@decide2think If you're referring the sole female ancestor as Lucy, she wasn't the first or only member of her species as far as we know, but she is one of the few fossils we have found of that species. And fossils are exceedingly rare and we could miss entire species because of their lack of traces. For example, the carrier pigeon in the Americas numbered in the millions 200 years ago. They're extinct now and how many skeletons do we have of them?
The funny thing I find about GEERUP's assumption is that he thinks because Ida had opposable thumbs doesn't mean it's related to humans. Opposable thumbs is a mammal characteristic, primarilly primates have them. I remember a few other animals have them but aren't related to the primate clade at all, but opposable thumbsare a primary characteristic of primates.
Was that David Attenborough he was mocking? If so I have a new found disgust for Geerup. Attenboroughs documentaries helped me understand evolution more than I had before (I did chemistry in high school,and not very well lol) If you have not seen it I strongly suggest checking out David Attenboroughs First Life 2 part documentary, it's amazing (I think it's here on youtube)
@AronRa Why didn't you just use yourself as an example of evolution? No human can speak so fast and without breathing. Clearly, you're a transitional form to a telepathic science emitting creature that feeds off of dark matter.
It must be difficult to explain simple things to this brainless guy, especially he keeps saying that anyone who believe in evolution is just plain stupid and hopeless
I know I'm late to the party, but damn - great stuff. Between him and Thunderf00t, I feel like I'm getting a wonderful education in logic, debate and critical reasoning.
You mention that "evolution happens to populations, not individuals" but I'm confused when I hear that there is a sole female descendant back some 200,000+ years (via mitochondrial DNA) that we are all descended from. Doesn't that mean if that particular female we are all descended from didn't exist, human evolution potential would have been seriously affected? Thnx
BTW, appreciative fan of yours. Never thought that a big, long haired biker like you would be so knowledgeable about this subject.
@decide2think Initially, a zygote might bear some significant mutation. That mutation may be passed down through flowering lines of descent where -as a result of population mechanics, it might eventually effect the entire gene pool. This is usually a lengthy process requiring an average of 80 generations or so.
its only the mitochondrial DNA. that one female "prime progenitor" wasn't the only female alive at the time and also isn't female to have contributed some DNA to all descendants. It is just the copy of mtDNA that all copies come from. Her other genes are almost certainly irrelevant today because while she won the rare lottery to pass on her MTDNA no one wins the lottery twice
@decide2think Also, to my understanding, there is not simply a single one; we'd all also be descended from her mother and father ect. ect. and probably some of her contemporary. (and i don't think we need 200.000+ years; check concordance's "Genetic bucket chain")
There hasn't been one video of yours to which I haven't enjoyed. You put so much research into your videos and you pronunciation skills are through the roof! You're a brilliant man AronRa.
@Joeybugman: You are correct; it is. And that is one reason why the platypus (along with the echidna) is considered the most primitive extant representative of the mammal class. You might note that it also has hair. It (monotremes) is considered a brother clade to marsupials.
@puncheex Right, so we can still consider it mamillian even though it has the properties of a reptile, I see. Oh, but of course, that's just the way GOD made it >.<
@Joeybugman: Yes, you can. Its evolution was from the mammalian line extending down from therapods. That determination is made through considering all the features that an animal exhibits, not just one. It is apparent from the record that mammals first developed hair while still using eggs just like all other animals on Earth at the time (ca 60 mya) did. A sister clan of the monotremes developed first pouch birth, and later on, live birth, and most of today's mammals came from that line.
AronRa, I dont mean to insult you by saying this but you are god!! LOL!! genius videos, Love watching every time you upload :) amazing work and THANK YOU :) anytime a creationist tries to debunk science is always a new feat of comedy! dangerous education to the gullible, yes but always hilarious to the rest of us!!
Yknow Aron, I personally put in the same bracket as Neil Degrass Tyson and Potholer 54, as the most entertaining witty and informative people on utube. I never get bored with any of you.
@WICKEDMAN9MM: Jonathan Harris ("Dr. Z. Smith") was an actor from the Bronx who gave up his accent for a suave British one. He was Chuck Norris's drama and voice coach when Norris was just starting out; Harris spoke of it (at a StarTrek convention that I attended in the 90s) as a very trying time, when Norris could neither walk nor chew gum convincingly (although Norris made sure he got credit in his first film).
To compare Geerup to Smith is an insult to cringing villains.
I have always accepted evolution, but never appreciated how beautifully complex it is. My biology classes dumbed it down so much back in school.
I'm doing a physics degree now. I'm really considering doing another Msc. in Biology. It would be a shame to never fully understand evolution before I die.
If you ever come to the UK, I'd love to buy you a pint... or three.
That's certainly an ambitious goal. Evolutionary Biology is a HUGE body of knowledge. And i wouldn't say that the most learned person fully understands it.
If it interests you enough to reach an arbitrary point that some would call "full understanding" you'll probably want to keep learning.
it's good that you used the village idiot to show us that he didn't have a grasp and he didn't convince me. I watched the special on Ida. I believe it is our distant ancestor. All the detractor did was babble on about what he didn't think it was. meanwhile offering no intelligent alternative. the more he talked the dumber he sounded...nice to see ignorance put in it's place.
Regarding the "Darth Geerup" comment: was that a reference to his video that I didn't get? I don't watch Geerup's vids because his voice is like a cat being sodomized with an eggbeater.
"The big question now is, will BBC and The History Channel publish documentaries retracting their prior claims about Idas importance as a human ancestor, or will they leave the public with the impression that Ida is a "missing link"? Perhaps they might publish a documentary about the scientific communitys tendency to overhype fossils as part of a crusade for Darwin?"
Straight-to-the-point and propaganda-free. Absolutely fantastic!
Casey Luskin is a coward and a liar who was literally pwned by a 15 year old here on YouTube. Regardless of Ida, the natural process of evolution is still a fact and the only rational sky-hook free explanations for the diversity of life , religion is still a lie, and creationists are still the desperate assclown drones for Jeebus that they always were. And it's not gonna change anytime soon.
The always brilliant "Darwin Destroyer" Casey Luskin has a new piece out on Ida. I would say it's the final straw for any of those still holding out hope that Ida is the "missing link", but I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, thus I fully expect many, if not most of you to still cling to the failed hype behind Ida.
To find the article just Google the following:
"Idas Critics Demolish Claims That Fossil Is Human Evolutionary Link"
Neuro linguistic programming, If I got that right, is what all of you are victims of!! Why was Ida such a big thing when the transitions have already been found for hundreds of years? Let's hear you made up excuse for that one!!
Ida wasn't really a big deal, beyond the media hype, and you, like Geerup/PCS2, are probably using the term "neuro linguistic programming" without having the slightest clue on what it means, just like you are clueless about the rest of science, like the good drone for Jeebus that you are.
And yes, we discovered many transitionals before Ida, and several after. If your sky-daddy were real, he would have killed himself by now for being represented by assclowns like you.
@ironman197268: To begin, Ida is a beautiful specimen in an area of paleontology which does not have very many representatives. Then there is the desire of the paleo who bought him for a huge amount of money to both make a name for himself and to prove to the university that they money was wisely spent. Then there was the desire of the Discover channel to really have an exclusive coup after the BBC Walking with series ate their shorts technically, and their kleuthes in science was under attack.
... Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out in the way that they hoped it would. Some of the scientists working on the fossil rebelled at the meddling that Discovery pushed into the project, and the scientific reception didn't pay as much attention to the fanfare as the marketing department apparently hoped it would. AronRa has been instrumental in that, at least here on YT.
Some people need to believe in and fear a "God" it keeps them in line! With out that fear they would ravage this world even more than they do now! Thats why religion was Created! For control! I dont judge people who are "Religious Nuts" I simply tolerate them! Some of them are good people & my friends, its just a shame that so much is wasted on religion instead of the progression of man & science! But lets face it WE have a lt Bigger problems to worry about!
This man is incredibly intelligent & I would very much like to be his friend. Thank you for putting your time, knowledge & research in to this video. I enjoyed it very much.
did you see the vid that dumpy idiot made where he accuses atheists of whining all the time, and then pisses and moans into his indash in car video camera about how horrible science is? I mean some creationists are really beyond description. Hypocrisy doesnt even begin to describe it.
When will these Cretards get that there IS NO MISSING LINK.
There's just a series of gradual changes between earlier primates and humans. The only way to solve the missing link completely would be to dig up every single animal between the two species in question and set them up in a line. As is, we have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the fossil record, but some wilfully ignorant morons will shift the goalposts and lie their way out of it.
@theneonfire you're not factually wrong, but name-calling isn't a good way to convince anyone of anything, nor does it make creationists any more open to realizing the truth.
geerup was right eda was just a dead lemur no missing link, you can see its just a poor dead monkey, was corrected by real scientist and was yahoo for a bit, you can try to look for the article been a while thou
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
GEERUP was right all along, Ida has been debunked to be nothing more than an extict lemur. When will you bone peddlers ever learn? Human beings did not evolve and the fossil record says so.
