Marine Iguanas are excellent evidence of evolution, and found where? ONLY in the Galapagos. They were documented there by guess who? The immeasurably evil Charles Darwin! Of course the unique land iguanas are not mentioned here, what a surprise. And the REALITY is that no CREATIONIST will debate in a public forum under scientific guidelines, none of the major creationists will go anywhere near such a debate.
@BereanBeacon1 yes, I am used to science fiction, and from this I can tell this is it. Features that share common ancestry between creatures is called atavism.
Also attacking my ability to judge reality or fiction is frankly not yours to judge and one topic that you really shouldn't comment on when you support an invisible individual that only appears to texts that was edited and chosen by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity.
@HellecticMojo No evolutionist will debate in a public forum under scientific guidelines because they have been told they will lose. All you have are excuses from your Lame Excuse Handbook for debate dodging. Why not debate and destroy the "invisible individual" once and for all?
@TheSynthExperience Believing in evolution is science fiction. Try real science and you will find it agrees with the creation account of the Bible.
Evolution:
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
@TheSynthExperience You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
First of all Marine iguanas do not eat fish, they eat seaweed found at shore. The Komodo Dragin can also stop its heart beat beacause a not needed factor doesn't just disappear unless it is an advantage in survival. Just because you don't need your pinky finger it doesn't mean we are going to loose it this is called vestigiality.
@MAC1493 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK :)
@xXMusic91Xx All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@ofreshartist2 Yes I have they were not in the US, it was a third world, but God being smarter than man. Doesn't mean God makes things go against reasoning. Its the same logic to say the earth is flat as evolution is a myth, DNA shows the relationship between life. It proves that humans and whatever you want to pick out on this earth share common ancestry. Maybe you should study things, I am sure you haven't. But if you believe the whole of the earth was completely under water, I am done..
@ofreshartist2 Science has literal mountains of fossils, DNA, etc. You can ignore it, there are still christians who claim the earth is flat, because of their interoperation of the bible, not meet any in the US. But there are passages in the bible to make it seem flat so they think the west has faked the moon landing, all the pictures from space etc. I am sure you think the whole world was flooded, and some how all land creatures were saved by one boat. Ok go with that have fun..
@ofreshartist2 Your interpretation does this, the bible doesn't talk about evolution nor darwin. If you go with the story, you have God creating fish, and than they go off with all their kind, than you have land animals, and they go off with all their kind. You could view that as supporting evolution. The bible doesn't talk about single celled organism yet they are all around so why not huh? So do they disprove Genesis? Ever think its your interoperation thats off?
You shouldn't delude yourself. The bible is a highly edited bad translation of earlier documents and the super being you call god is not real. It's just not real.
I've never heard this before. It is quite interesting to ponder, though... Obviously this species underwent some kind of change to allow it to stop its own heart. But how does that change come about? And obviously this lizard has to consciously decide when to stop and when to start its heart. What kind of mutation would allow for such adaptability? It's kind of MIND BLOWING, MAN!
Religious belief? Stop kidding yourself! Why do humans share 96% of their genome? I recommend looking up Talkorigins on google. Religious zealots are so convoluted into thinking that the science of evolution is out to get them, which it clearly is not. Micro-evolution IS evolution no matter how you label it. "Micro-evolution+millions of years = BIG changes. Speciation has been observed, genetic mapping of animals shows the close in relation they are. How does evolution negate god?
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -Theodosius Dobzhansky
So you pick and choose the sciences in which you believe? Evolution is a fact, observed speciation is a fact, natural selection is a fact. The mechanisms for it are the Theory. How does evolution challenge your god?
Yet another tidbit of sophistry which purports to dispove evolutionary theory but actually illuminates the filmmakers' ignorance of biology.
Just because we don't know the adaptive advantage of the Kimodo lizard's ability to stop its heart doesn't mean there isn't one... but there needn't be anyway. Every single trait in every organism doesn't have to be adaptive.
Where did the idea that the Galapagos iguanas are consciously changing their dna even come from?
So we have two rival suggestions for the origin of the complexity of life (actually we have hundreds but lets stick to these two). How does this video prove it is one (biblical creationism) rather than the other (evolution)?
@ofreshartist2 but certain parts of it aren't. It's important to recognise the fact of evolution and separate that from the extrtapolation of the theory at large which you may or may not agree with. It's only fair to the scientists who work in this field to respect the things they've found. I think people get a false impression of what we do and don't accept of naturalistic evolution because we're guilty of calling it false in its entirety, which isn't true of course.
