@darkfur35 evolution is a fact. if you think evolution is false you probably think that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, and that gravity is just magic.
For that reason creationists attack evolution. Never succeed scientifically proven their stupid book written twenty centuries ago. Their only alternative is to attack the evolution ... as if that automatically make certain that subnormality that we come from adam and eve
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
@achilles197474 this guy was debunked ages ago. he is hardly respected among his peers and his comment is false and has been proven to be false a hundred times over.
@cavemantiger Not debunked in slightest. A rational universe can only be interpreted by a rational mind - man's mind. This is exactly the viewpoint Paul Davies, Templeton Prize winner. Davies is a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author. He is Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science and co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, both at Arizona State University.
@achilles197474 it is debunked; he said it could only be interpreted by a rational mind, which is correct. an irrational mind, such as one moving on faith, could not interpret it. however, he never said that the universe was CREATED by a rational mind. and even if he did, he would have no way to prove that theory, and until he could, it is debunked.
@cavemantiger But it is completely irrational to posit that a rational universe is not the result of rational intent. Just stupid. Your rational thoughts are only produced by a rational mind. What proof do you have that a rational creation is ever the product of a an irrational cause? That fact that the universe is rational is proof in and of itself. Just as your replies here prove that their source is a rational mind. Like Einstein said, "God does not play dice."
@achilles197474 Even an irrational mind can have rational thoughts my dear. John Wayne Gacey was an irrational mind, psychotic even. But if you look at the history of him and many other insane people, many of them have a history of sheer brilliance, and in cases where they do not, the rationality of not being caught in a crime. Therefore you argument is invalid.
Besides, who says our universe is rational? Let us start there. What, in your words, is "rationality."
@cavemantiger Governed by mathematical physical laws. When Einstein said, "God does not play nice," he was accenting to the fact that the universe was the result of a rational creation. So the answer to you question, who says the universe is rational? Answer. Albert Einstein. If this news to you, you've got some reading to do. Good luck.
@achilles197474 OK. So, governed by mathematical physical laws. This envelops rationality. Correct? All rationality, from the universe to our own neurons firing in sequence is rational in the sens that it is governed by mathematical physical laws. I want to make this premise solid between the two of us to avoid "loopholes" and fallacies later on.
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
@stuttgurth This is not circular reasoning it is explanation. I suggest you try to get a mild education before making a fool out of yourself here by showing your complete lack of understanding of the simplest concepts.
@cavemantiger the problem is that the beginning of the argument is IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE THEN YOUD SEE THIS IN NATURE.you cant do this because you are assuming evolution is true as a premise for the argument as to why evolution is true. This is what circular reasoning is. Form the same series of sentences and prove me wrong. Its that simple. But you wont.
@stuttgurth No dear, it is not a false premise. It is a proven fact. And it is not a premise in this case, it is a hypothesis.Do you understand what a hypothesis is?
Now, re-read what you wrote: "IF evolution were true...." If. That is is not a premise, it is not stating a fact to base an argument off of. It is a question, hypothesis, waiting to be answered.
@stuttgurth Just because it is not posed as a question using "?" does not make it a statement as one in a premise. It is therefore, a Hypothesis. Do you understand what a Hypothesis is?
@stuttgurth I see you have realized you were wrong about the circular argument and are now attempting to hide that fact with a question. I will humor you.
You can put, in place of 'experiment', "observation" or one of the countless other forms of information gathering and testing methods the wide world of science has. :)
@darkfur35 How people can believe a magic man in the sky made the world in 7 days and people out of dirt and endorsed slavery, incest and abuse is even more of a bad joke.
@cavemantiger I dont know anyone that believes in a magic man in the sky....very weird comment. All people believe in God... even the ones who say they dont.
@darkfur35 lol only 30% of the world believes in your god. the rest of us are either raised in other religions or too smart to think that any magic old shit in the sky can do anything the bible fairy tale says it does.
secretly you now he isnt real. you're just too scared and immature to admit it.
"Abandoned real estate" very interesting concept for DNA almost on a par with "Junk DNA" dont you think ? The ppl who parrot such sound bites are happy to steal from God and therein lies the answer for the rat DNA. I dont exactly see this "mysterious rat dna" as "abandoned", i see it more as reserved for future use by all those whos selfish base behaviour has guaranteed them a nice future life as a rat.
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium theory. Read my article on Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
My car is a basic model and does not have air conditioning. Strangely though, aircon duct pipework exists below the floor and a blanked off button space exists on the dash. Additionally, from examining behind the dashboard, the electrical circuit required to run an aircon system also exists! - is this evidence that my car also resulted from random mutations in accordance with Darwins theory?, would a proper intelligent scientist dismiss the idea of it resulting from intelligent design?
@TREACLE97 "is this evidence that my car also resulted from random mutations in accordance with Darwins theory?"
Is there any evidence that your car is one branch of a nested hierarchy which has absolutely no cross over from the middle of one branch to the middle of another? Are there designs in your car that are lifted from other car makers? Does it have a variable speed wiper? Invented by one man, all automakers stole this idea. Nested hierarchies can not do this. Life, biology evolves.
Evolution is like a game of join the dots. The theory does not rule anything out, so within its boundaries you can invent an explanation for anything.
Example:
All life is based on DNA, proves nothing. Why? because if most life was not composed of the same amino acid building blocks, there would be no eco-system.
Plants and animals trap solar energy in a form other animals can eat. Without this we would have to eat dead material, and would like starve as the energy released would be small.
@wjestick "All life is based on DNA, proves nothing. Why?" + the rest of the stuff you said. Um, you just 'proved' that life can't exist w/o DNA. That is all you had to say.
@wjestick "The theory does not rule anything out, so within its boundaries you can invent an explanation for anything". Wrong, it rules out the supernatural (amongst other silly things like a monkey giving birth to a cat) because it rests on natural mechanisms (natural selection, gene duplication, mutations, environmental changes, etc). You can't just invent any explanation for anything in evolution.
Yet without these useless genes, mutations would be much more likely to harm us rather than just changing a gene that we don't need anyway. By the way, do all Intelligent Design-ists think that GOD couldn't have used a process like evolution to create life like ours? Evolution is a good way to design life that works, so why can't GOD have used it?
@georgefrankleroy First thing that came to my mind was the claim that we're created in gods image.. but if we constantly change slowly but surely that that can't be right and because the bible is supposedly "perfect" if there's 1 flaw the whole thing can be tossed out.
That's just the a thing that popped up in my mind while reading your comment but really if you want a good answear look it up most likely you'll find a lot of reasons why it can't.
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
@daogdaog Sorry but you are wrong on every point except that mules happen to be sterile, and that's irrelevant because evolution doesn't generally involve interbreeding.
@daogdaog I'm not sure that it's actually possible to be more wrong. Speciation events have been witnessed, on average, every 4 days for the last 50 years. Man is still an ape, and always will be because that's our clade. Neanderthals did interact, and mate, with European Homo Sapien, but not African. What constitutes a 'defect' depends on the environment. Not all mules are sterile. Italian Wall lizard has been witnessed evolving, including new organs in less than 40 years. Fuckwit.
@gamesbok So how did giraffe evolve in incremental steps from earliest known girrafid? A four legged short necked deer like animal 1.5m in height to transform into a 5.5m to 6m giraffe is like magic.
@daogdaog It didn't evolve. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. Even high school biology teachers are embarrassed by the theory. Based on data from the National Survey of High School Biology teachers, the authors estimate that only 28% of all biology teachers consistently teach evolutionary biology, while 13% explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design. The remaining teachers they deem the cautious 60%. Only 28% even teach it. What a screwed up theory.
@achilles197474 Nice one for stealing a quote and adding in your own "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" ... unfortunately evolution is a fact it's all around us every day. There's nothing to "believe", take breeding cattle, although this is a form of governed natural selection the basis for the idea is there.
@daogdaog CAMERON, E. & TOIT, J. T. du. 2007. Winning by a neck: tall giraffes avoid competing with shorter browsers. American Naturalist 169: 130-5 (abstract).
