which part of this vid actually provided support for the process rather than just saying it happened and constructing some retarded way it could look like it happened? Do you know what is involved in the functioning of the eye? do you have an account for how the various systems, chemicals, cells etc came to be? The typical ignorant evolutionist method is to simply ignore all of biology and relevant science and make childish impossible to prove claims on how complexity could come from randomness
@FireFlamesrocks Probably not from a penis. The audio track was switched out, and a new video was made with the original words and a different, non-copyrighted song. But I bet you you're pretty familiar with big cocks.
How in the fuck can anybody, even as eerie and strange as a creationist,force you to change your sound track??? Am I missing something here? These comments are living, irrevokable proof that there is no god! How does a, gasp, heaven sound populated by these boring, nodding, grinning, subhuman turds? YEEECH!!!!
So the eye evolved from a penis. Nice trolling bro.
At times like these im sad that i went to school. All those wasted years learning retarded stuff like evolution, when all you need to do is to go on youtube and see for yourself: The eye originates from penis by the means of MsPaint.
@Aerensiniac Yes. From a penis. Not though generations of minuscule changes shaped by outside pressures and variety in the offspring. Do me a favor, watch the video with the original audio track here: watch?v=Lbm-_mQefJU. Then take your head, and insert forcefully into your own rectum.
tommorow i have an embryology test and like a fool i thought u actually could teach me something , insted u made me angry with your stupied f***ed "cartoon" , get a life!! and yep no one blessess you on this stuiped waste of time!!!!!
tommorow i have an embryology test and like a fool i thought u actually could teach me something , insted u made me angry with your stupied f***ed "cartoon" , get a life!! and yep no one blessess you on this stuiped waste of time!!!!!
@alisabitton If you're going to school, and can't spell out the word "you", I feel sorry for the next generation.
This video has nothing to do with Embryology, and might I suggest that if you're doing research on Embryology, you might want to look elsewhere. YouTube is a bunch of uploaded crap, specifically for the entertainment of morons with short attention spans.
@EricZombie , first of all , in computer language "u" is a shortcut for "you" so , please!! secondly there is a lot of clips on you tube that help, so i suggest that next time you will try harder.
@alisabitton No. "u" is NOT a shortcut for "you" in any computer language I know of. Are you talking about slang?
MAYBE you should watch this video with the original audio track, so you get the proper gist of it. Some religious Creationist bastard decided to flag the video for having an "inappropriate" audio track, forcing me to replace it with this heavy metal crap.
If a car were made of tiny polymers that (FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS) self assemble into chains, then sure. But saying that a pile of scrap should magically turn into a car is not only ridiculous, but it's a creationist strawman argument.
I'd suggest a few college courses in Biology, or barring that, this video:
First. Moles and freckles are sporadic generational skin flaws. They may respond to certain wavelengths of energy, but they do not get passed on in any predisposed way. Eyespots, however, do.
Second. There are plenty of creatures with more that two eyes. Just look at the insect world. 8 eyes, a thousand eyes... no matter. The reason mammals only have two eyes, is because it would be an unnecessary cost of energy to have any more.
Do you think that since our eyes need glasses that eventually they will evolve better. I hate how so many people have to wear glasses and I wonder why our eyes don't slowly get better. I suppose it may be because glasses are sexy and we marry people with them. Or it could be more complicated.
By utilizing glasses, people evolve into a worse vision. If a creature evolves a worse vision, natural selection applies. A bad sighted eagle has a worse chance to pass genes, because it's more likely to die (say, of starvation because it can't catch enough prey). But, people with bad eyes can make and use glasses. So human eyes can worsen, not impairing human chance to survive (to some extent). So as man's ability to make tools increases, body function qualities can decrease.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How do you know that eyespots are passed on. As you describe in your video, they first start out as simple dimples in the chain of cells. These certainly sound like "skin flaws".
Hypothetically, imagine an early human ancestor with the fictional "eye in the back of his head". Placed in a competitive environment, this ancestor would certainly survive better than his counterparts with only two eyes.
Any genetically predetermined trait can be passed on. The wrinkly skin would be a genetic variation, not a physical condition caused by outside influences.