Now people can say okay we are primates show us the link and The link we have said up to now is missing well its no longer missing. -Dr. Attenborough
aron ra is a genius! this other guy is a fucking moron! complete and utter moron! he should be raped in the ass and tortured for eternity lol by his "god' hahahahahha
Geerup is obviously an idiot. I doubt you'd give him the time of day if it weren't for the sad fact that so many people actually buy into his gibberish. These video's are doing a great service to people who might be sitting on the fence. Great entertainment for the rest.
Genetic explanations for evolutionary mechanisms are still in their infancy. More hox data, homologous gene data, and genetic pathways are uncovering the mechanisms behind evolution. Not to mention that much animal testing relies upon us being related to mice, rabbits, and pigs.
"Not to mention that much animal testing relies upon us being related to mice, rabbits, and pigs."
no it relies on us being similar to them.
which pig are you related to?
try and remain critical in your thinking as you are taught to do as a scientist. Instead of swallowing everything u r taught as being fact.
How often science retracts a previously accepted 'fact'. eg soft tissue cant last millions of yrs. oops we hav found it in dinosaur fossils,were we wrong? YES! about which?
Design doesn't account in any way at all for similar orders of molecular vestiges, embryological development or the successive appearance of species in the fossil record; they all form the same pattern.
Common descent is not a world view, it is the best and ONLY parsimonious or scientifically valid explanation ever proposed for any of these facts. Design fails the test from the start, because it makes no predictions that could positively indicate it. Evolution does and passes them all the time.
u sum it up well.."scientifically valid explanation". of course this is a criteria that automatically removes ID as a possible answer prior to starting.
Embryological development is surely a joke. How has it been empirically tested?
If u remove the evolutionary bias what proof is there that human embryos go through anything other than the normal formation of a human embryo?
"design fails the test"
what is the test for design? i think u raise a fascinating point. how would u recognized design?
Bad for you, but the history science speaks strongly for the practical importance of uniformitarianism, methodological naturalism and Ockham's Razor.
The successive stages of feather development revealed by evo-devo, for instance, follows the same pattern as those in basal and derived fossil coelurosaurs.
"how would u recognize design?"
Design would be the first thing I'd consider when faced with a purposeful arrangement of parts consisted of non-dynamic, non-reproductive, non-genetic matter.
Oh, sorry, I really forgot the kind of things that natural selection wouldn't favor (or pararrel organs that normal mutations cannot create or the things that multicellular organisms cannot horizontally transfer). So yes, those criteria should be added.
The point being of course that organic molecules can, after a long process of combinations, create a system of reproduction with true heredity, enabling the accumulation of increasing "design" by natural selection. Then a "designoid" can design.
natural select can only work on reproduction. So it is out as a method for organic molecules.
"after a long process of combinations" ...u forgot mention a wave of the magic wand..."creates" (there is a strange word) a system of reproduction..abracadabra. U need2come up with some proof of that rather than just saying its possible.
Can u explain how Folate is essential4life but is not produced naturally? Y wld a creature evolve the need4 folate?
There in increasingly no need to invoke magic to explain the origin of life (which reproduction is an essential part of). Currently, the only thing we need to find out is how these organic molecules could start self-replicating. Other than that, the goal of a speeded-up production of a protocell in a lab is starting to be within reach.
And btw, "folate" is the name of the very form of folic acid that DOES occur naturally. And if something is useful, NS tends to increase the dependency of it.
Strange that u call anything u dont understand magic. u r limited by ur perceptions that God must wave a wand like harry potter. Obviously if God exists & was able to create the universe then he lives outside our dimensions & has power we cant understand.
"Currently, the only thing we need to find out is how these organic molecules could start self-replicating."
agreed, alot of things still need2b proven2 even make molecules2man evolution possible let alone probable.
Violation of physical constants is magic by definition. It is not limited to HP-like figures, but encompasses virtually all supernatural action on the natural world.
Honestly, I don't have enough confidence to declare the question of the origin of life to be conclusively answered, but your way of expressing the question makes me scratch my head. I mean, whoever suggested that humans only USED TO BE molecules?! Hell, of course we are still molecules.
@Hirvassalo "whoever suggested that humans only USED TO BE molecules?! Hell, of course we are still molecules."
lol
way to avoid the issue. everything on this planet came from an initial spec of a protein or fraction of a cell. that means that man was nothing more than a single living molecule at one time.
That means every single organ & function in our body developed entirely by itself prior to being useful & prior2performing the function that it is clearly designed2do.
No single living molecule could ever have been the sole representative of any particular modern life form. There must've been many of them, many proto-microbial molecular structures forming all over the world, then multiplying, exchanging material (producing ever more complex combinations) and then competing with each other, eventually resulting in the "common ancestral consensus" of genetic language that we now have.
After the LUCA everything is orders of magnitude easier to explain.
"No single living molecule could ever have been the sole representative of any particular modern life form. There must've been many of them"
so now you have a theory that states that the big bang gave rise to many different forms of life so that they could swap genes they didnt have to produce complex structures of which they had no control or direction.
In other words...it all happened by accident & was fortunate that everything needed was just there to b swapped appropriately.
No, whatever we would've called living molecules would've been neither anywhere near as complex as the ones we now have, nor would they've formed by accident. The study of self-organization processes has revealed that hundreds of different types of nucleotides as well as molecular vesicles resembling primitive cell walls can all form spontaneously under the laws of chemistry. Swapping different materials is just a factor of increasing complexity, along with NS.
An international science&education foundation is offering a $1mil prize 2 any1 who can explain how genetic code arose spontaneously!
The Origin-of-Life Foundation (OLF) is offering the prize through the Gene Emergence Project. This group is dedicated 2 finding the answer to what biology professor Jack Trevors calls th most pressing question in science, The origin of the genetic instructions in the DNA
I ain't no molecular biologist, so I'm rather pessimistic about my chances of getting the prize, tempting as it is.
And as I said, we don't know how the self-replication began and without that we can only accomplish individual events of the process.
How the genetic code could evolve AFTER the beginning of self-replication has already been published in peer-reviewed papers and even made into an explanatory video here by cd007 (references included). Check out his uploads.
Now listen. I never claimed to know anything nearly as much as the best minds in the whole world. This is the 3rd time you've accused me of inappropriate confidence when I have neither had nor expressed that. Worse than that, you also repeated an argument I already disproved a month ago and built a saltationist strawman. One more time of either of those and I'll stop discussing with you altogether.
Yes Dad!. All evolutionists have inappropriate confidence. They belong to a group who strongly deny eyewitness testimony as being unreliable (the case for christ) but claim a series of smashed partial fossils as complete evidence of the history of all living creatures.
Humility should be the order of the day.
what was this saltationst strawman? i have no recollection of such.
False. Only atheists like myself deny the case for Christ from the basis of eyewitness testimony's unreliability (which btw is also established in every court, as you'll see if you'll ever happen to get to find it opposed to, say DNA evidence). So you are confidently equating evolution to atheism, which is dishonest.
Why is it that you assert evolutionists to claim that any or even all fossils to accout for the COMPLETE history of ALL living creatures? I already mentioned molecular evidence etc
genetic homology. just th same argument based on genetics. The similarity in genes shows that they are evolved from each other.
Again i repeat....if God created the creatures i would expect him to do so from the same genetic material and creatures that have similar features would have similar genes for those features.
another scientifically proven theory!
Simple to do when the explanation is worked into the definition of the condition to be explained.
« The similarity in genes shows that they are evolved from each other »
No, it's the pattern that the similarities and differences COMBINED make that hints at common ancestry. The name for that pattern is: nested hierarchies. And they're repeated on all levels of observation in biology, producing matching nested hierarchies no matter what aspect of an organism you look at.
It's spectacular really," Rossiter said. "I would never have imagined convergence to such an extent" that the protein sequences would group such distantly related organisms.
Whales & bats, how would u explain their ability 2use biosonar to navigate & explore their environments & the molecular sequence of a protein that helps them do so?
4common ancestry2b true all functions must b inherited from its ancestor not having homologous functions that r not hereditary.
« Whales & bats, how would u explain their ability 2use biosonar to navigate & explore their environments »
Like I said: similar problems require similar solutions. As for the protein homology, you'd have to show me some references on that: journal, author, year, title.
« 4common ancestry2b true all functions must b inherited from its ancestor »
You clearly have not read your instructional material very attentively: it says clearly that evolutionary theory is based around the concept of descent WITH MODIFICATION.
« i would expect him to do so from the same genetic material »
But since god is omnipotent, any other observation might be explained by this too. He might not have used slightly differing sequences for the same task, and the same sequences for slightly different task: he might have chosen to modularize genetics, and use *exactly* the same sequences for similar tasks, accross the board. The "goddiddit" hypothesis does not explain why we don't see this. Evolutionary theory does.
« evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a truck through »
There is sufficient that remains to be investigated regarding evolutionary theory and specific evolutionary developments. However, the theory appears to be basically accurate, and there is no evidence contradicting its fundamentals.
« how do the same features end up on unrelated creatures? »
Because environmental pressures often require similar solutions to resolve. For instance, the optimal shape for an organism to move quickly and smoothly through water is an certain shape. So any animal that adapts to an aquatic environment will eventually evolve such a shape. The genetic path they take towards that shape however is completely different, depending on their ancestry.
after you have basic forms of life then evolution becomes applicable, relevant and provable. It is at a complete loss to explain the appearing of life & cannot rule out anything from being possible becos it cannot conclusively prove anything.