The reason i said what I did was because your original comment came across and a bit pathetic to me. I accept that you do not accept evolutionary theory and embrace a trinitarian notion of the late hebrew deity but, apart from often being pitched as a false dichotomy, gains absolutely nothing in terms of certitude or evidence from simply repeating it like some kind of mantra.
...and one more thing. There are a great many people who challenge evolutionary theory who are certainly not afraid of the outside world. They usually have a lot more t say on the subject, however, and I don't usually find them on these laughably bad videos (which is why i watch them) in this 'creation moments' series (which has to be one of the most surreal series of videos I have ever had the extreme pleasure of stumbling across).
This whole 'creation moments' series is filled with some fascinating bits of natural history. What is so surreal about the whole thing is the way each episode somehow leaps to the conclusion that because life is diverse and complicated that evolution is wrong. It is like this:
Problem: The complexity and abundance of life
Sol1: A creation myth (I mean myth simply in the sense of a story involving deities, this is not a judgement call) - usually the abrahamic one.
Sol2: a naturalistic solution - almost always the modern evolutionary synthesis
So which do we go with?
What these vids do is say ' life is abundant and complex therefore it is solution 1' which is mind-bogglingly illogical to simply restate the 'problem' and use that to assume one of the two solutions!!!!
But I grant you, the marine iguanas are very interesting.
@noelplum99 When it comes to biological design we're either assuming unguided processes or some kind of intelligent input. The two aren't mutually exclusive but I think for ideological reasons people tend to be very critical of one or the other and the evidence which suggests each may have played a role in shaping what we observe in the animal kingdom.
...and if you shut your eyes and cover your ears and just keep repeating that to yourself the big bad world might go away and you can sit in the corner with your comfort blanket all safe and warm.
"To believe that the iguana knew all the changes that it need to intentionally stop its heart for 45 minutes without death requires quite a leap of faith."
Evolution doesn't state that individuals consciously "change" themselves and it's actually pretty shocking (and telling of his lack of scientific knowledge) that he would suggest otherwise. Evolution is an unconscious process which happens to populations. Amazing how often such a simple point has to be restated.
Thus it is impossible, for the being would need to consciously make such changes in order to produce this kind of a result. This "unconscious process" is laughably ridiculous.
... because my friend, the DNA doesn't known if you're spending time in the water or in the sky or in the desert. The mutations must needs be completely random, therefore we should be seeing all sorts of useless and yet improving mutation.s Such as razor sharp teeth on plant eaters, poisonous barbs on humans, and gills on mammals.
And in individuals we do. Not something like gills on mammals (especially since mammals have already evolved away their gills being decedent from fish). Random mutation happens all the time for the simple reason that the DNA replication process is imperfect. If you want to deny that you're welcome but you'd be, quite simply, wrong.
Yes, we came from fish ... that makes a whole lot of sense my friend. There's no fantasy or ridiculousness about such a claim. *rolls eyes*
Extremely minor and usually harmful random mutations do in fact occur. However, that is certainly not the sort of mutations I am speaking about. I am talking about mutations which actually effect the species as a whole, such as randomly mutating limbs or other attributes. This should be occurring, however it clearly does not.
You can roll your eyes all you want but until you can offer real arguments against the overwhelming evidence for that fact then you're nothing more than a nay-sayer.
Really? Mutations that effect the species as a whole never happen? You haven't kept up on the various e. coli studies, fruit fly studies, the italian wall lizard? what about the recent evolution of nylonase? I'm sorry, go take a 100 level biology class at least before speaking such nonsense.
We have offered real arguments, and there is no evidence ...
Let me guess, the e-coli is still bacteria, the fruit fly is still a fruit fly, and the italian wall lizard is still a lizard. I very much doubt said mutations are drastic in the least.
I've taken biology classes, and I've never been presented with any evidence which would even begin to indicate that random mutations may account for such complexity and obviously intricate design within animals.
It would certainly be necessary in order to produce the kinds of attributes which these creatures possess. If it was entirely random then species should be developing all sorts of useless mutated limbs.
I'm sorry, but random mutations do not account for the specific and complex design.
Let me know when you finally uncover some evidence for your ludicrous theories.
Let's start with a characteristic with the value '50'. In each generation RANDOMLY each offspring can possess the same value or a slight mutation one higher or one lower. Now let's imagine the creature moves to a different environment where a value of '70' would be advantageous. So in the first generation of offspring we have some individuals who are 51's, some are 50's and some are 49's: the 51's prove to be the most successful and have the most offspring....
