ complex systems that enable it to play its roll. Therefore life is planned, designed & organized. GOD being the designer and Giver of life ;)
@mellymel51029 "Living things cannot spontaneously form from non-living matter, science actually proves this" How, may I ask?
"There is no Evidence that naturalistic processes can produce design". Of course not, because then it wouldn't be design! Seriously however, complex living systems *can* come about naturally. Millions of years of mutation, environmental pressures and natural selection can achieve this, and have. Life is indeed quite capable of adapting and organising itself.
@FactThis Where is your proof that a Single Living Cell spontaneously arose from Non Living Matter?? Mr. Fact This. Lol.. Darwinian Evolution and the idea of one species mutating into a completely different species is a Farce to say the least.. Evolution by natural selection itself is a theory and far from explains the origin of life.
@mellymel51029 A species mutating into another species" You mean speciation? That observed, well documented and well understood phenomenon with hundreds of examples?
I have no proof of life coming from non-life. Abiogenesis is still very much in development. You, however, asserted science says it's impossible - a statement of fact. Science does not say this; the possibility and process remains unknown.
Yes, Evolution is a 'theory', as are gravity and germs. Learn what the word means, please.
@FactThis LOL I know what evolution means, and like i said, Evolution cannot explain the Origin of life and Science can't either. If I anonomously baked a cake for Scientists or Evolutionists, they would only be able to explain the ingredients, the changes during baking,& how the cake expanded and came to be. But they would not be able to Explain who baked it, or Why I baked it...Unless I revealed it to them. And God HAS revealed himself. ;)
@mellymel51029 Evolution isn't SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life. It's the theory on the diversity of life.
Life is simply chemistry. One day we may discover the sequence of reactions and the conditions necessary for abiogenesis, or we may not. However, merely because we cannot yet fully explain how something came about does not give us justification to invent supernatural forces and blame 'magic', an excuse which ironically becomes less prevalent as knowledge and science advances.
@FactThis And you may be right, but science has become so arrogant to claim to have all the answers and that to me is ignorant. U may be a Five Sensory personality, if u can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear it, it doesn't exist. There are also Multi-sensory human beings. Such as God Believers, Prophets, Psychics, etc. and just because you've never experienced anything outside the physical realm, doesn't mean its not Real. thats just your opinion. and ur entitled to it :)
@mellymel51029 Science *doesn't* claim to know all the answers. If it did, it would stop...
And you too are entitled to believe in gods, goddesses, fairies, ghosts and psychic powers, but until you can verify these things demonstrably and objectively with physical evidence and reasoned logic, we ignorant and boring realists are just going to roll our eyes at you.
@mellymel51029 if science is claiming to have all the answers, what are all those scientists doing? Still celebrating?
No. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It claims to be looking for the answers through evidence - not sticking with the speculations of goat-herders from the bronze age.
It's the religions that claim that they have all the answers, as in: "It's all in the Bible!" Who's arrogant now?
@thecaveofthedead Let me rephrase that, Atheists have become arrogant as to claim that Science explains Everything which it doesn't. Im not one who read the bible & said Oh I know now GOD exists. I take the divine wisdom of the Bible, my own intimate experiences with the living GOD, the incredibly complex design of the human DNA, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, Evolution cannot explain where the 1st living cell came from, & Big Bang Theory confirms that there was a Beginning.
I don't know anybody who claims that science explains everything. And I know very few people who claim science can explain anything it sets out to explain.
You know what science is? Science is the method by which we gather verifiable knowledge. Science is also the word we use for the collection of results from that method: all verifiable knowledge.
Now consider the alternatives to having verifiable knowledge.
@mellymel51029 Where do I start? First off, as an Atheist, I know that science doesn't have all the answers and no scientist has ever claimed to know all the answers. Second, your "intimate experiences with God" claims are called "anecdotes" and they have little relevance. Watch "The Problem with Anecdotes". Third, Evolution is about the diversity of life. Not the origin of life. Watch the video "Origin of Life Made Easy" by Potholer54.
@oldblubblub Lol for every video you direct me to, there are 2 or 3 others debunking them, so what's your point?..Anecdote is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as EVIDENCE THAT CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD..so yes it is an anecdote ;)..&Its funny how the( short sometimes amusing stories) of a real incident or "person", are shared & corroborated by BILLIONS all over the world...hmmm..
@oldblubblub Lol I don't have to "link" you to anything, you can do that for yourself. I already explained to you in my last comment what I feel about Anecdotes. & I think Its obvious that Science does not & cannot account for everything. The "origin of life" being one.. Evolution is a mechanism. & The existence of a mechanism that "does something" isn't in itself an argument for the absence of an agent that designed the mechanism.
@thecaveofthedead Having said that, I dont claim to have the answer. I have friends who are Atheists and they have the right to believe what they choose. I simply look at all the evidence. Subjectively & Objectively. And I conclude that yes there is a GOD. And Science actually supports my theory. And Scientists nor Atheists can "prove" me wrong. As I can't "prove" to them that he does exist. In the end, we have to agree to disagree :)
evolution should not be questioned, it exists. but god made evolution. god is something very different from what they tried to shove into you as a child and you got fed up and ended up being atheist out of rebellion. anyways... without evolution there is no life. BUT the energy that makes us up has always been there. the big bang theory is flawed. energy cannot be created nor destroyed... evolution is change.. not natural selection... god is the universe and everything outside of it (if so).
@avor Why? The 'big bang' theory just tells us how the universe expanded. Whys should it have to explain the origin of the energy and matter any more than atomic theory should? Why the special case? Anyway, you seem to have already grasped the answer. You stated for yourself 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed'. So why are you now demanding that a different answer be given?
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
This is exactly the argument, that mutation alone is not responsible for diversity of species. Self replication is not even need to share DNA and genes. Pfft.
Even the Bibles says man came after other animals, the argument is over the cause of this, not the fact of this.
The argument should not be creationism vs evolutionism, but the search for truth over ignorance. This is a problem with story tellers, they add fiction to the facts.
i agree in natural selection because it has been proven...you can see the evidence but when it comes to like creation...GOD has created these creatures we see around us. and there is proof, some people just dont want to see. If 1 has a mind of doubt, you wont see nothing. learning psychology has tought me that our own beliefs cloud or minds. And w. GOD its "believe to see" but im niot here to fight, just state. thank you for reading
@salviikid01 Sorry for double posting but I just noticed you said there is proof about God creating the creatures? What is the proof you've found, I'm interested cause I haven't found any, maybe I searched in the wrong places. PM me or something with a video if you can.
@Shuffle2dMax Well the book of Genesis starts with GOD creating everything around us...but you can also attend a Service at a Christian, i attend a Pentecostal, Church...in which, like i said with an open mind, 1 can learn what they seek :)
@sallyamis Give him a break, obviously these videos don't go into detail over the many complex branches of Evolution, they only address commonly held false beliefs and introduce Evolution to a third party. Being a person who has biology as a pursued career in mind, even I can appreciate that.
If genes can be turned on and off then characteristics which were supposedly created ex nullis - such as the supposed mutations in bacteria who digest nylon - could simply be caused by the switching on of already existing traits. If so, this begs the question of where they came from in the first place.
