Many of your points are completely invalid or outright wrong. The example for instance about the Labradors is fallacious. If you breed Labs for certain traits over hundreds of years, you could easily end up with a type of dog that has as much in common with Labs as a Lab has with a wolf. I could go on, but honestly there's just no reasoning with religious folk.
Asking people who's profession isn't biologist or geologist what evolution means and if it is true, is like having a hairdresser explain how the forces of the universe work together, (which is of course a physicists domain.)
If you haven't studied this at a university, you don't know shit
In case you didn't notice, that IS evolution. The genetic difference between, say, humans and monkeys is between 15% and 1%, depending on the region/characteristic being examined.
I'm not even going to watch the rest of this moronic material...
Actually, in reality, you claim that ALL LIFE SHOULD BE EVOLVING BACKWARDS INTO LUMPS OF CANCER. It's a fact that mutations occur in nearly EVERY replication- you claim that they ALL cause cancer.
Yet life has been around for 3.5 billion years.
And it's still going.
The only species we see regressing into cancer is humanity, and that's because we EAT carcinogens. We breathe them.
If you have insertion mutations, then you can turn 8 bits into that picture.
But why on earth would that be selected for?
Refuting science by taking a simplistic simulation which is meant to be educational and turning it into the pinnacle of GA is rather pathetic, edinburgh4.
Oh, and if you breed Labradors together, you will get new breeds. They aren't truly "pure bred" by the genetics definition.
Actually... breeding labradors makes labradors because the breeders select the most-like-labrador-looking labradors for breeding. As soon as you progressively select labradors that have the biggest teeth, the longest toes, the longest tail, the longest neck, you can create the weirdest organism within a few centuries (because this is very strong selection it is faster than the millions of years change takes in nature). So no, breeding labradors actually CAN result in a new species.
8 bits to windows xp... according to what you're saying, evolution cam make a normal 3D bacteria becomes a 4D tesseract-like cell... there's no way you can escape from your physical reality. If it's in 3d, it's in 3d, and if it's in shades of gray, sorry, but you won't get any red.
With all this questioning I'm supposed to be doing, You have still not offered me an alternative positive explanation. What DID happen? How DID all the animals get here? I don't want more questions why evolution does not explain that. I want to know what DOES explain the diversity of life today.
@coolgreyoneabby The question is retarded...Duhhh. Of course, coming from Creationists, the answer is : God did it? And quite frankly......God did it!!!! What have you been smoking lately?
@raponte1955 You are right How silly of me. Once we say "God did it" we don't have to ask any more questions. We already know God did it and it was a miracle, so no more need to inquire any more.
Gah! Just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Edinburgh4, I assume you hold to your view based on a preconceived narrative regarding myths from the Bronze Age. I pity you. May you find the courage to free yourself one day.
ok dude...you obviously dont know what the word "evolution" means....it means and im getting this from a dictionary "any process of formation or growth; development" a.k.a evolution doesnt mean you have to change too much of anything......the evolution theory says we came from monkeys and there are numerous aincient texts to prove this . and its not impossible. ...read up before you post something your going to get corrected on
"breed two labradors during a long time and the only thing you'll get is... labradors"
Did you need to know that the breed of most dogs have been into endogamy, making their genetical variation so low that it would take a LOT of time to start watching variation between offsprings and their parents?
My god, please get a basic understanding of how mutations work before spewing bullsh*t. If you breed Labradors together you will eventually end up with more then Labradors because of MUTATIONS. you could eventually end up with a large saber-tooth tiger thing (but a dog version of it). if the mutations played out right. please also read up on speciation (i spelled it wrong). the saber-dog would be a new species, unable to breed with the Labrador (because it specized) and would be a new creature.
There are so many reasons why this os complete nonsense, but I'll cover it up in a sentece for you all: 8-bit codes do are not living organisms and this theory only applies to living organisms.
If you're going to critisize something you might wanna get straight what you're critisizing.
Only ever causes cancer, eh? What about people in Nepal who have evolved to function normally in low oxygen environments? What about people who have weird anomalies in their genomes that make them immune to AIDS? What about people who have sickle cell? The result is a resistance to malaria? These are all 'random mutations' that didn't result in cancer or death. What do you say to that mister smarty pants?
Without the ability to evolve life could not exist. And by the way: A random change in a computer program can very well cause an improvement. Creationists think that denial alone was evidence and that "I don't know how" (the definition of the word "miracle") was an explanation.
They are all very eloquent in defending their position using all the rhetoric tricks there are, but when it comes to details, their assumptions fail consequently.
Without the ability to evolve life could not exist. And by the way: A random change in a computer program can very well cause an improvement. Creationists think that denial alone was evidence and that "I don't know how" (the definition of the word "miracle") was an explanation.
They are all very eloquent in defending their position using all the rhetoric tricks there are, but when it comes to details, their assumptions fail consequently.
by the way, at least part of this video is completely untrue. variation in a species can arise through a random mutation and non-random selection, and a mutation can be beneficial - these are facts.
It really is confusing how creationists only focus on the theory of evolution. We know species change over time. The evidence is in the fossil record.
What blows Genesis out of the water and into the mythology anthology is a glance at the night sky through a telescope.
The Earth, let alone the Middle East, is a puny and irrelevant place. And 6000 years isn't even a blink of an eye in the cosmological timescale.
@Misterb0z i am completely open to new ideas and theories but not false claims. where is this fossil record evidence? the locating of transitional fossils has been a very big problem for supporters of the theory of evolution all the way back to Darwin himself. Darwin wrote about this problem, perhaps try reading "the origin of the species."
@xwhitechocolatex "perhaps try reading "the origin of the species." " Mate, it's 151 years old. There's been, let's see now... 151 years of progress since then.
"where is this fossil record evidence?" Google 'Transitional Fossil Evidence'. Read a book on the subject. Visit a museum. We've an embarrassment of riches.
@Misterb0z you dont need to quote me, i know what i said lol (not insulting you) you are more than welcome to your opinion about the fossil record. however, i am, in fact, studying the subject specifically in school, have visited a couple natural history museums, and am under the opinion that the fossil record is by no means complete. i approach my studies with an open mind, i suggest you do the same.
@xwhitechocolatex I'm not a student. I'm a trained scientist. I know what science is, and I know what is not science. Nobody expects a complete fossil record. It isn't even required. Genetic evidence alone would be considered more than enough. The only objections raised against the *concept* of evolution is from people with religious preconceptions, people who worship a book written about one god by one culture rather than the glorious reality that any creator must have created.
@Misterb0z lol i feel like you arent really replying to my comments in particular...i didnt say you were a student, or accuse you of not knowing science. i sincerely apologize my opinion differs from yours...but if the fossil record doesnt matter why were you talking about it? im sorry sir but it feels like your comments arent even directed towards our conversation... and saying those are the ONLY objections raised against evolution is a mistake (and a bit closed-minded?)
@xwhitechocolatex I'm sorry. Clearly I was expecting too much of your reading comprehension. The statement was meant to suggest that the genetic evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even if there wasn't a single fossil to tell us that animals had evolved, the case to show that they had would be irrefutable.
It was fossils that told us that animals evolved long before Darwin explained a plausible mechanism by which it happens.
@xwhitechocolatex "and saying those are the ONLY objections raised against evolution is a mistake (and a bit closed-minded?)" What are the objections to evolution besides 'It doesn't say that in (insert old book here)'? I'm not aware of any. Yes, there are plenty of ignorant objections, but they are easily refuted, and they amount to no more than the objections of a flat-earther to 'spherists'.
@Misterb0z i really dont understand why you quote me...but anyway i think it is just a little funny that you bother to ask me what other objections are... before informing me that whatever they may be, they are ignorant and easily refuted. clearly, sir, your knowledge far exceeds that of anyone who refutes your interpretations. i can give you one thing, you are certainly a confident person. the character limit provide in the comments isnt really enough. perhaps you would like to message me?
@xwhitechocolatex i am a student and i enjoy learning new things. i would honestly like to hear from you - if you are truly a scientist. i would find actually talking to a true scientist enlightening... however if you lied to me, please do not waste my time. (i am not suggesting i dont believe you)
@Misterb0z and i only suggested the origin of the species for darwins comments about the fossil record and what the lack of transitional fossils would imply... i never said it was the most up-to-date source on the actual discovery of transitional fossils, friend... i suppose his comments are meaningless to you if you do believe the fossil record is complete
Why would they use a dog-breeding example if that negates their point? All labradors (however purebred) are not identical. The smallest of differences (e.g., being ever-so-slightly undersize or oversize) could then be selected to eventually breed chihuahua-size labradors, or horse-sized ones. Question - is a chihuahua sized lab still a lab? Not really...and it can't mate with a horse-size lab...in any case, the huge puppies would kill the mother in labour. Result? Two separate species.
@mcilrain you missed a few words: "if (some) wolves breeding with (certain other wolves) result in (somewhat more doggy-like offspring that mate with other more doggy-like offspring over millenia and eventually lead to a new species called) dogs, (it's no surprise that wolves that didn't join in the breeding game stayed wolfy). It also helped that dogs co-evolved with humans, who inadvertently selected the friendliest, most useful ones as pets. The original wolves, once again, kept clear.
The environment changing to red would be the equivalent of the environment here on earth changing to molten lava, of course nothing would survive. The representation of white, grey, and black environments are to demonstrate changing but livable environments. And you completely miss the point on the 8 bit analogy, it's just describing a finite set of variables. BTW, bread a group of labradors for 1,000 yrs in a changing environment and you would end up with a species based on lab, but evolved
1: evolution is about adaptation, which was shown on HERW.PI
2: you can show that inside a 3D world those 8bit actualy can evolve into Lara Croft, but the program to simulate that would be about as complicated, as modeling our planet, with all we know about physics inside of it (which is a hell of a job).