. next gen we have a few 48's, some 49s some 50s, a lot of 51s and some 52s. The 52s are far more successful than the 48s. Next gen we have one 47 a few 48s ...etc etc loads of 51s a lot of 52s and some 53's. A hundred gens later we have lots of 60-65's - nothing below 55 because they are too inefficient in comparison, losing out for food and/or mating (for example). So it goes on till we get to 70 whereupon we get a final pop of 68's to 72's.
...your suggestion is that, even though 70 would be the ideal number we should be seeing 30's and 20's coming from our original population. Why is that? Are you suggesting saltations - huge step-jumps in a single generational step? Or are you suggesting that even though 49s are worse adapted than 50s and 49s are worse adapted than 49s we can still expect them to compete all the way down until we get 20s and 30s??????
My friend, there are many species which should still retain useless and meaningless attributes if they in fact be random. Indeed there should be quite a number of feathers upon reptiles according to your theories. Many species are able to reproduce without any problems whatsoever, even the weak. Take rats for instance: They should be developing poisonous barbs or something ... or perhaps gills or scales or suction cups. They nearly all live to reproduce.
Why on earth should there 'still' be feathers upon reptiles????
Are you suggesting that modern reptiles descended from the feathered theropods???? This appears to be your asertion but I am not even going to begin to address this point until you show me someone of scientific merit who claims this phylogenetic relationship
I am contending that such should be currently in development among them, if the mutations are in fact random. Let me know when random mutations actually start occurring.
@FillTheirVoid random mutations do happen. Random mutations can be beneficial, too (I am not going to get into the technicalities over why I don't think they're able to account for the vast majority of the natural world), and quite often, evolutionists don't propose we should see radical changes within a population over a short period of time. In fact, that's almost never a part of their theories. If you're interested in the subject you can always pm me.
Each human, every single one of us, has between 100 to 200 new genetic mutations within our genome. This is 100% proven laboratory demonstrated copper-bottomed fact.
Mutations are random (within certain chemical constraints) but the process of natural selection is not.
Natural selection is almost entirely negated within the human race my friend. Therefore we should certainly see these mutations within the race. These mutations you speak of apparently are meaningless and negligible, where are the random mutations of poisonous barbs?
I guarantee you that we are. As we rely more and more on medicine to keep people alive of conditions they have genetically or are genetically predisposed to we will see more and more 'mutations' (this is not the right term really here, 'deleterious alleles' is a better one) weaken us genetically. Happily, as long as the christians don't stop us, we will artificially genetically be able to counter that before it becomes a real problem ( say in a couple of thousand years times)
@noelplum99 Noel, suggesting a gradualistic process is fine, but we'd actually need to know what genetic changes are necessary to actually achieve that. We once thought molecular genetics was a fairly linear science, what we now know is that we have robust, functionally intergrated networks. Stacking mutations is pretty old school Darwinism and just doesn't happen in the real world.
Well, the idea of stacking mutations in the coding regions of genes, is, I admit, pretty 'old school' as you put it but noone is suggesting this. We know now that most changes involve changes to gene expression and that, for very good reasons given that many genes are used in many different processes in the body. I don't see that this is a negative though, quite the opposite in fact, it removes a great number of conceivable restrictions that would otherwise potentially limit ...
Now with regard to what you call 'functionally integrated networks' unless I totally misunderstand you it is precisely BECAUSE of this that changes, in any given generation, cannot be large - a '50' cannot change to a '40' because it is co-dependant on too many other things.
In any case, this is derailing the arguments on this video and you know it. If this is what you wish to debate with me then you know that the guys I am arguing with here are clueless...
...because these arguments you are bringing up are light years away from the scientifically ignorant (and I don't mean that in a nasty way, just ignorant in the sense that they are attacking a straw man) arguments I have been challenging here.
Iguanas, giant tortoises, finches, and all the other species that supposedly evolved on the Galapagos; are found all over the world. They all have slight differences, as we would expect in isolated families. NONE of them exhibit sufficient differences that we would expect from Darwinian evolution. The suspended heart beat isn't unique to one type of lizard. So it didn't evolve in response to the (Galapagos) environment. End of Story!
Why would the Creator endow the Komodo with this defense mechanism when it doesn't need it? Seems to me wasteful design. Why do you claim that you know the mind of god?
The real reason that the Komodo shares traits with the Iguana, is that they belong to the same clade. It might not need it anymore, but its ancestors did.