So even the tiny, tiny pieces of evidence you have to back up evolution are open to other - and, frankly, more plausible - explanations.
did you know that there are science forums online, where you can ask these question and have them explained with full scientific detail by ppl in the relevant field....
Post ur questions on a board, within 48 hours someone will get back to you in full detail ... 3,000+ characters probably.
no one here wants to take the time...we are here to watch videos and comment, not video and essay
btw i love how you ignore the other aspects of evolution and nit pick details, blissfully naive
"such as the supposed mutations in bacteria who digest nylon - could simply be caused by the switching on of already existing traits. If so, this..."
- are you seriously suggesting that the ability to ingest nylon (a man-made substance) simply sat around in the genome for millions of years? no, even if that were the case it wouldnt make sense because we sequenced the genome of the bacteria and identified that a gene dup followed by point-shift mutation was responsible.
Unfortunately your child-like understanding of evolution is one you probably picked up at school.
Even those who believe in evolution don't think that the giraffe's neck evolved in order to reach food (Pincher, Chapman (1949). "Evolution of the Giraffe," Nature vol. 164, pp. 29-30., Simmons et al, " The American Naturalist vol. 148, pp. 771-786.
This shows how evolution is much, much more complex than your naive potted presentation would suggest. You need more science and less sneering.
@potholer54 You have said at 6:51 that evolution produces bigger and better CPU. From what I have read I infer that evolution is not directional, means it doesnt necessarily make a species bigger or better. Can you kindly clarify on this.
@arunkumarvikram Why are you asking Potsmoker54 for advice on evolution? He is a journalist, not a biologist, and it's clear from his videos that his understanding of evolution is child-like in its superficiality.
@mortensjoegren I meant that he wrote in the book The Origin of species, that he had doubts at wether natural selection was capable of creating something as complex as the human eye. There is no doubt he believed in his theory.
Is there a list of new species we humans have artificially selected to make them evolve into two distinct specie not capable of producing fertile offspring? I want show it to my creationist friends to convince them.
@ixataca = Is there a list of new species we humans have artificially selected to make them evolve into two distinct specie not capable of producing fertile offspring? = Humans have only been around for about 150,000 years. Not enough time for animals of any size to evolve into new species. However, there are plenty of examples in nature. See my video on ring species.
@ixataca =How about making one with organisms that reproduce rapidly like micro organisms?= That's already been done. In the next video in this series, The Theory of Evolution Made Easy, I give the example of bacteria that can digest nylon, found to have evolved in nature and then that evolution replicated in the laboratory. But bacteria don't mate to produce offspring, they replicate without sex, so this doesn't fulfill the criteria of your question.
@sallyamis thats his natural british accent. if the best you can do is attack the way he sounds...well that says more about you than it does him. Calling him names is also a bit childish.
ixataca >>No there isn't. At best there are bacteria which might or might not have developed some minor characteristic as a result of a mutation. Or perhaps they simply reactivated a characteristic which they already had. Who knows?
This is the "negative smoking gun" of evolution. There is no evidence to back it up - just a plausible-sounding story. But then it's "plausible" to believe that the sun goes round the earth, isn't it? It just doesn't happen like that.
"No there isn't. At best there are bacteria which might or might not have developed some minor..."
- we have a plathora of instances where mutation causes new traits, we also have a plathora of instances of new genetic material being added to the genome, we like to use the nylon ingesting bacteria because it demonstrates both.
ie. a gene duplication (increase of material) followed by pointshift mutation (random mutation) that resulted in the ability to ingest nylon
"This is the "negative smoking gun" of evolution. There is no evidence to back it up"
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out, the manner in which the ability arose was confirmed by sequencing the genome and it is one of many examples of beneficial change.
@BluePhosphorus another thing that throws me off evolution is things like dreams and imagination. Is there a way of explaining things like that, like why we cry and laugh etc - thanks
can someone please explain when we first needed to eat food to survive. if we were all just a bunch of cells to start with, when did we need to eat and when did we evolve a mouth, and did all the food evolve from the cells at the same time that we evolved a mouth so that we could eat it, and how did we move to it to get it, also did the eye evolve at the same time so we could see the food - thanks
Different things happen at different times, you will need to do alot more research than just ask for a 500 word answer. Are you curious or just think your god did it?
@gorilla199uncensored but surely it would have all had to evolve at the same time ? I'm not sure at the moment, i'm looking at both options but to be honest i find it easier to believe in a creator than all things just evolving and there being no meaning to life. I dont suppose we'll ever know
@SAS1208 Hi, things just don't jump up and evolve all by themselves. In order for creatures to evolve they have to be created first . Both food and the animals, plants, people had to be made at a very close time frame otherwise the living creatures would starve. A rare example would be the mayfly(Adult), it lasts only one day. This means that the mayfly doesn't even have a mouth to eat.
@SAS1208 Cells are organic matter. In order to reproduce, more organic matter is needed. "Eating" was initially a chemical process in which organic matter attached to the cells, creating larger structures which later divided. After billions of years, all living things still need organic matter for cell reproduction and movement (energy is chemically released by ATP synthesis). That's called eating now.
@SAS1208 You can try potholer54 other videos, FFreeThinker and Best0fScience for very detailed explanations of that. Because after the Big Bang, the physical forces blindly acted on the existing matter and energy to shape the universe (and our galaxy, and our sun, and our Earth) as we see it today. Starting at our Big Bang model, we have already have universe simulations that form stars and galaxies, validating the theory and our current knowledge of the cosmos.
All organisms were/are doing just fine in their environment. Therefore, there is no pressure for any of them to evolve. Natural selection is a philosophical belief. The few examples that she has are highly speculative and very weak at best.
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
@daogdaog What are you talking about? Evolution is confirmed by scientists around the globe who don't even speak the same language as one another. It is fact. Of course there could be the occasional corrupt scientist who would try and force something false, but that's irrelevant to evolution as a whole- it's right in front of or ours. Don't be ignorant, admit when you're wrong. If you come up with something better, please do share.
4:35 Yes! they have no evidence! but what do people who believe in evoultion have for evidince? None! Oh i guess we are even now.... oh wait what about petrified trees going through each lawer of earth that you people believe each one is millions of years old! i think that a tree would fall by then... and, if animals can do natural selective breeding why cant we? all records of human as far as we can tell are all the same. so every a million years something changes? i dont think so...
@legoscorpion5 No, you clueless moron. Change happens gradually over millions of years. We wouldn't recognize change in our species over a few thousand years any more than you notice aging one day in the mirror when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Further, we *have* seen change, in the fossil record, not photographs. Please listen to logic and science instead of your priest telling you fairy tales.
@postguy2 Well, I dont go to church for one, And you believe what you want to believe in, I just stated an opinion. so, you can call me names and make fun of me all you want, but it wont bother me, at all.
This video should be required viewing for all of the deluded religious kooks who attempt to slander the scientific method. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
All I have to say is one word: mutation. A perfectly healthy man & woman could give birth to a child with autism or mental retardation, or brain cancer. Explain that, Darwin.