3: if you randomly kill (not only change) some of the windows parts it actualy becomes faster and more efficient (in most of the cases).
I just watched your 'how evolution really doesnt work' video and I think you are an absolute fucking moron. It makes no sense whatsoever. You can make all kinds of dogs out of wolves? What the fuck? Are you retarded? You are a prime example of evolution gone wrong.
The only thing this video proves is that it's basically impossible to dumb down evolution enough for creationists to understand it. That being the case, you'd think they'd stop talking about it. You don't see a lot of history buffs starting up conversations about fractal calculus, so why do amateur theologians feel the need to yap nonsensically about biology?
You are a moron. Nobody is claiming that Windows XP is the result of natural selection, only you.
Also, you obviously you don't understand the concept of *MODEL*; this program was not meant to simulate the universe.
And your whole video is a red herring; the original video shows a population that fits their environment as if it was designed to do so, but without artificial design, nor artificial selection, but with natural selection.
AND your examples are sorely lacking because you are applying them across only 100 years and 2 animals. It shows you do not understand evolution as a theory at all. For those of us that are not foolish enough to think the world is only 6000 years old, we know that this transformation takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, but more importantly hundreds of thousans of generations....
I do not understand how a group of people, even though there are so many groups that do it, cannot accept the recorded documented, demonstrated face of evolution. They hang so dearly to Biblical bullshit that they cannot see past the page that the crap itself is written on.
The Bible is not real, CREATION is a myth used to get religion in a classroom.
If you breed two wolves together yes you will get all sorts or breeds of dogs over a fair few generations, and if you breed Labradors together selecting only the traits for Labradors then yes you will get only labs, but if your selection criteria is different then eventually you will get different sub-types. You may never get a pit bull out of it I dunno but eventually you breed something that could never be distinctly called a lab.
If you can't understand the simple logic behind the sim that tried to explain the mechanism of evolution, you will never understand the reality of evolution.
i think the underlying cause of this argument is "hopeful" people's inability to accept that the universe is meaningless, with the inability of "realistic" people to accept that the universe may actually mean SOMETHING
im not a buddhist, but i truly do believe in a middle path
and edinburgh, as a christian who is educated in science, i really think yo ushould watch the Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton
Seriously, you have to take into consideration that his simulation was a cheap model meant only to show the BASIC mechanism evolution works on.
Instead of disproving by saying his sim doesnt meet our universe's standards, well it better well not meet our standards cuz i know i live in something a bit more complex and beautiful than a couple 8 bit numbers. Put our universe in the same situation being only black and white, and it fits just fine.
According to creatinoist methophorically speaking they belive that a 3d model of lara croft was created just as is. there were no pixels or codes - that model of lara croft just magically appears.
"turning one 8 bit number into another 8 bit number is change. but it is not evolution!" False; evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. No more, no less.
"Evolution would be turning an 8 bit number into.../...A 3D model of Lara Croft" And yet there was a time when 8-bit was the most-advanced for graphics...
"Given all eternity your sim will only produce black, white and grey!" Disregarding color and word recognition which could rise from mutations...
"In programming, color would be a parameter.../...but melanin synthesis is like a program" And how does the computer read that parameter? *in imitation of Desertphile* PROGRAMS!
"Make a random change to a parameter and you stand a good chance of a sensible result." NATURAL mutations DO activate/deactivate, copy/delete, lengthen/shorten, and overall change whole sections. Parameter type kept and the replica can change to another type.
"They cannot develop any novel features." This is wrong. His sim was a simplification, sure, but if allowed to expand to more bits and put in a more complex enviroment, like say, the travelling salesman problem, it would probably perform better then a human.
oh yeah and mutation before a multicelled orginism is formed doesnt cause cancer. it causes a multi celled animal or plant that may survive with this variation
do change. if they didnt explain my right ear and how that also causes my right foot to have three toes in the middle be lifted without the rest of my toes. it's a mutation that effects two parts of my bady. anyone else have a natural elf ear and a screwed up foot. bad thing is im gay so we wont be seing my chilren with my awsome ear unless i donate sperm.
natural selection and time gives us what we have today. al his organisms given time CAN go to your red enviroment. especially because they will have no preditors there yet. in fact that red area can allow diversity amoung the species and once to diverse or seperated through other means the organisms will seperate and only produce sterile children. they cant develope features, only the offspring can. u are so smart. uno u should be a teacher to other mentally handicaped people. and know genes
Also computer software do evolve so does all technology. Windows 7 did not magically appear, but got incrementally better and better starting with CP/M, DOS, Windows 1,... Not the best OS or computers survived but those that could adapt to what people needed and could be produced fast enough. If you know software then you see it is a patchwork of different parts that got randomly selected because it worked back then and is still in there.
Is this guy actually claiming that you can run XP on only 8 bits of memory?
Imagine what we would be able to do if we have a 2 byte memory!
Also a random bit change in Windows does not automatically create a blue-screen. It depends on what bit changed the other billion bits. and have no blue screen as result, just maybe a bad paycheck.
Wow this video is fail, its nothing more then some one giving there personal opinion as if it was proven fact. The FACT is evolution has been PROVEN and there is no argument left to make. The debate of evolution VS. creation can to an end about 150 years ago. What your saying in this video is the equivalent of thinking that the earth is flat, even tho its proven to be round.
Let´s assume I as a creationist don´t understand how evolution works, I imply do know how it works...
so you tell me, How one of those weird cambrian marine creatures was turned, changed, transformed or evolved into humans, at least I know it took several generations and millions of years, because that´s exactly what your theory claim as fact, right? ...
@realhomosapiens so, you want to know how aquatic cambrian organisms gradually evolved into homosapiens?
That's easy, mutation + natural selection. If you don't understand that then I can't really help you out any further.
As for evidence of common ancestry there's ERV's, genome sequencing, phylogeny and the nested hierarchy, the fusion of 2 ape chromosomes forming human chromosome #2, Lancelet (one of the earliest ancestor of vertebrate), Tiktaalik (one of the earliest tetropods). etc.
So basically if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant is a fairy tale, but just given enough time, a lot of mutations, all in the perfect order, at the right time and in the right place plus natural selection, a fish can turn into a human being, right?...let`s assume your claim is accurate and correct and your scientific myth works,...What proof and evidence that mutations plus natural selection could accomplish such an unsurmountable task?
@realhomosapiens ugh, i just gave you evidence. I'm not going to waste my time with someone so intellectually incredulous that they result to atrociously absurd straw man arguments.
@realhomosapiens there is no direct transition from fish to mammals, that question is just stupid beyond belief. The major transition is called Tiktaalik, the earliest known tetrapod and the transition from swamp/coastal-dwelling finned "fish" to amphibians with full finger and hand bones and wrists which were used for crawling on land part of the time.
Fishes produces fishes, reptiles produce reptiles and mammal produce reptiles, do you agree?
I don`t think you will not agree, now, where did you get the idea that reptiles produced mammals, of course not on a single generation but given enough time, that`s the greatest stupidity ever made in the name of science...and that`s exactly what your stupid scientific myth is claiming, that just given enough time reptiles produced mammals, that`s plain garbage not science...
@realhomosapiens no I don't agree with you. Organisms reproduce with variation and the ones that are most adapted to their environment continue to reproduce. Your argument is analogous to "When I take a step I only move half a meter, therefore walking a kilometer is impossible", but guess what? given enough time (and enough steps), it is!
Speciation has been observed, it's documented AND reproduced in the lab both naturally and through DNA manipulation. You lose, get over it.
So basically you`ve been deceived to believe that, if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant, (amphibian to mammal) it`s a fairy tale, but if step by step, little by little in millions of year the very same amphibian turns into a mammal, actually turned into a Prince, you know, humans, that`s not a fairy tale but science, right?
Yours is a fairy tale too, but yours took millions and millions of years, other than that it`s exactly the very same fairy tale, capizca?
@realhomosapiens ya, it' is a fairy-tale, created to support the leftist conspiracy of 250 years, involving hundreds of thousands of independant scientists to brainwash children to think their great granfather was a worm so the government can steal your tax dollars so they can mandate vaccines that will kill all the old people and user in a New World Order ran the Illuminati.
Don't even know why I even tried reasoning with you. You're a fucking joke
So reasoning for you is this: If a frog change to a Prince in an instant it´s false, hence a tale for kids at bedside, right? but and oooh wha a big but
If an amphibian (frog) change to a human (Prince) in millions of years, step by step little by little by means of random mutations and natural selection (evolution) that is true, hence is science and therefore should be taught at every single class room all over the world, right?
@realhomosapiens Watch on the PBS dot org web site , a TV series called NOVA. There is one recent episode called "What Darwin Never Knew"
It explains it all for you.
There is nothing to say creationism and evolution cannot coexist. Something started it, and it allowed to progress on its own. But I guess you are taking the word of of some book, with no telling who really wrote it while physical evidence exists of evolution.
First of all, I want you to know, even if the Bible were never written, even if it could be demostrated that God does not exist...believing that an amphibian by means or random mutation and natural selection, evolution if you will, turned, changed or transformed into a human is the very same fairy tale of the frog to a Prince, the only two differences are:
Evolution vs a kiss
Millions of years vs an instant
I hope you`re enough to understand, doubtfull but I hope
@realhomosapiens Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is evidence of this. The gene for a fish gill is inside every species. You can see fish gills in humans during the first phase of development in the fetus.
At least try looking at evidence before making assertions you really know nothing of.
Really? Why don`t you go ahead and doble check your "evidence", lest you want to disclosure yourself as:
First of all, ignoramous on embryology and secondly you may realize that you have been deceived, deeple deceived, please check it out...
You should contact Francis Collins to find out that what you just argued is too far away from the truth, I understand you`re desperately looking for evidence, but please hallucinations are not acceptable, that`s not the wey science works...