@gamesbok Which series of animals evolved into a giraffe from an earliest known giraffid? Winning by the neck is not a watertight argument. Four legged short necked animals like goats are known to climb trees. They dont need a long neck to survive. Female giraffes are normally shorter by a meter compared to male giraffes they must have starved and died out too.
@daogdaog Why would you assume there was only one selection pressure, or that a single selection pressure was dominant for a clade over it's entire history?
The earliest giraffid would be the one that occured first, ha ha ha. Of course we're now into the somewhat arbitary field of taxinomics, but I'll give it a shot. Prolibytherium magnieri.
@gamesbok It is not logical that for male giraffes had to bang necks to increase neck length while female had just eat higher vegetation. It is well known that four legged short necked animals like goats are known to climb trees and dont need a long neck to survive. Where did you get your info that states the earliest known giraffid is Prolibytherium magnieri and not Climacoceras?
@daogdaog I'm unconvinced that goats climb acacia as they're a little short on lower branches. Giraffes were probably worried about baboons looking up their skirts if they climbed. Giraffes have to have long necks otherwise their skin would be all saggy and they'd look stupid.
@daogdaog Knock out, wonderful goats in trees, but not, I notice, acacia trees. Even short-necked girraffes, with all that loose skin hanging around their shoulders, could climb those short-arsed knobbly Moroccan stairway trees.
@gamesbok Giraffes dont really feed on acacia trees. They feed most of the time on vegetation from 2m and below even during droughts according to recent research. Even if those trees were not acacia, the point is goats feed on higher vegetation meaning they dont need giraffes long neck to survive. Short necked animals simply travel long distances to feed on vegetaion on the ground.
@daogdaog Indeed Giraffes eat frequently from veg at around 2m, they have that choice. Goats will eat grass, but giraffs won't because their necks are too short.
Giraffes with short necks could not migrate to find food like gnus or wildebeast becaus the loose skin around their shoulders would impede their progress. Long necked giraffes migrate very well, they know where they're going because they can see over the horizon.
@daogdaog I have inside information on giraffes. I could tell you more, but then I'd have to kill you. I have intimate knowledge of giraffes. (They're safer than any other animal for intimate knowledge, they can see the police coming.)
I'm never very impressed with taxonomy, as it exists for human convenience, and nature seems indifferent. Are Larus fuscus and Larus argentatus different species? Why long necks? Obviously because of superior FM reception, a major factor in Africa.
@gamesbok intimate knowledge and you dont even know that goats can climb trees and what acacia looks like and what is the earliest known giraffid. Try watching "Gardening Acacia Trees In Tanzania" in youtube to have a better idea.
@daogdaog I know that goats can climb some trees. In total I've lived various parts of Africa for over 5 years. Again you're making assumptions you can't justify. Acacia is a family, not a species.
i thought you were going to make some attempt at explaining how the first amino acids were formed and assembled into proteins and why those chemicals mysteriously felt the need to survive but you haven't explained or proven anything of import.
instead you attempt to convince us that because science hasn't discovered the function or reason for something that it has no function or reason and that evolution of species is true because we need to eat certain proteins that we don't manufacture.
@helloalvaro He was showing that we have 86% of a gene that codes for an enzyme that creates vitamin C. We don't have the mRNA corresponding to that gene, meaning no protein is created from that gene. (DNA --> mRNA ---> protein). Given that having 86% of a gene that large cannot possibly be by accident of mutation (absurdly low probability), it must have been inherited from an ancestor that did have it, and evolved to become us. This goes for other genes and pseudogenes as well.
Things were supposed to of climbed out of the primordial soup billions of years ago, from that , how was it determined how'd they become what they are and how did they survive the evolution process, who did they breed with, how did they breed, did they evolve sexual organs first? What came first the chicken or the egg? And tell me how did life begin in the first place?
@fenrirgg Evolution is not a fact. I'm currently making videos to debunk this "Evidence for Evolution" series by cdk007. One thing the evos always say - "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" and never give evidence to back it up. Or at least they give debunked evidence when they do. I would encourage you to look into it if you haven't already.
I'm looking forward to seeing your videos. I'm always open to new ideas, and willing to change my perspective if given adequate evidence to do so. I'll keep an eye out for your counterattack.
@NFSlugger13 I'm in the final stages of my video "Dismantling CDK007's Evidence for Evolution III" but you can see the first one I did in the video responses under cdk's Evidence for Evolution part 1. It's good you have an open mind, most do not!
@jesse8857 As a creationist aren't you short of a mechanism? I mean at least evolution can provide a mechanism whereby species arise. You seem to propose a supernatural designer, and natural products, but you seem to be short of a mechanism whereby the designer actually impliments these designs.
I watched your video, and voted it down. I found it full of dishonest quote mining, and you were stupid enough to include the aged cannard, 'most mutations are deleterious',. Fuckwit.
@jesse8857 I don't care how many mutations are deleterious, they're not preserved. If you don't understand that then you don't understand evolution. How about sickle cell anemia? Is that deleterious? You still don't have a mechanism, and yes, you do need one. Magic won't do.
@jesse8857 it's funny cause there are loads of evidence for evolution, but creationists have no means to support their theory (Exept for "the bible sais so")
Phylogeny is a weak reason for not considering whether the guinea pig is a close relative to man, for you stated forthrightly that similarity of this gene could be used to predict which organisms are closer.
"... closely related species should have more similar sequence than more distant species."
"It evolved from a previously functional gene." Now, cdk007, if you want to say that evolution is a process of making good, working genes nonfunctional through random copy errors, I think I can get a number of ID and creationist scientists to accept your definition.
It's powerful evidence ... of degradation of the genome ... but it doesn't do anything for the case for greater fitness via evolution.
@freehenrietta You really don't know what science is, do you? Nor do you seem to know what scientific theory is. Are people who study the theory of gravity gravitists? Because it has the word theory, does it mean their is no evidence for gravity and that gravity might not exist? Creationism is a hypothesis that the scientific method has proven false.
@LazerZombieDestroyer Oh this is an easy one...the brainless, mindless, organisms knew, uh...felt..uh..sensed...the need to know, feel, and sense, so they evolved themselves to do it. lol Yeah, that's it..
@LazerZombieDestroyer Oh this is an easy one...the brainless, mindless, organisms knew, uh...felt..uh..sensed...the need to know, feel, and sense, so they evolved themselves to do it. lol Yeah, that's it..
Seriously, I don't care how hard you try, you'll never be able to evolve a third arm, eyes in the back of your head, or even another head simply because you think you need them. In fact, what happens when someone does have "extras"? They don't do so well, do they now..
@freehenrietta When you say 'don't do so well' do you mean organisms with extras are disfavoured by natural selection? It does occur to me that 'nylonaise' is an extra that might be favourable.
@gamesbok Well, typically, "extras" are formed as a result of bad mutations which don't allow the organism to survive or produce viable offspring. I know there are "good" mutations in and of themselves but they usually come with other harsh consequences- AB resistence for example.
I guess I never thought of nylonaise as "favorable". To what is it favorable?
@freehenrietta Nylonase would greatly extend the food resources for Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Further we know the mutation that produces the change.
"bad mutations"? tell me is sickle cell disease a "bad mutation" in an environment with malaria? yes or no? it's quite s imple question, dumbshit.
hint: it allows the organism to survive better than those without the disease and allows the reproduction of viable offspring, and healthier than the non-mutants.
actually there are many "good mutations" that become "bad" if the environment changes.
ergo your ignorance of what is Fitness, a well defined scientific term, is shown.
name me one single "harsh consequence" in the existence of MRSA or VRSA.
as i said: you can't explain AB resistance without using evolution, AND practical examples, REALITY proves, as usual, all of your ignorant moronic school droppout rant as entirely, to 100%, wrong.
It's easy to prove a IGNORANT fuck like yourself as wrong, dumbshit. look to what happened at the Dover trial, DUMBSHIT.
