No evolutionist ever predicted the chromosome fusion.
since ERVs are funtional (not junk) it makes sence to assume that god created organims with ervs in their genome. we share Similar ervs we chimps because we both need similar ervs.
Hey shane! Do you happen to know what paper(s) made the detailed predictions about the human chromosome fusion? I would like to use it to help teach a creationist I am talking to! Thanks!
Fantastic book. Besides the fact that it functions well as a stand alone,, you also have all these videos to explain things. I downloaded it on my kindle in April. My wifes little brother is in middle school and is using your work to learn about evolution. The sad fact is that after a month of watching yours, AronRa's, and CDK007's videos and reading your book he probably knows more about evolution than his biology teacher.
Well, the evidence for a worldwide flood, fulfilled prophesies and accurate scientific statements the Bible makes are overwhelming. However, the fulfilled predictions evolution stated, shown in this video, are also very convincingly. So I have to research about the stuff you mentioned in your video before I go any further.
@eagleeye2102 A global flood would have left evidence in the geologic record. There is no such global flood. Compare with, say, the K-T boundary, marking the asteroid hit that finished off the dinosaurs--THAT was global, and it left evidence in the geologic record.
Well, Whales are classified as fishes and bats are classified as birds, but just because we don't classify these animals this way doesn't make the Bible wrong. And yes, rabbits do sometimes actually eat their own feces, so they do chew cud.
That depends on how you define bird. What is a bird according to modern biology? Everything that flies and has two legs is a bird according to the Bible. And everything that re-eats the same food and uses it in a productive way does chew cud according to the Bible.
You can't say that the Bible is wrong because it has different definitions, this is like claiming that Germans are wrong because they have different words for the same thing than English-talking people have.
@eagleeye2102 "Everything that flies and has two legs is a bird according to the Bible."
So, then, does a flying squirrel count as a bird? This category is completely useless.
"And everything that re-eats the same food and uses it in a productive way does chew cud according to the Bible."
Then there is no way in which the Bible can be said to be literal, if the words can be distorted to have these vague and widely-defined meanings. You've just made the whole book useless!
A "flying squirrel" doesn't fly, it just glides through the air a short track. And a rabbit does chew cud by eating its feces, its just another unique way to do it. Where is the problem?
@eagleeye2102 Actually, they can go quite a distance, and make a nice soft landing. What is the actual line between gliding and flying? Most birds do more gliding than flying. So where's this arbitrary limit?
The definition of cud is PARTIALLY chewed, UNDIGESTED food regurgitated to be chewed a second time. In the verse in question, the Hebrew word is "gerah" which means EXACTLY this and is NEVER EVER used to refer to animals eating feces. Hares make the second pass COMPLETELY internally.
@eagleeye2102 Also, although the English versions say "chew" the cud, the Hebrew word there is "alah," which SPECIFICALLY means "bring up," NOT "poop out." So the Bible SPECIFICALLY says that hares "bring up" the cud.
You have NO out here. The Bible is just WRONG (as were most people up to and including Linnaeus, all of whom thought rabbits did this).
@eagleeye2102 ARE YOU SERIOUS??? I'm no biologist but I have a facsination with birds and your statement, while a week old, is fucking moronic. Birds are not described that simply. they're a subset of archosauria, being decsendants of dinosaurs. their group specifically are known as Aves. All aves are described as being warm-blooded, feathered, and hollow-boned. Your take on birds rules out the penguin and osterich, which are flightless birds.
I know I know, but that isn't the way the Bible defines bird. The Bible doesn't define a bird as a warmblooded, feathered and hollow blooded animal, this is how we use the word bird. The Bible is more general, if it flies and has two legs, it's a bird, if it swims in the water, it's a fish, that's why the Bible defines the whale to be a fish. These are two complete different definitions. It's like this: Modern biology defines according to relationship, the Bible according to look.
The problem is even people back then would have noticed that bats didn't have feathers. All birds have feathers after all. One would have also noticed modern birds don't have teeth like bats do. In the question of whales, one surly would have noticed that whales have theirtail fins positioned differently than a fish's tail fin.
@shanedk "You're just making excuses for your piece of shit bronze age text of ignorance"
Well, I'm just trying to find out the Bible's detention for bird. Ostriches are bird according to the Bible (Leeviticus 11:13), so my proposed definition was wrong.
@eagleeye2102 The Bible doesn't HAVE a definition! It was written by a bunch of ignorant goat-herders. It is NOT a book of science, history, or any other form of human wisdom; just the rambling and disjointed justifications for a bunch of nomads to treat everyone else like shit.
A bird might be an animal which has wings and two legs, that would fit.
The Bible isn't a book of science because science tries to discover the truth, the Bible, if it is true, has been written by the creator of the Universe, it doesn't need to search the truth, it already has it. It is, however, a book of history. Archaeology supports it.
@eagleeye2102 Birds have claws??? Gonna have to ask for a peer-reviewed reference on that one.
And the other bullshit is just cherry-picking. You can go through ANYTHING and pick out the things that it matches while ignoring what doesn't. It's the things that DON'T match--like the things I pointed out--that matter.
I said that there are some unique birds which have claws, like the Hoatzin or the Emu.
Yes yes, all the Archaeological evidence supporting the Bible are, of course, bullshit. All the evidence supporting evolution are, of course, fantastic. Oh wait, how could I forget, all the evidence supporting evolution come from REAL scientists, not from propaganda fake scientists. Creationists are so stupid, aren't they? Just ask Richard Dawkins'.
@TheGroxx We still haven't addressed the issue where this obvious presence of zombie-ism originates. Perhaps it is a recessive trait passed down by a paternal grandparent, and the stripper portion of this child's genetic makeup helps express her zombie heritage in a manner healthy toward those who may otherwise be a source of caloric intake.
@Rozax That could also be traits from both parents being expressed. Clothed from the father, nudist from the mother, the poor zombie-kid can't cope, and manages to find an uncomfortable homeostasis in ragged accoutrements.
This video is one of the best videos explaining the evidence for evolution I've ever seen. It's unfortunate, however, that no sources are cited. This definitely the beats out the "creationists are just a bunch of rotten lying ****s" stuff in some of the other videos on this channel.
I love how creationists try to equal Evolution with Darwin "Oh Darwin said he has no transitional fossils"..... SO F* WHAT? He lived over 150 years ago
Evolution is like music, it's not really going anywhere even if it is changing. No music is better than the other. Not exactly, but it sounds cool saying it, because I jsut made it up in the shower.
Lol, the comments on these videos are just like the Flat Earth Society forums. They just won't let go of denial that the Earth is round or, in this case, that evolution exists.
Yeah, nice vid, but 'God's dunnit'! He probably simply connected those two genes with each other! ... that's what would be a creationists answer to the problem.