@realhomosapiens Belief is not required, and is in fact a retardant to the process of scientific inquiry. All collected evidence supports the theory of evolution. No collected evidence goes against it. Science doesn't operate based on belief; it operates based on interpreting empirical data collected through repeatable means.
No collected evidence goes against that humans descend from a fish? you´ve got to be kidding...rabbits produces rabbits, finches produces finches, salamanders produces salamanders, gulls produces gulls, horses...horses and the list goes on and on, and you said No collected evidence goes agains the stupid idea that given enough time by means of random mutations and natural selection (evolution) a population of fishes turned or changed into humans? Where did you study little boy?
@realhomosapiens You are correct. No collected evidence controvenes evolution. All collected evidence supports it. We do not descend from 'fish' as they're known today, but both fish and humans share a common ancestor. Biologists can directly and accurately predict how long ago a common ancestor was shared with any other species on earth. For example, humans and rainbow trout share a common ancestor somewhere around 450 million years ago.
This suddenly turned too interesting, humans DO NOT descend from a fish but both share a common ancestor?...humans and raibow trout share a common ancestor? are you kidding or better saying hallucinating? tell me what it was like?
@realhomosapiens Just because you lack the cognitive capacity to understand something, or the curiosity to learn about a subject, does not make it false. An argument from ignorance is a major logical fallacy.
I do assume you have a huge cognitive capacity to understand "something", hence I do assume that you´re not an ignoramous either...so tell me, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, Who was this guy?...I understand that individuals don´t evolve but population, this is just to put the question in simpler terms, as you can see I just have a litte cognitive capacitiy, now little cognitive boy tell me, Who was this guy?
@realhomosapiens Hahah wow. Repeating 'cognitive' over and over for the win? You can try and make yourself feel all big and mighty by continuing to say 'little boy' if you wish, but in actuality it just makes you look pathetically small-minded. Of course, the rambling circuitous flailings do the same thing. -All- life shares common ancestors, it's just a question of how far back you have to look in order to find it. Your inability to comprehend an idea is not evidence said idea is false.
So you´re one of those who trully belive that that whole diversity of life on earth plants & animals living and extinct evolved, there you are the word, from a simple celled organism? wooow?
Once again, I´m dumb you´re smart, I do admit it, but tell me smart-one Who was that guy that diverged into humans and chimpanzees? according to your scientific myth that is a fact, so if it´s a fact, tell me Who was this guy?
@realhomosapiens A fossile sample of the last-common-ancestor between the two has yet to be found. It'd be neat if it was, but not necessary; precisely because belief is not necessary to the process. Evidence shows conclusively the truth of evolution; the evidence which has been gathered directly backs up predictions, and enables predictions to be made with an extremely high degree of accuracy in places where fossils are missing. It all has to do with mutation rates and genetic similarity
So basically you don´t even have a clue who was this guy? you´re a faithfull man, you believe in mysterious creatures and quite frankly assume they were there....sorry about that....but believing that humans share a common ancestor with a fish or something like it´s even worst than believing in santa clauss, since you believe your belief is science...got it? What a shame that this kind of stuff is being taught as it were science...that´s really shamefull
@realhomosapiens Arguments from Ignorance/Incredulity are particularly idiotic. There are no assumptions; as I said, there are predictions based upon verifiable data. That's how science works. Just because you do not understand it, does not make it false. I do not 'believe' humans shared a common ancestor with fish, chimpanzees, or anything else; I know it. Because there is research and data available which conforms to verifiable fact which demonstrates it.
Because there is research and data available which conforms to verifiable fact which demonstrates it.
Really? . . . You´ve got to be kidding, if data is available, tell me, Who was that mysterious humans and raibow trout common ancestor? you said that evolution is a demostrated fact, backed up by research and data, how come you´re still unable to to tell me Who was that guy? I´m affraid your scientific myth is not so observational data supported, or is it?
@realhomosapiens Data -are- available. Data is a plural word. There's nothing mysterious about any of this. The common ancestor of both probably resembled something like a urochordate; a hermaphroditic filter-feeder. There is, however, no direct evidence of what it looked like. You absolutely do not understand evolution nor its supporting data by continually asking the same question over and over.
I do absolutely do not undertand evilution nor its supporting data? hmmm,
How do you call the process by which something like a urochordate off spring diverged into humans and other creatures? What word would you use to refer to this mythical claim?
@realhomosapiens Genetic similarity, and the processes use to determine it, give an indication of how long ago two species shared a common ancestor, they do not tell much about said common ancestor. Very few animals, comparitively, actually left fossilized remains behind to study. And just knowing genetic information doesn't (yet) have a translation to being able to see what something looks like. That's going to take a few more advances in the subject before it's possible.
@pyrespirit But something being an as-yet unknown is absolutely not a reason to throw one's hands into the air and declare 'well, god must have done it.' Examining what is present in the genetics of two species can, with some complex and involved steps, give you an idea of how long ago they were related, it cannot be used to determine the genetic code of the ancestor species (yet, anyway). And this is not Jurassic Park; knowing something's genome doesnt instantly reveal all about a thing
If that is the case, Why Bonobos and chimpanzees DNA are more similar to humans, when in reality those two creatures should be more similar between them? seems to me your genetic similarity does not work, take a closer look at it, and find out for yourself,
@realhomosapiens Bonobo and Chimpanzee have their most recent common ancestor about 3 million years ago. Bonobo and human, about 6-7 million years ago. Chimpanzee and human about the same, 6-7 million years ago. You're completely wrong in your assertation that bonobo/chimpanzee is more similar to human than to each other (bonobo/chimp follows the same track for a while after the divergence from human ancestors). You continue to just make things up to try and support your bad position *applause*
@pyrespirit The last common ancestor of humans, bonobos and chimpanzees was more like a bonobo than any of the other three species. Simplistically put, that bonobo-like ancestor diverged into two. One of the two eventually became humans, the other became modern Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Of course, that is so incredibly simplistically put and ignores a huge amount of the subject, but hopefully it's at a level you can process.
But when David Reich, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute in Boston, and his colleagues sequenced tens of thousands of random snippets of DNA from bonobos and chimps, then compared these to the matching sequences of the complete chimp and human genomes, they found a surprise. In 453 of their sequences, either bonobos or chimps proved to be more closely related to humans than to each other
Now you know it, stop believing in a scientific fairy tale, please do so
@realhomosapiens That is not even slightly what Reich's research suggests; his research is between human and chimpanzee, and suggests that the two species interbred for millions of years after most accepted research says they no longer did, while searching for genetic markers which may suggest succeptability to disease. It has caused controversy, yes - but science thrives on controversy. If his data are correct and replicatable, existing theory may have to be edited.
Nooope, your stupid theory is supported by evidence, right? and DNA proves that chimps and bonobos are more close related to humans than they´re themselves, that proves that comparing the DNA is futile, BTW did you know that humans and bananas are 50% plus similar at DNA level? I haven´t seen a banana-like human, have you?...your evolutionary theory claim is based on thin-air, something only real scientists can realize of it, will you?
@realhomosapiens You really do like to just make things up out of nowhere. It's amusing that the only things you can come up with are either purposeful misunderstandings or just flat-out lies; and it also lets everyone know just how wrong your position is. Also; the fact that humans share genetic information with bananas just goes to show that everything -is- interrelated, and is a point in favour for evolution, thanks for proving my point!
Wait a minute, that some AT/CG matches in bananas and humanas genomes DOES NOT mean that bananas are my relative, a stupid interpretation based on your scientific myth, Did you know that there was a man outside the White House almost identical to G. Bush, by the same principle they were TWINS,...but you & me Know they were not even relatives....nice argument, but no, it does not work...try again...now, if it´s evidence for you, so be it.
@realhomosapiens (And the vast majority of DNA is encoding for the production of enzymes, proteins, amino acids, and everything else which is required for cellular life to perpetuate itself; and considering the vast similarities between all cells, and the common ancestry of all cells, things being similar is entirely -expected-... Only a very small part of the genome has to do with things like physical appearance of species and individuals.)
Even worst, if the vast majority of DNA encodes for proteins production, it means the rest encode for physical appearance, in such a case we´re to different at DNA level to bananas, that´s why any ancestry is ludicrous...something you have been deluded to reject by default...being similarities in the DNA encoding of proteins productions has nothing to do with any ancestry, the only way to believe in such a claim is that a strong delusion is upon you, I see no other option.
@realhomosapiens Errm. No, that's not even in the same parsec as your 'twins' analogy. Direct familial relationship is nowhere near genetic similarity. Keep furiously straw-manning though, it really screams 'take my position seriously!' As for your 'WHARRGARBL' about DNA encoding; it's hard to even begin to start when you're being so incredibly incoherent. Identical processes inside the cell controlled by incredibly similar gene sequences are strong evidence for common descent.
Nooope, incredibly similar gene sequences are the strongest evidence that since there is no evidence whatsoever that humans evolved from a primitive fish, the only way to support this ludicrous and certainly unscientific claim, it´s to manufacture such evidence, now i´m not a genetist, hence my arguments are not valid...gene sequence similarity is just that, gene sequence similarity, the interpretation given by the scientists MUST be according to the scientific myth...got it?
@realhomosapiens I see, now your argument is "I don't want to believe evidence, so I'll claim that people are manufacturing said evidence." You go from argument from ignorance to constructing straw-men like the only crafter of scarecrows in the entire world, to basically shoving your hands in your ears and screaming about how much nobody wants to listen to your unsubstantiated 'truth' which contravenes all known data. At least you're being a champ at showing how laughable your position is!