Sharks actually have a 3D dynamic electrical field sensor, so they not only hear the sound of the heartbeat as pressure waves, but they also "hear" and "see" the electrical signals produced by the muscles and nervous system.
How could an iguana ever evolve the knowledge through reasoning of their own that it was by their heartbeat preditors were discovering them to begin with?
great point exactly! which is more incredible? the iguana who discovers their heartbeat is a dead giveaway (no pun intended) for preditors? or the iguana being aware of this, stops his own heartbeat???
@fellowservant34 It doesn't know anything. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. An Iguana can no gain the ability to stop its heart, than you could sprout wings and fly.
Why don't you read up on evolutionary theory so you at least KNOW what it is you don't believe!!
Iguanas would have evolved the ability GRADUALLY and iguanas that, generation on generation, had the ability to a greater extent would have had greater reproductive success than those that didn't.
Why out of the hundreds and thousands of subjects you know fuck all about (as we all have) do you choose to demonstrate your ignorance on this one?
....I mean, I accept that you have decided in advance to disbelieve both the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory - and I accept your right to do so - but please please spend some time now researching what it is you have chosen to disbelieve
''It doesn't know anything. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. An Iguana can no gain the ability to stop its heart, than you could sprout wings and fly''
ok ......... can you give me a theory on how do you think how the animal discover that the heartbeat is the one that is causing the predator knowing their location (asuming they know what the heart is) or them being able to stop its heart beat (asuming they know that their heartbeat is the one causing the problem)
and for the whole population to evolve, they all have to be in the water at the same time, and all of them gaining the knowledge that their heartbeat is the one giving away their location and learning how to stop their heartbeat just before the predator sees them ............ you cant use your millions and millions of years explanation because all the iguanas will all be extinct the moment they are found in the water.
they wouldn't ... it is just that iguanas are the only species left after sharks feast due to this feature... but anyway that doesn't make evolution true... it's much more profound than this... because any feature doesn't simply appear through one or two mutations... it's a very complex and coordinated process and that is simply hard to believe... evolution is false
@fellowservant34 What? If a creature has an ability, such as this, it is instinct, they didn't wake up one morning and think ooo I will stop my heart. If you go with logic, its ancestors mostlikly lived longer if its heart beat didn't race, because that draw even more attention to it if a shark can hear it. So over time, the trait EVOLVED and I one would have a heart beat drawn out for longer and longer periods. You can still have God creating evolution why do you guys have such issue here?
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA ROFL....... They will probably say it's the god of chance that made it that way!!!!! The pathetic theory of evolution is just that. One would think that we came from apes with such foolish thinking. ALL GLORY TO CHRIST JESUS, GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marine Iguanas are excellent evidence of evolution, and found where? ONLY in the Galapagos. They were documented there by guess who? The immeasurably evil Charles Darwin! Of course the unique land iguanas are not mentioned here, what a surprise. And the REALITY is that no CREATIONIST will debate in a public forum under scientific guidelines, none of the major creationists will go anywhere near such a debate.
pontecanis 5 months ago
was expecting science. after being linked from BBC documentary.
I am dissapoint
HellecticMojo 7 months ago
@HellecticMojo You are probably so used to science fiction that real science seems foreign.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 yes, I am used to science fiction, and from this I can tell this is it. Features that share common ancestry between creatures is called atavism.
Also attacking my ability to judge reality or fiction is frankly not yours to judge and one topic that you really shouldn't comment on when you support an invisible individual that only appears to texts that was edited and chosen by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity.
dick...
HellecticMojo 7 months ago
@HellecticMojo No evolutionist will debate in a public forum under scientific guidelines because they have been told they will lose. All you have are excuses from your Lame Excuse Handbook for debate dodging. Why not debate and destroy the "invisible individual" once and for all?
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
Marine Iguanas are too cool to support such a backwards religion.
TheSynthExperience 8 months ago 3
@TheSynthExperience Believing in evolution is science fiction. Try real science and you will find it agrees with the creation account of the Bible.
Evolution:
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
I never said anything about evolution. I just said christianity is bullshit. And the bible is the farthest thing from science.
TheSynthExperience 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSynthExperience You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Knock Knock.
scalestailsandclaws 9 months ago
Who's there?
scalestailsandclaws 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you die.
scalestailsandclaws 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you die who?
scalestailsandclaws 9 months ago
NOTHING HAPPENS.
scalestailsandclaws 9 months ago
First of all Marine iguanas do not eat fish, they eat seaweed found at shore. The Komodo Dragin can also stop its heart beat beacause a not needed factor doesn't just disappear unless it is an advantage in survival. Just because you don't need your pinky finger it doesn't mean we are going to loose it this is called vestigiality.