I think the fused chromosome argument is overused. The creationist response is that Adam and Eve had 24 pairs and that the fusion occurred in recent human history.
"The creationist response is that Adam and Eve had 24 pairs and that the fusion occurred in recent human history."
So what? If they don't have evidence they can't just conjecture out of nowhere!
Besides the neaderthal genome was completed. It turns out there were VERY genetically distinct from humans. Like each of their polymorphisms individually would be outliers.
Oh and they had 23 pairs as well. So I guess that means that adam and eve gave rise to sapiens and neaderthalisis
So the fused chromosome isn't something that couldn't exist according to their fairy tales.
I'm not a creationist in any sense of the word. All I'm saying is that the fused chromosome isn't going to be very persuasive so we should stick to presenting more irrefutable arguments like ERV DNA and such.
The chromosomal fusion is actually probably better evidence if you really know molecular biology.
I mean retroviruses are not totally random. They have a limited amount of biases of insertions.only certain insertions will be passed on. Chromsomal fusions might not be high in number but are so improbable that they're in a way better.
But there's no single piece of evidence that validates a theory. thats not how science works.On the whole the evidence is overwhelming.
Oh, go and read a book! Did you know that many invertebrates do not have a circulatory system AT ALL??? Others have open circulatory systems, where there IS NO HEART. There are some with closed circulatory systems that use the creature's existing muscle as a heart, or that have rudimentary hearts, and then there are true hearts with varying degrees of complexity, from simple on up to advanced hearts.
And that's of organisms that are around TODAY! You're denying observed fact.
There is no progression except in the fairy tale. there is no evidence of progression from no heart to heart. from single celled pre Cambrian to billion celled Cambrian. From no limbs to limbs, from no eye to eye, from no teeth to teeth. I could go one for days. Pathetic homologous examples that have no meaning except in the fairy tale. There should be signs of millions of steps successful and unsuccessful. However, There is no evidence. Just a the fairy tale of evolutionism.
Except that there IS. You painted an inaccurate picture of biology: that you either have a complex, fully-formed heart, or none at all. You don't go straight from one to the other; there are all sorts of grades in the middle, and my post demonstrated that.
Everything I posted is a sign of just another step from no heart to heart, each with its own useful intermediary.
Your knowledge of biology is completely fail. David Kingsley and Sean Caroll of the Howard Hughes medical institute have induced Sea squirts to develop 2 chamber hearts. The examples of mutations beneficial and otherwise have been documented relentlessly by people who have a desire to further our understanding of the world. The mutations can be drastic or benign, it's all been documented. Let go of your religious dogma and read a science book. Your own ignorance is proof of -nothing- but itself.
I showed you that there is no explanation of how a heart arises from nothing. You, on the other hand, have observed animals with different types of circulatory systems and assumed that one led to another with no evidence to support your assumption.
I have EXPLAINED to you that evolutionists line up organisms in homologous order and claim ancestry. There is no evidence of any organism or ascending from anything.
No, they are NOT "lined up in homologous order"! You don't even know the first thing about what you're talking about.
A nested hierarchy is a VERY SPECIFIC PREDICTION. If anything is off--like the typical example of fossil bunnies in the precambrian--the nested hierarchy is violated and evolution is falsified.
Why does the nested hierarchy DEMANDED by the circulatory systems MATCH the nested hierarchies for every other aspect?
where is the nested hierarchy from single celled organisms in the Precambrian to the multimillion celled fully formed highly complex organisms in the Cambrian? It doesn't exist. I've EXPLAINED to you many times that evolutionists make this stuff up as they go along. they observe things and then wrinkle the fairy tale to fit the observations.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
No, just the creationist strawman version of gradualism. Dawkins called this "caricature" "constant speedism": "...as far as adaptive evolution of large-scale structures and behaviour patterns are concerned, just about all evolutionists would reject constant speedism, and Darwin certainly would have rejected it."
No creationist straw man. Gould was a top evolutionist from Harvard University. He realized that the empirical evidence did not support gradual changes. He, However, made up his own fairy tale to explain away the data.
Hey, did you know they recently found web spinning spiders from 140 million years ago? that predates flowers and flying insects. I wonder what they ate and why they were spinning webs with no insects to catch? It's kinda like finding bunnies in the Cambrian level.
I didn't quote mine I provided the book and the page number.
Gould proposed a new theory. Quite different from gradualism.
spiders primarily feed on flying insects that get caught in their web.
Seems like you are the idiot when facts are involved. However you are great at fairy tales.
I say Gould made up a fairy tale you say he"formlated a theory to explain the observations." At best you could call it a hypothesis. But I can see how a novice like yourself would consider it a theory sigh
No, it's only quite different from the creationist strawman version. REAL gradualism was NEVER about everything evolving at the same rate; it was long known that traits that take hundreds of thousands of years to evolve appear "suddenly" in the record because of the scale involved. Gould ONLY said that this happens at a greater magnitude than previously thought.
Saying that spiders PRIMARILY feed off insects doesn't mean they SOLELY feed off insects.
That does not predate flying insects, they go back farther than 350 million years. You probably just made up that whole spider story or heard it from a creationist website and they tossed in the "before flying insects bullshit." Nice try, the idea that 140 million years ago is before insects and flowers is a claim no one with even a little biologic knowledge would claim.
Gee that is funny here is the paper the info came from . looks pretty scientific to me.
Brasier, M., L. Cotton and I. Yenney. 2009. First report of amber with spider webs and microbial inclusions from the earliest Cretaceous (c. 140 Ma) of Hastings, Sussex. Journal of the Geological Society. 166 (6): 989-997.
If you look at the post I just made you will see how a 140 million year old web making spider is not out of place spiders have existed for over 300 million years.
It's flying insects in general. The earliest flying insects were Ephemeroptera (today's survivors of this genera are mayflies), and they date back to the late Carboniferous period.
They'll quite happily munch on houseflies and other flying insects that don't pollinate flowers.
Ehh... actually, the earliest insect fossil found dates to around 396 million years old. And that is a fossil, which could very well mean they were around for much longer. So that 140 million year old spider had plenty to catch.
If you know biology then you'll be able to answer these questions:
What is the textbook model organism for studies in ichthyology? What model organism is used in botany?
What polymerase adds okazaki fragments?
Name two species of fish other than lungfish that have lungs.
Feel free to look these up. I feel like I might be making a little difference by directing you to look these up. It gives me a warm feeling where my heart is supposed to be
There is an ERV present in chimps and gorillas but not in humans. If chimps and gorillas inherited this ERV from their common ancestor. and we know by your great calculations that this is a virtual certainty, why is it not present in humans?
Sigh...An ERV is an ALLELE. It would have been present in some of the ancestral population but not others. It all depends on how the lines diverged, and what happened to the alleles once they did.