@TheAgwoodliffe Mutations form a very important part of evolution. It is mutations, random changes in genetic variation within a gene pool that are what nature 'selects', and are passed down. Most mutations are neutral and nigh unnoticeable, but some are negative (therefore selected against) or positive (selected for), in that they affect an organism's fitness in a good or bad way. The average human could have around 100 mutations. You are never an exact copy of your parents; mistakes are made.
@mscovergirl7 The issue is not with occurrence, but rather with predominance. Why is it that 5 supposedly won out? What is the selective advantage? This is the issue at hand. Pun.
@Synergistik most likely enabling us to run faster and be more manuverable. there have been secluded tribes of humans before with varied amounts of toes. one tribe actually had 2 toes on each foot, the advantage to that was for digging. The tribe lived off of tubers that grew in the ground. it was easier for a 2 toed person to dig because of the surface area of the 2 toes than that of a 5 toed person.
@themegapacman It's an issue on whether or not the number of toes was significant enough to actually provide a genetic advantage, such that those with two were able to transfer their genes to the next generation more so that those without. It would also have to be shown the two toes was a result of a random mutation, for it to point to natural selection, rather than simply adaptation.
How deluded this video is sorry but honestly..! I have NEVER seen a animal by "natural selection" add INFORMATION to their gene pool...yes maybe changing its features so that it can survive better...you can even see these processes nowadays but NOT something less intelligent becoming more intelligent! You wont get a plane by selecting certain parts of a car! With natural selection you don't add information you take AWAY information you don't need anymore = becoming less not more!...crazy to me..
@Karlopeter1 Natural selection 'selects' desirable traits in the same way as artificial selection. 'More intelligent' is not necessarily 'fittest' in all environments, looking the same colour as your habitat might be, for example. Nobody is suggesting that 'information' is added by natural selection, such 'information' comes in the form of replications and/or mutations of existing genes. Small changes, yes, but over time these changes accrue to form considerably different organisms.
@Karlopeter1 nuthin' irks me more than someone tryin' to pass off as "intelligent" within an argument of evolution, when they place an article "a" in front of a vowel sound...
@amaroq69: Oh no dude I forgot the "n"!! :O That just proves I MUST be stupid! lol This is not a spelling competition! Honestly! ...by the way what about saying something useful, maybe try commenting on what I said and don't just try and bash me for not putting the letter "n" down! Show respect towards others or expect the same back!...at least that's what I have learnt...sigh..
There is something I have realized. And that is - there is always big debates and arguments - flinging two and throw from extreme christians or creationsists... (religious) and extreme darwnists..evolutionists.. (non religious) but neither two.. ever have debates with.. native american sharmens.. or.. tao-ists.. which are neither extrme religous or extrme - physical,rational, sceintific.. thingie. and I think there should.. it might broaden peoples minds a bit more. Or not..
@theTrampWithahouse Referring to people who accept the theory of evolution as "Dawinists" makes about as much sense as referring to people who accept the theory of gravity as "Newtonists".
Looking around youtube for some game footage of "natural selection", I find this. And just as I predicted, clicking this I find a christian shitstorm in front of me =/
Oh my, I just hate christians and romans so much. The Greek philosophers had so much knowledge and only thanks to religious nonsense we had to rediscover their theories and knowladge in 13th century. After thousand years of total ignorance and stupidity. I don't know, but in my opinion I have a good reason to hate religions.
@souleaterfan1234 Cells are build by DNA, right? DNA contains information, which them it builds the cells with, right? Where did this DNA suddenly get the information from which allowed the kids having a longer neck etc.? I do not doubt adaptation, nor Natural Selection, but this information must have come from somewhere.
@eagleeye2102 jts called variation.... ill make this simple for you. When mommy and daddy reproduce, they make a child, that child could be tall or short depending on his genetic make-up, and when they have another child, that person would have completely different traits due to random assortment of the chromosomes in prophase 1 of meiosis (making of sex cells). There are also many other factors that cause variation like crossing over... But lets not get into too much detail, anyway....
@eagleeye2102 When these babys are born with different traits (being tall, short, hairy etc...) some are more adapt to the environment than others, those with better chances of survival are more likely to reproduce and pass on those traits, leaving those with undesired traits to die; eventually over time that trait gets passed on and begins to show in nearly all of the species... So when the environment changes again, the desired trait changes, and those with traits that are adaptable are select
@eagleeye2102 The "information" for those traits are stored in their genetic make-up, i.e women can have the gene for color-blindness and not get effected, because the gene is recessive... but this is sex linked and only applies to women, since they have the XX sex chromosomes, the recessive gene needs to be expressed in both to show, while men have XY, and since that gene cannot be carried on the Y chromosome, he can't carry it as a recessive gene....
@eagleeye2102 There is also the factor of Co-dominent genes which can both be expressed, showing even further variation.... for example, the gene for red eye color can exist co-dominantly with the gene for white eye color, and since this is a none-recessive gene, the traits can mix to give a pink eye color... This applies to many things not limited to eye color but not all things. For example, blood group co-dominantly inherited, and if the blood group AB was resistant to AIDS, then.......
@eagleeye2102 Then that gene will help us survive, and hence people with the blood group AB have a better chance of survival than others..... so they will be picked for reproduction and those traits will get passed on and on to further generations, resulting in the evolution of our species to be mostly resistant to AIDs. This has two faults though, when AB is crossed with AB, it doesnt always give AB, it may give AA or BB aswell.... so the survival of some will always be greater than others.
@Xshado2 Yes, I fully agree with you and I already knew of this process, at the moment I call it evolution(m). However, these receive and dominant genes and these different blood groups did already exist, and they do vary, but when is a new functionality added? For instance, the functionality or the information for a longer neck? Natural Selection has to select something from elsewhere, it can't just create.
@eagleeye2102 Natural selection acts on the natural variation within a population. While not the only source of such variety, mutations to genes inherited from parents play an important role. As you know, all biological processes are ultimately governed by genes, and hence any characteristic of a species is in principle subject to change given the specific mutation.
@eagleeye2102 Okay, I've asked one. And either you're being pedantic or you get your information from a disinformation website, because gene duplication events followed by frame-shift mutations are acknowledged ways of 'creating new information'.
There are many problems with this. 1. We don't see this variation thingy happening. People have been people for as long as we know. 2. A group of long-necked and short necked animlas that live together and mate together will have both long-necked and short necked children. The video pretends that Long-Necked parents give birth to long-necked children. This is not so. Of course the video presenter is slick and glosses over details that ruin his fantasy.
MrPeterpott 1 week ago
@MrPeterpott "1. We don't see this variation thingy happening. People have been people for as long as we know." Yes, you're right there. Every single person on the planet is exactly the same. Indistinguishable. I keep committing adultery inadvertently due to the fact that my wife is identical to every other female human. Well said. Maybe.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
@MrPeterpott "2. A group of long-necked and short necked animlas that live together and mate together will have both long-necked and short necked children" Yes, and the short-necked ones are less likely to survive to an age where they can reproduce in an environment where having a longer neck is an advantage. Hence the allele frequency in the population will change in favour of the long-necks. That's called evolution.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
How could anyone disagree with this?
lalabobjimbenbowen 2 weeks ago
I killed a six pack about 15 minutes ago, and this is still crystal clear.