The worlds population is an indicator that humans havent been on earth very long.any reasonable study of population wil infer that it was only 10's of 000's of years ago that there cant have been many people on earth.
Evolution after the LUCA doesn't necessarily depend on naturalistic abiogenesis, it's just that natural processes can be directly studied and the evidence has slowly accumulated to weed out the need for both miracles and ridiculously lucky accidents.
The fact that we ONLY need to find out how the self-replication began constitutes being "at a complete loss to explain the appearing of life"? I wonder if that represents the much discussed "Christian morality"...
....if secular scientists have stretched it out to 70,000 yrs then how would u explain that?
if humans started evolving millions of years ago...was it only one couple that became fully human? or many? If it were many then where are the people? if it was 2 then how is this story different from adam & eve being the first humans(timelines being arguable)?
population studies need regular wiping out of the human population 2 even be credible.
The current human population says very little about its past size (it has been static at various periods). The genetic diversity points to a bottleneck of ~15 000 individuals at some point (estimated at, as you said, 70 000 ya). Mitocondrial DNA and Y-chromosome can be traced to the most recent common male and female ancestors of all living humans, but those two lived dozens of millennia apart (& were part of temporal populations). As for becoming "fully human", the question is arbitrary.
"The current human population says very little about its past size"
but a few fossils tell us the complete history of mankind and the animal kingdom over billions of years???
sorry for lol.
sidestep the obvious elephant in the room if u will but were we related to apes assuming the first human was spun out 60000 yrs ago then populations would b substantially higher.
New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago.
That African ancestor of yours was the Y-chromosomal MRCA of all humans, not the FIRST human. Archaic Homo sapiens fossils have been dated back to ~200 000 years.
The funny thing here, I actually made no positive claim about what fossils can tell, but now that you mentioned it, they do tell at least 1 thing. We know from the fossils that until the Holocene there were many large now-extinct predators that regularly preyed on humans, which as parallelled until recently, naturlly moderates growth.
We have numerous fossils of, for instance, cave lions (both American and European) and other large cats plus hyenas (larger than today) who's extant cousins still readily prey on defenseless humans in case someone wonders too far from the protection of the community. The extinct forms were even more capable of doing the same.
There is also direct evidence (canine marks) that more basal homininans were common prey for pantherans and sabertooths.
Well I think that's one of the driving forces of us becoming smart. Humans don't have physical adaptations for defending themselves, but instead find safety in groups. Sociability, in turn, requires large brains.
In South Africa, dozens of hominin skulls minus their bodies (as often happens when a leopard has had its dinner) have been found in the same area with matching toothmarks in several of them.
You seem to think human populations must either flourish or be wiped out. Rather, regular predation only kept human populations at more typical sizes for apes in general, but after the Pleistocene extinction event many areas were left without that predation, so after the agricultural revolution (which itself was more or less an accident) large populations could start flocking in increasingly interacting populations, enabling an efficient flow of information and the development of technology.
No i see that the convenient answer for the evolutionist is that the population stagnated for a long period of time so therefore that will be the answer adopted.
I see that DInosaurs went extinct so it must have been a meteor or something else that hasnt been proved because it couldnt have been a flood.
Evolutionists seem to spend more time trying to disprove creationists than they do searching for truth.
But whichever answer fits what u already believe will be adopted.
Populations of many animals stagnate for long periods, especially those species that have long pragnancies and mature slowly. It is adopted because it makes sense. Period.
Once again, you're misfiring your charges. Geology doesn't support a global flood at any period, so there is no reason to assume that such an event ever happened.
"Geology doesn't support a global flood at any period, so there is no reason to assume that such an event ever happened."
does it support major floods at any point?
does it support meteors big enough to wipe out the dinosaurs?
"It is adopted because it makes sense. Period."
sure if you believe evolution happened in the way u describe then of course these stagnations make sense. they explain why the population is not massively larger than it is.
Occasional local floods certainly, like the one in Middle East just after the Ice Age.
Well there is a ~180 km wide meteor crater in the gulf of Mexico dated roughly at the K-T extinction boundary. A meteor capable of making that is calculated to have been able to explode with a force of 100 million megatons. Although not necessarily the sole cause of the extinction, it accounts for a lot.
And again, it makes sense because we know what causes regulate growth, and that many such causes existed.
well if u lived in the middle east and there was a major flood it would appear that it was world wide wouldnt it?
U probably dont know about Australia at that stage.
My readings of dinosaur extinctions is that they dont know but theories are proposed.
i would like to know how it is that a major species disappears and 'science' doesnt know why but it can tell that all things evolved from a single protozoa with absolute certainty.
Can you tell me how unknowable things are known without a doubt?
Based on the few sources I have read, Australia hasn't had large floods in that particular period. The rising sea levels only separated New Guinea and Tasmania from it.
I hesitate to use the word "absolute certainty" in any case, but the better certainty of descent comes from it being based on heredity, which has very specific laws (lineages can be traced back), as opposed to extinction, which has no laws at all and can even happen by chance.
1. They are not unknowable. Nothing that is real is fundamentally unknowable.
2. They are not known with absolute certitude, but they can be known with reasonable certitude. It is not an observed fact that all life shares a single origin: it is a hypothesis, part of evolutionary theory. But as hypothesis, it has been subjected to thorough testing, and has been verified to the extent that we can be reasonably sure the hypothesis is accurate to the limit of detection.
"Evolutionists seem to spend more time trying to disprove creationists than they do searching for truth."
Hahhah. If none of your beliefs are accepted by the scientific community, you automatically think it means they have a commitment against it? That's pathetic.
"But whichever answer fits what u already believe will be adopted."
No, the answer must be testable and fit to the existing data with the least possible number of unsubstantiated assumptions. Period.
" If none of ur beliefs r accepted by the scientific community"
but they r accepted by many scientists. Just like the anti global warming crowd has always been there despite th ridicule & the claims that the science is settled. Yet there is lies & deceit in the climate change crew of preposterous proportions.
None of the evolutionary ideas have been tested & proven they r accepted 4 lack of a naturalistic alternative.
Eliminate an outside force as a possibility & i agree evolution is an option
It doesn't matter whether or not they are accepted by individual scientists, if they don't even meet the requirements of science itself!
"None of the evolutionary ideas have been tested & proven"
Lies lies lies. That's basically what the field of biology HAS done accumulatively for the last 150 years.
For practical reasons, science needs a principle of elimination. There is no reason to seriously consider something OUTSIDE of the realm we can actually observe. Btw do you know what science is?
Science is making natural explanations for natural phenomena. Otherwise it would hardly be based on observation.
If many scientists of the same expertise, studying the same data, coming from different backgrounds and having various different personal biases come to the same conclusion, it can be considered a type of corroboration.
Every biologist in the past 150 years has had the chance of falsifying evolution (and claiming a Nobel prize for it!) but the evidence has never allowed that.
Science is making natural explanations for natural phenomena. Otherwise it would hardly be based on observation.
If many scientists of the same expertise, studying the same data, coming from different backgrounds and having various different personal biases come to the same conclusion, it can be considered a type of corroboration.
Every biologist in the past 150 years has had the chance of falsifying evolution (and claiming a Nobel prize for it!) but the evidence has never allowed that.
....regardless of whether the evidence confirms it or not.
the problem is that once u eliminate alternatives in your mind then u cease to look for alternative explanations for what u have found and all data is assumed to confirm the theory that is accepted.
It becomes circular in that data is presumed 2 b the way it is becos of the theory.
Yet the theory has no empirical evidence.
Knowing what Empirical evidence is....what is 1 bit of data that is indisputable proof that men came from protozoa
"Indisputable proof" and "evidence" are not the same thing. The former would imply there's nothing more to learn, and the latter is simply the fulfilment of specific predictions that establish a specific explanation as the best available one.
Also, I didn't claim we should stick to the consensus, because it can also change. I have only stated that despite all new data & new ways of testing a particular explanation just remains the best.
ERVs are viruses that insert themselves in completely random locations in DNA but accidentally break so they get stuck there. When this occurs in a sperm(or egg) it gets copied into every cell of the child and half the descendants of that child. Long story short, Sharing an ERV in the same location is legal proof of common ancestor. Sharing 100's of ERVs in the same location as chimps is legal proof of sharing a common ancestor with them.
@ExtantFrodo researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence. So ERV's are being found to have purposes. So the whole ERV concept is a evolutionary fable that will come undone just like vestigial organs did. But the believers will stil believe regardless
This is not news, and it does not change the fact that these are endogenous retroviral remnants. Furthermore, while older ERV's may have been coopted by some genetic mechanism, this does not go for more recent ERV's, such as ERVK6, which is an almost intact remnant.
arsjth (2 days ago) - "@ExtantFrodo researchers have
recently identified an important
function for a large proportion of the
human genome that has been labelled
as ERVs. ..."
Bullshit!
ERVs in common are certain indicators of relatedness. Furthermore, researchers have isolated ERVs, corrected their deficiencies that originally caused their entrapment, and resurrected functional virii.
Also, please explain vestigial organs' exsitence as mere 'fable' and exactly how the concept fell apart.
not bullshit. We have exploited the intrusion of so many ERVs by making a regulatory network out of them. This is a development unique to humans and so doesn't account for the ERVs co-location in chimps and other primates.
"Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution."
notice that the definition contains evolution. So when u say something is vestigial then the assumption is already built in.
Vestigiality cannot prove evolution because the description contains the assumption.
If i deem an organ2b vestigial then it must b becos of evolution,how could it b otherwise?
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are some of the most cited evidences for evolution. They are part of the suite of junk DNA that supposedly comprised the vast majority of our DNA. ERVs are said to be parasitic retroviral DNA sequences that infected our genome long ago and have stayed there ever since. These short DNA strands are found throughout the human genome, and make up about 5% of the DNA,1 or about 10% of the total amount of DNA that is classified as transposable elements (i.e. 50%).
the term endogenous retrovirus is a bit of a misnomer. There r numerous instances where small transposable elements thort2b ERV's hav been found 2 hav functions, which invalidates th random retrovirus insertion claim.4eg studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development.TE's seem2b involved in controlling the sequence & level of gene expression during development, by moving to/ from the sites of gene control.
Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence. We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences....
that are located in gene proximal promoter or ' untranslated regions (UTRs). And, Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. So were not just talking about a small scale phenomenon. These ERVs aid transcription in over ONE FIFTH of the human genome!
This is an example where ID science wins over Evolutionary science.
ID'ers say ERV's must hav a function becos we were designed.Evolutionists say becos we dont know their function yet it musnt have one & must be proof that they are vestigial viruses. When they r proven wrong they just move on2 th next proof which also undeniably proves evolution.
Vestigial wisdom teeth & appendix r embarrassing examples of th flaw of evolutionary thinking.
« Evolutionists say becos we dont know their function yet it musnt have one »
Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not say ERV's cannot have functions. In fact, it predicts that and demonstrates how ERV's will be coopted in the genome. As much as 1/10th of the human genome is recognizable as ERV, but ultimately as much as 1/3d of our genome may have a viral origin.
Actually, there is no question that ERV's are actually viral insertions. They reconstituted an ancient ERV and found it to be infectious. The exploitation of ERV's by primates for use as regulatory networks is again unique to primates and an example of novel use of new genes (something that you guys claim never happens).
Again refute that the reconstituted ERV is simply an infectious virus and you may have a case.
arsjth (2 days ago) - "This is an example where ID science..."
From "Kitzmiller v. Dover" --- "... ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. ..."
"... When they r proven wrong they just move on2 th next proof..."
Please show where evolution has ever been PROVEN wrong, with citations.
Show where Creation has ever been PROVEN true.
BTW, only in MATHEMATICS can something be 100% proven.
[CONT] (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) IDs negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ID has failed to gain acceptance, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
"Please show where evolution has ever been PROVEN wrong, with citations"
evolution is a fact....things change. natural selection plays an important part.
The error is trying to explain the origin of life by extrapolating that to mean that a single protozoa ultimately gave life to everything we see today.
whilst retaining its original form as well, of course. Its always the mutant that diverted off the pathway in the tree of life & we never see actual ancestor just its relatives.
actually our population went through a bottle neck some 75,000 years ago (we know by DNA analysis) where we pared down to ~2,000 individuals. We almost didn't make it.
Sorry you find if amusing. It's science you could learn if you weren't willfully ignorant. DNA mutates at a known rate. That rate of change allows us to determine from examining extant populations not only how different we were X years in the past but how large the size of the gene pool said differences derived from. It's the reason why we are so much alike.
we know that they would have flourished becos they were fitter hence thats why they evolved. fitter than the apes they evolved from. So their numbers would have grown rapidly being fitter 4 their environment than those that survived adequately for millions of yrs.
btw who was that first ape to become fully human? i bet he was hoping that a female would evolve too.lol.
Saltation? nope not me.i dont think that it happend@all.
I find it funny2think that u see no limits2 any creature evolving any feature whilst we have evidence of nothing.
We saw no limbs growing on fish. we saw no fins growing on jawless bottom feeders. its all implied and no empirical evidence stands to prove that it did.
Y is it assumed that we evolved from ape like creatures? who did they evolve from? every creature still survives today except the ancestors we supposedly evolved from.
Geerup is so dishonest and condescending that it actually sickens me....
shade421 3 months ago
@decide2think If you're referring the sole female ancestor as Lucy, she wasn't the first or only member of her species as far as we know, but she is one of the few fossils we have found of that species. And fossils are exceedingly rare and we could miss entire species because of their lack of traces. For example, the carrier pigeon in the Americas numbered in the millions 200 years ago. They're extinct now and how many skeletons do we have of them?
pat5168 3 months ago
Jesus christ, that guy is a hypocrite. 1:00
Have you taken a look at the anatomy of the foot ffs, before you post stupid shit nobody believes?
Primate stuff.....lololol
AronRa wins, Flawless Victory!
mihaimoldo 4 months ago
The funny thing I find about GEERUP's assumption is that he thinks because Ida had opposable thumbs doesn't mean it's related to humans. Opposable thumbs is a mammal characteristic, primarilly primates have them. I remember a few other animals have them but aren't related to the primate clade at all, but opposable thumbsare a primary characteristic of primates.
NUTCASE71733 7 months ago
no one breaks it down better than AronRa
farriskc 7 months ago
Was that David Attenborough he was mocking? If so I have a new found disgust for Geerup. Attenboroughs documentaries helped me understand evolution more than I had before (I did chemistry in high school,and not very well lol) If you have not seen it I strongly suggest checking out David Attenboroughs First Life 2 part documentary, it's amazing (I think it's here on youtube)
Great video Aron.
1brutaldeath 7 months ago
I just had to hear you cover Ida again. @AronRa, your logic is impeccable.
Thanks for the mental workout.
psycotria 9 months ago
@AronRa Why didn't you just use yourself as an example of evolution? No human can speak so fast and without breathing. Clearly, you're a transitional form to a telepathic science emitting creature that feeds off of dark matter.
DirectInjected 10 months ago 2
It must be difficult to explain simple things to this brainless guy, especially he keeps saying that anyone who believe in evolution is just plain stupid and hopeless
Corina51 1 year ago
I know I'm late to the party, but damn - great stuff. Between him and Thunderf00t, I feel like I'm getting a wonderful education in logic, debate and critical reasoning.
Oh, and science to boot. ;)
hurlyburlyexistenz 1 year ago 2
Love you vids mate :)
By any chance were you raised by klingons?
squidfanny 1 year ago
You mention that "evolution happens to populations, not individuals" but I'm confused when I hear that there is a sole female descendant back some 200,000+ years (via mitochondrial DNA) that we are all descended from. Doesn't that mean if that particular female we are all descended from didn't exist, human evolution potential would have been seriously affected? Thnx
BTW, appreciative fan of yours. Never thought that a big, long haired biker like you would be so knowledgeable about this subject.
decide2think 1 year ago
@decide2think Initially, a zygote might bear some significant mutation. That mutation may be passed down through flowering lines of descent where -as a result of population mechanics, it might eventually effect the entire gene pool. This is usually a lengthy process requiring an average of 80 generations or so.
AronRa 1 year ago 8
@decide2think
its only the mitochondrial DNA. that one female "prime progenitor" wasn't the only female alive at the time and also isn't female to have contributed some DNA to all descendants. It is just the copy of mtDNA that all copies come from. Her other genes are almost certainly irrelevant today because while she won the rare lottery to pass on her MTDNA no one wins the lottery twice
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@decide2think Also, to my understanding, there is not simply a single one; we'd all also be descended from her mother and father ect. ect. and probably some of her contemporary. (and i don't think we need 200.000+ years; check concordance's "Genetic bucket chain")
MagnusThiHan 3 months ago
Why is this religious guy using science to defend his religion?
He should use the bible to disprove evolution
Evolvedprimate 1 year ago
WoW 155 ppl must have sneezed right when tryed to click the thumbs up botton...
jasonoatmeal 1 year ago
seriously aron how the hell do you memorize all those names? haha
Psycnosis 1 year ago
Kickass! This PCS2 is a real piece of work. Thanks for workin' him over...
and thanks for spreading the truth!
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
BFA Sir!!!
SanRafaelSwell 1 year ago
Aron ... you have some God-like patience with these people. You are a true teacher.
fokGoogol 1 year ago
"Greetings Darth Geerup"
Thus begins the greatest interweb pwn in the universe.
GoblinsnHobbits 1 year ago
I dub thee 'Sir AronRa' ....
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
Does this guy realize that humans are primates? Or the definition of opposite?
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
hmm geerup somehow sounds gay. probably he´s the next ted haggard.
Steidemeister56 1 year ago
Geerup's British accent isn't half bad.
ManlySlut 1 year ago
how have I not been subbed to you for years?
29Ocelot 1 year ago
There hasn't been one video of yours to which I haven't enjoyed. You put so much research into your videos and you pronunciation skills are through the roof! You're a brilliant man AronRa.
zse4rfvgy7uj 1 year ago
Isn't the way a Platypus lays eggs a little reptillian, or am I wrong on that one
Joeybugman 1 year ago
@Joeybugman: You are correct; it is. And that is one reason why the platypus (along with the echidna) is considered the most primitive extant representative of the mammal class. You might note that it also has hair. It (monotremes) is considered a brother clade to marsupials.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Right, so we can still consider it mamillian even though it has the properties of a reptile, I see. Oh, but of course, that's just the way GOD made it >.<
Joeybugman 1 year ago
@Joeybugman: Yes, you can. Its evolution was from the mammalian line extending down from therapods. That determination is made through considering all the features that an animal exhibits, not just one. It is apparent from the record that mammals first developed hair while still using eggs just like all other animals on Earth at the time (ca 60 mya) did. A sister clan of the monotremes developed first pouch birth, and later on, live birth, and most of today's mammals came from that line.