Tell me which ERV you're talking about and I'll tell you specifically what happened.
You don't have to it was rhetorical. I have read the imaginary explanations to explain away the exact circumstance that evolutionists claim would falsify their fairy tale. They just change the fairy tale around.
I don't lie. the ERV sequence that I am talking about, I have read a lot on HERV-K.
you need bunnies to be trapped by the flood next to bottom dwelling sea creatures. Why would there be bunnies trapped with clams. You don't understand anything.
Desertphile has a video on that particular ERV. Have you seen it? Have you even LOOKED at the paper on it? I've READ it. What do YOU know about it, other than what you're regurgitating from creationist websites?
Barbulescu, Madalina, et al, "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans," Current Biology, Vol. 11 No. 10, 15 May 2001, pp 779-83.
They show the ACTUAL DNA SEQUENCES, and shows how it DOES fit the nested hierarchy.
I told you I already read it. I know you can fit it into the nested hierarchy. However you are not mentioning the ERV.
It doesn't really matter because finding the ERV in chimps and gorillas and not humans should put a nail in the coffin.However, Evolutionists just slip right out of it and say OH humans probably lost the ERV somewhere along the line.
YOU were the one who brought up that ERV. YOU were the one who said that it falsifies evolution WHEN IT DOESN'T.
You apparently think that when an ERV infects a germ-line cell, it magically infects every single member of that population forever!
READ THE PAPER. It DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Our common ancestors with apes and chimps had BOTH the ERV and non-ERV alleles, just like humans have both the brown eye and blue eye alleles.
Like arguing quantum mechanics with a nine year old isn't it? You provide scientific papers and they retort with "NU UH! NO!" Then they claim that they are smarter than you and keep making groundless claims without backing them up.
Random mutation and natural selection causing the diversity we see, is far more improbable than the non random insertion of ERV's. You can't have it both ways. Either you rely on probability or you don't. If you want to rely on improbability of ERV's to prove evolution, then the improbability of it ever happening which is far greater than the improbability of ERV's showing up in the same location, defeats Evolutionism.
It absolutely is not! With a system of mutation and natural selection operating for this long, the diversity we see is practically a CERTAINTY! There is NO improbability problem with evolution, although creationists want there to be (and can only get there by violating basic statistics). Their "theory" (and I'm being VERY generous with that term) is falsified by the REAL improbabilities, calculated with GENUINE statistics, that rule it out.
Mutation and natural selection have never been shown to bring about any change that would ever suggest that an organism would eventually change into a different type of organism. All we have ever observe is slight adaptation to an environment. This is exactly what is predicted by the creationists and contradicts what is predicted by the evolutionists. REAL observations of REAL predictions by creationists. Wishful imagination with no observations by Evolutionists.
You're just WRONG! PATHETICALLY wrong! See the rest of this series! See my entry in the Pwnage Olympics! The things you say are never observed have BEEN observed! THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of times!
Actually I am quite sure that I am correct. over 40 years of personal interest, reading, and post graduate study assure me that I am correct. What you are spewing is wishful thinking and is not backed up by EVIDENCE. The circumstances you tout as evidence are just observations that evolutionists are imposing there world view upon. for example dinosaurs to birds never happened but evolutionists assured their followers that it did. Now we know it didn't. Evolution is a fairy tale for the masses.
"over 40 years of personal interest, reading, and post graduate study"
Thats pretty impressive for a 26 year old. I also enjoy how you make your claims without backing them up. It never happened you say but do you offer any explanation of evidence? Of course not! Its just your word verses the entire scientific community I mean the guild of godless world wide conspirators, right?
Now we know it didnt
Sure buddy, riiight. (I so badly hope you say protoavis, I really do)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't have much time to really make a comment (I will later on, when I come home from work) - but this doesn't give the full story regarding the ever-constant debate between evolution theory and ID/Creationism theory. I also think the poster for this video is quite biased and is, pardon me, very close-minded to the possibility that there may be some truth to the "theories" of creationism and intelligent design.
You seem to not know that shandk along with MANY others have thoroughly researched ID/Creationism. Guess what, there is barely any truth whatsoever. Oh yea, you seem to not know what open mindedness /close mindedness is.
There's not a shred of evidence for creationism or intelligent design (which are really the same thing.) I'll have an open mind when they come up with some.
Why is it not even distributed? Have you even thought abou it yourself? Because we do not have the same immune system and do not live in the same environment.
Now wake up and smell the coffee, dude. We do not share 98,000 ERVs with chimps at the same spot. And his video does not say those 16 are all K-family.
Why do evolutionists become idiots as soon as they are shown the truth?
"And his video does not say those 16 are all K-family."
"And those are just the K class retroviruses!" DIRECT QUOTE!!!
Yes, it does! IT ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES!!! RIGHT AT 6:45!!!
You are a LIAR! And you are now ABSOLUTELY guilty of libel against cdk007, and are in violation of the rules of this channel. First warning; you get THREE.
Stop LYING about what other people say and debate honestly.
It doesn't further your arguement to insult others. You want to debate intelligently, then set a proper example. As they say, "Don't criticize someone else for their mess, until you clean up your own".
Now if we share over 90% of our DNA with chimps as a result of common descent, then we'd expect to share over 90% of retroviral insertions in exact same spots. But we don't share 10% (not even 1%) of our retroviral infections. That would be 10% of 98,000 ERV insertions: 9,800 of he exact same ERVs at the exact same insertion site.
But so far we have found no more than 16.
So there's only one possible conclusion: retroviruses disprove the theory of common ancestry.
The HERV-K appeared after chimps and humans diverged -according to evolution theory.
So how can they explain 16 common infections?
You are full of crap, you know that?
He wasn't talking about the K-class. You are getting irritated because your ERV evidence is falling apart on you. Now i advise you to go hone and straighten up your facts and stop sounding like a tot idiot.
Alright, I was confused with herv-k and other videos. I checked many other sources on the internet, and so far cdk007 is the only one claiming we got most of the 98,000 in the same spot. I'll continue to look in papers to find if any of them support this. I've heard many evolutionist claims ranging from 7 to 16 exact same ERV type and location. Not 98,000. I remember I commented cdk007 on this earlier.
Now add the fact that certain ERVs have preferences to insert into genes, others rather go near promotors of genes and others insert at oher spots, we can expect more ERVs inserting at the exact same spot. And when we find two ERVs at the same integration site in human and chimps, it's likely that it is the same type of ERV having the same insertion preference.
Possible integration sites: 50,000,000 - 3,000,000,000
Estimated number of insertions in humans: 98,000
One viral infection in chimps has at least 98,000/3,000,000,000 chance of being in a same spot as a human ERV, thats at least 1/30,600 chance for each chimp insertion.