Nooope, Nooope, Nooope, It´s true that some gene sequences are similary, that´s a fact....but claiming that such similarity is evidence that bananas and humans share a common ancestor is plain lunacy, that is not science, that is a scientific halluciantion, a scientific one, nevertheless a huge hallucination...BTW What other evidence do you have to claim the the bananas/human common ancestry? just curios
@realhomosapiens Errm... "Claiming that a similarity between things means there's a similarity is plain lunacy!"... Wow... Hahah. Guess you're back to "I don't want to believe it's true so I'll just make stuff up." And it's not 'evidence I have,' it's evidence that plenty of science has demonstrated. Once again, I'm not here to do your research for you; there is no peer-reviewed controvention of evolution; solely twits who're scared that it's true.
@KEEETARO The world is an endlessly fascinating place; the pursuit of understanding it is equally as interesting. The inter-relationship between a vast number of systems and processes, and being able to grasp those, is infinitely more satisfying than sitting back and saying 'I dont know how this works, therefore god,' as well as being infinitely more uplifting and empowering. Completely unlike religion, and its lunacy, which diminishes humanity, and tries to convince us we're so very small.
@realhomosapiens But the editing of theory is one of the fundamental strengths of science; whenever new data comes along which controvenes existing theory, theory must be changed to fit the data. Unlike the lies you'd tell, where there is 'one absolute truth which can never be questioned.'
@realhomosapiens (not to mention his data does nothing to change evolutionary theory at all, merely changes the time when certain things happen... Which once again shows that the only arguments you have are based upon lies, or are direct lies. Congrats?)
Your evolutionary theory claims and asserts with hype and fanfare that humans evolved from one of those weird cambrian marine creatures, something you´re light years away to even cross your mind...Have you ever think about it?
@realhomosapiens We didn't didn't really evolve from cambrian marine creatures, we evolved from Homo erectus, which was very much like a human. Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, which was very much like Homo habilis, which evolved from ... You see my point. This process goes all the way back to Camrian marine creatures. Which - as you correctly state - is light years away from us. But at not time is any creature evolve into something that wasn't very very similar.
I appreciatte your comment...but now tell me...if we go back all the way to the cambrian era...if we run backwards homo habilis evolved from what, and that what evolved from what, and what, what, what started to evolved into humans if we go back all the way back to the Cambrian era? that´s my question
@realhomosapiens Where is the missing or impossible link between humans and some hydra or sea-cucumber type creature that lived in the Cambrian era? In other words, which step(s) could not have happened? Which gap cannot be crossed?
@realhomosapiens There was no gap between humans and the earliest form of life. Evolution cannot cross gaps, it must flow continuously. A fish cannot give birth to an amphibian. That would be impossible. So there are no gaps. Every single generation is a transition. All living things are transitional forms. There are no gaps in evolution.
I bet you´re right, a fish can not give birth to an amphibian...but given enough time a fish can turn into an amphibian, and in the very same way an amphibian can not give birth or produce a mammal, am I right?, NOW, if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant it´s a fairy tale, but according to your theory an amphibian somehow could turn into a mammal? something is seriously wrong in this claim, isn´t it? think about it...
@realhomosapiens Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't occur over time. Watch some AronRa (the smartest man on youtube), and he'll explain. Watch this vid as well: watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc
Now you'll say, but yes these are all salamanders, but if in a few million years they can change into ones that can not breed with each other if they are too far away, but can still breed with their neighbors, now make it 100's of miilions of years.
Well, within the nex 100´s of millions years they still will be salamanders...AAAAAAALL the observational data confirms, that a member of the class reptilia produce only reptilia but you believe that given enough time class reptilia brought forth class mammalia...that´s vooodo science my friend, unfortunatelly it´s in our textbooks and any science lectures in univeristies all over the world...that´s silly, and unscientific too
@realhomosapiens What is your evidence that salamanders cannot eventually evolve into another class? We have fossil records that follow how whales evolved from land animal to water dweller. As you dig deeper to lower more ancient strata such as the Cambrian, there are no mammals. No bunnies, horses, monkeys or man. Not one. Why? Where did our science education system go so terribly wrong that you believe science is unscientific? Watch: "Qualiasoup: Skewed view of Science" for starters.
Well science education system teaches us the very same frog to prince transformation but in more sutile way...when a frog turns into a prince in an instant you label that as a tale for kids, right? but when you´re taught that humans descend from one of those weird cambrian marine creature you come to believe that is science, right? did you see how both tales are exactly the same, but the first one took an instant and the other one took millions and millions of years? got it?
Well, if after several millions of years the just have evolved into more salamander, Which should I hallucinate that somehow they will evolve into something else other than a salamander? as a matter of fact EVERY SINGLE case of speciation observed has only produced the same basic crature...300 hundred different races of horses with a common ancestor, guess what it was? I bet you´re right, a horse...charly finches had a common ancestor,guess what it was? you´re righ again...
@realhomosapiens Your logic is like saying " We have never seen a continent break away from another continent during our lifetimes. We have only seen small tectonic movement of feet, not continents moving hundreds of miles." So if evolution is a myth, why are there no mammals in the Cambrian layers?
@realhomosapiens Yes, I have two explanations. First, one is land dwelling creature and the other is a sea creature. Land and sea layers do not layer up together. Second, How sure are you that no coelecanths and human fossils have not been found within the last 100,000 years? That still leaves the question why no mammals have been found in the Cambrian layers.That has long been the argument of falsifiable Theory. It is a fact that no mammals have every been found in the Cambrian. Why?
Which means that even if two different creatures live at the very same time you will not up finding fossils of both creatures...that´s my point...
By the very same reason, mammals have roamed this planet since about 250 millions years ago, so mammals have lived with coelecanths for that long, nevertheless we haven´t find mammals and coelecanths in the same layer and in any layer....it´s obvious that living at the same time does not assure to have fossils of both creatures
@realhomosapiens My point was there is vast difference between finding one rare species within a 100,000 year window and finding ANY common mammal like rats, cats, tigers, dogs, rabbit, horses, people... ANYTHING within the many millions of years of the Cretaceous. Not even one that comes remotely close. Not one. Should tell you the creation myth is just religious folly.
Many of your points are completely invalid or outright wrong. The example for instance about the Labradors is fallacious. If you breed Labs for certain traits over hundreds of years, you could easily end up with a type of dog that has as much in common with Labs as a Lab has with a wolf. I could go on, but honestly there's just no reasoning with religious folk.
billyuno 1 month ago
Obviously the author of this clip has no idea of what he is talking about. Genetic programming does what the author claims is impossible everyday.
spacecadet35 1 month ago
Asking people who's profession isn't biologist or geologist what evolution means and if it is true, is like having a hairdresser explain how the forces of the universe work together, (which is of course a physicists domain.)
If you haven't studied this at a university, you don't know shit
TopppieJopppie 2 months ago
In case you didn't notice, that IS evolution. The genetic difference between, say, humans and monkeys is between 15% and 1%, depending on the region/characteristic being examined.
I'm not even going to watch the rest of this moronic material...
TheBlueShamen 2 months ago 2
all you say are philosophical suppositions. we have experimental and scientific evidences.
Onafets94 4 months ago
this vid gave me cancer....
ketanovas 4 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The answer to this vid is simple... the autor make money with the non evolution idea!
tallibba 4 months ago
The answer to this vid is simple... the autor make money with the non evolution idea!
tallibba 4 months ago
Actually, in reality, you claim that ALL LIFE SHOULD BE EVOLVING BACKWARDS INTO LUMPS OF CANCER. It's a fact that mutations occur in nearly EVERY replication- you claim that they ALL cause cancer.
Yet life has been around for 3.5 billion years.
And it's still going.
The only species we see regressing into cancer is humanity, and that's because we EAT carcinogens. We breathe them.
TheBlueShamen 4 months ago
In reality, NYLONASE evolved. So have at LEAST four new species.
TheBlueShamen 4 months ago
If you have insertion mutations, then you can turn 8 bits into that picture.
But why on earth would that be selected for?
Refuting science by taking a simplistic simulation which is meant to be educational and turning it into the pinnacle of GA is rather pathetic, edinburgh4.
Oh, and if you breed Labradors together, you will get new breeds. They aren't truly "pure bred" by the genetics definition.
TheBlueShamen 4 months ago
Actually... breeding labradors makes labradors because the breeders select the most-like-labrador-looking labradors for breeding. As soon as you progressively select labradors that have the biggest teeth, the longest toes, the longest tail, the longest neck, you can create the weirdest organism within a few centuries (because this is very strong selection it is faster than the millions of years change takes in nature). So no, breeding labradors actually CAN result in a new species.
finalart2005 5 months ago
8 bits to windows xp... according to what you're saying, evolution cam make a normal 3D bacteria becomes a 4D tesseract-like cell... there's no way you can escape from your physical reality. If it's in 3d, it's in 3d, and if it's in shades of gray, sorry, but you won't get any red.
MrBeiragua 6 months ago
LOL. You didnt even explain. all you did was disagree. fucking retard.
HellHound60248 8 months ago
With all this questioning I'm supposed to be doing, You have still not offered me an alternative positive explanation. What DID happen? How DID all the animals get here? I don't want more questions why evolution does not explain that. I want to know what DOES explain the diversity of life today.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby The question is retarded...Duhhh. Of course, coming from Creationists, the answer is : God did it? And quite frankly......God did it!!!! What have you been smoking lately?
raponte1955 6 months ago
@raponte1955 You are right How silly of me. Once we say "God did it" we don't have to ask any more questions. We already know God did it and it was a miracle, so no more need to inquire any more.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby LOL
raponte1955 6 months ago
Gah! Just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Edinburgh4, I assume you hold to your view based on a preconceived narrative regarding myths from the Bronze Age. I pity you. May you find the courage to free yourself one day.
farwyr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
False analogies, and straw man arguments. Major fail!
adrianwbourne 8 months ago
False anologies, and straw man arguments. Major fail!
adrianwbourne 8 months ago
You didn't watch "Qualiasoup skewed views of science", or you would not have written what you did. Watch that video and get back to me.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
ok dude...you obviously dont know what the word "evolution" means....it means and im getting this from a dictionary "any process of formation or growth; development" a.k.a evolution doesnt mean you have to change too much of anything......the evolution theory says we came from monkeys and there are numerous aincient texts to prove this . and its not impossible. ...read up before you post something your going to get corrected on
roxas7736 8 months ago
"breed two labradors during a long time and the only thing you'll get is... labradors"
Did you need to know that the breed of most dogs have been into endogamy, making their genetical variation so low that it would take a LOT of time to start watching variation between offsprings and their parents?