First of all, the article doesn't prove anything for or against anything so I can't "debunk" anything. But, if you notice, the article does relay an admittance that there is a problem with the rate of molecular evolution not coinciding with dating of fossils. They're trying to find something that makes them support each other but they haven't. They're just stating observations and saying "if we can prove one thing true, maybe we can prove the other one, too!".
they studied the hybridization rate - a method to determine genetic homology! you UNEDUCATED FUCK UP! LOLOL
THEY PROVED a GENETIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN different species of hummingbirds! that relationship can ONLY and SOLELY be explained by using evolution theory! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
they SOLVE the dating problem, PLUS they PROVE that molecular evolution DOES coincide with the dating of fossils, DUMBSHIT.
NEXT time, TRY TO ACTUALLY READ the paper, you FUCKING IDIOT!
the problem is with the limited fossil record, NOT the dating, you DUMBSHIT.
they SUPPORT each other because their observations is that: YOU CAN compare the two and SHOW they coincide. you fucking ignorant uneducated moron.
BTW:
as i said: you can't explain AB resistance without using evolution, AND practical examples, REALITY proves, as usual, all of your ignorant moronic school droppout rant as entirely, to 100%, wrong.
i already read the PAPER, moron, it's not an article. CAN YOU FUCKING TELL THE DIFFERENCE? ofc not, it's rethorical, i know you are oblivious to what a scientific paper is.
I AM RIGHT, dumbshit. READ the paper, or else another person might come up and point out that you are wrong and delusional while i am proving you wrong and delusional.
limited fossil record, isn't a lack of fossil record, dumbshit. try apply for highschool education, they will teach you something.
hey troll, why would i believe in your religious ideology if you can't explain AB resistance or plant speciation without using evolution theory?
so what you are saying is that allele frequency does not change in a population if submitted to environmental pressure? weird....how do you explain AB resistrance without natural selection?
this challenge proves the ENTIRE cretard movement wrong. take it, accept it and fuck off, dumbshit.
Starting at about 3:29- you can't use an evolutionary tree as evidence of an evolutionary tree. Evolutionist think about everything backwards. They say so many things are the same (let's say, between monkeys and men) that men must have evolved from monkeys (to say monkeys came from men would be silly, right?). The truth is, monkeys are monkeys and men are men. The reason they're so alike is because they have similar make-ups...period.
@freehenrietta That's strange I didn't find a definition for it on merriam-webster. But evolutionist was on the website I'll give you that. Anyway it is not a scientific word. That would be like calling someone who believes in the atomic theory an atomicist. If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution that means you don't believe in science, and therefore you are not a scientist.
@godlynessdog Obviously you don't understand language. The suffix "ist" means "one who studies" or is "involved in a field". Evolutionist is one who studies evolution or is involved in the field of evolution. One who studies the atomic theory could be a "theorist", but that's besides the point...
Evolution is not synonymous with science. It is, however, a theory within science. That would be like saying relativity = science. No, but it's part of it. In fact, creationism is part of sciencetoo.
@freehenrietta Actually no. Creationism has nothing to do with science. In fact creationism is basically the opposite of science. It is basing an idea off of faith instead of evidence.
The point I'm making is s you won't find any self-respecting scientist who calls himself an evolutionist. Maybe you're thinking of an Evolutionary Biologist. Usually the word "evolutionist" is used by creationists as a demeaning term for someone who acknowledges evolution as a legitimate scientific theory.
@geek01d Why'd you remove your comment? I already got it in my box. Maybe you realized that you don't know what you're talking about and didn't want to embarass yourself by leaving your post up there.
@freehenrietta You can, however, use the record left by ERVs, and construct an evolutionary tree, actually the same evolutionary tree. Would you care to comment on why man and monkeys have similar make-up? I know why they do, but I am interested in why you think it's so. How about Larus fuscus and Larus argentatus, are they seperate species? If they are seperate, where do they become seperate?
non functional dna ?? the correct term is noncoding dna. and yes your right theres a load of this (junk dna) in all species an the amount of it varies, however,...many kinds of noncoding dna sequences do have known biological functions!!..including transcriptional and translational regulation!!.....this is a poor argument.
similarities in dna with these animals doesnt prove common ancestor! and more to the point doesnt prove information encoded dna evolved in the oceans through billions of yrs of rain either...it proves common designer, escorts and fiestas are similar aswell! doesnt mean they evolved from cortinas billions of yrs ago! it proves common designer FORD!!
@hendrixboy100 Pretty shitty common designer I'll say, having non-functional sequences of DNA in the human genome. If the common designer idea would be true, then that designer would be far from being "Intelligent".
When two lineages share an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now.
When two lineages share an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now.
@KrokrX Sickle cell anemia (sickle cell disease) is a disorder of the blood caused by an inherited abnormal hemoglobin (an oxygen-carrying protein within the red blood cells). The abnormal hemoglobin causes distorted (sickled) red blood cells. The sickled red blood cells are fragile and prone to rupture. When the number of red blood cells decreases from rupture (hemolysis), anemia is the result. This condition is referred to as sickle cell anemia.
@achilles197474 - you're right, and I suspect most people with even a quite moderate education are aware of it, but GoodScienceForYou likes to pretend he's a 'been a scientist for over 45 years' and has an 'IQ over 180' yet is ignorant of such basic facts. He's an ill-educated creationist, but he also suffers from inherited mental conditions which makes his grip on reality even more tenuous, yet he likes to spam science supporting channels with his drivel and links to his off site forum.
@achilles197474 - you may like to watch a video by AlanCFA about GoodScienceForYou - v=K9m3f0RdGBs - it deals with some of his flagrant dishonesty, vile accusations, abusive behaviour, and 'imaginative' ideas about evolution (e.g. humans mated with gorillas!). In addition to his lack of education and mental problems, all those years he spent the Jehovah's Witnesses and Siddha Yoga cult(17yrs) doubtless put the finishing touches to his aberrant personality.
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
how long have we been studying DNA? and everyone is an expert! Why do things die? Why do people taste? What makes personalities? How do new ideas get made? How does travis pastrana do a double backflip on a motorcycle? why is ice less dense than water? why does junk food taste so good but makes you so fat? why do fingernails and hair grow when you die? why do i have dreams? why do i need sleep? why do i have the desire to have sex? why do i have the desire to be entertained?
What was the point of that long list of questions? Do you want to know the answers, or were you trying to make a point? They have all been answered, to varying degrees, by science.
@mestizocrow there's this awesomw thing on the internet called "google" you may want to try it out sometime. and a few answers to some of your hopefully rhetoric questions: "What makes personalities?" (source wikipeersdotcom)"These traits include conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness or intellect".the quote was used to describe different personalities but i think it can also answer your question."why is ice less dense than water?"because water expands when frosen
@babycakez2032 The bible does not contain Pi. Pi is not 3, Nor is it any other round number. its 3.14159265 which is not present anywhere in any holybook of any religion.
@AcanLord The earliest known textually evidenced approximations date from around 1900 BC; they are 256/81 (Egypt) and 25/8 (Babylonia), both within 1% of the true value.[9] The Indian text Shatapatha Brahmana gives π as 339/108 ≈ 3.139. Additionally, the Old Testament discusses a ceremonial pool in the temple of King Solomon, having a diameter of ten cubits, and a circumference of thirty cubits, implying an approximate value of three for pi
@babycakez2032 The bible was written in a number of langauges but none called Mathematic. unless your simply trying to say Math, which it wasent. the Bible of Abrahamic mythology is based on eariler scriptures and myths that predated it.