Estimating 98,000 insertions in chimps, we can expect at least three ERVs in exact same spot!
We would expect an EVEN DISTRIBUTION of these REGARDLESS of species. Yet, we have more ERV sequences in common with chimpanzees and bonobos than we do with the other apes, more in common with apes than we do with monkeys, more in common with apes and monkeys than we do with other mammals, more in common with other mammals than we do in fruit flies, etc.
LOL@ male Giraffe with its dick out!
ElAsaltaCulos2 6 days ago in playlist How Evolution Is Scientific
very interesting video thanks
jjclassjj 1 month ago
brilliant video
shoppittsburghnow 1 month ago
There are land tetrapots that predate tiktalik
No evolutionist ever predicted the chromosome fusion.
since ERVs are funtional (not junk) it makes sence to assume that god created organims with ervs in their genome. we share Similar ervs we chimps because we both need similar ervs.
Answerquestions1 1 month ago
Hey shane! Do you happen to know what paper(s) made the detailed predictions about the human chromosome fusion? I would like to use it to help teach a creationist I am talking to! Thanks!
GallusSapien 3 months ago
@GallusSapien Take a look at "New Observations on the Human and Chimpanzee Karyotypes," Human Genetics 20(2):151-157, July 16, 1973.
shanedk 3 months ago
Fantastic book. Besides the fact that it functions well as a stand alone,, you also have all these videos to explain things. I downloaded it on my kindle in April. My wifes little brother is in middle school and is using your work to learn about evolution. The sad fact is that after a month of watching yours, AronRa's, and CDK007's videos and reading your book he probably knows more about evolution than his biology teacher.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Thanks!
Do you think I could impose upon you to go to Amazon and give it your honest rating?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I did. I also wrote a review.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Cool! Thanks.
shanedk 6 months ago
I still argue, based on evidence, that Creation is the better explanation!
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 What do you mean, "still"? You haven't PRESENTED any evidence for creation!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Well, the evidence for a worldwide flood, fulfilled prophesies and accurate scientific statements the Bible makes are overwhelming. However, the fulfilled predictions evolution stated, shown in this video, are also very convincingly. So I have to research about the stuff you mentioned in your video before I go any further.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "Well, the evidence for a worldwide flood,"
Doesn't exist, and there's LOTS of evidence against it.
"fulfilled prophesies"
NONE.
"and accurate scientific statements the Bible makes are overwhelming."
Not when they're no better than fanboy retcons, and you have to ignore the overwhelming mistakes that the Bible makes.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Please show me the evidence against the Genesis flood and the mistakes the Bible makes.
Fulfilled Bible prophecies: 100prophecies org/
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 A global flood would have left evidence in the geologic record. There is no such global flood. Compare with, say, the K-T boundary, marking the asteroid hit that finished off the dinosaurs--THAT was global, and it left evidence in the geologic record.
shanedk 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 As for mistakes, how about things like bats being birds and rabbits chewing cud?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Well, Whales are classified as fishes and bats are classified as birds, but just because we don't classify these animals this way doesn't make the Bible wrong. And yes, rabbits do sometimes actually eat their own feces, so they do chew cud.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 These are NOT arbitrary categories we came up with on a whim! They are what the species OBJECTIVELY ARE!!!
And feces IS NOT CUD!!!
Fucking lying apologists...
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
That depends on how you define bird. What is a bird according to modern biology? Everything that flies and has two legs is a bird according to the Bible. And everything that re-eats the same food and uses it in a productive way does chew cud according to the Bible.
You can't say that the Bible is wrong because it has different definitions, this is like claiming that Germans are wrong because they have different words for the same thing than English-talking people have.
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 "Everything that flies and has two legs is a bird according to the Bible."
So, then, does a flying squirrel count as a bird? This category is completely useless.
"And everything that re-eats the same food and uses it in a productive way does chew cud according to the Bible."
Then there is no way in which the Bible can be said to be literal, if the words can be distorted to have these vague and widely-defined meanings. You've just made the whole book useless!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
A "flying squirrel" doesn't fly, it just glides through the air a short track. And a rabbit does chew cud by eating its feces, its just another unique way to do it. Where is the problem?
eagleeye2102 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Actually, they can go quite a distance, and make a nice soft landing. What is the actual line between gliding and flying? Most birds do more gliding than flying. So where's this arbitrary limit?
The definition of cud is PARTIALLY chewed, UNDIGESTED food regurgitated to be chewed a second time. In the verse in question, the Hebrew word is "gerah" which means EXACTLY this and is NEVER EVER used to refer to animals eating feces. Hares make the second pass COMPLETELY internally.
shanedk 7 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Also, although the English versions say "chew" the cud, the Hebrew word there is "alah," which SPECIFICALLY means "bring up," NOT "poop out." So the Bible SPECIFICALLY says that hares "bring up" the cud.
You have NO out here. The Bible is just WRONG (as were most people up to and including Linnaeus, all of whom thought rabbits did this).
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
I will research about it.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 ARE YOU SERIOUS??? I'm no biologist but I have a facsination with birds and your statement, while a week old, is fucking moronic. Birds are not described that simply. they're a subset of archosauria, being decsendants of dinosaurs. their group specifically are known as Aves. All aves are described as being warm-blooded, feathered, and hollow-boned. Your take on birds rules out the penguin and osterich, which are flightless birds.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
I know I know, but that isn't the way the Bible defines bird. The Bible doesn't define a bird as a warmblooded, feathered and hollow blooded animal, this is how we use the word bird. The Bible is more general, if it flies and has two legs, it's a bird, if it swims in the water, it's a fish, that's why the Bible defines the whale to be a fish. These are two complete different definitions. It's like this: Modern biology defines according to relationship, the Bible according to look.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102
The problem is even people back then would have noticed that bats didn't have feathers. All birds have feathers after all. One would have also noticed modern birds don't have teeth like bats do. In the question of whales, one surly would have noticed that whales have theirtail fins positioned differently than a fish's tail fin.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 So ostriches and emu's aren't birds, then.
It goes by LOOK??? Have you ever actually SEEN a bat? It's a mouse with wings! It's an almost-perfect mouse with large webbed limbs!
You're just making excuses for your piece of shit bronze age text of ignorance.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk "You're just making excuses for your piece of shit bronze age text of ignorance"
Well, I'm just trying to find out the Bible's detention for bird. Ostriches are bird according to the Bible (Leeviticus 11:13), so my proposed definition was wrong.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 The Bible doesn't HAVE a definition! It was written by a bunch of ignorant goat-herders. It is NOT a book of science, history, or any other form of human wisdom; just the rambling and disjointed justifications for a bunch of nomads to treat everyone else like shit.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
A bird might be an animal which has wings and two legs, that would fit.