And ironically, reptiles DO have an eye on the back of their head. They developed a third "eye" that can sense light, but developed separately from their normal eyes.
Also, you only address the formation of the retina in this video. There are several other parts (optic nerve, optic chasm, optic tract, optic projection fibers, cerebral cortex). By only showing how the retina could have been formed, it's like showing how a power supply cable could have been formed but not the computer. If you could post a video on how all those parts were evolved at the same time it would be appreciated.
The retina still came much later in the evolutionary process. The first eyes were simple. All the parts you list developed together, and over time, from earlier designs.
The optic nerve is nothing more than a modified transport nerve. The cerebral cortex would need an entirely new video, but to make it simpler for you, watch these videos.
The last and shortest one by Carl Sagan doesn't tell how the brain could have evolve. He describes what happens in the brain but only posits that the brain evolved without giving any explanation or process for how. The others I will get to later as they are fairly long.
As I stated in the description, this video is a quick overview. I did not plan on getting into the mechanics of natural selection and mutation, but if you wish, I will.
As for the "complexity" of the brain, It started off as a string of nerves, just like you would find in any early chordate. If you have any disagreement with the content of the videos, please take it up with the scientists featured in said videos.
your cartoon evolution made an eyeball that obviously evolved in order to then wait around for optic nerves that it knew it would later need. you dumbass how did this eyeball know where the brain was and then later figure out a way to wire into it.........O IT WAS MAGIC! YEAH EVO!
NOW, GO TAKE A BATH, YOU WASTED REMNANT OF A HUMAN BEING
The only people believing the eye *POOFED* into existence by magic are the religious nutters like yourself. POOF.
The nerves utilized by early eye spots were already there. Just as was a clump of nerve cells that made up a primitive brain. Didn't you learn anything while dissecting Planarians in science class?
Nothing just popped into existence on its own, then waited around to connect to other things.
Pfft... they nerves were of course already there, respectively developed together with the rest of the body. What good would any kind of sensory system be, if not connected to some sort of nerve cell system?
Besides: The human eye is not so great - is has obvious major flaws. Also, there are eg. animals that don't have a blindspot (the blindspot is where the nerves go into the brain.)
If the human eye prooves design, then why is the human eye so poorly designed compared to other species?
Steve and I have been sending messages back and forth for a couple of days now, and it's getting pretty hilarious. Just ask, and I'll send you the entire transcript, unedited!
Loved this video! I'd be interested in reading the transcript too. I've taken an interest in the psychology of people who need to maintain a delusion at any cost.
You can't actually believe what you have on this vid. This stuff just happens completely undirected? And bilaterally. On the head? Where is the optic nerve? Visual cortex? Code so the cortex can function? How does this indentation free itself up to become a ball? What are the steps to that amazing move? How do the muscles evolve? Cartoons are so neat. Reality is so tough. Muscles to the lens? Iris? Gad. Your two pieces of shit have more to them than you realize.
Nature is full of symmetry. It's easy to mirror something you already have. Of course evolution would place the eyes on the head. It's the highest point of the organism, easy to see predators and prey. It's natural selection again, remember? If they were placed in any other spot, and it didn't benefit the creature, IT WOULD DIE. All nerve cells are attached to the brain through the spinal column, why would photosensitive cells in the eye be any different? It's merely more developed.
That way, it can carry all those electrical pulses to the brain to be processed. How did it "free itself up to become a ball"? Probably in the same way you get goosebumps. More rotation equals better chance at survival, and if all that icky connective tissue is gone, it makes for frictionless rotation. The muscles were already connected to the skin, just took a few million generations to weed out the less desirable ones. The eye IS complex, but not irreducibly so.
Gawd. It's all so easy. Make two dents on the head, for FUTURE bilateral 3D vision, hook up the nerves, hook up the visual cortex, oh make one first. Make a visual code, and off you go. Ooops. Make TWO eyes, then off you go. Ooops. Make a lens, I mean two, hook some muscles to auto-focus the lenses, then........Wait, hook up some muscles to move the eye. Then.....what fun natural selection is! It can do ANYTHING.