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 9 months ago
My god, please get a basic understanding of how mutations work before spewing bullsh*t. If you breed Labradors together you will eventually end up with more then Labradors because of MUTATIONS. you could eventually end up with a large saber-tooth tiger thing (but a dog version of it). if the mutations played out right. please also read up on speciation (i spelled it wrong). the saber-dog would be a new species, unable to breed with the Labrador (because it specized) and would be a new creature.
Clavactis 9 months ago
Is this satire?
Please tell me this is a joke!
TheFunkadelicFan 10 months ago 3
LOL WOW AMAZING, I expected stupidity and ignorance from a rleiigously based video but this is amazing.
the argument is pure crap (not that any creationist excuse isnt)
Your welcome to PROVE
Your god exists
It did it!
LOL
gorilla199uncensored 11 months ago
There are so many reasons why this os complete nonsense, but I'll cover it up in a sentece for you all: 8-bit codes do are not living organisms and this theory only applies to living organisms.
If you're going to critisize something you might wanna get straight what you're critisizing.
DrRickkenstein 11 months ago
Only ever causes cancer, eh? What about people in Nepal who have evolved to function normally in low oxygen environments? What about people who have weird anomalies in their genomes that make them immune to AIDS? What about people who have sickle cell? The result is a resistance to malaria? These are all 'random mutations' that didn't result in cancer or death. What do you say to that mister smarty pants?
FermiAnyon 11 months ago
MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOURS, HIS CREATURES UNDERGO EVOLUTION, AND ADAPT, WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
flastube 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Without the ability to evolve life could not exist. And by the way: A random change in a computer program can very well cause an improvement. Creationists think that denial alone was evidence and that "I don't know how" (the definition of the word "miracle") was an explanation.
They are all very eloquent in defending their position using all the rhetoric tricks there are, but when it comes to details, their assumptions fail consequently.
flamifer 1 year ago
Without the ability to evolve life could not exist. And by the way: A random change in a computer program can very well cause an improvement. Creationists think that denial alone was evidence and that "I don't know how" (the definition of the word "miracle") was an explanation.
They are all very eloquent in defending their position using all the rhetoric tricks there are, but when it comes to details, their assumptions fail consequently.
flamifer 1 year ago
I don't understand...what the fuck did I just watch?
Kevstar19 1 year ago
This guy has probably been patting himself on the back for over 3 years now that his lungs are filled with blood.
ninuxy 1 year ago
Oh crap! They've disproved evolution! Someone give them a Nobel Prize!
Ugh! If ignorance is bliss these guys must be orgasmic.
MsCarissa88 1 year ago
If evolution was wrong... then dog breeders wouln't produce labradors... n.nU
They know so little that I almost feel shame for them =/
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
If evolution was wrong... then dog breeders wouln't produce labradors... n.nU
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
by the way, at least part of this video is completely untrue. variation in a species can arise through a random mutation and non-random selection, and a mutation can be beneficial - these are facts.
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
It really is confusing how creationists only focus on the theory of evolution. We know species change over time. The evidence is in the fossil record.
What blows Genesis out of the water and into the mythology anthology is a glance at the night sky through a telescope.
The Earth, let alone the Middle East, is a puny and irrelevant place. And 6000 years isn't even a blink of an eye in the cosmological timescale.
Theologian, educate thyself.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z i am completely open to new ideas and theories but not false claims. where is this fossil record evidence? the locating of transitional fossils has been a very big problem for supporters of the theory of evolution all the way back to Darwin himself. Darwin wrote about this problem, perhaps try reading "the origin of the species."
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@xwhitechocolatex "perhaps try reading "the origin of the species." " Mate, it's 151 years old. There's been, let's see now... 151 years of progress since then.
"where is this fossil record evidence?" Google 'Transitional Fossil Evidence'. Read a book on the subject. Visit a museum. We've an embarrassment of riches.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
Comment removed
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@Misterb0z you dont need to quote me, i know what i said lol (not insulting you) you are more than welcome to your opinion about the fossil record. however, i am, in fact, studying the subject specifically in school, have visited a couple natural history museums, and am under the opinion that the fossil record is by no means complete. i approach my studies with an open mind, i suggest you do the same.
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@xwhitechocolatex I'm not a student. I'm a trained scientist. I know what science is, and I know what is not science. Nobody expects a complete fossil record. It isn't even required. Genetic evidence alone would be considered more than enough. The only objections raised against the *concept* of evolution is from people with religious preconceptions, people who worship a book written about one god by one culture rather than the glorious reality that any creator must have created.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z lol i feel like you arent really replying to my comments in particular...i didnt say you were a student, or accuse you of not knowing science. i sincerely apologize my opinion differs from yours...but if the fossil record doesnt matter why were you talking about it? im sorry sir but it feels like your comments arent even directed towards our conversation... and saying those are the ONLY objections raised against evolution is a mistake (and a bit closed-minded?)
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@xwhitechocolatex I'm sorry. Clearly I was expecting too much of your reading comprehension. The statement was meant to suggest that the genetic evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even if there wasn't a single fossil to tell us that animals had evolved, the case to show that they had would be irrefutable.
It was fossils that told us that animals evolved long before Darwin explained a plausible mechanism by which it happens.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@xwhitechocolatex "and saying those are the ONLY objections raised against evolution is a mistake (and a bit closed-minded?)" What are the objections to evolution besides 'It doesn't say that in (insert old book here)'? I'm not aware of any. Yes, there are plenty of ignorant objections, but they are easily refuted, and they amount to no more than the objections of a flat-earther to 'spherists'.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z i really dont understand why you quote me...but anyway i think it is just a little funny that you bother to ask me what other objections are... before informing me that whatever they may be, they are ignorant and easily refuted. clearly, sir, your knowledge far exceeds that of anyone who refutes your interpretations. i can give you one thing, you are certainly a confident person. the character limit provide in the comments isnt really enough. perhaps you would like to message me?
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@xwhitechocolatex i am a student and i enjoy learning new things. i would honestly like to hear from you - if you are truly a scientist. i would find actually talking to a true scientist enlightening... however if you lied to me, please do not waste my time. (i am not suggesting i dont believe you)
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
@Misterb0z and i only suggested the origin of the species for darwins comments about the fossil record and what the lack of transitional fossils would imply... i never said it was the most up-to-date source on the actual discovery of transitional fossils, friend... i suppose his comments are meaningless to you if you do believe the fossil record is complete
xwhitechocolatex 1 year ago
Why would they use a dog-breeding example if that negates their point? All labradors (however purebred) are not identical. The smallest of differences (e.g., being ever-so-slightly undersize or oversize) could then be selected to eventually breed chihuahua-size labradors, or horse-sized ones. Question - is a chihuahua sized lab still a lab? Not really...and it can't mate with a horse-size lab...in any case, the huge puppies would kill the mother in labour. Result? Two separate species.
alfuentesev 1 year ago
If your point was that CDK007's evolution "sim" does not accurately model the extent of variability in the natural world, well done.
If you had any other point then you clearly misunderstand the demonstration.
efaulkner 1 year ago
If wolves breeding with wolves result in dogs, why do wolves still exist?
mcilrain 1 year ago
@mcilrain you missed a few words: "if (some) wolves breeding with (certain other wolves) result in (somewhat more doggy-like offspring that mate with other more doggy-like offspring over millenia and eventually lead to a new species called) dogs, (it's no surprise that wolves that didn't join in the breeding game stayed wolfy). It also helped that dogs co-evolved with humans, who inadvertently selected the friendliest, most useful ones as pets. The original wolves, once again, kept clear.
alfuentesev 1 year ago
2:59 lolwut?
MoonPies27 1 year ago
You really haven't customized your Windows before have you?
darketernal3 1 year ago
"Turning an 8 bit number to lara croft" :\
Why do you creationists choose to lie?
Kan2209 1 year ago
The environment changing to red would be the equivalent of the environment here on earth changing to molten lava, of course nothing would survive. The representation of white, grey, and black environments are to demonstrate changing but livable environments. And you completely miss the point on the 8 bit analogy, it's just describing a finite set of variables. BTW, bread a group of labradors for 1,000 yrs in a changing environment and you would end up with a species based on lab, but evolved
JD2005 1 year ago 2
@JD2005
Haha... I was just going to say that. Except.. I would have used "The earth into a white dwarf"...
It's easy for people who don't really understand Evolution to confuse the details with the concept.
darketernal3 1 year ago
that's cheap.
1: evolution is about adaptation, which was shown on HERW.PI
2: you can show that inside a 3D world those 8bit actualy can evolve into Lara Croft, but the program to simulate that would be about as complicated, as modeling our planet, with all we know about physics inside of it (which is a hell of a job).
3: if you randomly kill (not only change) some of the windows parts it actualy becomes faster and more efficient (in most of the cases).
4: about the collor back to 2: .
AxEnTiger 1 year ago
Comment removed
AxEnTiger 1 year ago
the point with the windows XP exaple is that a random mutation in a complex program makes it work exactly as it did before?