@AcanLord if the universe is infinit than any slight chance of an ecosystem would be real high even if it was .0000000000000001... but inteligence has no probability. it derives from time only because time is the only one that can change itself. were the only one capable of changing the out come of the univers. we come from a system that is least smarter than us or are we smarter than our future.. if so then we are not getting inteligent but only becoming highly reliable on our past..
in order to understan origin of inteligence, understand the mathematical genetics of the bible, it contains exact systems what people call the apocalipse or new begining. the old testament or the irational math.. and the new testamen the probabilities. and the third testament the higher simplification of math and laws..
how does this fit in to the suject god exist or mind and that we werent design to be inteligent but only selected as a species according to the god law and or the bible.. we are the only species on earth cable of inprovement and change of systems at an exponential rate according to records.. enteligence occurs at an exponential rate but does have a limit of maximum capasity reaching death or deletion but the new law states that we no longer die but pass on to a higher capable system..
sin is only the oposition of ones self.. meaning god sees no sin or doesnt oppose his thought but regulates them and controls them. jesus spoke about self control or balance your thougths he also said that mortal laws are in place and that we must abide by them because you will become subject to a greater faith or beliefe but those who are holy meanig seperate from all faith are invisible and dont fall subjet to their beliefe system, thats why religion should be personal..
we werent an inteligent design, we were an inteligent selection.. the probability of life exiting beyond our is high but inteligence has no probability... meaning you are your own creator..
a creationist would say the similarity is DNA sequences is proof of a single origin, a creator. Why argue, creation is the flip side of the coin their answer is God, your answer is evolution, as a debate it is not worth having.
On another side, what happens to the earth when the sun disapears? It starts to cool down, very fast. Look at the effects of seasons over 1 year, in Canada it goes from -30C to +30C. So with the sun and a small axial change in daily sunlight, you get 60 degree difference. Imagine a 0% sunlight rate. It would take less then a year for the earth to become a frigid plain.
Forget starvation, most life would die from the lack of energy itself within the system. The sun is lifes hope, not god.
Cut the sunlight and all the plants automatically stop photosynthesis. This means they won't create more energy, they will begin using up their sugar reserves, usually eaten by herbivores. The reduced vegetation nutritive value, will cause death of herbivores very quickly due to a global famine. Carnivores will feel the tool as well, once the herbivores will starve to death. Finally, decomposition of carnivores would letmicroorganism and funguses survive, until no more energy is available.
The main premise of this video seems to suggest that God does not exist because if he did he sucks as a designer. However, I don't understand. Why is it that one can assume that 'junk' DNA is leftover evolutionary code. What direction does everything in the known universe seem to be going? The answer is order to chaos. I know you've heard this one before. The question really is this. Is it so hard to say that DNA is falling apart? Wow, that's a stretch.
@MWarnkegwg DNA is energenically defavorable. For it to remain in one piece energy from outside the cell is needed. As long as there is energy incoming, the cell can retain its current state of order. If tomorow the sun were to disapear forever, it would take less then a year for most life on earth to disappear. The sun brings almost 100% of all energy life uses (except for bacteria able to use chemical reactions like acidophiles and other autotrophes).
One of the smartest scientists in the world, with extremely extensive knowledge in not on physics and mathematics, but also medicine. Francis Collins who lead the team of scientists to try and prove evaluation, had became a creationist after 2 years of research.
You can imagine how much he wanted evolution to be true... it was an important and honourable job he was given, however he was smart enough and honest to except the fact that evolution can't happen without a creator to guide it.
@AllstarCanadian Collins believes in God AND in evolution (as many people outside America or the Arab world), and he rejects creationism and intelligent design.
Besides, why should you care what a single scientist believe anyway? Most important is the fact that 99.9% of all biologists and physicists will tell you that there is no evidence for God in anything science has discovered over the centuries.
You can believe anything you want, but I tell you, science is not on your side on this.
Evolution is a big farce.. I mean fart.
darkfur35 2 weeks ago
@darkfur35 evolution is a fact. if you think evolution is false you probably think that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, and that gravity is just magic.
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
THe guinea pig is not mighty! It is a WHELP!
[WASN;T THIS SONG IN tHE pIANIST>?]
jw2327 3 weeks ago
@jw2327 The guinea pig is too mighty!!! Well, mighty cute. and occasionally a mighty pain in the arse... mine ate me homework... ^_^
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
I bet some day we will be splicing chimp DNA into humans to make up stronger and better at making vit.C
gregrutz 1 month ago
Does anyone know the name/composer of this song? It's great. Thanks.
muerte2vida 3 months ago
@muerte2vida It's Beethoven's moonlight sonata.
gforgregarious 3 months ago
For that reason creationists attack evolution. Never succeed scientifically proven their stupid book written twenty centuries ago. Their only alternative is to attack the evolution ... as if that automatically make certain that subnormality that we come from adam and eve
TheIntelligentkid 3 months ago
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389) - Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton
achilles197474 3 months ago
@achilles197474 this guy was debunked ages ago. he is hardly respected among his peers and his comment is false and has been proven to be false a hundred times over.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger Not debunked in slightest. A rational universe can only be interpreted by a rational mind - man's mind. This is exactly the viewpoint Paul Davies, Templeton Prize winner. Davies is a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author. He is Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science and co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, both at Arizona State University.
achilles197474 2 weeks ago
@achilles197474 it is debunked; he said it could only be interpreted by a rational mind, which is correct. an irrational mind, such as one moving on faith, could not interpret it. however, he never said that the universe was CREATED by a rational mind. and even if he did, he would have no way to prove that theory, and until he could, it is debunked.
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cavemantiger But it is completely irrational to posit that a rational universe is not the result of rational intent. Just stupid. Your rational thoughts are only produced by a rational mind. What proof do you have that a rational creation is ever the product of a an irrational cause? That fact that the universe is rational is proof in and of itself. Just as your replies here prove that their source is a rational mind. Like Einstein said, "God does not play dice."
achilles197474 2 weeks ago
@achilles197474 Even an irrational mind can have rational thoughts my dear. John Wayne Gacey was an irrational mind, psychotic even. But if you look at the history of him and many other insane people, many of them have a history of sheer brilliance, and in cases where they do not, the rationality of not being caught in a crime. Therefore you argument is invalid.
Besides, who says our universe is rational? Let us start there. What, in your words, is "rationality."
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
@cavemantiger Governed by mathematical physical laws. When Einstein said, "God does not play nice," he was accenting to the fact that the universe was the result of a rational creation. So the answer to you question, who says the universe is rational? Answer. Albert Einstein. If this news to you, you've got some reading to do. Good luck.
achilles197474 2 weeks ago
@achilles197474 OK. So, governed by mathematical physical laws. This envelops rationality. Correct? All rationality, from the universe to our own neurons firing in sequence is rational in the sens that it is governed by mathematical physical laws. I want to make this premise solid between the two of us to avoid "loopholes" and fallacies later on.
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
Yet another example of how arguments for evolution use circular reasoning.
stuttgurth 3 months ago
@stuttgurth This is not circular reasoning it is explanation. I suggest you try to get a mild education before making a fool out of yourself here by showing your complete lack of understanding of the simplest concepts.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger The argument is that if evolution were true then you would see this and this and since we see this and this then evolution is true.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth Yes. But that is not circular reasoning. It is theory, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion.
Circular reasoning would be: how do we know god is real? Because the bible says so. Bow do we know the bible is accurate? Because god wrote it.
Please, study up munchkin.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger yes thats another example of circular reasoning. just like this one.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth Only one is circular reasoning sweetie. The other is called deduction. Google it.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger Here is an example of a deductive argument If m∠A>90°, then ∠A is an obtuse angle. m∠A=120°. ∠A is an obtuse angle.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger Fill in the blanks of a similar sentence with the argument in the video and see how its wrong.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth And the argument here is deductive. So glad we were able to straighten that out. :)
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger the problem is that the beginning of the argument is IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE THEN YOUD SEE THIS IN NATURE.you cant do this because you are assuming evolution is true as a premise for the argument as to why evolution is true. This is what circular reasoning is. Form the same series of sentences and prove me wrong. Its that simple. But you wont.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth No dear, it is not a false premise. It is a proven fact. And it is not a premise in this case, it is a hypothesis.Do you understand what a hypothesis is?