No, there is no barrier. It's just that nature doesn't make 'em. And no evolutionaut can see that. They pretend nature does. Belief over reality. Like your rabbit and reality. What the hell does a white/black rabbit have to do with the evolution of a complex visual system? Evolution of color shape and size, which is provable, has nothing to do with the evolution of complex visual systems, which isn't provable; except in your mind.
That's what Behe thought with the flagellum. Until it was proven that each individual part had individual uses, and through co-option culminated into a complex system.
To say the same couldn't happen with the eye is both intellectually dishonest and a risky assumption.
Anyway, answer the rabbit question. Is a white rabbit more likely to survive in a snowy environment than a black rabbit? Yes or no?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You fell for Miller's con? Miller used the injector that looked a bit like a flagellum motor, and fooled a bunch of people, including the Dover judge into believing he found uses for each part of the motor. What a con.
It's risky to look at the eyeball and see that it couldn't be invented & assembled without intelligence? You are really indoctrinated, and you believe anything that any evo says. I hope you are not that way with the rest of your life. A con artist would have a blast with you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Miller didn't show anything, and he fooled you and your fellow evolutionauts. I made a YT (IC) vid on the subject. You are a bunch of sheep just waiting to be fooled.
Arguing with the indoctrinated is a waste of time. I don't want to get you too tired.
Answer your rabbit question yourself. It's a worthless ask. Obviously species can change color, and trying to parallel that to the evolution of eyes is remarkable in its absurdity. Bye
"Miller didn't show anything...You are a bunch of sheep..."
Funny. You completely ignore a relevant study that contradicts your opinion, then call someone else a sheep waiting to be fooled. Smells like hypocrisy.
My rabbit question has nothing to do with change in color. Your response was either an obvious ad-hominem attack or obvious stupidity on your part.
Is a white rabbit not more likely to survive in a snowy environment? There's a hint.
He claims to not be religious, yet most of his "friends" grasp onto magical sky daddies, and even THANK him for his ignorance. He couldn't understand why a T-Rex didn't have bigger arms, thus all scientists are wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YOU MUST BE the magic guy in the sky since you know what I believe by mind reading using only the net as a source. Impressive. Mystical! Do I pray to you, or anything? Please let me know.
Please learn evolution. The process by which the environment weeds out the less fit is natural selection. This means decent with modification. Please know that natural selection also is random mutations selected for by the ENVIRONMENT. JEEZ. Like the guy above me said, the very fact that ID proponents exist, goes to show that ID cant be true.
LOL youre one to talk. YOU, the one who believes in a magical sky daddy, are telling ME, the one who believes in a natural process, to get some skepticism? lol funniest thing ive ever heard out of a fundies mouth. Its BLATANTLY obvious that you dont know a single thing about the process by which evolution works through. Mistake on my part too, it is descent with modification, not decent.
In all honesty, idiots like you give all christians a bad name.
Me: Sorry, no sky daddy. What the hell is that anyway. Did you make that up? It's so original and clever.
You think that animals choosing or not to kill and eat other animals and non-occurring good mutations made all of nature? What a laugh. You are too indoctrinated to even see how brainwashed you are. I love the euphemisms: descent with modification, natural process. You mean, for evolution, fantasy processes don't you?
The sky daddy is the non-existant god that you believe in.
Heres how Natural selection works. Start out with a population of the same species of animal. Some of these animals get some mutations which help them survive better and as a result pass their traits along more often than others. After a few generations, most animals of that pop will have that particular trait. Do the same process for millions of yrs and you would eventually get organisms that are nothing like the ones you began with.
As a matter of fact, it did make "all of nature". Or, at least, the living organisms in nature. You have *yet *to provide an explanation that is better than natural selection, and you have yet to bring any evidence to the table that proves that natural selection is false, besides your observations based on ignorance. All you do is rant about T-Rex arms and eyes. You're either a moron, (which is highly unlikely, considering your background) or you're willfully ignorant, or just insane.
Gawd. Quit calling it natural selection. Call it what it is. Non-occurring good mutations and animals eating other animals or not. That made all of nature in your mind? And YOU think I am ignorant or insane? Bye
Thanks for defining it. Natural selection is a mathematical process grounded in statistics and probability. Variation occurs in offspring, favorable variations are emphasized, the rest are culled. Over time, the variations become more pronounced. This is a very easy concept. To not get this shows ignorance on your part.