Robertsonsd 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bat sonar,Shark's Electric Sense,Snake's Infrared sensing,Hummingbird's 80 wing flaps per second,
Cat's night vision,Migratory birds orientation sense,And The 120 billion neuron cells of the human brain.
I believe evolutionists should praise the almighty random mutations !
YamiYami17 3 weeks ago
Nice explanation
dazzling5909 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't this thunderfoot?
DaFleegsta 1 month ago
oh one more thing buddy, explain this: why arent there any other THIRD level of intelligence on earth. its eather animal or human. yep there are 1,000,000,000 kinds of animals but they all despite their difference are all ONE in intelligence, behaviour etc.. the human on the other hand is on his way to destroy earth and beyond. cmon something is waaaaaaaaaay fucking off here, you are blind if you dont see that.
leviterande 1 month ago
@leviterande exactly the only evolution goin on is electronics
westcoastlife4show 1 month ago
please please explane to me how new species come by! everysingle vide skips it and only focus on natural selection which fine. natural selection is alright and very logical and real ofcourse. no evidence needed there. a a species can change over millions of years but it can never grow wings or fins just natural selection! please am I right? I am not a God hugger
leviterande 1 month ago
@leviterande Birds and whales did not "grow" anything... their arms and fingers were already there, then they just changed them. Birds started growing feathers out of scales, and had all their fingers fused into one. Whales basically covered their hands with skin and flesh. If you look at an x-ray of a whale's flipper, you'll see the bones of the arm, wrist and fingers, the same as ours.
danoso0931 1 month ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@danoso0931 first thanx for the polite reply and not being a jerk. Ok, if we suppose that is true then there is still a pretty large problem unsolved. what exactly makes a feather transform from a scale. Mutation over millions of years you say? but make a little thinking experiment and you will see that even with millions of individuals the chance of a good mutation to and continue and develop from a father to a child is pretty higher then astronomical
leviterande 1 month ago
@leviterande Sure it's astronimcal... but so is wining the lottery. If you have, as you say, millions of individuals, now spread them over MILLIONS of years too. Then it is not so surprising. If you doubt this, check out Lenski's long term evolution experiment, where he does just that on bacteria. Plus, feathers didn't just spring up as we know them today.. it was gradual. In fact, we have fossils showing the several steps necessary to go from a scale to a modern feather, so we know the stages.
danoso0931 1 month ago
@leviterande Anyway, in Lenski's experiment, after 20 years, one of his cultures of bacteria suddenly began to digest citrate. Turns out, this process required 2 cumulative mutations, so if a culture developed only the first mutation, it could not digest nitrate. So, at some point in one of those cultures, that mutation stuck around via genetic drift.. then a second mutation came along and boom!, the population exploded. Genetic drift is another mechanism for natural selection.
danoso0931 1 month ago
Why did you use Girrafes as an example? They aren't real.
f00tstep 1 month ago
@sekamenacerecords1 Eh, you have a point. I guess it's not really a mutation. xD
MegaBlaidddrwg 1 month ago
A always thought the peanut butter guy was a parody of a creationist trying to disprove evolution...
Boss5414 1 month ago
@Boss5414 No? He was a real creationist poster boy, wasn't he? I know of maybe a hundred "poes", but I think he was real, crazy as it may sound.. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
i don't dispute the theory in any way,could you tell me why people who are deaf or in some way mentally disabled have continued to be born when a lot of the time this is genetic.please don't think that i am trying to offend anyone i am just curious
hanghang71 2 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@hanghang71 500 characters is not enough to explain it, but you could look up recessive genes, or chromosome abnormality.
Adhemar05 2 months ago
@hanghang71 I am by far not an expert on the subject, but it's basically this: Random mutations that can cause problems such as Down Syndrome, that do not trasmit themselves between generations. There is also forms of colorblindness which are a genetically inherited trait. The reason it is still around is because it either: doesn't really create a big disadvantage, or it arose after humans started mating with whomever they wanted to, or the one that would've died off without modern medicine.
MegaBlaidddrwg 1 month ago
@MegaBlaidddrwg Or both, or some other reason entirely, but I'd wager it's one of those.
MegaBlaidddrwg 1 month ago
@MegaBlaidddrwg my point was really that if the creationist hadfaith in a god who did not evolve ,why did the have faith that the universe did not evolve it just came into being with a big bang and nothing before it
hanghang71 1 month ago
@MegaBlaidddrwg Is downs syndrome the result of a mutation? I thought it was the result of an error in meosis, more specifically in anaphase or chromosome separation, where one extra copy of a chromosome is pulled to one side than should be...Would this be considered a mutation as such? Or just an error in meiosis (after recomination has occurred)?
sekamenacerecords1 1 month ago
@sekamenacerecords1 Also excuse my spelling I'm tired.
sekamenacerecords1 1 month ago
You are brilliant :).. make more videos please..
knightofbaghdad 2 months ago
I wish I had a pet Hypotheticus.
mmw818s 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your video has been recommended by a lecturer in UK HE and shared on our edmediashare site.
jiscdigitalmedia 3 months ago
Sorry but it take that much to just have some long neck creators ? and the human brain can you give us an exmple how it did evolved basing on environment or whatever you like ? or tell us a bit about the millions predicted fossils that the transitions left behind ?
YamiYami17 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 It's simple. And it's explained in the video. If a greater brain mass confers a survival advantage on an individual, then it is likely to survive to reproductive age and pass on its genes.
As for 'millions of fossils', why would we expect those? The conditions required for fossilisation are rare, and it is estimated that for land creatures only one in a million or so ends up fossilised.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z But how did it went from a small to a big brain ? how the environment or the mutations by error or by radiations did influence the brain to get more power in order to survive ?
..
Nice then how about the bones we found a lot of dinosaurs bones.
YamiYami17 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 There is natural variation between members of all populations. You and I have a different brain mass from each other. But it seems to me less likely that it was brain size that drove development rather than vice versa. Those with brains better adapted to prediction, for example, would have survived better, and this driven brain growth. However, I'm way outside my area of expertise here. Nonetheless, the mechanism driving the change is the same - as described in this video.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Yes i want to hear about the mechanism coz it's the most important information and i think even if you let go your imagination to figure out how brains evolved and get new functions you want find a reasonable explanation. well thanks for your time sir pleasure talking to you ^^
YamiYami17 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 It's my pleasure. Keep questioning!
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 "Nice then how about the bones we found a lot of dinosaurs bones" Yes, we have. How long were dinosaurs around for? Some 100 times longer than we've been around for. And are we lacking in hominid fossils? Paleoanthropologists don't seem to think so. They describe an embarrassment of riches, with heated arguments about classifying specimens.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z When you say "we been around for" you mean all the species that evolved from the time of the dinosaurs to this day ? it's been 65 millions years of evolution! so yeah it seems that we have a huge lack of bones.and yes hominid like what lucy toumai ? and ? from an ape to a human following the evolution porcess we should find quite a lot. This video didn't make any sense for me it always get down to the neck stuff ? it seems that science is closing up to the argumants of evolution.
YamiYami17 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 The neck example is a simple example that shows how small variations in a population can lead to an advantage for individuals with certain characteristics in a given environment.