The Bible isn't a book of science because science tries to discover the truth, the Bible, if it is true, has been written by the creator of the Universe, it doesn't need to search the truth, it already has it. It is, however, a book of history. Archaeology supports it.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Except that bats have FOUR legs, like mice. Two of its legs just double as wings, but it still uses them for climbing.
"It is, however, a book of history. Archaeology supports it."
No, archaeology shows quite clearly that significant portions of its history--such as the Hebrews being enslaved by Egypt--NEVER HAPPENED.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Well yes... wings. There are some unique birds who have claws, similar to the bat's "wing" legs, which are used for climing.
Archaeology supports the Bible:
/watch?v=c8ytyCVfeQo
/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Birds have claws??? Gonna have to ask for a peer-reviewed reference on that one.
And the other bullshit is just cherry-picking. You can go through ANYTHING and pick out the things that it matches while ignoring what doesn't. It's the things that DON'T match--like the things I pointed out--that matter.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I said that there are some unique birds which have claws, like the Hoatzin or the Emu.
Yes yes, all the Archaeological evidence supporting the Bible are, of course, bullshit. All the evidence supporting evolution are, of course, fantastic. Oh wait, how could I forget, all the evidence supporting evolution come from REAL scientists, not from propaganda fake scientists. Creationists are so stupid, aren't they? Just ask Richard Dawkins'.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Those are NOT claws in the way bats have them; they're just single fingernails.
shanedk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eagleeye2102
"Bible, if it is true, has been written by the creator of the Universe"
Actually the bible ascribes human authorship sereval times. And this is falsely dichotomous. It may contain some true and some falsehood.
"Archaeology supports it" I was always curious about this. What archaeological evidence do we have for a massive exodus from Egypt?
GallusSapien 3 months ago
@TheGroxx We still haven't addressed the issue where this obvious presence of zombie-ism originates. Perhaps it is a recessive trait passed down by a paternal grandparent, and the stripper portion of this child's genetic makeup helps express her zombie heritage in a manner healthy toward those who may otherwise be a source of caloric intake.
Rozax 1 year ago
@Rozax: I guess that means the zombie-child has a 50% chance of being a zombie-stripper?
TheGroxx 1 year ago
@TheGroxx Maybe zombie-ism helps express the recessive stripper traits? It would explain the tattered clothing in the zombie-child.
Rozax 1 year ago
@Rozax That could also be traits from both parents being expressed. Clothed from the father, nudist from the mother, the poor zombie-kid can't cope, and manages to find an uncomfortable homeostasis in ragged accoutrements.
TheGroxx 1 year ago
What's with the stripper 01:52? Seriously, it's a naked woman in high heels.
Rozax 1 year ago
Great video. Tought me many things I didn't know. Thanks :)
necolas87 1 year ago
This video is one of the best videos explaining the evidence for evolution I've ever seen. It's unfortunate, however, that no sources are cited. This definitely the beats out the "creationists are just a bunch of rotten lying ****s" stuff in some of the other videos on this channel.
tifforo1 1 year ago 2
@tifforo1 There are tons of sources in the book.
shanedk 1 year ago
I love how creationists try to equal Evolution with Darwin "Oh Darwin said he has no transitional fossils"..... SO F* WHAT? He lived over 150 years ago
Times have changed!
RazielKain 1 year ago 6
@RazielKain Yeah, as if we've learned absolutely nothing since then. Darwin didn't even know about cells.
shanedk 1 year ago
Evolution is like music, it's not really going anywhere even if it is changing. No music is better than the other. Not exactly, but it sounds cool saying it, because I jsut made it up in the shower.
Kan2209 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
i like you shanedk. I like your style.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
Lol, the comments on these videos are just like the Flat Earth Society forums. They just won't let go of denial that the Earth is round or, in this case, that evolution exists.
Yumminess0 2 years ago 2
Yeah, nice vid, but 'God's dunnit'! He probably simply connected those two genes with each other! ... that's what would be a creationists answer to the problem.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice propaganda , like in comunism :D
watashi777 2 years ago
Evidence is NOT propaganda, and name-calling is NOT a rebuttal.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
30 years ago in Poland it was only one religion in school's and in Russia dont even now about creation . Its propaganda nothing more.
watashi777 2 years ago
@watashi777 They do know about creationism in russia, its not in the schools cause russians aren't all idiots.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick My sweet man, you now what is now , but in time of comunism thats deferent story :]
watashi777 1 year ago
its spelled communism.
interstate317 2 years ago
is communism bad?
hum, i didn't realize that equality between people was a bad thing...
hammerfallsokk 2 years ago
Then cut off everyone's limbs and give them all lobotomies. There, everyone's equal.
YES, it's a bad thing!
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk Theoretical communism is no bad thing, but practical communism doesn't work
SPACKlick 1 year ago
You are from Norvegia , I from Poland between Germans and USSR ( Rusia) tell me about it :D
watashi777 2 years ago
woah that was a really bad mixed metaphor, pardon me
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I think the fused chromosome argument is overused. The creationist response is that Adam and Eve had 24 pairs and that the fusion occurred in recent human history.
Libertarianist 2 years ago
If that's the case, then it should be an allele and not ubiquitous.
shanedk 2 years ago
But then they'll say the fusion occurred before noah, and the allele became ubiquitous during, or shortly after noah's flood.
It's a little bit of a stretch, but it's possible.
Libertarianist 2 years ago
No, it only makes sense if it occurred in Adam or Eve. Or if Noah married his cousin.
shanedk 2 years ago
Well there you go.
My point is that it's not absolute proof of evolution, unlike ERVs.
Libertarianist 2 years ago
Why do the fusions fit the nested hierarchy?
shanedk 2 years ago
"The creationist response is that Adam and Eve had 24 pairs and that the fusion occurred in recent human history."
So what? If they don't have evidence they can't just conjecture out of nowhere!
Besides the neaderthal genome was completed. It turns out there were VERY genetically distinct from humans. Like each of their polymorphisms individually would be outliers.
Oh and they had 23 pairs as well. So I guess that means that adam and eve gave rise to sapiens and neaderthalisis
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
So what?
So the fused chromosome isn't something that couldn't exist according to their fairy tales.
I'm not a creationist in any sense of the word. All I'm saying is that the fused chromosome isn't going to be very persuasive so we should stick to presenting more irrefutable arguments like ERV DNA and such.
Libertarianist 2 years ago
Well duh, there's no evidence that can force their hand beyond how far they can move the goalposts
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
The chromosomal fusion is actually probably better evidence if you really know molecular biology.
I mean retroviruses are not totally random. They have a limited amount of biases of insertions.only certain insertions will be passed on. Chromsomal fusions might not be high in number but are so improbable that they're in a way better.