KappaWii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just watched your 'how evolution really doesnt work' video and I think you are an absolute fucking moron. It makes no sense whatsoever. You can make all kinds of dogs out of wolves? What the fuck? Are you retarded? You are a prime example of evolution gone wrong.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Foolish and misdirected
UsqueAdNauseam 1 year ago
People who disagree with evolution don't need to be convinced, but educated.
luitzenhietkamp 1 year ago
The only thing this video proves is that it's basically impossible to dumb down evolution enough for creationists to understand it. That being the case, you'd think they'd stop talking about it. You don't see a lot of history buffs starting up conversations about fractal calculus, so why do amateur theologians feel the need to yap nonsensically about biology?
DarthVictive 1 year ago
You are a moron. Nobody is claiming that Windows XP is the result of natural selection, only you.
Also, you obviously you don't understand the concept of *MODEL*; this program was not meant to simulate the universe.
And your whole video is a red herring; the original video shows a population that fits their environment as if it was designed to do so, but without artificial design, nor artificial selection, but with natural selection.
Even if it's a tiny bit, it's still *evolution*.
felipec 1 year ago
AND your examples are sorely lacking because you are applying them across only 100 years and 2 animals. It shows you do not understand evolution as a theory at all. For those of us that are not foolish enough to think the world is only 6000 years old, we know that this transformation takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, but more importantly hundreds of thousans of generations....
submitu911 1 year ago
I do not understand how a group of people, even though there are so many groups that do it, cannot accept the recorded documented, demonstrated face of evolution. They hang so dearly to Biblical bullshit that they cannot see past the page that the crap itself is written on.
The Bible is not real, CREATION is a myth used to get religion in a classroom.
GO AWAY.
submitu911 1 year ago
Another 8-bit into another 8-bit. A DNA sequence into another DNA sequence. You just answered how evolution really works.
mosquitoe4 1 year ago
This person proved their ignorance within the first 20 seconds. Good job!
markevens 1 year ago
Please make a video debunking gravity. I am sure you are capable of it.
fishmonkeybird 1 year ago
@fishmonkeybird I bet it will start saying how gravity is fake.
JoakoXWacho 1 year ago
If you breed two wolves together yes you will get all sorts or breeds of dogs over a fair few generations, and if you breed Labradors together selecting only the traits for Labradors then yes you will get only labs, but if your selection criteria is different then eventually you will get different sub-types. You may never get a pit bull out of it I dunno but eventually you breed something that could never be distinctly called a lab.
DaysDX 1 year ago
If you can't understand the simple logic behind the sim that tried to explain the mechanism of evolution, you will never understand the reality of evolution.
Live retarded with creationism!
kokopingo 1 year ago
i think the underlying cause of this argument is "hopeful" people's inability to accept that the universe is meaningless, with the inability of "realistic" people to accept that the universe may actually mean SOMETHING
im not a buddhist, but i truly do believe in a middle path
and edinburgh, as a christian who is educated in science, i really think yo ushould watch the Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton
fatwadmcskylar 1 year ago
Seriously, you have to take into consideration that his simulation was a cheap model meant only to show the BASIC mechanism evolution works on.
Instead of disproving by saying his sim doesnt meet our universe's standards, well it better well not meet our standards cuz i know i live in something a bit more complex and beautiful than a couple 8 bit numbers. Put our universe in the same situation being only black and white, and it fits just fine.
fatwadmcskylar 1 year ago
Watching this video was like watching a dog barking at a vacuum cleaner.
TheFunkadelicFan 1 year ago
According to creatinoist methophorically speaking they belive that a 3d model of lara croft was created just as is. there were no pixels or codes - that model of lara croft just magically appears.
badpanda84 1 year ago
"turning one 8 bit number into another 8 bit number is change. but it is not evolution!" False; evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. No more, no less.
"Evolution would be turning an 8 bit number into.../...A 3D model of Lara Croft" And yet there was a time when 8-bit was the most-advanced for graphics...
"Given all eternity your sim will only produce black, white and grey!" Disregarding color and word recognition which could rise from mutations...
Lol
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"In programming, color would be a parameter.../...but melanin synthesis is like a program" And how does the computer read that parameter? *in imitation of Desertphile* PROGRAMS!
"Make a random change to a parameter and you stand a good chance of a sensible result." NATURAL mutations DO activate/deactivate, copy/delete, lengthen/shorten, and overall change whole sections. Parameter type kept and the replica can change to another type.
Gir: season1: ep19: Your intelligence is stupid.
onijester56 1 year ago
hah you are such a closed minded person
JM12101 1 year ago
"They cannot develop any novel features." This is wrong. His sim was a simplification, sure, but if allowed to expand to more bits and put in a more complex enviroment, like say, the travelling salesman problem, it would probably perform better then a human.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Well I suppose you really just ignored his video about mutations adding information to the genome didn't you?
I mean you could refute that claim and save yourself a bunch of steps like this video. Just saying.
snoman99991 1 year ago
Fail... -_-
BlazzingSaber 1 year ago
oh yeah and mutation before a multicelled orginism is formed doesnt cause cancer. it causes a multi celled animal or plant that may survive with this variation
sameritaco 1 year ago
do change. if they didnt explain my right ear and how that also causes my right foot to have three toes in the middle be lifted without the rest of my toes. it's a mutation that effects two parts of my bady. anyone else have a natural elf ear and a screwed up foot. bad thing is im gay so we wont be seing my chilren with my awsome ear unless i donate sperm.
sameritaco 1 year ago
natural selection and time gives us what we have today. al his organisms given time CAN go to your red enviroment. especially because they will have no preditors there yet. in fact that red area can allow diversity amoung the species and once to diverse or seperated through other means the organisms will seperate and only produce sterile children. they cant develope features, only the offspring can. u are so smart. uno u should be a teacher to other mentally handicaped people. and know genes
sameritaco 1 year ago
most illogical,
maybe you should read a book about gegetics
(and dog breeding)
dump00001 1 year ago
I hear a brainwashed christian!
Remscar 1 year ago
Also computer software do evolve so does all technology. Windows 7 did not magically appear, but got incrementally better and better starting with CP/M, DOS, Windows 1,... Not the best OS or computers survived but those that could adapt to what people needed and could be produced fast enough. If you know software then you see it is a patchwork of different parts that got randomly selected because it worked back then and is still in there.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Is this guy actually claiming that you can run XP on only 8 bits of memory?
Imagine what we would be able to do if we have a 2 byte memory!
Also a random bit change in Windows does not automatically create a blue-screen. It depends on what bit changed the other billion bits. and have no blue screen as result, just maybe a bad paycheck.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Wow this video is fail, its nothing more then some one giving there personal opinion as if it was proven fact. The FACT is evolution has been PROVEN and there is no argument left to make. The debate of evolution VS. creation can to an end about 150 years ago. What your saying in this video is the equivalent of thinking that the earth is flat, even tho its proven to be round.
defiythelie 1 year ago
@defiythelie ...its nothing more then some one giving there personal opinion as if it was proven fact.
The same thing can also be said about your comment.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
beneficial mutation nylonase!!!!
It was a beneficial frame-shift mutation WHICH ADDED INFORMATION!!!
YesIamJames 1 year ago
This video should be renamed, "How creationists really don't understand how evolution works".
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago 33
@TheHomelessCripple I know people can be so ignorant.
HDv1de0 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
Let´s assume I as a creationist don´t understand how evolution works, I imply do know how it works...
so you tell me, How one of those weird cambrian marine creatures was turned, changed, transformed or evolved into humans, at least I know it took several generations and millions of years, because that´s exactly what your theory claim as fact, right? ...
Of course you need to back up your arguements
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens so, you want to know how aquatic cambrian organisms gradually evolved into homosapiens?
That's easy, mutation + natural selection. If you don't understand that then I can't really help you out any further.
As for evidence of common ancestry there's ERV's, genome sequencing, phylogeny and the nested hierarchy, the fusion of 2 ape chromosomes forming human chromosome #2, Lancelet (one of the earliest ancestor of vertebrate), Tiktaalik (one of the earliest tetropods). etc.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
So basically if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant is a fairy tale, but just given enough time, a lot of mutations, all in the perfect order, at the right time and in the right place plus natural selection, a fish can turn into a human being, right?...let`s assume your claim is accurate and correct and your scientific myth works,...What proof and evidence that mutations plus natural selection could accomplish such an unsurmountable task?
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
@realhomosapiens ugh, i just gave you evidence. I'm not going to waste my time with someone so intellectually incredulous that they result to atrociously absurd straw man arguments.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
What evidence do you have that a fish produced a mammal? Of course after serveral generations and mutations and all that stuff...I understand that...
How do you bridge the fish to mammal transition? me entendiste o te lo vuelvo a explicar?
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens there is no direct transition from fish to mammals, that question is just stupid beyond belief. The major transition is called Tiktaalik, the earliest known tetrapod and the transition from swamp/coastal-dwelling finned "fish" to amphibians with full finger and hand bones and wrists which were used for crawling on land part of the time.
TheHomelessCripple 11 months ago
@TheHomelessCripple
Fishes produces fishes, reptiles produce reptiles and mammal produce reptiles, do you agree?
I don`t think you will not agree, now, where did you get the idea that reptiles produced mammals, of course not on a single generation but given enough time, that`s the greatest stupidity ever made in the name of science...and that`s exactly what your stupid scientific myth is claiming, that just given enough time reptiles produced mammals, that`s plain garbage not science...
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens no I don't agree with you. Organisms reproduce with variation and the ones that are most adapted to their environment continue to reproduce. Your argument is analogous to "When I take a step I only move half a meter, therefore walking a kilometer is impossible", but guess what? given enough time (and enough steps), it is!
Speciation has been observed, it's documented AND reproduced in the lab both naturally and through DNA manipulation. You lose, get over it.