Hominids have been around for about 6 million years. Dinosaurs were around for about 200 million.
Where do you get this idea that we lack fossil evidence? We have plenty. And even if there were none, the story of our evolutionary past is written in our dna.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@YamiYami17 "from an ape to a human following the evolution porcess we should find quite a lot" We do have a lot... for neanderthals only, we have a little more than 400 specimens, with the obvious implications that there were thousands or millions living at some point. Even Lucy was found with around 15 more specimens (called 'first family'); she was just the first one found. In all, we know of about 26 species between us and our last common ancestor with chimps. I'd say that's a lot
danoso0931 1 month ago
226 simpletons disliked this.
10rosegarden14 3 months ago
Comment removed
mellymel51029 3 months ago
3:35 Charlie Sheen can not and will never be replicated. WINNING! lol
TomahawkTerror 3 months ago
Comment removed
mellymel51029 3 months ago
Evolution can help explain how matter organizes itself into particular forms, but Living things cannot arise spontaneously from non living matter, science actually proves this. & There is no evidence that the "naturalistic" process can produce design. Every living creature is furnished w/ complex systems that enable it to play its roll. Therefore life is planned, designed & organized. GOD being the designer and Giver of life ;)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 "Living things cannot spontaneously form from non-living matter, science actually proves this" How, may I ask?
"There is no Evidence that naturalistic processes can produce design". Of course not, because then it wouldn't be design! Seriously however, complex living systems *can* come about naturally. Millions of years of mutation, environmental pressures and natural selection can achieve this, and have. Life is indeed quite capable of adapting and organising itself.
FactThis 3 months ago
@FactThis Where is your proof that a Single Living Cell spontaneously arose from Non Living Matter?? Mr. Fact This. Lol.. Darwinian Evolution and the idea of one species mutating into a completely different species is a Farce to say the least.. Evolution by natural selection itself is a theory and far from explains the origin of life.
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 A species mutating into another species" You mean speciation? That observed, well documented and well understood phenomenon with hundreds of examples?
I have no proof of life coming from non-life. Abiogenesis is still very much in development. You, however, asserted science says it's impossible - a statement of fact. Science does not say this; the possibility and process remains unknown.
Yes, Evolution is a 'theory', as are gravity and germs. Learn what the word means, please.
FactThis 3 months ago
@FactThis P.S. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Goes to show how much you know, eh?
FactThis 3 months ago
@FactThis LOL I know what evolution means, and like i said, Evolution cannot explain the Origin of life and Science can't either. If I anonomously baked a cake for Scientists or Evolutionists, they would only be able to explain the ingredients, the changes during baking,& how the cake expanded and came to be. But they would not be able to Explain who baked it, or Why I baked it...Unless I revealed it to them. And God HAS revealed himself. ;)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 Evolution isn't SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life. It's the theory on the diversity of life.
Life is simply chemistry. One day we may discover the sequence of reactions and the conditions necessary for abiogenesis, or we may not. However, merely because we cannot yet fully explain how something came about does not give us justification to invent supernatural forces and blame 'magic', an excuse which ironically becomes less prevalent as knowledge and science advances.
FactThis 3 months ago
@FactThis And you may be right, but science has become so arrogant to claim to have all the answers and that to me is ignorant. U may be a Five Sensory personality, if u can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear it, it doesn't exist. There are also Multi-sensory human beings. Such as God Believers, Prophets, Psychics, etc. and just because you've never experienced anything outside the physical realm, doesn't mean its not Real. thats just your opinion. and ur entitled to it :)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 Science *doesn't* claim to know all the answers. If it did, it would stop...
And you too are entitled to believe in gods, goddesses, fairies, ghosts and psychic powers, but until you can verify these things demonstrably and objectively with physical evidence and reasoned logic, we ignorant and boring realists are just going to roll our eyes at you.
FactThis 3 months ago
@FactThis Lol u can "roll your eyes" at us. and we'll just "shake our heads" at u. .Deal? :)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 if science is claiming to have all the answers, what are all those scientists doing? Still celebrating?
No. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It claims to be looking for the answers through evidence - not sticking with the speculations of goat-herders from the bronze age.
It's the religions that claim that they have all the answers, as in: "It's all in the Bible!" Who's arrogant now?
thecaveofthedead 3 months ago
@thecaveofthedead Let me rephrase that, Atheists have become arrogant as to claim that Science explains Everything which it doesn't. Im not one who read the bible & said Oh I know now GOD exists. I take the divine wisdom of the Bible, my own intimate experiences with the living GOD, the incredibly complex design of the human DNA, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, Evolution cannot explain where the 1st living cell came from, & Big Bang Theory confirms that there was a Beginning.
mellymel51029 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« to claim that Science explains Everything »
I don't know anybody who claims that science explains everything. And I know very few people who claim science can explain anything it sets out to explain.
You know what science is? Science is the method by which we gather verifiable knowledge. Science is also the word we use for the collection of results from that method: all verifiable knowledge.
Now consider the alternatives to having verifiable knowledge.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« design of the human DNA »
What makes you say that there's "design" in the human DNA?
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Fine Tuning of the Universe »
What makes you think the universe is "fine tuned"?
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Evolution cannot explain where the 1st living cell came from »
Of course not. Neither does plate tectonics explain where babies come from, or relativity theory why it rains.
Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains how *existing* life diversifies.
How that life came to exist is a question that's being investigated by scientists in the field of abiogenesis research.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 Where do I start? First off, as an Atheist, I know that science doesn't have all the answers and no scientist has ever claimed to know all the answers. Second, your "intimate experiences with God" claims are called "anecdotes" and they have little relevance. Watch "The Problem with Anecdotes". Third, Evolution is about the diversity of life. Not the origin of life. Watch the video "Origin of Life Made Easy" by Potholer54.
oldblubblub 3 months ago
@oldblubblub Lol for every video you direct me to, there are 2 or 3 others debunking them, so what's your point?..Anecdote is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as EVIDENCE THAT CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD..so yes it is an anecdote ;)..&Its funny how the( short sometimes amusing stories) of a real incident or "person", are shared & corroborated by BILLIONS all over the world...hmmm..
mellymel51029 3 months ago
@mellymel51029 My challenge for you.
1. Show me a quote from ANY scientist who clearly claims to know all of the answers and provide a reliable sourcefor the quote you give.
2. Link me to at least 1 video that debunks "The Problem with Anecdotes".
3. Link me to at least 1 video that debunks "Origin of Life Made Easy" without making any inaccuracies, mistakes, or misunderstandings.
oldblubblub 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oldblubblub Lol I don't have to "link" you to anything, you can do that for yourself. I already explained to you in my last comment what I feel about Anecdotes. & I think Its obvious that Science does not & cannot account for everything. The "origin of life" being one.. Evolution is a mechanism. & The existence of a mechanism that "does something" isn't in itself an argument for the absence of an agent that designed the mechanism.
mellymel51029 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thecaveofthedead Having said that, I dont claim to have the answer. I have friends who are Atheists and they have the right to believe what they choose. I simply look at all the evidence. Subjectively & Objectively. And I conclude that yes there is a GOD. And Science actually supports my theory. And Scientists nor Atheists can "prove" me wrong. As I can't "prove" to them that he does exist. In the end, we have to agree to disagree :)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« And Science actually supports my theory »
No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't reject it either.