We've done it with dogs in the last 10,000 years. Just replace selective breeding with natural selection over a few billion years. Whammo, diversity of life, sucker.
In only 10,000 years, humans were able to selectively breed wolves into Chihuahuas, Great Danes, Chows, Char Peis, and all the other assorted breeds of dogs. Humans are not nearly as efficient as nature. Natural selection, over the course of billions of years, using only tiny changes from one generation to the next, was able to create eyes and hearts. You can't personally imagine any transitional forms of these organs, thus you dismiss natural selection and favor intelligent design.
And i can see how god made everything by word of mouth, especially with all the evidence pointing to an intelligent creator. (sarcasm, in case you didnt get it.)
If he was so intelligent, why did he make cancer possible? Why are our eyes so bad, why arent they a little better at least? Did he make us like this on purpose so we would suffer? If so, what an ass. If he didnt do it on purpose, then what a retard. The way our biological systems are, its retarded to believe in a creator.
You may already know this, but Audacity is free recording software that's pretty good. Also, in a pinch, you can use a pair of headphones as a microphone. It's not the greatest, but it's better than your built in microphone.
You can wrap it with a paper towel "mushroom" as a makeshift wind-screen.
If only more people didn't just give up and give in to the easy way of life, hense why religion is so popular, our species would be so much better! I don't like excuses and many of my friends I give them shit for it. Oh I'll do it tomorrow they say. I'm like No do it today. Don't be a lazy ass just do it and be done with it! Why waste you're tomorrow? People used to walk miles and miles and then we got the horse, then the bike and the car and now everyone is so used to luxury. MAKES ME SICK
Eyes are very weak. I think you said it best. The human eye is a piece of shit. Needs a lot of work. Hense why we have contacts and glasses for those people who don't have good eyes. I was born with horrible eye sight. The doctors told me I needed to wear glasses for possibly my entire life. I've always been abnormally aware and knew the cost of glasses at 7 and said no fuck that. I've done eye exercises my entire life and now have better vision then most people I know.
our eyes are developed for humans. Our eyes are not a piece of shit. If we had eyes as sharp as a eagles, our perferal vision would suck. For our life, our eyes are just right. If we saw in dark, we could not see better in day. If we saw in infered, then we miss out on natures colors. just my opinion
Well, you're correct in part. Our eyes do what they need to do to get us humans by. But I suspect, even in the recent past, the human eye was better. Even now, the eye is adapting to indoor light and focusing on nearby points. More and more people require glasses or contacts to see far distances.
The human eye is a decent light receptor to help humans get by. It could be better.
(plus, there's nothing saying we couldn't see in both visible AND infrared. some of those pics are beautiful.)
Wow, you have a good enough of an imagination to believe in an invisible, unprovable, untestable, unreliable, unpredictable deity that was based on fairy tales written by cavemen, something that took more imagination than you have in that head of yours... but you don't have enough sense to figure out natural selection. Go figure.
Better hurry sheep boy, your herd is leaving you behind.
I can't do crap, and neither can your imaginary god. The only thing that can "make" an eye is NATURAL SELECTION. Environmental pressures that cull the less preferable traits in a constantly changing population OVER MANY GENERATIONS. Scientists have already shown natural selection in faster breeding organisms, so if you got a problem with it, I suggest a good remedial science class.
blah blah blah. all i hear is stupidity pouring from your mouth-hole. you couldn't recognize bullshit if it fucked your mother.
we know the functions of the eye, and we know how natural selection works. give me a few million years and a few hundred thousand generations, and i'll give you an eye. if you're too impatient to wait for nature to take it's course, i've got one brown eye for ya.
and functional information? you talk like a retarded creationist. if you knew one iota about natural selection, you'd already know how natural properties easily self assemble into complex order, like crystals. no invisible sky daddy needed. (i'm not even going to call them "natural laws", since your dumb ass would ask something stupid like "so who passed the laws?") get a fucking education, learn your physics, go take biology, refresh yourself with mathematical probability.