Get your shit together creationists ;)
MAC1493 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MAC1493 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK :)
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
why did i go here... this video was pointless...
xXMusic91Xx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXMusic91Xx All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
Convergent Evolution.... I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Saxpwner 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2 Yes I have they were not in the US, it was a third world, but God being smarter than man. Doesn't mean God makes things go against reasoning. Its the same logic to say the earth is flat as evolution is a myth, DNA shows the relationship between life. It proves that humans and whatever you want to pick out on this earth share common ancestry. Maybe you should study things, I am sure you haven't. But if you believe the whole of the earth was completely under water, I am done..
ASexyChef 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2 Science has literal mountains of fossils, DNA, etc. You can ignore it, there are still christians who claim the earth is flat, because of their interoperation of the bible, not meet any in the US. But there are passages in the bible to make it seem flat so they think the west has faked the moon landing, all the pictures from space etc. I am sure you think the whole world was flooded, and some how all land creatures were saved by one boat. Ok go with that have fun..
ASexyChef 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2 Your interpretation does this, the bible doesn't talk about evolution nor darwin. If you go with the story, you have God creating fish, and than they go off with all their kind, than you have land animals, and they go off with all their kind. You could view that as supporting evolution. The bible doesn't talk about single celled organism yet they are all around so why not huh? So do they disprove Genesis? Ever think its your interoperation thats off?
ASexyChef 1 year ago
You shouldn't delude yourself. The bible is a highly edited bad translation of earlier documents and the super being you call god is not real. It's just not real.
cbkidder 1 year ago
Good one brother Davey.
jamesglory1 1 year ago
I've never heard this before. It is quite interesting to ponder, though... Obviously this species underwent some kind of change to allow it to stop its own heart. But how does that change come about? And obviously this lizard has to consciously decide when to stop and when to start its heart. What kind of mutation would allow for such adaptability? It's kind of MIND BLOWING, MAN!
d0861 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
Religious belief? Stop kidding yourself! Why do humans share 96% of their genome? I recommend looking up Talkorigins on google. Religious zealots are so convoluted into thinking that the science of evolution is out to get them, which it clearly is not. Micro-evolution IS evolution no matter how you label it. "Micro-evolution+millions of years = BIG changes. Speciation has been observed, genetic mapping of animals shows the close in relation they are. How does evolution negate god?
bailesie 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -Theodosius Dobzhansky
So you pick and choose the sciences in which you believe? Evolution is a fact, observed speciation is a fact, natural selection is a fact. The mechanisms for it are the Theory. How does evolution challenge your god?
bailesie 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
Make sure you also disregard Germ Theory, or Gravity, or Relativity. All are theories, too, my friend.
bailesie 1 year ago
This was meant to refute evolution? So sad.
trueleroix 1 year ago
Yet another tidbit of sophistry which purports to dispove evolutionary theory but actually illuminates the filmmakers' ignorance of biology.
Just because we don't know the adaptive advantage of the Kimodo lizard's ability to stop its heart doesn't mean there isn't one... but there needn't be anyway. Every single trait in every organism doesn't have to be adaptive.
Where did the idea that the Galapagos iguanas are consciously changing their dna even come from?
mistergarth 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
So we have two rival suggestions for the origin of the complexity of life (actually we have hundreds but lets stick to these two). How does this video prove it is one (biblical creationism) rather than the other (evolution)?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2 but certain parts of it aren't. It's important to recognise the fact of evolution and separate that from the extrtapolation of the theory at large which you may or may not agree with. It's only fair to the scientists who work in this field to respect the things they've found. I think people get a false impression of what we do and don't accept of naturalistic evolution because we're guilty of calling it false in its entirety, which isn't true of course.
athlete117 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
The reason i said what I did was because your original comment came across and a bit pathetic to me. I accept that you do not accept evolutionary theory and embrace a trinitarian notion of the late hebrew deity but, apart from often being pitched as a false dichotomy, gains absolutely nothing in terms of certitude or evidence from simply repeating it like some kind of mantra.
noelplum99 1 year ago
...and one more thing. There are a great many people who challenge evolutionary theory who are certainly not afraid of the outside world. They usually have a lot more t say on the subject, however, and I don't usually find them on these laughably bad videos (which is why i watch them) in this 'creation moments' series (which has to be one of the most surreal series of videos I have ever had the extreme pleasure of stumbling across).