Science doesn't comment on untestable propositions. That includes anything supernatural. Which includes gods.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
evolution should not be questioned, it exists. but god made evolution. god is something very different from what they tried to shove into you as a child and you got fed up and ended up being atheist out of rebellion. anyways... without evolution there is no life. BUT the energy that makes us up has always been there. the big bang theory is flawed. energy cannot be created nor destroyed... evolution is change.. not natural selection... god is the universe and everything outside of it (if so).
avor 3 months ago
@avor "the big bang theory is flawed. energy cannot be created nor destroyed." And does the "Big Bang Theory" say otherwise?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z it is incomplete
avor 3 months ago
@avor "it is incomplete" How so?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z if the big bang theory was complete, we would know where that energy came from.
avor 3 months ago
@avor Why? The 'big bang' theory just tells us how the universe expanded. Whys should it have to explain the origin of the energy and matter any more than atomic theory should? Why the special case? Anyway, you seem to have already grasped the answer. You stated for yourself 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed'. So why are you now demanding that a different answer be given?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@avor Excellent!
eldepr14 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 4 months ago
8:04 makes everything up to this point mute.
This is exactly the argument, that mutation alone is not responsible for diversity of species. Self replication is not even need to share DNA and genes. Pfft.
Even the Bibles says man came after other animals, the argument is over the cause of this, not the fact of this.
The argument should not be creationism vs evolutionism, but the search for truth over ignorance. This is a problem with story tellers, they add fiction to the facts.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK "8:04 makes everything up to this point mute." Really? I can still hear it?
Misterb0z 4 months ago
@Misterb0z Lol +1
TCupUK 4 months ago
i agree in natural selection because it has been proven...you can see the evidence but when it comes to like creation...GOD has created these creatures we see around us. and there is proof, some people just dont want to see. If 1 has a mind of doubt, you wont see nothing. learning psychology has tought me that our own beliefs cloud or minds. And w. GOD its "believe to see" but im niot here to fight, just state. thank you for reading
salviikid01 4 months ago
@salviikid01 Eh, please.......... just don't state anythng, it will trigger a war.
"True wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Plato
Shuffle2dMax 4 months ago
@salviikid01 Sorry for double posting but I just noticed you said there is proof about God creating the creatures? What is the proof you've found, I'm interested cause I haven't found any, maybe I searched in the wrong places. PM me or something with a video if you can.
Shuffle2dMax 4 months ago
@Shuffle2dMax Well the book of Genesis starts with GOD creating everything around us...but you can also attend a Service at a Christian, i attend a Pentecostal, Church...in which, like i said with an open mind, 1 can learn what they seek :)
salviikid01 4 months ago
Peanut Butter man... He should get together with Banana man, and his wife sandwich lady.
DannyPhantomBeast 4 months ago
Is this an educational video or an attack on creationists?
WupeViasco 4 months ago
I am sure these videos are very very good. but i dont know i cant listen , they are boring
Auktoriserad 4 months ago
@sallyamis Give him a break, obviously these videos don't go into detail over the many complex branches of Evolution, they only address commonly held false beliefs and introduce Evolution to a third party. Being a person who has biology as a pursued career in mind, even I can appreciate that.
pat5168 4 months ago
@sallyamis Well that is the point a basic idea of evolution...
pochopaz7381 5 months ago
If genes can be turned on and off then characteristics which were supposedly created ex nullis - such as the supposed mutations in bacteria who digest nylon - could simply be caused by the switching on of already existing traits. If so, this begs the question of where they came from in the first place.
So even the tiny, tiny pieces of evidence you have to back up evolution are open to other - and, frankly, more plausible - explanations.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis
did you know that there are science forums online, where you can ask these question and have them explained with full scientific detail by ppl in the relevant field....
Post ur questions on a board, within 48 hours someone will get back to you in full detail ... 3,000+ characters probably.
no one here wants to take the time...we are here to watch videos and comment, not video and essay
btw i love how you ignore the other aspects of evolution and nit pick details, blissfully naive
DataSe7en 4 months ago
@sallyamis
"such as the supposed mutations in bacteria who digest nylon - could simply be caused by the switching on of already existing traits. If so, this..."
- are you seriously suggesting that the ability to ingest nylon (a man-made substance) simply sat around in the genome for millions of years? no, even if that were the case it wouldnt make sense because we sequenced the genome of the bacteria and identified that a gene dup followed by point-shift mutation was responsible.
types10000 4 months ago
Unfortunately your child-like understanding of evolution is one you probably picked up at school.
Even those who believe in evolution don't think that the giraffe's neck evolved in order to reach food (Pincher, Chapman (1949). "Evolution of the Giraffe," Nature vol. 164, pp. 29-30., Simmons et al, " The American Naturalist vol. 148, pp. 771-786.
This shows how evolution is much, much more complex than your naive potted presentation would suggest. You need more science and less sneering.
sallyamis 5 months ago
Why do you misrepresent Lamarkism so shamelessly?
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis Well they are two different things, and besides it is kind of funny
pochopaz7381 5 months ago
@potholer54 You have said at 6:51 that evolution produces bigger and better CPU. From what I have read I infer that evolution is not directional, means it doesnt necessarily make a species bigger or better. Can you kindly clarify on this.
arunkumarvikram 5 months ago
@arunkumarvikram Why are you asking Potsmoker54 for advice on evolution? He is a journalist, not a biologist, and it's clear from his videos that his understanding of evolution is child-like in its superficiality.
sallyamis 5 months ago
Even Darwin had doubts on the plausibility of evolution.
zigora3 5 months ago
@zigora3 How so? Other than creationist quote-mining of his works I haven't seen any evidence for that claim.
mortensjoegren 5 months ago
@mortensjoegren I meant that he wrote in the book The Origin of species, that he had doubts at wether natural selection was capable of creating something as complex as the human eye. There is no doubt he believed in his theory.
zigora3 5 months ago
Is there a list of new species we humans have artificially selected to make them evolve into two distinct specie not capable of producing fertile offspring? I want show it to my creationist friends to convince them.
ixataca 5 months ago
@ixataca = Is there a list of new species we humans have artificially selected to make them evolve into two distinct specie not capable of producing fertile offspring? = Humans have only been around for about 150,000 years. Not enough time for animals of any size to evolve into new species. However, there are plenty of examples in nature. See my video on ring species.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 How about making one with organisms that reproduce rapidly like micro organisms? Theoretically, how many generations will it take?
ixataca 5 months ago
@ixataca =How about making one with organisms that reproduce rapidly like micro organisms?= That's already been done. In the next video in this series, The Theory of Evolution Made Easy, I give the example of bacteria that can digest nylon, found to have evolved in nature and then that evolution replicated in the laboratory. But bacteria don't mate to produce offspring, they replicate without sex, so this doesn't fulfill the criteria of your question.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 Since the definition of a species isn't even coherent the question is invalid.