TheHomelessCripple 11 months ago
@TheHomelessCripple
So basically you`ve been deceived to believe that, if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant, (amphibian to mammal) it`s a fairy tale, but if step by step, little by little in millions of year the very same amphibian turns into a mammal, actually turned into a Prince, you know, humans, that`s not a fairy tale but science, right?
Yours is a fairy tale too, but yours took millions and millions of years, other than that it`s exactly the very same fairy tale, capizca?
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens ya, it' is a fairy-tale, created to support the leftist conspiracy of 250 years, involving hundreds of thousands of independant scientists to brainwash children to think their great granfather was a worm so the government can steal your tax dollars so they can mandate vaccines that will kill all the old people and user in a New World Order ran the Illuminati.
Don't even know why I even tried reasoning with you. You're a fucking joke
TheHomelessCripple 11 months ago
@TheHomelessCripple
So reasoning for you is this: If a frog change to a Prince in an instant it´s false, hence a tale for kids at bedside, right? but and oooh wha a big but
If an amphibian (frog) change to a human (Prince) in millions of years, step by step little by little by means of random mutations and natural selection (evolution) that is true, hence is science and therefore should be taught at every single class room all over the world, right?
Is that reasoning for you? wooooooooooow
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens Watch on the PBS dot org web site , a TV series called NOVA. There is one recent episode called "What Darwin Never Knew"
It explains it all for you.
There is nothing to say creationism and evolution cannot coexist. Something started it, and it allowed to progress on its own. But I guess you are taking the word of of some book, with no telling who really wrote it while physical evidence exists of evolution.
trentcreek 11 months ago
@trentcreek
First of all, I want you to know, even if the Bible were never written, even if it could be demostrated that God does not exist...believing that an amphibian by means or random mutation and natural selection, evolution if you will, turned, changed or transformed into a human is the very same fairy tale of the frog to a Prince, the only two differences are:
Evolution vs a kiss
Millions of years vs an instant
I hope you`re enough to understand, doubtfull but I hope
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is evidence of this. The gene for a fish gill is inside every species. You can see fish gills in humans during the first phase of development in the fetus.
At least try looking at evidence before making assertions you really know nothing of.
trentcreek 11 months ago
@trentcreek
Really? Why don`t you go ahead and doble check your "evidence", lest you want to disclosure yourself as:
First of all, ignoramous on embryology and secondly you may realize that you have been deceived, deeple deceived, please check it out...
You should contact Francis Collins to find out what that what you just argued is not too far away from any factual observation...
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
@trentcreek
Really? Why don`t you go ahead and doble check your "evidence", lest you want to disclosure yourself as:
First of all, ignoramous on embryology and secondly you may realize that you have been deceived, deeple deceived, please check it out...
You should contact Francis Collins to find out that what you just argued is too far away from the truth, I understand you`re desperately looking for evidence, but please hallucinations are not acceptable, that`s not the wey science works...
realhomosapiens 11 months ago
Comment removed
trentcreek 11 months ago
@realhomosapiens Belief is not required, and is in fact a retardant to the process of scientific inquiry. All collected evidence supports the theory of evolution. No collected evidence goes against it. Science doesn't operate based on belief; it operates based on interpreting empirical data collected through repeatable means.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit dont satisfy this guy with an arguement,
if hes a big enough idiot to argue against evolution by saying an amphibian never turned into a human then hes too dumb to get through to
konohanominato 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
No collected evidence goes against that humans descend from a fish? you´ve got to be kidding...rabbits produces rabbits, finches produces finches, salamanders produces salamanders, gulls produces gulls, horses...horses and the list goes on and on, and you said No collected evidence goes agains the stupid idea that given enough time by means of random mutations and natural selection (evolution) a population of fishes turned or changed into humans? Where did you study little boy?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens You are correct. No collected evidence controvenes evolution. All collected evidence supports it. We do not descend from 'fish' as they're known today, but both fish and humans share a common ancestor. Biologists can directly and accurately predict how long ago a common ancestor was shared with any other species on earth. For example, humans and rainbow trout share a common ancestor somewhere around 450 million years ago.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
This suddenly turned too interesting, humans DO NOT descend from a fish but both share a common ancestor?...humans and raibow trout share a common ancestor? are you kidding or better saying hallucinating? tell me what it was like?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
For example, humans and rainbow trout share a common ancestor somewhere around 450 million years ago.
Such a mysterious humans and raibow trout ancestor is pending? Who was that guy? or it´s too much to ask for? jajajajajaja
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Just because you lack the cognitive capacity to understand something, or the curiosity to learn about a subject, does not make it false. An argument from ignorance is a major logical fallacy.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
I do assume you have a huge cognitive capacity to understand "something", hence I do assume that you´re not an ignoramous either...so tell me, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, Who was this guy?...I understand that individuals don´t evolve but population, this is just to put the question in simpler terms, as you can see I just have a litte cognitive capacitiy, now little cognitive boy tell me, Who was this guy?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Hahah wow. Repeating 'cognitive' over and over for the win? You can try and make yourself feel all big and mighty by continuing to say 'little boy' if you wish, but in actuality it just makes you look pathetically small-minded. Of course, the rambling circuitous flailings do the same thing. -All- life shares common ancestors, it's just a question of how far back you have to look in order to find it. Your inability to comprehend an idea is not evidence said idea is false.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
So you´re one of those who trully belive that that whole diversity of life on earth plants & animals living and extinct evolved, there you are the word, from a simple celled organism? wooow?
Once again, I´m dumb you´re smart, I do admit it, but tell me smart-one Who was that guy that diverged into humans and chimpanzees? according to your scientific myth that is a fact, so if it´s a fact, tell me Who was this guy?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens A fossile sample of the last-common-ancestor between the two has yet to be found. It'd be neat if it was, but not necessary; precisely because belief is not necessary to the process. Evidence shows conclusively the truth of evolution; the evidence which has been gathered directly backs up predictions, and enables predictions to be made with an extremely high degree of accuracy in places where fossils are missing. It all has to do with mutation rates and genetic similarity
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
So basically you don´t even have a clue who was this guy? you´re a faithfull man, you believe in mysterious creatures and quite frankly assume they were there....sorry about that....but believing that humans share a common ancestor with a fish or something like it´s even worst than believing in santa clauss, since you believe your belief is science...got it? What a shame that this kind of stuff is being taught as it were science...that´s really shamefull
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Arguments from Ignorance/Incredulity are particularly idiotic. There are no assumptions; as I said, there are predictions based upon verifiable data. That's how science works. Just because you do not understand it, does not make it false. I do not 'believe' humans shared a common ancestor with fish, chimpanzees, or anything else; I know it. Because there is research and data available which conforms to verifiable fact which demonstrates it.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Because there is research and data available which conforms to verifiable fact which demonstrates it.
Really? . . . You´ve got to be kidding, if data is available, tell me, Who was that mysterious humans and raibow trout common ancestor? you said that evolution is a demostrated fact, backed up by research and data, how come you´re still unable to to tell me Who was that guy? I´m affraid your scientific myth is not so observational data supported, or is it?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Data -are- available. Data is a plural word. There's nothing mysterious about any of this. The common ancestor of both probably resembled something like a urochordate; a hermaphroditic filter-feeder. There is, however, no direct evidence of what it looked like. You absolutely do not understand evolution nor its supporting data by continually asking the same question over and over.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
I do absolutely do not undertand evilution nor its supporting data? hmmm,
How do you call the process by which something like a urochordate off spring diverged into humans and other creatures? What word would you use to refer to this mythical claim?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Genetic similarity, and the processes use to determine it, give an indication of how long ago two species shared a common ancestor, they do not tell much about said common ancestor. Very few animals, comparitively, actually left fossilized remains behind to study. And just knowing genetic information doesn't (yet) have a translation to being able to see what something looks like. That's going to take a few more advances in the subject before it's possible.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit But something being an as-yet unknown is absolutely not a reason to throw one's hands into the air and declare 'well, god must have done it.' Examining what is present in the genetics of two species can, with some complex and involved steps, give you an idea of how long ago they were related, it cannot be used to determine the genetic code of the ancestor species (yet, anyway). And this is not Jurassic Park; knowing something's genome doesnt instantly reveal all about a thing
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
If that is the case, Why Bonobos and chimpanzees DNA are more similar to humans, when in reality those two creatures should be more similar between them? seems to me your genetic similarity does not work, take a closer look at it, and find out for yourself,
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Bonobo and Chimpanzee have their most recent common ancestor about 3 million years ago. Bonobo and human, about 6-7 million years ago. Chimpanzee and human about the same, 6-7 million years ago. You're completely wrong in your assertation that bonobo/chimpanzee is more similar to human than to each other (bonobo/chimp follows the same track for a while after the divergence from human ancestors). You continue to just make things up to try and support your bad position *applause*
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit The last common ancestor of humans, bonobos and chimpanzees was more like a bonobo than any of the other three species. Simplistically put, that bonobo-like ancestor diverged into two. One of the two eventually became humans, the other became modern Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Of course, that is so incredibly simplistically put and ignores a huge amount of the subject, but hopefully it's at a level you can process.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Really?