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeybugman "Isn't the way a Platypus lays eggs a little reptillian, or am I wrong on that one "
Yes, it is 'reptilian'. the way its non mammalian ancestors laid eggs is retained in the species of monotremata
ProcInc 1 year ago
AronRa, I dont mean to insult you by saying this but you are god!! LOL!! genius videos, Love watching every time you upload :) amazing work and THANK YOU :) anytime a creationist tries to debunk science is always a new feat of comedy! dangerous education to the gullible, yes but always hilarious to the rest of us!!
DeafCoustics 1 year ago
Yknow Aron, I personally put in the same bracket as Neil Degrass Tyson and Potholer 54, as the most entertaining witty and informative people on utube. I never get bored with any of you.
NIXIMvideo 1 year ago
Aron that guy you got on your video looks like Dr. Smith from the 70's series "Lost in space"...
WICKEDMAN9MM 1 year ago
@WICKEDMAN9MM: Jonathan Harris ("Dr. Z. Smith") was an actor from the Bronx who gave up his accent for a suave British one. He was Chuck Norris's drama and voice coach when Norris was just starting out; Harris spoke of it (at a StarTrek convention that I attended in the 90s) as a very trying time, when Norris could neither walk nor chew gum convincingly (although Norris made sure he got credit in his first film).
To compare Geerup to Smith is an insult to cringing villains.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Thanks for the info, I didn't know the whole Bio about him...
WICKEDMAN9MM 1 year ago
Aron, I love your videos
I have always accepted evolution, but never appreciated how beautifully complex it is. My biology classes dumbed it down so much back in school.
I'm doing a physics degree now. I'm really considering doing another Msc. in Biology. It would be a shame to never fully understand evolution before I die.
If you ever come to the UK, I'd love to buy you a pint... or three.
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago 35
@AtheismandSkepticism Now if I can just work out how to get to the U.K. :-)
AronRa 1 year ago 26
@AronRa I'd buy you another three :D
lynus111 1 year ago
@AronRa
Try a plane, dude! You should come and meet the Atheist society at UCL. You wouldn't pay for a drink all night!
VALENTINEBEAMS 1 year ago
@AtheismandSkepticism
That's certainly an ambitious goal. Evolutionary Biology is a HUGE body of knowledge. And i wouldn't say that the most learned person fully understands it.
If it interests you enough to reach an arbitrary point that some would call "full understanding" you'll probably want to keep learning.
Cheers!
lardhat 1 year ago
@ 7:07 you can clearly see a marlboro red tucked underneath Ida's thumb. If that's not demonstrable proof then I don't know what is.
proggoth 1 year ago
Well done AronRa!
it's good that you used the village idiot to show us that he didn't have a grasp and he didn't convince me. I watched the special on Ida. I believe it is our distant ancestor. All the detractor did was babble on about what he didn't think it was. meanwhile offering no intelligent alternative. the more he talked the dumber he sounded...nice to see ignorance put in it's place.
saturnia22 1 year ago
Regarding the "Darth Geerup" comment: was that a reference to his video that I didn't get? I don't watch Geerup's vids because his voice is like a cat being sodomized with an eggbeater.
Omnywrench 1 year ago
AronRa! You RULE!
Pablo113 1 year ago
ahhhh classic GEERUP he makes me laugh and makes me angry at the same time
patrickledford420 1 year ago
"Human foots don't have this long finger bones here"
llamzrt 1 year ago
Aron Ra = Hero!
See the song I made about him on my channel - click my name (it's the featured one)
PatRibsey 1 year ago
From Luskin's piece:
"The big question now is, will BBC and The History Channel publish documentaries retracting their prior claims about Idas importance as a human ancestor, or will they leave the public with the impression that Ida is a "missing link"? Perhaps they might publish a documentary about the scientific communitys tendency to overhype fossils as part of a crusade for Darwin?"
Straight-to-the-point and propaganda-free. Absolutely fantastic!
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
@signatureinthecell:
Casey Luskin is a coward and a liar who was literally pwned by a 15 year old here on YouTube. Regardless of Ida, the natural process of evolution is still a fact and the only rational sky-hook free explanations for the diversity of life , religion is still a lie, and creationists are still the desperate assclown drones for Jeebus that they always were. And it's not gonna change anytime soon.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Casey Luskin is a fucking idiot. Anyone who listens to him is not worth paying attention to.
ThePsychoReturns 1 year ago
The always brilliant "Darwin Destroyer" Casey Luskin has a new piece out on Ida. I would say it's the final straw for any of those still holding out hope that Ida is the "missing link", but I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, thus I fully expect many, if not most of you to still cling to the failed hype behind Ida.
To find the article just Google the following:
"Idas Critics Demolish Claims That Fossil Is Human Evolutionary Link"
Thanks!
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Neuro linguistic programming, If I got that right, is what all of you are victims of!! Why was Ida such a big thing when the transitions have already been found for hundreds of years? Let's hear you made up excuse for that one!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
Ida wasn't really a big deal, beyond the media hype, and you, like Geerup/PCS2, are probably using the term "neuro linguistic programming" without having the slightest clue on what it means, just like you are clueless about the rest of science, like the good drone for Jeebus that you are.
And yes, we discovered many transitionals before Ida, and several after. If your sky-daddy were real, he would have killed himself by now for being represented by assclowns like you.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@ironman197268: To begin, Ida is a beautiful specimen in an area of paleontology which does not have very many representatives. Then there is the desire of the paleo who bought him for a huge amount of money to both make a name for himself and to prove to the university that they money was wisely spent. Then there was the desire of the Discover channel to really have an exclusive coup after the BBC Walking with series ate their shorts technically, and their kleuthes in science was under attack.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out in the way that they hoped it would. Some of the scientists working on the fossil rebelled at the meddling that Discovery pushed into the project, and the scientific reception didn't pay as much attention to the fanfare as the marketing department apparently hoped it would. AronRa has been instrumental in that, at least here on YT.
puncheex 1 year ago
Geerup is an idiot who continues to make a fool out of himself....over and over and over and over and over again.........
doriamedina 1 year ago
Wow what a troll face
pallokallo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Garbage.
Apologist117 1 year ago
@Apologist117:
Indeed, the material made by Geerup/PCS2 is garbage.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people need to believe in and fear a "God" it keeps them in line! With out that fear they would ravage this world even more than they do now! Thats why religion was Created! For control! I dont judge people who are "Religious Nuts" I simply tolerate them! Some of them are good people & my friends, its just a shame that so much is wasted on religion instead of the progression of man & science! But lets face it WE have a lt Bigger problems to worry about!
peterwalleri 1 year ago
This man is incredibly intelligent & I would very much like to be his friend. Thank you for putting your time, knowledge & research in to this video. I enjoyed it very much.
bodyrocks1on1 1 year ago 73
nice pieces you have of science there geeurp, big tv, good nice speakers... asshole.
egokillar 1 year ago
did you see the vid that dumpy idiot made where he accuses atheists of whining all the time, and then pisses and moans into his indash in car video camera about how horrible science is? I mean some creationists are really beyond description. Hypocrisy doesnt even begin to describe it.
GallusSapien 1 year ago 4
aron's voice is soothing
secularenegadether 1 year ago 56
@secularenegadether I listen to it every day before going to bed.
Jussimania 1 year ago
When will these Cretards get that there IS NO MISSING LINK.
There's just a series of gradual changes between earlier primates and humans. The only way to solve the missing link completely would be to dig up every single animal between the two species in question and set them up in a line. As is, we have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the fossil record, but some wilfully ignorant morons will shift the goalposts and lie their way out of it.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire you're not factually wrong, but name-calling isn't a good way to convince anyone of anything, nor does it make creationists any more open to realizing the truth.
Meyvn 1 year ago
@Meyvn
True, I just see it posted so often - it's like banging my head against a brick wall, y'know?
theneonfire 1 year ago
Rofl i love that quote at 6:29
It just also goes to show how creationist have it backwards, do they even know whos ox is getting gored?
7900gtx512pwnege 1 year ago
geerup was right eda was just a dead lemur no missing link, you can see its just a poor dead monkey, was corrected by real scientist and was yahoo for a bit, you can try to look for the article been a while thou
xXshirenuXx 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GEERUP was right all along, Ida has been debunked to be nothing more than an extict lemur. When will you bone peddlers ever learn? Human beings did not evolve and the fossil record says so.
Now people can say okay we are primates show us the link and The link we have said up to now is missing well its no longer missing. -Dr. Attenborough
LOL....try again
fellowservant34 2 years ago
Ignorance is bliss. Stupidity hurts...
Sometimes i feel like humanity is tumbling back to the caves when I see claims like this one...