But...seriously...you can't come up with anything better than these nylon-eating bacteria?
sallyamis 5 months ago
Your videos are much of a sameness. Apparently you believe that attacking creationists in a silly voice makes evolution more believable.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis thats his natural british accent. if the best you can do is attack the way he sounds...well that says more about you than it does him. Calling him names is also a bit childish.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@potholer54 Ehm, havent we already done that on flies?
gulbirk 4 months ago
ixataca >>No there isn't. At best there are bacteria which might or might not have developed some minor characteristic as a result of a mutation. Or perhaps they simply reactivated a characteristic which they already had. Who knows?
This is the "negative smoking gun" of evolution. There is no evidence to back it up - just a plausible-sounding story. But then it's "plausible" to believe that the sun goes round the earth, isn't it? It just doesn't happen like that.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis
"No there isn't. At best there are bacteria which might or might not have developed some minor..."
- we have a plathora of instances where mutation causes new traits, we also have a plathora of instances of new genetic material being added to the genome, we like to use the nylon ingesting bacteria because it demonstrates both.
ie. a gene duplication (increase of material) followed by pointshift mutation (random mutation) that resulted in the ability to ingest nylon
types10000 4 months ago
@sallyamis
"This is the "negative smoking gun" of evolution. There is no evidence to back it up"
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out, the manner in which the ability arose was confirmed by sequencing the genome and it is one of many examples of beneficial change.
types10000 4 months ago
@ixataca one of those animals is called the LIgar (half tiger, half lion) It can only be created by scientist and is born infertile
Arutha258 4 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@Arutha258
ligers can happen in the wild.
DataSe7en 4 months ago
@ixataca I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but we bred horses and donkeys to create mules. Mules are infertile.
marissa0koda 4 months ago
Hahaha the Hypotheticus!!
These videos are a must!! Im really thankfull the he has put the time in to make these videos.
Willaras 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Natural selection without representation.
villontre 5 months ago
@BluePhosphorus another thing that throws me off evolution is things like dreams and imagination. Is there a way of explaining things like that, like why we cry and laugh etc - thanks
SAS1208 6 months ago
can someone please explain when we first needed to eat food to survive. if we were all just a bunch of cells to start with, when did we need to eat and when did we evolve a mouth, and did all the food evolve from the cells at the same time that we evolved a mouth so that we could eat it, and how did we move to it to get it, also did the eye evolve at the same time so we could see the food - thanks
SAS1208 6 months ago
@SAS1208
Different things happen at different times, you will need to do alot more research than just ask for a 500 word answer. Are you curious or just think your god did it?
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored but surely it would have all had to evolve at the same time ? I'm not sure at the moment, i'm looking at both options but to be honest i find it easier to believe in a creator than all things just evolving and there being no meaning to life. I dont suppose we'll ever know
SAS1208 6 months ago
@SAS1208 Hi, things just don't jump up and evolve all by themselves. In order for creatures to evolve they have to be created first . Both food and the animals, plants, people had to be made at a very close time frame otherwise the living creatures would starve. A rare example would be the mayfly(Adult), it lasts only one day. This means that the mayfly doesn't even have a mouth to eat.
villontre 6 months ago
@SAS1208
"to be honest i find it easier to believe in a creator"
Well instead of turning to magic man dune it, yet alone deciding which one.
You can just ignore evolution and just think they and the world always existed as is with diff animals. No need to create imaginary magical friends,
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
@SAS1208 Cells are organic matter. In order to reproduce, more organic matter is needed. "Eating" was initially a chemical process in which organic matter attached to the cells, creating larger structures which later divided. After billions of years, all living things still need organic matter for cell reproduction and movement (energy is chemically released by ATP synthesis). That's called eating now.
gininginin 5 months ago
@gininginin Thanks, can you explain how the universe evolved?
SAS1208 5 months ago
@SAS1208 You can try potholer54 other videos, FFreeThinker and Best0fScience for very detailed explanations of that. Because after the Big Bang, the physical forces blindly acted on the existing matter and energy to shape the universe (and our galaxy, and our sun, and our Earth) as we see it today. Starting at our Big Bang model, we have already have universe simulations that form stars and galaxies, validating the theory and our current knowledge of the cosmos.
gininginin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All organisms were/are doing just fine in their environment. Therefore, there is no pressure for any of them to evolve. Natural selection is a philosophical belief. The few examples that she has are highly speculative and very weak at best.
villontre 6 months ago
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog What are you talking about? Evolution is confirmed by scientists around the globe who don't even speak the same language as one another. It is fact. Of course there could be the occasional corrupt scientist who would try and force something false, but that's irrelevant to evolution as a whole- it's right in front of or ours. Don't be ignorant, admit when you're wrong. If you come up with something better, please do share.
thisisonlyatest1 6 months ago
4:35 Yes! they have no evidence! but what do people who believe in evoultion have for evidince? None! Oh i guess we are even now.... oh wait what about petrified trees going through each lawer of earth that you people believe each one is millions of years old! i think that a tree would fall by then... and, if animals can do natural selective breeding why cant we? all records of human as far as we can tell are all the same. so every a million years something changes? i dont think so...
legoscorpion5 6 months ago
@legoscorpion5 No, you clueless moron. Change happens gradually over millions of years. We wouldn't recognize change in our species over a few thousand years any more than you notice aging one day in the mirror when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Further, we *have* seen change, in the fossil record, not photographs. Please listen to logic and science instead of your priest telling you fairy tales.
postguy2 6 months ago
@postguy2 Well, I dont go to church for one, And you believe what you want to believe in, I just stated an opinion. so, you can call me names and make fun of me all you want, but it wont bother me, at all.
legoscorpion5 5 months ago
I love this series:P
just1Tanu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video should be required viewing for all of the deluded religious kooks who attempt to slander the scientific method. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
Sweence 7 months ago
imagine if you had a kid that had a positive mutation and it grew like wings or someshit, that would be fucking awesome
casboultone 7 months ago
@casboultone Yeah it doesn't work that way...
scotthendo 7 months ago
@scotthendo maybe if your kid lived for millions of years :(
casboultone 7 months ago
All I have to say is one word: mutation. A perfectly healthy man & woman could give birth to a child with autism or mental retardation, or brain cancer. Explain that, Darwin.
TheAgwoodliffe 7 months ago
@TheAgwoodliffe Mutations form a very important part of evolution. It is mutations, random changes in genetic variation within a gene pool that are what nature 'selects', and are passed down. Most mutations are neutral and nigh unnoticeable, but some are negative (therefore selected against) or positive (selected for), in that they affect an organism's fitness in a good or bad way. The average human could have around 100 mutations. You are never an exact copy of your parents; mistakes are made.
FactThis 7 months ago
I love your use of a hypotheticus :)
Oxlev 7 months ago
So why do we have five toes and five fingers. Why not four or six?
Synergistik 7 months ago
@Synergistik Some humans have 4 and some have 6 research it.. It does happen..
mscovergirl7 7 months ago
@mscovergirl7 The issue is not with occurrence, but rather with predominance. Why is it that 5 supposedly won out? What is the selective advantage? This is the issue at hand. Pun.
Synergistik 7 months ago
@Synergistik because 5 has a very clear evolutionary advantage
themegapacman 7 months ago
@themegapacman That being?