Yeah. I know. He wants someone to explain "macroevolution" to him chemically. There's two things wrong with that. First, there's no such thing as "macroevolution". It's not even a word. Second, his idea of "macroevolution" is "chemically" the same as "microevolution. It's the same process, the only difference is the time frame. Small changes over a long time equals BIG CHANGE. I'm pretty sure that he's willfully ignorant enough, that his free dinner will never be claimed.
Can you make a cloud? Not too well I would guess, but nature can do it all by itself, natural laws are acting on life on Earth, that is why things operate, the processes of natural selection and mutation are the process going on here, we have a large diversity of eyeballs floating around the biosphere, and they range from simple eyes to complex, and everything in between, and all have their roots in prehistory.
correct. a camera is human kind's attempt at reproducing an eye. it works on the exact same principles. to create an eye with natural selection, though, will still take many generations of trail and error.
Influenza in particular is always mutating, the main reason we need vaccines every few years is that natural selection allows only the immune members of the species thrive.
We aren't nature, we don't need to create an eye because it wouldn't prove anything, nature has enough of an example, I do agree that this video isn't the absolute greatest to show that, but the development of the eye is a large field of study, and looking elsewhere before commenting wouldn't kill you.
GREAT VIDEO! i am recommending this to my schools biology class.(basically put the teacher is slightly biased towards creationism and it is apparent on our standardised tests) GREAT VIDEO!!
the answer is A, since B is the creation of the minds of man. though you propose a strawman argument. something didn't just randomly come from nothing, it may have been from a previous collapse of a different universe, an interdimensional event, a meeting of two branes. there's plenty of possibilities, without explaining it all away by saying a stone age mythological deity did it.
'...teacher is slightly biased towards creationism'
'apparent on our standardised tests'
I started my comment with "7." as a allusion to a test/exam. I then purposely committed a false dichotomy to not only illustrate the stereotypical stupidity of creationists, but also to make it clear I was miming the standard layout of a multiple choice quiz.
You can pretend like you made a clever comment, Greywyn7, but you were simply unclear and unable to convey what you wanted.
Did you realize that 7 is also in your name? You could have been referencing some main point you might of had to make, or be referring to some chart or sheet you had on your channel.
Dont expect everyone to understand what you are talking about if you leave it so vague.
The reason it was so easy to see as a Theist making a huge mistake again is because it happens all the time.
Just when you squash some logical fallacies, another Theist comes out of the woodwork who doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is and abuses them enough to make your eyes bleed.
'Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.'
In the future, you should make a reference to Poe's Law before refuting what you think is a stupid theists opinion. That way you are covered either way.
Yes, but you fail miserably if EVERYONE thinks you are being serious.
That is the point. C'mon, Greywyn7, NO ONE reading that comment will ever think you are being anything but serious.
I just explained why. I'm sorry you cant get over the fact that you are unable to realize how poorly you managed your effort to be funny, but thats your fault.
Edward Current is an excellent example of sarcasm and parody.
You included absolutely nothing to indicate any level of sarcasm or parody in your incredibly short comment.
That is why you fail.
I'm amusing that you are taking it so personally, trying to insist that you were indeed clearly sarcastic when no one else will ever be able to tell that you were.
How can people tell Edward Current is being sarcastic? Word choice, facial expressions, props, and body language.
You think you can let everyone know you were being sarcastic with putting a single number followed by a period.
While that makes all of the difference in the comment for you, it is meaningless to others, and there is even LESS connection as you have that very same number in your name.
I'll reiterate my point again, just to be sure you can understand it.
I was not trying to make my sarcasm evident. I was trying to Poe you. In hindsight, I realized it was probably too "serious" to perceive as sarcasm and thus pointed it out.
I thought I made it sufficiently sarcastic to bring about pause, but obviously not. I'll try to go easier on you in the future.
PS: every once in a while I get a "I think this is a Poe, but just in case...".
There is your problem right there. You used a logical fallacy we have heard over and over for decades, if not longer.
The False Dichotomy is in WIDE use, and not something ANYONE would see any other way than a serious note, especially when you give no hint otherwise or suggest any thing other than yet another retarded Theist posting a stupid comment.
I understand this. This is why, in hindsight (I've said over 3 times, I believe) I realized it wasn't obvious enough and therefore admitted it was sarcasm instead of pursuing it.
This fallacy is at the core of most every single Theist debate you will find, even among the older and more "pro" apologists.