LuigiPeach 1 year ago
aron ra is a genius! this other guy is a fucking moron! complete and utter moron! he should be raped in the ass and tortured for eternity lol by his "god' hahahahahha
alexislago 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexislago
"he should be raped in the ass and tortured for eternity lol by his "god' hahahahahha"
yes this is normal thinking for the atheist.
they are by nature...hateful, vengeful, violent, intolerant & bigoted.
you are the proof of the theory.
Aron Ra should be concerned someone as ugly on the inside considers him a genius.
A lot of people thought Hitler was wonderful too. perhaps you are one of those as well.
arsjth 2 years ago
5 star good job.
OskyATL 2 years ago
"Human foot's"
chigong980 2 years ago 4
Geerup is obviously an idiot. I doubt you'd give him the time of day if it weren't for the sad fact that so many people actually buy into his gibberish. These video's are doing a great service to people who might be sitting on the fence. Great entertainment for the rest.
chigong980 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"These video's are doing a great service to people who might be sitting on the fence. Great entertainment for the rest. "
I agree on the last part (I like his voice, hehe)
And if a fencesitter is convinced by either person, I'd really prefer he or she goes to THEIR side... well, roughly, anyway
Sutskoen 2 years ago
on a sidenote, Geerup is obviously not an idiot, he's clinically insane
Sutskoen 2 years ago
"What are you? A hypnotist?"
ROFLMAO!
warren52nz 2 years ago
Genetic explanations for evolutionary mechanisms are still in their infancy. More hox data, homologous gene data, and genetic pathways are uncovering the mechanisms behind evolution. Not to mention that much animal testing relies upon us being related to mice, rabbits, and pigs.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
@Ramshobraja
"Not to mention that much animal testing relies upon us being related to mice, rabbits, and pigs."
no it relies on us being similar to them.
which pig are you related to?
try and remain critical in your thinking as you are taught to do as a scientist. Instead of swallowing everything u r taught as being fact.
How often science retracts a previously accepted 'fact'. eg soft tissue cant last millions of yrs. oops we hav found it in dinosaur fossils,were we wrong? YES! about which?
arsjth 2 years ago
Why do you think we are similar to animals as diverse as pigs, mice, fruit flies, and nematodes. All animals which are used as model systems.
Science is great because it can change and adapt, unlike religion.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 4
@Ramshobraja
looking at you i can see the similarity to pigs so i may reconsider my beliefs by adapting.
science adapts and changes does it?
i call it getting it wrong and coming up with a new theory and i agree, science does it regularly.
Design accounts for similarity, the assumption that similarity = relatedness is based on your world view that everything evolved from a single cell.
you are just missing 1 thing....evidence.
speculation &assumption are your main evidence.
arsjth 2 years ago
Design doesn't account in any way at all for similar orders of molecular vestiges, embryological development or the successive appearance of species in the fossil record; they all form the same pattern.
Common descent is not a world view, it is the best and ONLY parsimonious or scientifically valid explanation ever proposed for any of these facts. Design fails the test from the start, because it makes no predictions that could positively indicate it. Evolution does and passes them all the time.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@H
u sum it up well.."scientifically valid explanation". of course this is a criteria that automatically removes ID as a possible answer prior to starting.
Embryological development is surely a joke. How has it been empirically tested?
If u remove the evolutionary bias what proof is there that human embryos go through anything other than the normal formation of a human embryo?
"design fails the test"
what is the test for design? i think u raise a fascinating point. how would u recognized design?
arsjth 2 years ago
Bad for you, but the history science speaks strongly for the practical importance of uniformitarianism, methodological naturalism and Ockham's Razor.
The successive stages of feather development revealed by evo-devo, for instance, follows the same pattern as those in basal and derived fossil coelurosaurs.
"how would u recognize design?"
Design would be the first thing I'd consider when faced with a purposeful arrangement of parts consisted of non-dynamic, non-reproductive, non-genetic matter.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
Interesting so design is prohibited from acting on anything dynamic of living or reproductive or genetic?
when two different breeds are purposefully cross bred this has no intelligence or design behind it?
When food is genetically modified this has no design or planning behind it?
Invitro fertilization has no element of design!
perhaps you should reconsider what is possible with design and the living genes.
R u familar with mice growing ears on their backs?
Design or random?
arsjth 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, I really forgot the kind of things that natural selection wouldn't favor (or pararrel organs that normal mutations cannot create or the things that multicellular organisms cannot horizontally transfer). So yes, those criteria should be added.
The point being of course that organic molecules can, after a long process of combinations, create a system of reproduction with true heredity, enabling the accumulation of increasing "design" by natural selection. Then a "designoid" can design.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
"design" by natural selection."
natural select can only work on reproduction. So it is out as a method for organic molecules.
"after a long process of combinations" ...u forgot mention a wave of the magic wand..."creates" (there is a strange word) a system of reproduction..abracadabra. U need2come up with some proof of that rather than just saying its possible.
Can u explain how Folate is essential4life but is not produced naturally? Y wld a creature evolve the need4 folate?
arsjth 2 years ago
There in increasingly no need to invoke magic to explain the origin of life (which reproduction is an essential part of). Currently, the only thing we need to find out is how these organic molecules could start self-replicating. Other than that, the goal of a speeded-up production of a protocell in a lab is starting to be within reach.
And btw, "folate" is the name of the very form of folic acid that DOES occur naturally. And if something is useful, NS tends to increase the dependency of it.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
Strange that u call anything u dont understand magic. u r limited by ur perceptions that God must wave a wand like harry potter. Obviously if God exists & was able to create the universe then he lives outside our dimensions & has power we cant understand.
"Currently, the only thing we need to find out is how these organic molecules could start self-replicating."
agreed, alot of things still need2b proven2 even make molecules2man evolution possible let alone probable.
arsjth 2 years ago
Violation of physical constants is magic by definition. It is not limited to HP-like figures, but encompasses virtually all supernatural action on the natural world.
Honestly, I don't have enough confidence to declare the question of the origin of life to be conclusively answered, but your way of expressing the question makes me scratch my head. I mean, whoever suggested that humans only USED TO BE molecules?! Hell, of course we are still molecules.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo "whoever suggested that humans only USED TO BE molecules?! Hell, of course we are still molecules."
lol
way to avoid the issue. everything on this planet came from an initial spec of a protein or fraction of a cell. that means that man was nothing more than a single living molecule at one time.
That means every single organ & function in our body developed entirely by itself prior to being useful & prior2performing the function that it is clearly designed2do.
arsjth 2 years ago
No single living molecule could ever have been the sole representative of any particular modern life form. There must've been many of them, many proto-microbial molecular structures forming all over the world, then multiplying, exchanging material (producing ever more complex combinations) and then competing with each other, eventually resulting in the "common ancestral consensus" of genetic language that we now have.
After the LUCA everything is orders of magnitude easier to explain.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hirvassalo
"No single living molecule could ever have been the sole representative of any particular modern life form. There must've been many of them"
so now you have a theory that states that the big bang gave rise to many different forms of life so that they could swap genes they didnt have to produce complex structures of which they had no control or direction.
In other words...it all happened by accident & was fortunate that everything needed was just there to b swapped appropriately.
arsjth 2 years ago
Fuckdammit what ignorance...
No, whatever we would've called living molecules would've been neither anywhere near as complex as the ones we now have, nor would they've formed by accident. The study of self-organization processes has revealed that hundreds of different types of nucleotides as well as molecular vesicles resembling primitive cell walls can all form spontaneously under the laws of chemistry. Swapping different materials is just a factor of increasing complexity, along with NS.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
An international science&education foundation is offering a $1mil prize 2 any1 who can explain how genetic code arose spontaneously!
The Origin-of-Life Foundation (OLF) is offering the prize through the Gene Emergence Project. This group is dedicated 2 finding the answer to what biology professor Jack Trevors calls th most pressing question in science, The origin of the genetic instructions in the DNA
arsjth 2 years ago
, pointing out that Genetic instructions dont write themselves any more than a software program writes itself.
Hiravassalo you can claim your prize. you have the answers to life spontaneously generating itself.
u can cut me in on part of the deal as i tipped you on to it.
must be great to know that you know more than the best minds in the world.
congrats
arsjth 2 years ago
I ain't no molecular biologist, so I'm rather pessimistic about my chances of getting the prize, tempting as it is.
And as I said, we don't know how the self-replication began and without that we can only accomplish individual events of the process.
How the genetic code could evolve AFTER the beginning of self-replication has already been published in peer-reviewed papers and even made into an explanatory video here by cd007 (references included). Check out his uploads.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
Now listen. I never claimed to know anything nearly as much as the best minds in the whole world. This is the 3rd time you've accused me of inappropriate confidence when I have neither had nor expressed that. Worse than that, you also repeated an argument I already disproved a month ago and built a saltationist strawman. One more time of either of those and I'll stop discussing with you altogether.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
Yes Dad!. All evolutionists have inappropriate confidence. They belong to a group who strongly deny eyewitness testimony as being unreliable (the case for christ) but claim a series of smashed partial fossils as complete evidence of the history of all living creatures.
Humility should be the order of the day.
what was this saltationst strawman? i have no recollection of such.