Now, re-read what you wrote: "IF evolution were true...." If. That is is not a premise, it is not stating a fact to base an argument off of. It is a question, hypothesis, waiting to be answered.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
that sentence is not a question. It is a statement. Its making an argument based on evolution being true.
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth Just because it is not posed as a question using "?" does not make it a statement as one in a premise. It is therefore, a Hypothesis. Do you understand what a Hypothesis is?
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger so much for an experiment. where are the controls? what are they manipulating?
stuttgurth 3 weeks ago
@stuttgurth I see you have realized you were wrong about the circular argument and are now attempting to hide that fact with a question. I will humor you.
You can put, in place of 'experiment', "observation" or one of the countless other forms of information gathering and testing methods the wide world of science has. :)
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
evolution is a very bad joke. How can anyone believe this farce.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 How people can believe a magic man in the sky made the world in 7 days and people out of dirt and endorsed slavery, incest and abuse is even more of a bad joke.
cavemantiger 3 weeks ago
@cavemantiger I dont know anyone that believes in a magic man in the sky....very weird comment. All people believe in God... even the ones who say they dont.
darkfur35 2 weeks ago
@darkfur35 lol only 30% of the world believes in your god. the rest of us are either raised in other religions or too smart to think that any magic old shit in the sky can do anything the bible fairy tale says it does.
secretly you now he isnt real. you're just too scared and immature to admit it.
cavemantiger 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
icsvortex665 4 months ago
WHAT MUSIC IS THIS!!
repticman123 4 months ago
"Abandoned real estate" very interesting concept for DNA almost on a par with "Junk DNA" dont you think ? The ppl who parrot such sound bites are happy to steal from God and therein lies the answer for the rat DNA. I dont exactly see this "mysterious rat dna" as "abandoned", i see it more as reserved for future use by all those whos selfish base behaviour has guaranteed them a nice future life as a rat.
stiffex 4 months ago
I'm lucky I'm already insane, or seeing that impossible triangle thing would have driven me instantly insane.
Congratulations, everypony, now YOU are insane as well.
theuncalledfor 5 months ago
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium theory. Read my article on Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist evolution vs creationsim
My car is a basic model and does not have air conditioning. Strangely though, aircon duct pipework exists below the floor and a blanked off button space exists on the dash. Additionally, from examining behind the dashboard, the electrical circuit required to run an aircon system also exists! - is this evidence that my car also resulted from random mutations in accordance with Darwins theory?, would a proper intelligent scientist dismiss the idea of it resulting from intelligent design?
TREACLE97 6 months ago
@TREACLE97 "is this evidence that my car also resulted from random mutations in accordance with Darwins theory?"
Is there any evidence that your car is one branch of a nested hierarchy which has absolutely no cross over from the middle of one branch to the middle of another? Are there designs in your car that are lifted from other car makers? Does it have a variable speed wiper? Invented by one man, all automakers stole this idea. Nested hierarchies can not do this. Life, biology evolves.
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@TREACLE97 Do you believe cars procreate by bumping in each other?
And yes: Regarding the production lines of cars, there is evolution by artificial selection.
Cars with bad brakes are crashend.
Companies which only built crappy cars are gone.
Ugly cars dont sell.
Those cars which "survived" are getting better and better :)
M0rdH0rst 4 months ago
Evolution is like a game of join the dots. The theory does not rule anything out, so within its boundaries you can invent an explanation for anything.
Example:
All life is based on DNA, proves nothing. Why? because if most life was not composed of the same amino acid building blocks, there would be no eco-system.
Plants and animals trap solar energy in a form other animals can eat. Without this we would have to eat dead material, and would like starve as the energy released would be small.
wjestick 6 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@wjestick "All life is based on DNA, proves nothing. Why?" + the rest of the stuff you said. Um, you just 'proved' that life can't exist w/o DNA. That is all you had to say.
HybridD91 5 months ago
@wjestick "The theory does not rule anything out, so within its boundaries you can invent an explanation for anything". Wrong, it rules out the supernatural (amongst other silly things like a monkey giving birth to a cat) because it rests on natural mechanisms (natural selection, gene duplication, mutations, environmental changes, etc). You can't just invent any explanation for anything in evolution.
HybridD91 5 months ago
Yet without these useless genes, mutations would be much more likely to harm us rather than just changing a gene that we don't need anyway. By the way, do all Intelligent Design-ists think that GOD couldn't have used a process like evolution to create life like ours? Evolution is a good way to design life that works, so why can't GOD have used it?
georgefrankleroy 7 months ago
@georgefrankleroy First thing that came to my mind was the claim that we're created in gods image.. but if we constantly change slowly but surely that that can't be right and because the bible is supposedly "perfect" if there's 1 flaw the whole thing can be tossed out.
That's just the a thing that popped up in my mind while reading your comment but really if you want a good answear look it up most likely you'll find a lot of reasons why it can't.
musicplayah 6 months ago
@musicplayah - most likely!
TREACLE97 6 months ago
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog well.. panthers and lions, dogs and wolves, snakes and lizards? what do you mean exactly?
musicplayah 6 months ago
@daogdaog Sorry but you are wrong on every point except that mules happen to be sterile, and that's irrelevant because evolution doesn't generally involve interbreeding.
HitfulVids 5 months ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@daogdaog I'm not sure that it's actually possible to be more wrong. Speciation events have been witnessed, on average, every 4 days for the last 50 years. Man is still an ape, and always will be because that's our clade. Neanderthals did interact, and mate, with European Homo Sapien, but not African. What constitutes a 'defect' depends on the environment. Not all mules are sterile. Italian Wall lizard has been witnessed evolving, including new organs in less than 40 years. Fuckwit.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok So how did giraffe evolve in incremental steps from earliest known girrafid? A four legged short necked deer like animal 1.5m in height to transform into a 5.5m to 6m giraffe is like magic.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog It didn't evolve. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. Even high school biology teachers are embarrassed by the theory. Based on data from the National Survey of High School Biology teachers, the authors estimate that only 28% of all biology teachers consistently teach evolutionary biology, while 13% explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design. The remaining teachers they deem the cautious 60%. Only 28% even teach it. What a screwed up theory.
achilles197474 4 months ago
@achilles197474 Thanks.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@achilles197474 Nice one for stealing a quote and adding in your own "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" ... unfortunately evolution is a fact it's all around us every day. There's nothing to "believe", take breeding cattle, although this is a form of governed natural selection the basis for the idea is there.
nlangers 4 months ago
@daogdaog CAMERON, E. & TOIT, J. T. du. 2007. Winning by a neck: tall giraffes avoid competing with shorter browsers. American Naturalist 169: 130-5 (abstract).
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Which series of animals evolved into a giraffe from an earliest known giraffid? Winning by the neck is not a watertight argument. Four legged short necked animals like goats are known to climb trees. They dont need a long neck to survive. Female giraffes are normally shorter by a meter compared to male giraffes they must have starved and died out too.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Family Giraffidae
†Birgerbohlinia †Bohlinia †Bramatherium †Decennatherium Giraffa including the Giraffe, Giraffa leopardalis
†Giraffokeryx †Helladotherium †Honanotherium †Macedonitherium †Mitilanotherium
Okapia including the Okapi, Okapia johnstoni †Palaeogiraffa †Paleotragus †Progiraffa †Propalaeomeryx
†Samotherium †Shansitherium †Sivatherium
Why would they starve? With that degree of dimorphism you'd decrease competition between siblings. Sexual selection gives the rest.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Sexual selection affects males only. why do we have female giraffes with long necks? Which one is the earliest known giraffid then?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Why would you assume there was only one selection pressure, or that a single selection pressure was dominant for a clade over it's entire history?