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 But you can't deny that marine iguanas are interesting. :).
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117
This whole 'creation moments' series is filled with some fascinating bits of natural history. What is so surreal about the whole thing is the way each episode somehow leaps to the conclusion that because life is diverse and complicated that evolution is wrong. It is like this:
Problem: The complexity and abundance of life
Sol1: A creation myth (I mean myth simply in the sense of a story involving deities, this is not a judgement call) - usually the abrahamic one.
Sol2: ....contd
noelplum99 1 year ago
Sol2: a naturalistic solution - almost always the modern evolutionary synthesis
So which do we go with?
What these vids do is say ' life is abundant and complex therefore it is solution 1' which is mind-bogglingly illogical to simply restate the 'problem' and use that to assume one of the two solutions!!!!
But I grant you, the marine iguanas are very interesting.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 When it comes to biological design we're either assuming unguided processes or some kind of intelligent input. The two aren't mutually exclusive but I think for ideological reasons people tend to be very critical of one or the other and the evidence which suggests each may have played a role in shaping what we observe in the animal kingdom.
athlete117 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
That is a fine position to hold m8 but you need to expand on that
noelplum99 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
...and if you shut your eyes and cover your ears and just keep repeating that to yourself the big bad world might go away and you can sit in the corner with your comfort blanket all safe and warm.
noelplum99 1 year ago
Some humans can also voluntarily stop their heart. Talk about heart stopping abilities!
bailesie 1 year ago
@ofreshartist2
I wish people would stop posting false dichotomy. It is not god or evolution - both can work together
bailesie 1 year ago
"To believe that the iguana knew all the changes that it need to intentionally stop its heart for 45 minutes without death requires quite a leap of faith."
Evolution doesn't state that individuals consciously "change" themselves and it's actually pretty shocking (and telling of his lack of scientific knowledge) that he would suggest otherwise. Evolution is an unconscious process which happens to populations. Amazing how often such a simple point has to be restated.
JustNotConvinced 1 year ago
@JustNotConvinced
Thus it is impossible, for the being would need to consciously make such changes in order to produce this kind of a result. This "unconscious process" is laughably ridiculous.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
JustNotConvinced 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid Why? What possible reason could there be that necessitates the conscious intervention of the organism on his own DNA?
JustNotConvinced 1 year ago
@JustNotConvinced
... because my friend, the DNA doesn't known if you're spending time in the water or in the sky or in the desert. The mutations must needs be completely random, therefore we should be seeing all sorts of useless and yet improving mutation.s Such as razor sharp teeth on plant eaters, poisonous barbs on humans, and gills on mammals.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
And in individuals we do. Not something like gills on mammals (especially since mammals have already evolved away their gills being decedent from fish). Random mutation happens all the time for the simple reason that the DNA replication process is imperfect. If you want to deny that you're welcome but you'd be, quite simply, wrong.
JustNotConvinced 1 year ago
@JustNotConvinced
Yes, we came from fish ... that makes a whole lot of sense my friend. There's no fantasy or ridiculousness about such a claim. *rolls eyes*
Extremely minor and usually harmful random mutations do in fact occur. However, that is certainly not the sort of mutations I am speaking about. I am talking about mutations which actually effect the species as a whole, such as randomly mutating limbs or other attributes. This should be occurring, however it clearly does not.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
You can roll your eyes all you want but until you can offer real arguments against the overwhelming evidence for that fact then you're nothing more than a nay-sayer.
Really? Mutations that effect the species as a whole never happen? You haven't kept up on the various e. coli studies, fruit fly studies, the italian wall lizard? what about the recent evolution of nylonase? I'm sorry, go take a 100 level biology class at least before speaking such nonsense.
JustNotConvinced 1 year ago
@JustNotConvinced
We have offered real arguments, and there is no evidence ...
Let me guess, the e-coli is still bacteria, the fruit fly is still a fruit fly, and the italian wall lizard is still a lizard. I very much doubt said mutations are drastic in the least.
I've taken biology classes, and I've never been presented with any evidence which would even begin to indicate that random mutations may account for such complexity and obviously intricate design within animals.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
Having just read your posts I have to wonder whether your biology class was taken by a marine iguana.
Anyone who thinks evolution requires some kind of conscious process doesn't even have the most rudimentary understanding of it.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
It would certainly be necessary in order to produce the kinds of attributes which these creatures possess. If it was entirely random then species should be developing all sorts of useless mutated limbs.
I'm sorry, but random mutations do not account for the specific and complex design.