So i gather u r not claiming the prize?
more reasons for humility.
perhaps someone u know might claim it.
arsjth 2 years ago
False. Only atheists like myself deny the case for Christ from the basis of eyewitness testimony's unreliability (which btw is also established in every court, as you'll see if you'll ever happen to get to find it opposed to, say DNA evidence). So you are confidently equating evolution to atheism, which is dishonest.
Why is it that you assert evolutionists to claim that any or even all fossils to accout for the COMPLETE history of ALL living creatures? I already mentioned molecular evidence etc
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
"I already mentioned molecular evidence etc"
genetic homology. just th same argument based on genetics. The similarity in genes shows that they are evolved from each other.
Again i repeat....if God created the creatures i would expect him to do so from the same genetic material and creatures that have similar features would have similar genes for those features.
another scientifically proven theory!
Simple to do when the explanation is worked into the definition of the condition to be explained.
arsjth 2 years ago
« The similarity in genes shows that they are evolved from each other »
No, it's the pattern that the similarities and differences COMBINED make that hints at common ancestry. The name for that pattern is: nested hierarchies. And they're repeated on all levels of observation in biology, producing matching nested hierarchies no matter what aspect of an organism you look at.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor "
a quote for u...
It's spectacular really," Rossiter said. "I would never have imagined convergence to such an extent" that the protein sequences would group such distantly related organisms.
Whales & bats, how would u explain their ability 2use biosonar to navigate & explore their environments & the molecular sequence of a protein that helps them do so?
4common ancestry2b true all functions must b inherited from its ancestor not having homologous functions that r not hereditary.
arsjth 2 years ago
« Rossiter said »
« that the protein sequences would group such distantly related organisms »
And I should care about what Rossiter expects or does not expect because whatever he expects must be real?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Whales & bats, how would u explain their ability 2use biosonar to navigate & explore their environments »
Like I said: similar problems require similar solutions. As for the protein homology, you'd have to show me some references on that: journal, author, year, title.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« 4common ancestry2b true all functions must b inherited from its ancestor »
You clearly have not read your instructional material very attentively: it says clearly that evolutionary theory is based around the concept of descent WITH MODIFICATION.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« i would expect him to do so from the same genetic material »
But since god is omnipotent, any other observation might be explained by this too. He might not have used slightly differing sequences for the same task, and the same sequences for slightly different task: he might have chosen to modularize genetics, and use *exactly* the same sequences for similar tasks, accross the board. The "goddiddit" hypothesis does not explain why we don't see this. Evolutionary theory does.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor
evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a truck through.
convergent evolution is a big problem. how do the same features end up on unrelated creatures?
oh well just another thing evolution cant explain. but that wont stop u believing in it.
arsjth 2 years ago
« evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a truck through »
There is sufficient that remains to be investigated regarding evolutionary theory and specific evolutionary developments. However, the theory appears to be basically accurate, and there is no evidence contradicting its fundamentals.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« how do the same features end up on unrelated creatures? »
Because environmental pressures often require similar solutions to resolve. For instance, the optimal shape for an organism to move quickly and smoothly through water is an certain shape. So any animal that adapts to an aquatic environment will eventually evolve such a shape. The genetic path they take towards that shape however is completely different, depending on their ancestry.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« oh well just another thing evolution cant explain »
But evolutionary theory *does* explain convergent evolution. You have simply not tried to inform yourself of this.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
after you have basic forms of life then evolution becomes applicable, relevant and provable. It is at a complete loss to explain the appearing of life & cannot rule out anything from being possible becos it cannot conclusively prove anything.
The worlds population is an indicator that humans havent been on earth very long.any reasonable study of population wil infer that it was only 10's of 000's of years ago that there cant have been many people on earth.
arsjth 2 years ago
Evolution after the LUCA doesn't necessarily depend on naturalistic abiogenesis, it's just that natural processes can be directly studied and the evidence has slowly accumulated to weed out the need for both miracles and ridiculously lucky accidents.
The fact that we ONLY need to find out how the self-replication began constitutes being "at a complete loss to explain the appearing of life"? I wonder if that represents the much discussed "Christian morality"...
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
....if secular scientists have stretched it out to 70,000 yrs then how would u explain that?
if humans started evolving millions of years ago...was it only one couple that became fully human? or many? If it were many then where are the people? if it was 2 then how is this story different from adam & eve being the first humans(timelines being arguable)?
population studies need regular wiping out of the human population 2 even be credible.
arsjth 2 years ago
The current human population says very little about its past size (it has been static at various periods). The genetic diversity points to a bottleneck of ~15 000 individuals at some point (estimated at, as you said, 70 000 ya). Mitocondrial DNA and Y-chromosome can be traced to the most recent common male and female ancestors of all living humans, but those two lived dozens of millennia apart (& were part of temporal populations). As for becoming "fully human", the question is arbitrary.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
"The current human population says very little about its past size"
but a few fossils tell us the complete history of mankind and the animal kingdom over billions of years???
sorry for lol.
sidestep the obvious elephant in the room if u will but were we related to apes assuming the first human was spun out 60000 yrs ago then populations would b substantially higher.
New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago.
arsjth 2 years ago
That African ancestor of yours was the Y-chromosomal MRCA of all humans, not the FIRST human. Archaic Homo sapiens fossils have been dated back to ~200 000 years.
The funny thing here, I actually made no positive claim about what fossils can tell, but now that you mentioned it, they do tell at least 1 thing. We know from the fossils that until the Holocene there were many large now-extinct predators that regularly preyed on humans, which as parallelled until recently, naturlly moderates growth.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
"here were many large now-extinct predators that regularly preyed on humans"
what exactly would these creatures have been and what is the evidence they preyed on humans?
arsjth 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
We have numerous fossils of, for instance, cave lions (both American and European) and other large cats plus hyenas (larger than today) who's extant cousins still readily prey on defenseless humans in case someone wonders too far from the protection of the community. The extinct forms were even more capable of doing the same.
There is also direct evidence (canine marks) that more basal homininans were common prey for pantherans and sabertooths.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
"there were many large now-extinct predators that regularly preyed on humans, which as parallelled until recently, naturlly moderates growth."
well i m surprised that humans became smart enuf2avoid becomg extinct. lol.
Exactly how many human fossils have these teeth marks? have u extrapolated from an occassional fossil 2assume that entire populations were wiped out?
Humans were smart enough 2 avoid or defend.like crocs today!occasionally a human gets taken.populations r not being wiped out.
arsjth 2 years ago
Well I think that's one of the driving forces of us becoming smart. Humans don't have physical adaptations for defending themselves, but instead find safety in groups. Sociability, in turn, requires large brains.
In South Africa, dozens of hominin skulls minus their bodies (as often happens when a leopard has had its dinner) have been found in the same area with matching toothmarks in several of them.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
You seem to think human populations must either flourish or be wiped out. Rather, regular predation only kept human populations at more typical sizes for apes in general, but after the Pleistocene extinction event many areas were left without that predation, so after the agricultural revolution (which itself was more or less an accident) large populations could start flocking in increasingly interacting populations, enabling an efficient flow of information and the development of technology.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
No i see that the convenient answer for the evolutionist is that the population stagnated for a long period of time so therefore that will be the answer adopted.
I see that DInosaurs went extinct so it must have been a meteor or something else that hasnt been proved because it couldnt have been a flood.
Evolutionists seem to spend more time trying to disprove creationists than they do searching for truth.
But whichever answer fits what u already believe will be adopted.
arsjth 2 years ago
Populations of many animals stagnate for long periods, especially those species that have long pragnancies and mature slowly. It is adopted because it makes sense. Period.
Once again, you're misfiring your charges. Geology doesn't support a global flood at any period, so there is no reason to assume that such an event ever happened.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
"Geology doesn't support a global flood at any period, so there is no reason to assume that such an event ever happened."
does it support major floods at any point?
does it support meteors big enough to wipe out the dinosaurs?
"It is adopted because it makes sense. Period."
sure if you believe evolution happened in the way u describe then of course these stagnations make sense. they explain why the population is not massively larger than it is.
Your theory needs them badly.
arsjth 2 years ago
Occasional local floods certainly, like the one in Middle East just after the Ice Age.
Well there is a ~180 km wide meteor crater in the gulf of Mexico dated roughly at the K-T extinction boundary. A meteor capable of making that is calculated to have been able to explode with a force of 100 million megatons. Although not necessarily the sole cause of the extinction, it accounts for a lot.
And again, it makes sense because we know what causes regulate growth, and that many such causes existed.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
well if u lived in the middle east and there was a major flood it would appear that it was world wide wouldnt it?
U probably dont know about Australia at that stage.
My readings of dinosaur extinctions is that they dont know but theories are proposed.
i would like to know how it is that a major species disappears and 'science' doesnt know why but it can tell that all things evolved from a single protozoa with absolute certainty.
Can you tell me how unknowable things are known without a doubt?
arsjth 2 years ago
Yes, it probably would've appeared global for me.
Based on the few sources I have read, Australia hasn't had large floods in that particular period. The rising sea levels only separated New Guinea and Tasmania from it.