The earliest giraffid would be the one that occured first, ha ha ha. Of course we're now into the somewhat arbitary field of taxinomics, but I'll give it a shot. Prolibytherium magnieri.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok It is not logical that for male giraffes had to bang necks to increase neck length while female had just eat higher vegetation. It is well known that four legged short necked animals like goats are known to climb trees and dont need a long neck to survive. Where did you get your info that states the earliest known giraffid is Prolibytherium magnieri and not Climacoceras?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog I'm unconvinced that goats climb acacia as they're a little short on lower branches. Giraffes were probably worried about baboons looking up their skirts if they climbed. Giraffes have to have long necks otherwise their skin would be all saggy and they'd look stupid.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok why dont you watch youtube "Goats In A Tree "
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Knock out, wonderful goats in trees, but not, I notice, acacia trees. Even short-necked girraffes, with all that loose skin hanging around their shoulders, could climb those short-arsed knobbly Moroccan stairway trees.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Giraffes dont really feed on acacia trees. They feed most of the time on vegetation from 2m and below even during droughts according to recent research. Even if those trees were not acacia, the point is goats feed on higher vegetation meaning they dont need giraffes long neck to survive. Short necked animals simply travel long distances to feed on vegetaion on the ground.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Indeed Giraffes eat frequently from veg at around 2m, they have that choice. Goats will eat grass, but giraffs won't because their necks are too short.
Giraffes with short necks could not migrate to find food like gnus or wildebeast becaus the loose skin around their shoulders would impede their progress. Long necked giraffes migrate very well, they know where they're going because they can see over the horizon.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Where did you get your info that states the earliest known giraffid is Prolibytherium magnieri and not Climacoceras?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog I have inside information on giraffes. I could tell you more, but then I'd have to kill you. I have intimate knowledge of giraffes. (They're safer than any other animal for intimate knowledge, they can see the police coming.)
I'm never very impressed with taxonomy, as it exists for human convenience, and nature seems indifferent. Are Larus fuscus and Larus argentatus different species? Why long necks? Obviously because of superior FM reception, a major factor in Africa.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok intimate knowledge and you dont even know that goats can climb trees and what acacia looks like and what is the earliest known giraffid. Try watching "Gardening Acacia Trees In Tanzania" in youtube to have a better idea.
daogdaog 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog I know that goats can climb some trees. In total I've lived various parts of Africa for over 5 years. Again you're making assumptions you can't justify. Acacia is a family, not a species.
gamesbok 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok you should feel bad becouse your Imaginary gone whith the wind. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits
this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail,
whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and
over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of
one group
There is no Evolution, ((but)) that does not means that the Bible is true
Findsomthingright 3 months ago
i thought you were going to make some attempt at explaining how the first amino acids were formed and assembled into proteins and why those chemicals mysteriously felt the need to survive but you haven't explained or proven anything of import.
instead you attempt to convince us that because science hasn't discovered the function or reason for something that it has no function or reason and that evolution of species is true because we need to eat certain proteins that we don't manufacture.
helloalvaro 8 months ago
@helloalvaro He was showing that we have 86% of a gene that codes for an enzyme that creates vitamin C. We don't have the mRNA corresponding to that gene, meaning no protein is created from that gene. (DNA --> mRNA ---> protein). Given that having 86% of a gene that large cannot possibly be by accident of mutation (absurdly low probability), it must have been inherited from an ancestor that did have it, and evolved to become us. This goes for other genes and pseudogenes as well.
vicksoma 8 months ago
THE WORLD IS FLAT AND IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY !! huh? Oh sorry wrong video.
derman077 9 months ago
@derman077 nono, this comment seems to be adequate for basically every video up here ^^
DaMastaOfRoad 8 months ago
@derman077 hahah that was funny
TheKuno89 8 months ago
Comment removed
jesse8857 9 months ago
Comment removed
jesse8857 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Things were supposed to of climbed out of the primordial soup billions of years ago, from that , how was it determined how'd they become what they are and how did they survive the evolution process, who did they breed with, how did they breed, did they evolve sexual organs first? What came first the chicken or the egg? And tell me how did life begin in the first place?
ATBINTC 9 months ago
I came for information and I stayed for the music ^^
Evolution is a fact, why so many people are trying to believe there's not such a thing?
Mature, people.
fenrirgg 9 months ago
@fenrirgg Evolution is not a fact. I'm currently making videos to debunk this "Evidence for Evolution" series by cdk007. One thing the evos always say - "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" and never give evidence to back it up. Or at least they give debunked evidence when they do. I would encourage you to look into it if you haven't already.
jesse8857 9 months ago
@jesse8857
I'm looking forward to seeing your videos. I'm always open to new ideas, and willing to change my perspective if given adequate evidence to do so. I'll keep an eye out for your counterattack.
NFSlugger13 8 months ago
@NFSlugger13 I'm in the final stages of my video "Dismantling CDK007's Evidence for Evolution III" but you can see the first one I did in the video responses under cdk's Evidence for Evolution part 1. It's good you have an open mind, most do not!
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 As a creationist aren't you short of a mechanism? I mean at least evolution can provide a mechanism whereby species arise. You seem to propose a supernatural designer, and natural products, but you seem to be short of a mechanism whereby the designer actually impliments these designs.
I watched your video, and voted it down. I found it full of dishonest quote mining, and you were stupid enough to include the aged cannard, 'most mutations are deleterious',. Fuckwit.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@gamesbok Our mechanism is the designer! You do not have a mechanism watch?v=iNdhAYVtaDM
"'most mutations are deleterious',." They are. Watch the previously mentioned vid - you'll find that the geneticists are saying this!
jesse8857 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jesse8857 I don't care how many mutations are deleterious, they're not preserved. If you don't understand that then you don't understand evolution. How about sickle cell anemia? Is that deleterious? You still don't have a mechanism, and yes, you do need one. Magic won't do.
gamesbok 4 months ago
@jesse8857 it's funny cause there are loads of evidence for evolution, but creationists have no means to support their theory (Exept for "the bible sais so")
DaMastaOfRoad 8 months ago
@DaMastaOfRoad false and..., false
jesse8857 8 months ago
@jesse8857 ok so what supports intelligent design? c'mon, tell me...
DaMastaOfRoad 8 months ago
I came for information and I stayed for the music ^^
Evolution is a fact, why so many people are trying to believe there's not such a thing?
Mature, people.
fenrirgg 9 months ago
Phylogeny is a weak reason for not considering whether the guinea pig is a close relative to man, for you stated forthrightly that similarity of this gene could be used to predict which organisms are closer.
"... closely related species should have more similar sequence than more distant species."
Or were you just pulling our leg?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
"It evolved from a previously functional gene." Now, cdk007, if you want to say that evolution is a process of making good, working genes nonfunctional through random copy errors, I think I can get a number of ID and creationist scientists to accept your definition.
It's powerful evidence ... of degradation of the genome ... but it doesn't do anything for the case for greater fitness via evolution.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@freehenrietta You really don't know what science is, do you? Nor do you seem to know what scientific theory is. Are people who study the theory of gravity gravitists? Because it has the word theory, does it mean their is no evidence for gravity and that gravity might not exist? Creationism is a hypothesis that the scientific method has proven false.
geek01d 9 months ago
This is slightly off topic; how did the eyes ears nose and other sensory organs evolve if the being had no knowledge of the senses to perceive?
LazerZombieDestroyer 10 months ago
@LazerZombieDestroyer Oh this is an easy one...the brainless, mindless, organisms knew, uh...felt..uh..sensed...the need to know, feel, and sense, so they evolved themselves to do it. lol Yeah, that's it..
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@LazerZombieDestroyer Oh this is an easy one...the brainless, mindless, organisms knew, uh...felt..uh..sensed...the need to know, feel, and sense, so they evolved themselves to do it. lol Yeah, that's it..
Seriously, I don't care how hard you try, you'll never be able to evolve a third arm, eyes in the back of your head, or even another head simply because you think you need them. In fact, what happens when someone does have "extras"? They don't do so well, do they now..
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta When you say 'don't do so well' do you mean organisms with extras are disfavoured by natural selection? It does occur to me that 'nylonaise' is an extra that might be favourable.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok Well, typically, "extras" are formed as a result of bad mutations which don't allow the organism to survive or produce viable offspring. I know there are "good" mutations in and of themselves but they usually come with other harsh consequences- AB resistence for example.