Let me know when you finally uncover some evidence for your ludicrous theories.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
Let's start with a characteristic with the value '50'. In each generation RANDOMLY each offspring can possess the same value or a slight mutation one higher or one lower. Now let's imagine the creature moves to a different environment where a value of '70' would be advantageous. So in the first generation of offspring we have some individuals who are 51's, some are 50's and some are 49's: the 51's prove to be the most successful and have the most offspring....
noelplum99 1 year ago
. next gen we have a few 48's, some 49s some 50s, a lot of 51s and some 52s. The 52s are far more successful than the 48s. Next gen we have one 47 a few 48s ...etc etc loads of 51s a lot of 52s and some 53's. A hundred gens later we have lots of 60-65's - nothing below 55 because they are too inefficient in comparison, losing out for food and/or mating (for example). So it goes on till we get to 70 whereupon we get a final pop of 68's to 72's.
Now let's have your scenario:.....
noelplum99 1 year ago
...your suggestion is that, even though 70 would be the ideal number we should be seeing 30's and 20's coming from our original population. Why is that? Are you suggesting saltations - huge step-jumps in a single generational step? Or are you suggesting that even though 49s are worse adapted than 50s and 49s are worse adapted than 49s we can still expect them to compete all the way down until we get 20s and 30s??????
Please explain your thoughts here.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
My friend, there are many species which should still retain useless and meaningless attributes if they in fact be random. Indeed there should be quite a number of feathers upon reptiles according to your theories. Many species are able to reproduce without any problems whatsoever, even the weak. Take rats for instance: They should be developing poisonous barbs or something ... or perhaps gills or scales or suction cups. They nearly all live to reproduce.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
Why on earth should there 'still' be feathers upon reptiles????
Are you suggesting that modern reptiles descended from the feathered theropods???? This appears to be your asertion but I am not even going to begin to address this point until you show me someone of scientific merit who claims this phylogenetic relationship
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I am contending that such should be currently in development among them, if the mutations are in fact random. Let me know when random mutations actually start occurring.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid random mutations do happen. Random mutations can be beneficial, too (I am not going to get into the technicalities over why I don't think they're able to account for the vast majority of the natural world), and quite often, evolutionists don't propose we should see radical changes within a population over a short period of time. In fact, that's almost never a part of their theories. If you're interested in the subject you can always pm me.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117
He SHOULD pm you
noelplum99 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
Each human, every single one of us, has between 100 to 200 new genetic mutations within our genome. This is 100% proven laboratory demonstrated copper-bottomed fact.
Mutations are random (within certain chemical constraints) but the process of natural selection is not.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Natural selection is almost entirely negated within the human race my friend. Therefore we should certainly see these mutations within the race. These mutations you speak of apparently are meaningless and negligible, where are the random mutations of poisonous barbs?
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid
I guarantee you that we are. As we rely more and more on medicine to keep people alive of conditions they have genetically or are genetically predisposed to we will see more and more 'mutations' (this is not the right term really here, 'deleterious alleles' is a better one) weaken us genetically. Happily, as long as the christians don't stop us, we will artificially genetically be able to counter that before it becomes a real problem ( say in a couple of thousand years times)
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 Noel, suggesting a gradualistic process is fine, but we'd actually need to know what genetic changes are necessary to actually achieve that. We once thought molecular genetics was a fairly linear science, what we now know is that we have robust, functionally intergrated networks. Stacking mutations is pretty old school Darwinism and just doesn't happen in the real world.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117
Well, the idea of stacking mutations in the coding regions of genes, is, I admit, pretty 'old school' as you put it but noone is suggesting this. We know now that most changes involve changes to gene expression and that, for very good reasons given that many genes are used in many different processes in the body. I don't see that this is a negative though, quite the opposite in fact, it removes a great number of conceivable restrictions that would otherwise potentially limit ...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...evolutionary pathways.
Now with regard to what you call 'functionally integrated networks' unless I totally misunderstand you it is precisely BECAUSE of this that changes, in any given generation, cannot be large - a '50' cannot change to a '40' because it is co-dependant on too many other things.
In any case, this is derailing the arguments on this video and you know it. If this is what you wish to debate with me then you know that the guys I am arguing with here are clueless...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...because these arguments you are bringing up are light years away from the scientifically ignorant (and I don't mean that in a nasty way, just ignorant in the sense that they are attacking a straw man) arguments I have been challenging here.
noelplum99 1 year ago
Iguanas, giant tortoises, finches, and all the other species that supposedly evolved on the Galapagos; are found all over the world. They all have slight differences, as we would expect in isolated families. NONE of them exhibit sufficient differences that we would expect from Darwinian evolution. The suspended heart beat isn't unique to one type of lizard. So it didn't evolve in response to the (Galapagos) environment. End of Story!