But when David Reich, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute in Boston, and his colleagues sequenced tens of thousands of random snippets of DNA from bonobos and chimps, then compared these to the matching sequences of the complete chimp and human genomes, they found a surprise. In 453 of their sequences, either bonobos or chimps proved to be more closely related to humans than to each other
Now you know it, stop believing in a scientific fairy tale, please do so
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens That is not even slightly what Reich's research suggests; his research is between human and chimpanzee, and suggests that the two species interbred for millions of years after most accepted research says they no longer did, while searching for genetic markers which may suggest succeptability to disease. It has caused controversy, yes - but science thrives on controversy. If his data are correct and replicatable, existing theory may have to be edited.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Nooope, your stupid theory is supported by evidence, right? and DNA proves that chimps and bonobos are more close related to humans than they´re themselves, that proves that comparing the DNA is futile, BTW did you know that humans and bananas are 50% plus similar at DNA level? I haven´t seen a banana-like human, have you?...your evolutionary theory claim is based on thin-air, something only real scientists can realize of it, will you?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens You really do like to just make things up out of nowhere. It's amusing that the only things you can come up with are either purposeful misunderstandings or just flat-out lies; and it also lets everyone know just how wrong your position is. Also; the fact that humans share genetic information with bananas just goes to show that everything -is- interrelated, and is a point in favour for evolution, thanks for proving my point!
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Wait a minute, that some AT/CG matches in bananas and humanas genomes DOES NOT mean that bananas are my relative, a stupid interpretation based on your scientific myth, Did you know that there was a man outside the White House almost identical to G. Bush, by the same principle they were TWINS,...but you & me Know they were not even relatives....nice argument, but no, it does not work...try again...now, if it´s evidence for you, so be it.
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens (And the vast majority of DNA is encoding for the production of enzymes, proteins, amino acids, and everything else which is required for cellular life to perpetuate itself; and considering the vast similarities between all cells, and the common ancestry of all cells, things being similar is entirely -expected-... Only a very small part of the genome has to do with things like physical appearance of species and individuals.)
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Even worst, if the vast majority of DNA encodes for proteins production, it means the rest encode for physical appearance, in such a case we´re to different at DNA level to bananas, that´s why any ancestry is ludicrous...something you have been deluded to reject by default...being similarities in the DNA encoding of proteins productions has nothing to do with any ancestry, the only way to believe in such a claim is that a strong delusion is upon you, I see no other option.
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Errm. No, that's not even in the same parsec as your 'twins' analogy. Direct familial relationship is nowhere near genetic similarity. Keep furiously straw-manning though, it really screams 'take my position seriously!' As for your 'WHARRGARBL' about DNA encoding; it's hard to even begin to start when you're being so incredibly incoherent. Identical processes inside the cell controlled by incredibly similar gene sequences are strong evidence for common descent.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Nooope, incredibly similar gene sequences are the strongest evidence that since there is no evidence whatsoever that humans evolved from a primitive fish, the only way to support this ludicrous and certainly unscientific claim, it´s to manufacture such evidence, now i´m not a genetist, hence my arguments are not valid...gene sequence similarity is just that, gene sequence similarity, the interpretation given by the scientists MUST be according to the scientific myth...got it?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens I see, now your argument is "I don't want to believe evidence, so I'll claim that people are manufacturing said evidence." You go from argument from ignorance to constructing straw-men like the only crafter of scarecrows in the entire world, to basically shoving your hands in your ears and screaming about how much nobody wants to listen to your unsubstantiated 'truth' which contravenes all known data. At least you're being a champ at showing how laughable your position is!
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Nooope, Nooope, Nooope, It´s true that some gene sequences are similary, that´s a fact....but claiming that such similarity is evidence that bananas and humans share a common ancestor is plain lunacy, that is not science, that is a scientific halluciantion, a scientific one, nevertheless a huge hallucination...BTW What other evidence do you have to claim the the bananas/human common ancestry? just curios
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens Errm... "Claiming that a similarity between things means there's a similarity is plain lunacy!"... Wow... Hahah. Guess you're back to "I don't want to believe it's true so I'll just make stuff up." And it's not 'evidence I have,' it's evidence that plenty of science has demonstrated. Once again, I'm not here to do your research for you; there is no peer-reviewed controvention of evolution; solely twits who're scared that it's true.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
wow. I am overwhelmed with your pursue of general knowledge. PEACE :P
KEEETARO 10 months ago
@KEEETARO The world is an endlessly fascinating place; the pursuit of understanding it is equally as interesting. The inter-relationship between a vast number of systems and processes, and being able to grasp those, is infinitely more satisfying than sitting back and saying 'I dont know how this works, therefore god,' as well as being infinitely more uplifting and empowering. Completely unlike religion, and its lunacy, which diminishes humanity, and tries to convince us we're so very small.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens But the editing of theory is one of the fundamental strengths of science; whenever new data comes along which controvenes existing theory, theory must be changed to fit the data. Unlike the lies you'd tell, where there is 'one absolute truth which can never be questioned.'
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens (not to mention his data does nothing to change evolutionary theory at all, merely changes the time when certain things happen... Which once again shows that the only arguments you have are based upon lies, or are direct lies. Congrats?)
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Your evolutionary theory claims and asserts with hype and fanfare that humans evolved from one of those weird cambrian marine creatures, something you´re light years away to even cross your mind...Have you ever think about it?
realhomosapiens 10 months ago
@realhomosapiens We didn't didn't really evolve from cambrian marine creatures, we evolved from Homo erectus, which was very much like a human. Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, which was very much like Homo habilis, which evolved from ... You see my point. This process goes all the way back to Camrian marine creatures. Which - as you correctly state - is light years away from us. But at not time is any creature evolve into something that wasn't very very similar.
Vincentaneous 9 months ago
@Vincentaneous
I appreciatte your comment...but now tell me...if we go back all the way to the cambrian era...if we run backwards homo habilis evolved from what, and that what evolved from what, and what, what, what started to evolved into humans if we go back all the way back to the Cambrian era? that´s my question
realhomosapiens 9 months ago
@realhomosapiens Where is the missing or impossible link between humans and some hydra or sea-cucumber type creature that lived in the Cambrian era? In other words, which step(s) could not have happened? Which gap cannot be crossed?
Vincentaneous 9 months ago
@Vincentaneous
Well you tell me, Which gap has been crossed? to the best of my knowledge and to the best definition of a transitional form, there is none...
realhomosapiens 9 months ago
@realhomosapiens There was no gap between humans and the earliest form of life. Evolution cannot cross gaps, it must flow continuously. A fish cannot give birth to an amphibian. That would be impossible. So there are no gaps. Every single generation is a transition. All living things are transitional forms. There are no gaps in evolution.
Vincentaneous 9 months ago
@Vincentaneous
I bet you´re right, a fish can not give birth to an amphibian...but given enough time a fish can turn into an amphibian, and in the very same way an amphibian can not give birth or produce a mammal, am I right?, NOW, if a frog turns into a Prince in an instant it´s a fairy tale, but according to your theory an amphibian somehow could turn into a mammal? something is seriously wrong in this claim, isn´t it? think about it...
realhomosapiens 9 months ago
@realhomosapiens Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't occur over time. Watch some AronRa (the smartest man on youtube), and he'll explain. Watch this vid as well: watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc
Now you'll say, but yes these are all salamanders, but if in a few million years they can change into ones that can not breed with each other if they are too far away, but can still breed with their neighbors, now make it 100's of miilions of years.
veggiescrub 8 months ago
@veggiescrub
Well, within the nex 100´s of millions years they still will be salamanders...AAAAAAALL the observational data confirms, that a member of the class reptilia produce only reptilia but you believe that given enough time class reptilia brought forth class mammalia...that´s vooodo science my friend, unfortunatelly it´s in our textbooks and any science lectures in univeristies all over the world...that´s silly, and unscientific too
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@realhomosapiens What is your evidence that salamanders cannot eventually evolve into another class? We have fossil records that follow how whales evolved from land animal to water dweller. As you dig deeper to lower more ancient strata such as the Cambrian, there are no mammals. No bunnies, horses, monkeys or man. Not one. Why? Where did our science education system go so terribly wrong that you believe science is unscientific? Watch: "Qualiasoup: Skewed view of Science" for starters.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby
Well science education system teaches us the very same frog to prince transformation but in more sutile way...when a frog turns into a prince in an instant you label that as a tale for kids, right? but when you´re taught that humans descend from one of those weird cambrian marine creature you come to believe that is science, right? did you see how both tales are exactly the same, but the first one took an instant and the other one took millions and millions of years? got it?
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby
Well, if after several millions of years the just have evolved into more salamander, Which should I hallucinate that somehow they will evolve into something else other than a salamander? as a matter of fact EVERY SINGLE case of speciation observed has only produced the same basic crature...300 hundred different races of horses with a common ancestor, guess what it was? I bet you´re right, a horse...charly finches had a common ancestor,guess what it was? you´re righ again...
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@realhomosapiens Your logic is like saying " We have never seen a continent break away from another continent during our lifetimes. We have only seen small tectonic movement of feet, not continents moving hundreds of miles." So if evolution is a myth, why are there no mammals in the Cambrian layers?
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby
Well humans and coelecanths have lived together and no coelecanths and humans fossils have been found in any layer? Can you explain that for me?
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@realhomosapiens Yes, I have two explanations. First, one is land dwelling creature and the other is a sea creature. Land and sea layers do not layer up together. Second, How sure are you that no coelecanths and human fossils have not been found within the last 100,000 years? That still leaves the question why no mammals have been found in the Cambrian layers.That has long been the argument of falsifiable Theory. It is a fact that no mammals have every been found in the Cambrian. Why?
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby
Which means that even if two different creatures live at the very same time you will not up finding fossils of both creatures...that´s my point...
By the very same reason, mammals have roamed this planet since about 250 millions years ago, so mammals have lived with coelecanths for that long, nevertheless we haven´t find mammals and coelecanths in the same layer and in any layer....it´s obvious that living at the same time does not assure to have fossils of both creatures
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@realhomosapiens My point was there is vast difference between finding one rare species within a 100,000 year window and finding ANY common mammal like rats, cats, tigers, dogs, rabbit, horses, people... ANYTHING within the many millions of years of the Cretaceous. Not even one that comes remotely close. Not one. Should tell you the creation myth is just religious folly.
coolgreyoneabby