I guess I never thought of nylonaise as "favorable". To what is it favorable?
freehenrietta 8 months ago
@freehenrietta Nylonase would greatly extend the food resources for Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Further we know the mutation that produces the change.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
"bad mutations"? tell me is sickle cell disease a "bad mutation" in an environment with malaria? yes or no? it's quite s imple question, dumbshit.
hint: it allows the organism to survive better than those without the disease and allows the reproduction of viable offspring, and healthier than the non-mutants.
actually there are many "good mutations" that become "bad" if the environment changes.
ergo your ignorance of what is Fitness, a well defined scientific term, is shown.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic Damn, that's a good example. I have to remember that.
HitfulVids 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freehenrietta
name me one single "harsh consequence" in the existence of MRSA or VRSA.
as i said: you can't explain AB resistance without using evolution, AND practical examples, REALITY proves, as usual, all of your ignorant moronic school droppout rant as entirely, to 100%, wrong.
It's easy to prove a IGNORANT fuck like yourself as wrong, dumbshit. look to what happened at the Dover trial, DUMBSHIT.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jan 20;95(2):612-6.
Slow rate of molecular evolution in high-elevation hummingbirds.
now try debunk this paper, of fuck off, you ignorant kid.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic kid? hmm lol
First of all, the article doesn't prove anything for or against anything so I can't "debunk" anything. But, if you notice, the article does relay an admittance that there is a problem with the rate of molecular evolution not coinciding with dating of fossils. They're trying to find something that makes them support each other but they haven't. They're just stating observations and saying "if we can prove one thing true, maybe we can prove the other one, too!".
freehenrietta 8 months ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
they studied the hybridization rate - a method to determine genetic homology! you UNEDUCATED FUCK UP! LOLOL
THEY PROVED a GENETIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN different species of hummingbirds! that relationship can ONLY and SOLELY be explained by using evolution theory! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
they SOLVE the dating problem, PLUS they PROVE that molecular evolution DOES coincide with the dating of fossils, DUMBSHIT.
NEXT time, TRY TO ACTUALLY READ the paper, you FUCKING IDIOT!
transtlantic 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
the problem is with the limited fossil record, NOT the dating, you DUMBSHIT.
they SUPPORT each other because their observations is that: YOU CAN compare the two and SHOW they coincide. you fucking ignorant uneducated moron.
BTW:
as i said: you can't explain AB resistance without using evolution, AND practical examples, REALITY proves, as usual, all of your ignorant moronic school droppout rant as entirely, to 100%, wrong.
STILL WAITING for an answer, DUMBSHIT
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic First of all, read the article again cuz ur mistaken; second, "limited" fossil record? common; third, man ur ignorant..
freehenrietta 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
i already read the PAPER, moron, it's not an article. CAN YOU FUCKING TELL THE DIFFERENCE? ofc not, it's rethorical, i know you are oblivious to what a scientific paper is.
I AM RIGHT, dumbshit. READ the paper, or else another person might come up and point out that you are wrong and delusional while i am proving you wrong and delusional.
limited fossil record, isn't a lack of fossil record, dumbshit. try apply for highschool education, they will teach you something.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@freehenrietta
hey troll, why would i believe in your religious ideology if you can't explain AB resistance or plant speciation without using evolution theory?
so what you are saying is that allele frequency does not change in a population if submitted to environmental pressure? weird....how do you explain AB resistrance without natural selection?
this challenge proves the ENTIRE cretard movement wrong. take it, accept it and fuck off, dumbshit.
transtlantic 8 months ago
Starting at about 3:29- you can't use an evolutionary tree as evidence of an evolutionary tree. Evolutionist think about everything backwards. They say so many things are the same (let's say, between monkeys and men) that men must have evolved from monkeys (to say monkeys came from men would be silly, right?). The truth is, monkeys are monkeys and men are men. The reason they're so alike is because they have similar make-ups...period.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta "Evolutionist" isn't a word. I think you mean to say scientists.
godlynessdog 10 months ago
@godlynessdog Evolutionist: "a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution". Merriam-Webster
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta That's strange I didn't find a definition for it on merriam-webster. But evolutionist was on the website I'll give you that. Anyway it is not a scientific word. That would be like calling someone who believes in the atomic theory an atomicist. If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution that means you don't believe in science, and therefore you are not a scientist.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@godlynessdog Obviously you don't understand language. The suffix "ist" means "one who studies" or is "involved in a field". Evolutionist is one who studies evolution or is involved in the field of evolution. One who studies the atomic theory could be a "theorist", but that's besides the point...
Evolution is not synonymous with science. It is, however, a theory within science. That would be like saying relativity = science. No, but it's part of it. In fact, creationism is part of sciencetoo.
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta Actually no. Creationism has nothing to do with science. In fact creationism is basically the opposite of science. It is basing an idea off of faith instead of evidence.
The point I'm making is s you won't find any self-respecting scientist who calls himself an evolutionist. Maybe you're thinking of an Evolutionary Biologist. Usually the word "evolutionist" is used by creationists as a demeaning term for someone who acknowledges evolution as a legitimate scientific theory.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
Comment removed
geek01d 9 months ago
@geek01d Why'd you remove your comment? I already got it in my box. Maybe you realized that you don't know what you're talking about and didn't want to embarass yourself by leaving your post up there.
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta You can, however, use the record left by ERVs, and construct an evolutionary tree, actually the same evolutionary tree. Would you care to comment on why man and monkeys have similar make-up? I know why they do, but I am interested in why you think it's so. How about Larus fuscus and Larus argentatus, are they seperate species? If they are seperate, where do they become seperate?
gamesbok 8 months ago
non functional dna ?? the correct term is noncoding dna. and yes your right theres a load of this (junk dna) in all species an the amount of it varies, however,...many kinds of noncoding dna sequences do have known biological functions!!..including transcriptional and translational regulation!!.....this is a poor argument.
hendrixboy100 10 months ago
similarities in dna with these animals doesnt prove common ancestor! and more to the point doesnt prove information encoded dna evolved in the oceans through billions of yrs of rain either...it proves common designer, escorts and fiestas are similar aswell! doesnt mean they evolved from cortinas billions of yrs ago! it proves common designer FORD!!
hendrixboy100 10 months ago
@hendrixboy100 Pretty shitty common designer I'll say, having non-functional sequences of DNA in the human genome. If the common designer idea would be true, then that designer would be far from being "Intelligent".
dcontard 10 months ago
When two lineages share an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now.
anglicantian 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When two lineages share an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now.
anglicantian 10 months ago
@KrokrX
ROFL
independentthinker0 11 months ago
Yet again GoodScienceForYou touts his brain-dead forum, here are some of his 'science' quotes, try not to laugh -
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
-Carbon is the only thing that makes us "carbon" based creatures
-The cause of sickle cell anemia is unknown, dumb ass.
-Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.
-There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.
-There are only two species of bacteria.
Could anyone learn anything from this clown?
KrokrX 11 months ago
@KrokrX Sickle cell anemia (sickle cell disease) is a disorder of the blood caused by an inherited abnormal hemoglobin (an oxygen-carrying protein within the red blood cells). The abnormal hemoglobin causes distorted (sickled) red blood cells. The sickled red blood cells are fragile and prone to rupture. When the number of red blood cells decreases from rupture (hemolysis), anemia is the result. This condition is referred to as sickle cell anemia.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474 - you're right, and I suspect most people with even a quite moderate education are aware of it, but GoodScienceForYou likes to pretend he's a 'been a scientist for over 45 years' and has an 'IQ over 180' yet is ignorant of such basic facts. He's an ill-educated creationist, but he also suffers from inherited mental conditions which makes his grip on reality even more tenuous, yet he likes to spam science supporting channels with his drivel and links to his off site forum.