Howie47 1 year ago
Oh lawdy this is the big one.. I'm comin' home Elizabeth!
SofaKingLoaded 1 year ago
Why would the Creator endow the Komodo with this defense mechanism when it doesn't need it? Seems to me wasteful design. Why do you claim that you know the mind of god?
The real reason that the Komodo shares traits with the Iguana, is that they belong to the same clade. It might not need it anymore, but its ancestors did.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago 2
@ScottishAtheist - Maybie the comodo had predators that are now extinct? It's a thought at least.
sparkshot 1 year ago
Sharks actually have a 3D dynamic electrical field sensor, so they not only hear the sound of the heartbeat as pressure waves, but they also "hear" and "see" the electrical signals produced by the muscles and nervous system.
Iamnotaparakeet 1 year ago
How could an iguana ever evolve the knowledge through reasoning of their own that it was by their heartbeat preditors were discovering them to begin with?
poor evolution loses again.
fellowservant34 1 year ago 4
@fellowservant34
even if they have the knowledge ....... how are they able to stop the heart beat?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
great point exactly! which is more incredible? the iguana who discovers their heartbeat is a dead giveaway (no pun intended) for preditors? or the iguana being aware of this, stops his own heartbeat???
fellowservant34 1 year ago
@fellowservant34 It doesn't know anything. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. An Iguana can no gain the ability to stop its heart, than you could sprout wings and fly.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
@ScottishAtheist
If the iguana "doesn't know anything" how did the first iguana to use this feature know it had this ability, and when to use it?
fellowservant34 1 year ago 2
@fellowservant34
Why don't you read up on evolutionary theory so you at least KNOW what it is you don't believe!!
Iguanas would have evolved the ability GRADUALLY and iguanas that, generation on generation, had the ability to a greater extent would have had greater reproductive success than those that didn't.
Why out of the hundreds and thousands of subjects you know fuck all about (as we all have) do you choose to demonstrate your ignorance on this one?
noelplum99 1 year ago
Comment removed
noelplum99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
noelplum99 @noelplum99
....I mean, I accept that you have decided in advance to disbelieve both the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory - and I accept your right to do so - but please please spend some time now researching what it is you have chosen to disbelieve
noelplum99 1 year ago
@fellowservant34 You are splitting hairs.
Patternpop 1 year ago
@fellowservant34 instinct, you could say the same for a squid, how does it know to use its ink to escape, this is seriously stupid.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScottishAtheist
''It doesn't know anything. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. An Iguana can no gain the ability to stop its heart, than you could sprout wings and fly''
ok ......... can you give me a theory on how do you think how the animal discover that the heartbeat is the one that is causing the predator knowing their location (asuming they know what the heart is) or them being able to stop its heart beat (asuming they know that their heartbeat is the one causing the problem)
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
@ScottishAtheist
and for the whole population to evolve, they all have to be in the water at the same time, and all of them gaining the knowledge that their heartbeat is the one giving away their location and learning how to stop their heartbeat just before the predator sees them ............ you cant use your millions and millions of years explanation because all the iguanas will all be extinct the moment they are found in the water.
can you please give me an explanation how?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
@fellowservant34
they wouldn't ... it is just that iguanas are the only species left after sharks feast due to this feature... but anyway that doesn't make evolution true... it's much more profound than this... because any feature doesn't simply appear through one or two mutations... it's a very complex and coordinated process and that is simply hard to believe... evolution is false
baxteru 1 year ago
@baxteru
hard to believe is an understatement!
fellowservant34 1 year ago
@fellowservant34 What? If a creature has an ability, such as this, it is instinct, they didn't wake up one morning and think ooo I will stop my heart. If you go with logic, its ancestors mostlikly lived longer if its heart beat didn't race, because that draw even more attention to it if a shark can hear it. So over time, the trait EVOLVED and I one would have a heart beat drawn out for longer and longer periods. You can still have God creating evolution why do you guys have such issue here?
ASexyChef 1 year ago
hmmmm!!!! lets see how the trolls debunk this
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 1 year ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA ROFL....... They will probably say it's the god of chance that made it that way!!!!! The pathetic theory of evolution is just that. One would think that we came from apes with such foolish thinking. ALL GLORY TO CHRIST JESUS, GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
diverse04 1 year ago