But there's no single piece of evidence that validates a theory. thats not how science works.On the whole the evidence is overwhelming.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't see overwhelming evidence. I see overwhelming speculation and underwhelming evidence.
mejc2 2 years ago
Is it possible that you have an emotional bias and/or you're not really familiar with biology at the same time?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 2
Nope.
mejc2 2 years ago
Then what do you want to know exactly?
How about I do this differently. YOU come up with an explanation and YOU present your evidence?
I'd be happy to answer your questions. I can't promise i'll know the answers but hit me with your best shot
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
if you don't see the evidence, you are not familiar with biology.
tehKap0w 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL there is not one bit of evidence that shows any mutation creating new usable tissue.
mejc2 2 years ago
There's PLENTY of evidence. HUNDREDS of documented examples right in your own body.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Name one example of a mutation creating new novel usable tissue in the human body.
mejc2 2 years ago
Well, I'd call hemoglobin a usable tissue, and the mutations that created it have been identified.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OH really, blood? and what pumped it the non existent heart? or did your mystery animal have a heart with no blood?
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh, go and read a book! Did you know that many invertebrates do not have a circulatory system AT ALL??? Others have open circulatory systems, where there IS NO HEART. There are some with closed circulatory systems that use the creature's existing muscle as a heart, or that have rudimentary hearts, and then there are true hearts with varying degrees of complexity, from simple on up to advanced hearts.
And that's of organisms that are around TODAY! You're denying observed fact.
shanedk 2 years ago
Just as I thought no answer.
mejc2 2 years ago
WTF??? How did I NOT answer your question? How did I not COMPLETELY DESTROY your pathetically ignorant comment?
shanedk 2 years ago
There is no progression except in the fairy tale. there is no evidence of progression from no heart to heart. from single celled pre Cambrian to billion celled Cambrian. From no limbs to limbs, from no eye to eye, from no teeth to teeth. I could go one for days. Pathetic homologous examples that have no meaning except in the fairy tale. There should be signs of millions of steps successful and unsuccessful. However, There is no evidence. Just a the fairy tale of evolutionism.
mejc2 2 years ago
Except that there IS. You painted an inaccurate picture of biology: that you either have a complex, fully-formed heart, or none at all. You don't go straight from one to the other; there are all sorts of grades in the middle, and my post demonstrated that.
Everything I posted is a sign of just another step from no heart to heart, each with its own useful intermediary.
shanedk 2 years ago
Your knowledge of biology is completely fail. David Kingsley and Sean Caroll of the Howard Hughes medical institute have induced Sea squirts to develop 2 chamber hearts. The examples of mutations beneficial and otherwise have been documented relentlessly by people who have a desire to further our understanding of the world. The mutations can be drastic or benign, it's all been documented. Let go of your religious dogma and read a science book. Your own ignorance is proof of -nothing- but itself.
tehKap0w 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Your knowledge of biology is completely fail."
My Knowledge is completely fail? You need to learn the English language.
One chamber heart to two chamber heart has nothing to do with mutations that cause a heart to form in the first place.
mejc2 2 years ago
I showed you different stages of heart evolution, still extant today. EXACTLY as evolution predicts.
shanedk 2 years ago
I showed you that there is no explanation of how a heart arises from nothing. You, on the other hand, have observed animals with different types of circulatory systems and assumed that one led to another with no evidence to support your assumption.
mejc2 2 years ago
No, it's not an ASSUMPTION...it not only shows different stages going from one to the other, but it fits the nested hierarchy PERFECTLY.
That's the bit you creationists always ignore.
shanedk 2 years ago
I have EXPLAINED to you that evolutionists line up organisms in homologous order and claim ancestry. There is no evidence of any organism or ascending from anything.
mejc2 2 years ago
No, they are NOT "lined up in homologous order"! You don't even know the first thing about what you're talking about.
A nested hierarchy is a VERY SPECIFIC PREDICTION. If anything is off--like the typical example of fossil bunnies in the precambrian--the nested hierarchy is violated and evolution is falsified.
Why does the nested hierarchy DEMANDED by the circulatory systems MATCH the nested hierarchies for every other aspect?
shanedk 2 years ago
where is the nested hierarchy from single celled organisms in the Precambrian to the multimillion celled fully formed highly complex organisms in the Cambrian? It doesn't exist. I've EXPLAINED to you many times that evolutionists make this stuff up as they go along. they observe things and then wrinkle the fairy tale to fit the observations.
mejc2 2 years ago
Sigh...the nested hierarchy doesn't work with prokaryotes because of genetic crossover. We've known this for years. It's a eukaryotic thing.
Although the individual genes of prokaryotes DO follow the nested hierarchy.
This is a PREDICTIVE FRAMEWORK. It's NOT made up as they go along. How did they know where to go to find Tiktaalik?
shanedk 2 years ago
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
Gould the Richness of life p 263
The fossil record refutes Gradualism.
mejc2 2 years ago
No, just the creationist strawman version of gradualism. Dawkins called this "caricature" "constant speedism": "...as far as adaptive evolution of large-scale structures and behaviour patterns are concerned, just about all evolutionists would reject constant speedism, and Darwin certainly would have rejected it."
shanedk 2 years ago
No creationist straw man. Gould was a top evolutionist from Harvard University. He realized that the empirical evidence did not support gradual changes. He, However, made up his own fairy tale to explain away the data.
Hey, did you know they recently found web spinning spiders from 140 million years ago? that predates flowers and flying insects. I wonder what they ate and why they were spinning webs with no insects to catch? It's kinda like finding bunnies in the Cambrian level.
mejc2 2 years ago
No, you totally quote-mined him. He didn't "make up his own fairy tale," he formlated a theory to explain the observations.
And it does NOT contradict ANYTHING. As the Dawkins quote proves, the caricature it contradicts is something not even Darwin would have accepted.
And spiders use webs for other things, idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
I didn't quote mine I provided the book and the page number.
Gould proposed a new theory. Quite different from gradualism.
spiders primarily feed on flying insects that get caught in their web.
Seems like you are the idiot when facts are involved. However you are great at fairy tales.
I say Gould made up a fairy tale you say he"formlated a theory to explain the observations." At best you could call it a hypothesis. But I can see how a novice like yourself would consider it a theory sigh
mejc2 2 years ago
No, it's only quite different from the creationist strawman version. REAL gradualism was NEVER about everything evolving at the same rate; it was long known that traits that take hundreds of thousands of years to evolve appear "suddenly" in the record because of the scale involved. Gould ONLY said that this happens at a greater magnitude than previously thought.
Saying that spiders PRIMARILY feed off insects doesn't mean they SOLELY feed off insects.
shanedk 2 years ago
That does not predate flying insects, they go back farther than 350 million years. You probably just made up that whole spider story or heard it from a creationist website and they tossed in the "before flying insects bullshit." Nice try, the idea that 140 million years ago is before insects and flowers is a claim no one with even a little biologic knowledge would claim.