Synergistik 7 months ago
@Synergistik most likely enabling us to run faster and be more manuverable. there have been secluded tribes of humans before with varied amounts of toes. one tribe actually had 2 toes on each foot, the advantage to that was for digging. The tribe lived off of tubers that grew in the ground. it was easier for a 2 toed person to dig because of the surface area of the 2 toes than that of a 5 toed person.
themegapacman 7 months ago
@themegapacman It's an issue on whether or not the number of toes was significant enough to actually provide a genetic advantage, such that those with two were able to transfer their genes to the next generation more so that those without. It would also have to be shown the two toes was a result of a random mutation, for it to point to natural selection, rather than simply adaptation.
Synergistik 7 months ago
Remember - anyone who cliams evolution is bunk has a religious agenda hidden behind them. They can't be trusted.
BlameRepublicans 7 months ago
How deluded this video is sorry but honestly..! I have NEVER seen a animal by "natural selection" add INFORMATION to their gene pool...yes maybe changing its features so that it can survive better...you can even see these processes nowadays but NOT something less intelligent becoming more intelligent! You wont get a plane by selecting certain parts of a car! With natural selection you don't add information you take AWAY information you don't need anymore = becoming less not more!...crazy to me..
Karlopeter1 7 months ago
@Karlopeter1 Natural selection 'selects' desirable traits in the same way as artificial selection. 'More intelligent' is not necessarily 'fittest' in all environments, looking the same colour as your habitat might be, for example. Nobody is suggesting that 'information' is added by natural selection, such 'information' comes in the form of replications and/or mutations of existing genes. Small changes, yes, but over time these changes accrue to form considerably different organisms.
Misterb0z 7 months ago
@Karlopeter1 nuthin' irks me more than someone tryin' to pass off as "intelligent" within an argument of evolution, when they place an article "a" in front of a vowel sound...
amaroq69 7 months ago
@amaroq69: Oh no dude I forgot the "n"!! :O That just proves I MUST be stupid! lol This is not a spelling competition! Honestly! ...by the way what about saying something useful, maybe try commenting on what I said and don't just try and bash me for not putting the letter "n" down! Show respect towards others or expect the same back!...at least that's what I have learnt...sigh..
Karlopeter1 7 months ago
@Karlopeter1 Ok then, you equatin' life to car parts...JUST PLAIN STUPIT!
amaroq69 7 months ago
I love how potholer54 sounds so tired everytime he brings up another well-used Creationist argument.
tooskyblue 7 months ago
There is something I have realized. And that is - there is always big debates and arguments - flinging two and throw from extreme christians or creationsists... (religious) and extreme darwnists..evolutionists.. (non religious) but neither two.. ever have debates with.. native american sharmens.. or.. tao-ists.. which are neither extrme religous or extrme - physical,rational, sceintific.. thingie. and I think there should.. it might broaden peoples minds a bit more. Or not..
theTrampWithahouse 7 months ago
@theTrampWithahouse are you thick? thats the most ignorant comment i ever saw
tubestick00 7 months ago
@theTrampWithahouse Referring to people who accept the theory of evolution as "Dawinists" makes about as much sense as referring to people who accept the theory of gravity as "Newtonists".
Akira625 7 months ago
@theTrampWithahouse i would just like to point out, that evolution is a religion, it takes just as much, if not more faith to believe in it,
nodnarb162 7 months ago
LOL "hypotheticus"
IKilledKenny72 7 months ago
Looking around youtube for some game footage of "natural selection", I find this. And just as I predicted, clicking this I find a christian shitstorm in front of me =/
Nyocurio 8 months ago
Oh my, I just hate christians and romans so much. The Greek philosophers had so much knowledge and only thanks to religious nonsense we had to rediscover their theories and knowladge in 13th century. After thousand years of total ignorance and stupidity. I don't know, but in my opinion I have a good reason to hate religions.
Bishop38f8 8 months ago
evolution
Traits ex. melanin>advantage>passed on if dominant >disadvantage>becomes recessive
reesult> in africa> ppl w/ more melanin
Europe> ppl w/ less melanin etc.
souleaterfan1234 8 months ago
2:20 - 2:30 where did these animals get the information from for a longer neck, longer legs, longer claws and hair?
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 the cells in your body acknowledge the need for adaptions. Remember you are a combination of millions of tiny things.
souleaterfan1234 8 months ago
@souleaterfan1234 Cells are build by DNA, right? DNA contains information, which them it builds the cells with, right? Where did this DNA suddenly get the information from which allowed the kids having a longer neck etc.? I do not doubt adaptation, nor Natural Selection, but this information must have come from somewhere.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 jts called variation.... ill make this simple for you. When mommy and daddy reproduce, they make a child, that child could be tall or short depending on his genetic make-up, and when they have another child, that person would have completely different traits due to random assortment of the chromosomes in prophase 1 of meiosis (making of sex cells). There are also many other factors that cause variation like crossing over... But lets not get into too much detail, anyway....
Xshado2 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 When these babys are born with different traits (being tall, short, hairy etc...) some are more adapt to the environment than others, those with better chances of survival are more likely to reproduce and pass on those traits, leaving those with undesired traits to die; eventually over time that trait gets passed on and begins to show in nearly all of the species... So when the environment changes again, the desired trait changes, and those with traits that are adaptable are select
Xshado2 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 The "information" for those traits are stored in their genetic make-up, i.e women can have the gene for color-blindness and not get effected, because the gene is recessive... but this is sex linked and only applies to women, since they have the XX sex chromosomes, the recessive gene needs to be expressed in both to show, while men have XY, and since that gene cannot be carried on the Y chromosome, he can't carry it as a recessive gene....
Xshado2 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 There is also the factor of Co-dominent genes which can both be expressed, showing even further variation.... for example, the gene for red eye color can exist co-dominantly with the gene for white eye color, and since this is a none-recessive gene, the traits can mix to give a pink eye color... This applies to many things not limited to eye color but not all things. For example, blood group co-dominantly inherited, and if the blood group AB was resistant to AIDS, then.......
Xshado2 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Then that gene will help us survive, and hence people with the blood group AB have a better chance of survival than others..... so they will be picked for reproduction and those traits will get passed on and on to further generations, resulting in the evolution of our species to be mostly resistant to AIDs. This has two faults though, when AB is crossed with AB, it doesnt always give AB, it may give AA or BB aswell.... so the survival of some will always be greater than others.
Xshado2 8 months ago
@Xshado2 Yes, I fully agree with you and I already knew of this process, at the moment I call it evolution(m). However, these receive and dominant genes and these different blood groups did already exist, and they do vary, but when is a new functionality added? For instance, the functionality or the information for a longer neck? Natural Selection has to select something from elsewhere, it can't just create.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Natural selection acts on the natural variation within a population. While not the only source of such variety, mutations to genes inherited from parents play an important role. As you know, all biological processes are ultimately governed by genes, and hence any characteristic of a species is in principle subject to change given the specific mutation.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
@Misterb0z Ask any biologist, mutations do not create new information nor new functionalities.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Okay, I've asked one. And either you're being pedantic or you get your information from a disinformation website, because gene duplication events followed by frame-shift mutations are acknowledged ways of 'creating new information'.
Misterb0z 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Misterb0z Gen