I hesitate to use the word "absolute certainty" in any case, but the better certainty of descent comes from it being based on heredity, which has very specific laws (lineages can be traced back), as opposed to extinction, which has no laws at all and can even happen by chance.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
« Can you tell me how »
1. They are not unknowable. Nothing that is real is fundamentally unknowable.
2. They are not known with absolute certitude, but they can be known with reasonable certitude. It is not an observed fact that all life shares a single origin: it is a hypothesis, part of evolutionary theory. But as hypothesis, it has been subjected to thorough testing, and has been verified to the extent that we can be reasonably sure the hypothesis is accurate to the limit of detection.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"Evolutionists seem to spend more time trying to disprove creationists than they do searching for truth."
Hahhah. If none of your beliefs are accepted by the scientific community, you automatically think it means they have a commitment against it? That's pathetic.
"But whichever answer fits what u already believe will be adopted."
No, the answer must be testable and fit to the existing data with the least possible number of unsubstantiated assumptions. Period.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
" If none of ur beliefs r accepted by the scientific community"
but they r accepted by many scientists. Just like the anti global warming crowd has always been there despite th ridicule & the claims that the science is settled. Yet there is lies & deceit in the climate change crew of preposterous proportions.
None of the evolutionary ideas have been tested & proven they r accepted 4 lack of a naturalistic alternative.
Eliminate an outside force as a possibility & i agree evolution is an option
arsjth 2 years ago
It doesn't matter whether or not they are accepted by individual scientists, if they don't even meet the requirements of science itself!
"None of the evolutionary ideas have been tested & proven"
Lies lies lies. That's basically what the field of biology HAS done accumulatively for the last 150 years.
For practical reasons, science needs a principle of elimination. There is no reason to seriously consider something OUTSIDE of the realm we can actually observe. Btw do you know what science is?
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
@Hirvassalo
dont be so insulting.
ofc i know what science is. Do you?
how many advancements were made by accepting the status quo?
Is science advanced by consensus?
The world was once considered flat....should we have stayed with the consensus?
Earth was considered the centre of the universe..should we hav stayed w the consensus?
advancements r made by brave people who buck th consensus.
Scientific respectability doesnt make ur theory anymor right than when it was proposed by th Mayans in 600bc
arsjth 2 years ago
Science is making natural explanations for natural phenomena. Otherwise it would hardly be based on observation.
If many scientists of the same expertise, studying the same data, coming from different backgrounds and having various different personal biases come to the same conclusion, it can be considered a type of corroboration.
Every biologist in the past 150 years has had the chance of falsifying evolution (and claiming a Nobel prize for it!) but the evidence has never allowed that.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago 2
Science is making natural explanations for natural phenomena. Otherwise it would hardly be based on observation.
If many scientists of the same expertise, studying the same data, coming from different backgrounds and having various different personal biases come to the same conclusion, it can be considered a type of corroboration.
Every biologist in the past 150 years has had the chance of falsifying evolution (and claiming a Nobel prize for it!) but the evidence has never allowed that.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
On the contrary testing is ongoing and negative results have never been forthcoming.
google lenski's long term ecoli experiment for example.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
....regardless of whether the evidence confirms it or not.
the problem is that once u eliminate alternatives in your mind then u cease to look for alternative explanations for what u have found and all data is assumed to confirm the theory that is accepted.
It becomes circular in that data is presumed 2 b the way it is becos of the theory.
Yet the theory has no empirical evidence.
Knowing what Empirical evidence is....what is 1 bit of data that is indisputable proof that men came from protozoa
arsjth 2 years ago
/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=channel
"Indisputable proof" and "evidence" are not the same thing. The former would imply there's nothing more to learn, and the latter is simply the fulfilment of specific predictions that establish a specific explanation as the best available one.
Also, I didn't claim we should stick to the consensus, because it can also change. I have only stated that despite all new data & new ways of testing a particular explanation just remains the best.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hirvassalo
"new ways of testing a particular explanation just remains the best."
if alternatives have already been ruled out then the only option remains the best option.
Name some possible alternate explanations?
if you cant then u understand why this is considered the best explanation.
The Mayans of 600bc agree with you....they believed we came from fish.
Its just an ancient philosophy dressed up as modern science.
arsjth 2 years ago
ERVs are viruses that insert themselves in completely random locations in DNA but accidentally break so they get stuck there. When this occurs in a sperm(or egg) it gets copied into every cell of the child and half the descendants of that child. Long story short, Sharing an ERV in the same location is legal proof of common ancestor. Sharing 100's of ERVs in the same location as chimps is legal proof of sharing a common ancestor with them.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago 3
arsjth 2 years ago
« They act as promoters »
This is not news, and it does not change the fact that these are endogenous retroviral remnants. Furthermore, while older ERV's may have been coopted by some genetic mechanism, this does not go for more recent ERV's, such as ERVK6, which is an almost intact remnant.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
arsjth (2 days ago) - "@ExtantFrodo researchers have
recently identified an important
function for a large proportion of the
human genome that has been labelled
as ERVs. ..."
Bullshit!
ERVs in common are certain indicators of relatedness. Furthermore, researchers have isolated ERVs, corrected their deficiencies that originally caused their entrapment, and resurrected functional virii.
Also, please explain vestigial organs' exsitence as mere 'fable' and exactly how the concept fell apart.
psycotria 2 years ago
not bullshit. We have exploited the intrusion of so many ERVs by making a regulatory network out of them. This is a development unique to humans and so doesn't account for the ERVs co-location in chimps and other primates.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
@psycotria
"Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution."
notice that the definition contains evolution. So when u say something is vestigial then the assumption is already built in.
Vestigiality cannot prove evolution because the description contains the assumption.
If i deem an organ2b vestigial then it must b becos of evolution,how could it b otherwise?
arsjth 2 years ago
arsjth 2 years ago
arsjth 2 years ago
arsjth 2 years ago
arsjth 2 years ago
@Extant
This is an example where ID science wins over Evolutionary science.
ID'ers say ERV's must hav a function becos we were designed.Evolutionists say becos we dont know their function yet it musnt have one & must be proof that they are vestigial viruses. When they r proven wrong they just move on2 th next proof which also undeniably proves evolution.
Vestigial wisdom teeth & appendix r embarrassing examples of th flaw of evolutionary thinking.
ID'ers say th appendix has a function&it does.
arsjth 2 years ago
« Evolutionists say becos we dont know their function yet it musnt have one »
Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not say ERV's cannot have functions. In fact, it predicts that and demonstrates how ERV's will be coopted in the genome. As much as 1/10th of the human genome is recognizable as ERV, but ultimately as much as 1/3d of our genome may have a viral origin.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Actually, there is no question that ERV's are actually viral insertions. They reconstituted an ancient ERV and found it to be infectious. The exploitation of ERV's by primates for use as regulatory networks is again unique to primates and an example of novel use of new genes (something that you guys claim never happens).
Again refute that the reconstituted ERV is simply an infectious virus and you may have a case.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
arsjth (2 days ago) - "This is an example where ID science..."
From "Kitzmiller v. Dover" --- "... ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. ..."
"... When they r proven wrong they just move on2 th next proof..."
Please show where evolution has ever been PROVEN wrong, with citations.
Show where Creation has ever been PROVEN true.
BTW, only in MATHEMATICS can something be 100% proven.
psycotria 2 years ago
[CONT] (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) IDs negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ID has failed to gain acceptance, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
psycotria 2 years ago 2
@psycotria
"Please show where evolution has ever been PROVEN wrong, with citations"
evolution is a fact....things change. natural selection plays an important part.
The error is trying to explain the origin of life by extrapolating that to mean that a single protozoa ultimately gave life to everything we see today.
whilst retaining its original form as well, of course. Its always the mutant that diverted off the pathway in the tree of life & we never see actual ancestor just its relatives.
arsjth 2 years ago
actually our population went through a bottle neck some 75,000 years ago (we know by DNA analysis) where we pared down to ~2,000 individuals. We almost didn't make it.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
@ExtantFrodo
LOL.
as if DNA could tell you there was 2000 individuals 75k years ago.
sounds more like the population beginning from a couple 40-60k years ago.
The theory changes and moves and bends to fit the new data that clearly doesnt fit with the old.
18 million year old soft tissue....better change what we know about the length soft tissue survives rather than we got the dating wrong.
at least we know one thing....Science was wrong despite swearing black and blue it was right.not uncommon!
arsjth 2 years ago
Sorry you find if amusing. It's science you could learn if you weren't willfully ignorant. DNA mutates at a known rate. That rate of change allows us to determine from examining extant populations not only how different we were X years in the past but how large the size of the gene pool said differences derived from. It's the reason why we are so much alike.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
we know that they would have flourished becos they were fitter hence thats why they evolved. fitter than the apes they evolved from. So their numbers would have grown rapidly being fitter 4 their environment than those that survived adequately for millions of yrs.
btw who was that first ape to become fully human? i bet he was hoping that a female would evolve too.lol.
arsjth 2 years ago
Apparently you now think evolution must happen by saltation. Another case for an implied facepalm.
Hirvassalo 2 years ago
Saltation? nope not me.i dont think that it happend@all.
I find it funny2think that u see no limits2 any creature evolving any feature whilst we have evidence of nothing.
We saw no limbs growing on fish. we saw no fins growing on jawless bottom feeders. its all implied and no empirical evidence stands to prove that it did.
Y is it assumed that we evolved from ape like creatures? who did they evolve from? every creature still survives today except the ancestors we supposedly evolved from.
arsjth 2 years ago