CyberpunkPhyschopath 2 years ago
Made up the before insects and flowering plants part... not the spider part I meant. Spiders have been around since the Carboniferous period.
CyberpunkPhyschopath 2 years ago
Gee that is funny here is the paper the info came from . looks pretty scientific to me.
Brasier, M., L. Cotton and I. Yenney. 2009. First report of amber with spider webs and microbial inclusions from the earliest Cretaceous (c. 140 Ma) of Hastings, Sussex. Journal of the Geological Society. 166 (6): 989-997.
mejc2 2 years ago
If you look at the post I just made you will see how a 140 million year old web making spider is not out of place spiders have existed for over 300 million years.
CyberpunkPhyschopath 2 years ago
Do Cotton and Yenney doubt evolution?
shanedk 2 years ago
I would say no.
mejc2 2 years ago
Then what reason do you have for thinking this find is so devastating to evolution?
shanedk 2 years ago
Why should spiders have to wait until flowering plants develop to spin webs anyway?
shanedk 2 years ago
aren't the small flying insects that feed off of and pollinate flowers the main source of spider food?
mejc2 2 years ago
It's flying insects in general. The earliest flying insects were Ephemeroptera (today's survivors of this genera are mayflies), and they date back to the late Carboniferous period.
They'll quite happily munch on houseflies and other flying insects that don't pollinate flowers.
shanedk 2 years ago
@mejc2
Well sure, currently.
Similarly, 80,000 years ago gazelles and foraged berries were our complete diet.
sketchydc 2 years ago
Ehh... actually, the earliest insect fossil found dates to around 396 million years old. And that is a fossil, which could very well mean they were around for much longer. So that 140 million year old spider had plenty to catch.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
If you know biology then you'll be able to answer these questions:
What is the textbook model organism for studies in ichthyology? What model organism is used in botany?
What polymerase adds okazaki fragments?
Name two species of fish other than lungfish that have lungs.
Feel free to look these up. I feel like I might be making a little difference by directing you to look these up. It gives me a warm feeling where my heart is supposed to be
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
« All I'm saying is that the fused chromosome isn't going to be very persuasive »
Not in itself, no. But it does match exactly what we'd expect if evolutionary theory were true, and as such is a compelling piece of evidence.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Sexy silhouette
SpiralOut11235 2 years ago
mejc2, your comment crossed the line into GROSS libel, which is against the rules of this channel. First warning.
shanedk 2 years ago
Gee I must have missed the name of the common ancestor of chimps , gorillas, and humans, could you refresh my memory.
We'll see who is lying.
mejc2 2 years ago
Look up Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.
shanedk 2 years ago
My bad if they mentioned it i missed it I apologize.
I still don't accept it as a common ancestor, but I do apologize if it is mentioned in that paper.
mejc2 2 years ago
"I still don't accept it as a common ancestor,"
Fossils aren't said to be ancestors. At most the fossils are said to represent a population that was contemporary with a ancestor.(common or not)
Most of the time all that's said is they represent a clade. I.E. tetrapods didn't descend from tikaalik but tiktaalik is representative of the group.
Without molecular data things like sizes of populations, time since diverge and others are just given a parsimonious default position.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
There is an ERV present in chimps and gorillas but not in humans. If chimps and gorillas inherited this ERV from their common ancestor. and we know by your great calculations that this is a virtual certainty, why is it not present in humans?
mejc2 2 years ago
It depends: which particular ERV are you talking about?
shanedk 2 years ago
No it doesn't. The ERV was inherited through common ancestry. If chimps and gorillas got it we should have it also. However, WE DON'T.
mejc2 2 years ago
Sigh...An ERV is an ALLELE. It would have been present in some of the ancestral population but not others. It all depends on how the lines diverged, and what happened to the alleles once they did.
Tell me which ERV you're talking about and I'll tell you specifically what happened.
shanedk 2 years ago
You don't have to it was rhetorical. I have read the imaginary explanations to explain away the exact circumstance that evolutionists claim would falsify their fairy tale. They just change the fairy tale around.
mejc2 2 years ago
LIE.
Find fossil bunnies in the Cambrian. That'd do it.
Now, are you going to tell me which ERV sequence you're talking about or not?
shanedk 2 years ago
I don't lie. the ERV sequence that I am talking about, I have read a lot on HERV-K.
you need bunnies to be trapped by the flood next to bottom dwelling sea creatures. Why would there be bunnies trapped with clams. You don't understand anything.
mejc2 2 years ago
Desertphile has a video on that particular ERV. Have you seen it? Have you even LOOKED at the paper on it? I've READ it. What do YOU know about it, other than what you're regurgitating from creationist websites?
shanedk 2 years ago
Here's the paper:
Barbulescu, Madalina, et al, "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans," Current Biology, Vol. 11 No. 10, 15 May 2001, pp 779-83.
They show the ACTUAL DNA SEQUENCES, and shows how it DOES fit the nested hierarchy.
shanedk 2 years ago
I told you I already read it. I know you can fit it into the nested hierarchy. However you are not mentioning the ERV.
It doesn't really matter because finding the ERV in chimps and gorillas and not humans should put a nail in the coffin.However, Evolutionists just slip right out of it and say OH humans probably lost the ERV somewhere along the line.
How special.
mejc2 2 years ago
"However you are not mentioning the ERV."
I AM!!! That is the VERY ERV YOU MENTIONED!!!
"However, Evolutionists just slip right out of it and say OH humans probably lost the ERV somewhere along the line."
No, that is NOT what is said! You clearly have NO CLUE HOW GENETICS WORKS!!! GO READ THE PAPER!!!
Geez...
shanedk 2 years ago
Geez yourself.
the paper mentions the erv you were ranting.
I have a clue it is you that do not have a clue. I suggest you go do some real research.
mejc2 2 years ago
YOU were the one who brought up that ERV. YOU were the one who said that it falsifies evolution WHEN IT DOESN'T.
You apparently think that when an ERV infects a germ-line cell, it magically infects every single member of that population forever!
READ THE PAPER. It DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Our common ancestors with apes and chimps had BOTH the ERV and non-ERV alleles, just like humans have both the brown eye and blue eye alleles.
shanedk 2 years ago
Like arguing quantum mechanics with a nine year old isn't it? You provide scientific papers and they retort with "NU UH! NO!" Then they claim that they are smarter than you and keep making groundless claims without backing them up.
hanzo138 2 years ago
OR there was no mysterious common ancestor.
mejc2 2 years ago
We KNOW what the common ancestors were! THEY WERE MENTIONED IN THE PAPER!!!