KrokrX 10 months ago
Comment removed
KrokrX 10 months ago
@achilles197474 - you may like to watch a video by AlanCFA about GoodScienceForYou - v=K9m3f0RdGBs - it deals with some of his flagrant dishonesty, vile accusations, abusive behaviour, and 'imaginative' ideas about evolution (e.g. humans mated with gorillas!). In addition to his lack of education and mental problems, all those years he spent the Jehovah's Witnesses and Siddha Yoga cult(17yrs) doubtless put the finishing touches to his aberrant personality.
KrokrX 10 months ago
Comment removed
KrokrX 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
Wait, so there is people that don't believe in evolution?
rogervduarte 1 year ago
Probability of zero is still there since it doesn't explain why it is happened at first level.It just explains human part.
baylorhudson 1 year ago
566 dislikes. Has this been voteboted?
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
how long have we been studying DNA? and everyone is an expert! Why do things die? Why do people taste? What makes personalities? How do new ideas get made? How does travis pastrana do a double backflip on a motorcycle? why is ice less dense than water? why does junk food taste so good but makes you so fat? why do fingernails and hair grow when you die? why do i have dreams? why do i need sleep? why do i have the desire to have sex? why do i have the desire to be entertained?
mestizocrow 1 year ago
@mestizocrow
What was the point of that long list of questions? Do you want to know the answers, or were you trying to make a point? They have all been answered, to varying degrees, by science.
G0lfYankee 1 year ago
@mestizocrow there's this awesomw thing on the internet called "google" you may want to try it out sometime. and a few answers to some of your hopefully rhetoric questions: "What makes personalities?" (source wikipeersdotcom)"These traits include conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness or intellect".the quote was used to describe different personalities but i think it can also answer your question."why is ice less dense than water?"because water expands when frosen
jaktrep 1 year ago
@jaktrep Someone didn't know why ice floats?
Luigi84289 1 year ago
i shall continue remain a creationist untill someone can explain to me how these millions of DNA sequences got there in the first place
TheCWynns 1 year ago
@TheCWynns
If we had the answer you probably wouldn't want to believe it anyway
mosquitobight 1 year ago
@TheCWynns
nucleotides exist naturally (meaning they are formed naturally) from the deepest ocean to outer space.
basic nucleic acids are also formed naturally during certain phenomena. no god there.
plus...DNA alone doesn't make the basic unit life: the cell.
evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
finish your education.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Comment removed
babycakez2032 1 year ago
in a much simple terms the bible=pi
thats how the system functions.
babycakez2032 1 year ago
@babycakez2032 The bible does not contain Pi. Pi is not 3, Nor is it any other round number. its 3.14159265 which is not present anywhere in any holybook of any religion.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord The earliest known textually evidenced approximations date from around 1900 BC; they are 256/81 (Egypt) and 25/8 (Babylonia), both within 1% of the true value.[9] The Indian text Shatapatha Brahmana gives π as 339/108 ≈ 3.139. Additionally, the Old Testament discusses a ceremonial pool in the temple of King Solomon, having a diameter of ten cubits, and a circumference of thirty cubits, implying an approximate value of three for pi
babycakez2032 1 year ago
@babycakez2032 Pi is not 3.
Pi is 3.14159265.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord i never said pi equals three. i know what pi is.3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305.. it goes on infinitly...
babycakez2032 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babycakez2032 The bible was written in a number of langauges but none called Mathematic. unless your simply trying to say Math, which it wasent. the Bible of Abrahamic mythology is based on eariler scriptures and myths that predated it.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord if the universe is infinit than any slight chance of an ecosystem would be real high even if it was .0000000000000001... but inteligence has no probability. it derives from time only because time is the only one that can change itself. were the only one capable of changing the out come of the univers. we come from a system that is least smarter than us or are we smarter than our future.. if so then we are not getting inteligent but only becoming highly reliable on our past..
babycakez2032 1 year ago
@babycakez2032 You`re not typing very coherently.
what you just said has practicaly nothing to do with your prior comments.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord the old testament speaks about the irational laws of men. the bible is written in mathematic idk what bible u speak about.
babycakez2032 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
in order to understan origin of inteligence, understand the mathematical genetics of the bible, it contains exact systems what people call the apocalipse or new begining. the old testament or the irational math.. and the new testamen the probabilities. and the third testament the higher simplification of math and laws..
babycakez2032 1 year ago
how does this fit in to the suject god exist or mind and that we werent design to be inteligent but only selected as a species according to the god law and or the bible.. we are the only species on earth cable of inprovement and change of systems at an exponential rate according to records.. enteligence occurs at an exponential rate but does have a limit of maximum capasity reaching death or deletion but the new law states that we no longer die but pass on to a higher capable system..
babycakez2032 1 year ago
sin is only the oposition of ones self.. meaning god sees no sin or doesnt oppose his thought but regulates them and controls them. jesus spoke about self control or balance your thougths he also said that mortal laws are in place and that we must abide by them because you will become subject to a greater faith or beliefe but those who are holy meanig seperate from all faith are invisible and dont fall subjet to their beliefe system, thats why religion should be personal..
babycakez2032 1 year ago
we werent an inteligent design, we were an inteligent selection.. the probability of life exiting beyond our is high but inteligence has no probability... meaning you are your own creator..
babycakez2032 1 year ago
a creationist would say the similarity is DNA sequences is proof of a single origin, a creator. Why argue, creation is the flip side of the coin their answer is God, your answer is evolution, as a debate it is not worth having.
tjmac7 1 year ago
On another side, what happens to the earth when the sun disapears? It starts to cool down, very fast. Look at the effects of seasons over 1 year, in Canada it goes from -30C to +30C. So with the sun and a small axial change in daily sunlight, you get 60 degree difference. Imagine a 0% sunlight rate. It would take less then a year for the earth to become a frigid plain.
Forget starvation, most life would die from the lack of energy itself within the system. The sun is lifes hope, not god.
Flem1337 1 year ago
Comment removed
Flem1337 1 year ago
Cut the sunlight and all the plants automatically stop photosynthesis. This means they won't create more energy, they will begin using up their sugar reserves, usually eaten by herbivores. The reduced vegetation nutritive value, will cause death of herbivores very quickly due to a global famine. Carnivores will feel the tool as well, once the herbivores will starve to death. Finally, decomposition of carnivores would letmicroorganism and funguses survive, until no more energy is available.
Flem1337 1 year ago
The main premise of this video seems to suggest that God does not exist because if he did he sucks as a designer. However, I don't understand. Why is it that one can assume that 'junk' DNA is leftover evolutionary code. What direction does everything in the known universe seem to be going? The answer is order to chaos. I know you've heard this one before. The question really is this. Is it so hard to say that DNA is falling apart? Wow, that's a stretch.
MWarnkegwg 1 year ago
@MWarnkegwg DNA is energenically defavorable. For it to remain in one piece energy from outside the cell is needed. As long as there is energy incoming, the cell can retain its current state of order. If tomorow the sun were to disapear forever, it would take less then a year for most life on earth to disappear. The sun brings almost 100% of all energy life uses (except for bacteria able to use chemical reactions like acidophiles and other autotrophes).
Flem1337 1 year ago
One of the smartest scientists in the world, with extremely extensive knowledge in not on physics and mathematics, but also medicine. Francis Collins who lead the team of scientists to try and prove evaluation, had became a creationist after 2 years of research.
You can imagine how much he wanted evolution to be true... it was an important and honourable job he was given, however he was smart enough and honest to except the fact that evolution can't happen without a creator to guide it.
AllstarCanadian 1 year ago
@AllstarCanadian Collins believes in God AND in evolution (as many people outside America or the Arab world), and he rejects creationism and intelligent design.
Besides, why should you care what a single scientist believe anyway? Most important is the fact that 99.9% of all biologists and physicists will tell you that there is no evidence for God in anything science has discovered over the centuries.
You can believe anything you want, but I tell you, science is not on your side on this.
cristianfcao 1 year ago
@AllstarCanadian in case you don't believe me on Collins' views, you may find interesting to hear his positions from himself: watch?v=_bYr_bO8YMQ
Take care.