Were you LYING when you said you read it?
shanedk 2 years ago
Random mutation and natural selection causing the diversity we see, is far more improbable than the non random insertion of ERV's. You can't have it both ways. Either you rely on probability or you don't. If you want to rely on improbability of ERV's to prove evolution, then the improbability of it ever happening which is far greater than the improbability of ERV's showing up in the same location, defeats Evolutionism.
mejc2 2 years ago
It absolutely is not! With a system of mutation and natural selection operating for this long, the diversity we see is practically a CERTAINTY! There is NO improbability problem with evolution, although creationists want there to be (and can only get there by violating basic statistics). Their "theory" (and I'm being VERY generous with that term) is falsified by the REAL improbabilities, calculated with GENUINE statistics, that rule it out.
shanedk 2 years ago
Mutation and natural selection have never been shown to bring about any change that would ever suggest that an organism would eventually change into a different type of organism. All we have ever observe is slight adaptation to an environment. This is exactly what is predicted by the creationists and contradicts what is predicted by the evolutionists. REAL observations of REAL predictions by creationists. Wishful imagination with no observations by Evolutionists.
mejc2 2 years ago
You're just WRONG! PATHETICALLY wrong! See the rest of this series! See my entry in the Pwnage Olympics! The things you say are never observed have BEEN observed! THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of times!
shanedk 2 years ago
Actually I am quite sure that I am correct. over 40 years of personal interest, reading, and post graduate study assure me that I am correct. What you are spewing is wishful thinking and is not backed up by EVIDENCE. The circumstances you tout as evidence are just observations that evolutionists are imposing there world view upon. for example dinosaurs to birds never happened but evolutionists assured their followers that it did. Now we know it didn't. Evolution is a fairy tale for the masses.
mejc2 2 years ago
I've GIVEN evidence! IN THESE VERY VIDEOS!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
"over 40 years of personal interest, reading, and post graduate study"
Thats pretty impressive for a 26 year old. I also enjoy how you make your claims without backing them up. It never happened you say but do you offer any explanation of evidence? Of course not! Its just your word verses the entire scientific community I mean the guild of godless world wide conspirators, right?
Now we know it didnt
Sure buddy, riiight. (I so badly hope you say protoavis, I really do)
hanzo138 2 years ago
Comment removed
EmilyGreene1984 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't have much time to really make a comment (I will later on, when I come home from work) - but this doesn't give the full story regarding the ever-constant debate between evolution theory and ID/Creationism theory. I also think the poster for this video is quite biased and is, pardon me, very close-minded to the possibility that there may be some truth to the "theories" of creationism and intelligent design.
EmilyGreene1984 2 years ago
You seem to not know that shandk along with MANY others have thoroughly researched ID/Creationism. Guess what, there is barely any truth whatsoever. Oh yea, you seem to not know what open mindedness /close mindedness is.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
There's not a shred of evidence for creationism or intelligent design (which are really the same thing.) I'll have an open mind when they come up with some.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Alright, I'm talkig to a moron here.
Check your sources, idiot!
Why is it not even distributed? Have you even thought abou it yourself? Because we do not have the same immune system and do not live in the same environment.
Now wake up and smell the coffee, dude. We do not share 98,000 ERVs with chimps at the same spot. And his video does not say those 16 are all K-family.
Why do evolutionists become idiots as soon as they are shown the truth?
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"And his video does not say those 16 are all K-family."
"And those are just the K class retroviruses!" DIRECT QUOTE!!!
Yes, it does! IT ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES!!! RIGHT AT 6:45!!!
You are a LIAR! And you are now ABSOLUTELY guilty of libel against cdk007, and are in violation of the rules of this channel. First warning; you get THREE.
Stop LYING about what other people say and debate honestly.
shanedk 2 years ago
It doesn't further your arguement to insult others. You want to debate intelligently, then set a proper example. As they say, "Don't criticize someone else for their mess, until you clean up your own".
EmilyGreene1984 2 years ago
Calling a liar a liar isn't out of the question
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
Now if we share over 90% of our DNA with chimps as a result of common descent, then we'd expect to share over 90% of retroviral insertions in exact same spots. But we don't share 10% (not even 1%) of our retroviral infections. That would be 10% of 98,000 ERV insertions: 9,800 of he exact same ERVs at the exact same insertion site.
But so far we have found no more than 16.
So there's only one possible conclusion: retroviruses disprove the theory of common ancestry.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Watch his video again! Those 98,000 ERVs ARE THE ONES WE HAVE IN COMMON WITH CHIMPANZEES!!!
"But so far we have found no more than 16."
That was JUST the K-class retroviruses!
Watch the video again AND STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS!
shanedk 2 years ago
The HERV-K appeared after chimps and humans diverged -according to evolution theory.
So how can they explain 16 common infections?
You are full of crap, you know that?
He wasn't talking about the K-class. You are getting irritated because your ERV evidence is falling apart on you. Now i advise you to go hone and straighten up your facts and stop sounding like a tot idiot.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"He wasn't talking about the K-class."
Yes, he was! He SPECIFICALLY said so at 6:45! YOU ARE LYING!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
Alright, I was confused with herv-k and other videos. I checked many other sources on the internet, and so far cdk007 is the only one claiming we got most of the 98,000 in the same spot. I'll continue to look in papers to find if any of them support this. I've heard many evolutionist claims ranging from 7 to 16 exact same ERV type and location. Not 98,000. I remember I commented cdk007 on this earlier.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
Argument from Ignorance if Fail.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
And again, it's not even really about the fact that they're similar, but the fact that the PATTERN of similarities FITS THE NESTED HIERARCHY.
shanedk 2 years ago
Now add the fact that certain ERVs have preferences to insert into genes, others rather go near promotors of genes and others insert at oher spots, we can expect more ERVs inserting at the exact same spot. And when we find two ERVs at the same integration site in human and chimps, it's likely that it is the same type of ERV having the same insertion preference.
phicomingatya 2 years ago
"Now add the fact that certain ERVs have preferences to insert into genes"
No, they don't. You don't know what you're talking about!
shanedk 2 years ago
Alright, here's one of my own calculations:
Possible integration sites: 50,000,000 - 3,000,000,000
Estimated number of insertions in humans: 98,000
One viral infection in chimps has at least 98,000/3,000,000,000 chance of being in a same spot as a human ERV, thats at least 1/30,600 chance for each chimp insertion.
Estimating 98,000 insertions in chimps, we can expect at least three ERVs in exact same spot!
phicomingatya 2 years ago
We would expect an EVEN DISTRIBUTION of these REGARDLESS of species. Yet, we have more ERV sequences in common with chimpanzees and bonobos than we do with the other apes, more in common with apes than we do with monkeys, more in common with apes and monkeys than we do with other mammals, more in common with other mammals than we do in fruit flies, etc.
Now, why would this be?
shanedk 2 years ago