Maybe this is due to not being in too many youtube debates? You should have known how rampant this fallacy is, even with spending a few months on youtube debates.
Edward Current uses Poe's Law as well. That is what I am aspiring to do.
I'd wager the first EC video you watched you thought he was serious. When I saw his "Checkmate Atheists" video I thought he was serious for a minute or two.
I'm amused that you think I was attempting to make my sarcasm overly conspicuous. That would constitute a "wink or a nudge" and would invalidate what I was actually attempting.
Yes, I did read what you said. EC does use a "wink and a nudge" when he's acting like a theist. I figured I did it sufficiently in my comment. Obviously not.
I've taken your critique to heart. I'll dumb down my comments in the future.
PS you can't "fail" at sarcasm. Like I said; you not perceiving the inherent sarcasm of a comment does not equate to the failure of the comment being sarcastic in of itself.
What I was attempting to do was introduce a theistic comment that would make someone think, "theists can be this stupid, but it might be a Poe...". Unfortunately, nobody read it in the context to what it was a response to and thus it fell flat on it's face.
Once again, I'll try to make it more obvious for people in the future.
When I act like a theist, my OBJECTIVE is to use Poe's Law to it's full extent. That is, I WANT people to think I'm serious.
In this case, only in hindsight did I realize the impossibility of defending my theistic argument in any shape or form. This is why, instead of drawing out the argument, I immediately labeled it as sarcasm.
Actually, it did exactly what I wanted; Poe's Law you into responding with some form of anger or contempt.
The fact that I immediately pointed out its sarcastic nature was only due to it being an impossibly stupid position to defend. Usually, when I act like a theist, I defend my points to further anger the uptight atheists on Youtube.
Your failure to detect my sarcasm does not equate to my failing at being sarcastic. One can not fail at being sarcastic.
It would make more sense for you to say that I failed at making it easy to discern the fact that my response was sarcastic in nature. However, being that this is not what I was trying to do in the first place, it is an illegitimate critique.
Dawkins' Eye-con of Evolution Unravels - Evolution News & Views bit . ly/uzMNsQ
stop making baseless stories up about how evolution could do something that it could not ever do
semitope 2 months ago
which part of this vid actually provided support for the process rather than just saying it happened and constructing some retarded way it could look like it happened? Do you know what is involved in the functioning of the eye? do you have an account for how the various systems, chemicals, cells etc came to be? The typical ignorant evolutionist method is to simply ignore all of biology and relevant science and make childish impossible to prove claims on how complexity could come from randomness
semitope 2 months ago
So it evolved from a penis...what the fuck?!
FireFlamesrocks 1 year ago 2
@FireFlamesrocks Probably not from a penis. The audio track was switched out, and a new video was made with the original words and a different, non-copyrighted song. But I bet you you're pretty familiar with big cocks.
EricZombie 1 year ago
How in the fuck can anybody, even as eerie and strange as a creationist,force you to change your sound track??? Am I missing something here? These comments are living, irrevokable proof that there is no god! How does a, gasp, heaven sound populated by these boring, nodding, grinning, subhuman turds? YEEECH!!!!
briscocreek 1 year ago
This makes no sense
taunte78965 1 year ago
This makes no sence
taunte78965 1 year ago
dumbest video ever posted especially the music
runnersluck1 1 year ago
@runnersluck1 true that.
EricZombie 1 year ago
So the eye evolved from a penis. Nice trolling bro.
At times like these im sad that i went to school. All those wasted years learning retarded stuff like evolution, when all you need to do is to go on youtube and see for yourself: The eye originates from penis by the means of MsPaint.
Do the world a favour and shoot yourself.
Aerensiniac 1 year ago
@Aerensiniac Yes. From a penis. Not though generations of minuscule changes shaped by outside pressures and variety in the offspring. Do me a favor, watch the video with the original audio track here: watch?v=Lbm-_mQefJU. Then take your head, and insert forcefully into your own rectum.
EricZombie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tommorow i have an embryology test and like a fool i thought u actually could teach me something , insted u made me angry with your stupied f***ed "cartoon" , get a life!! and yep no one blessess you on this stuiped waste of time!!!!!
alisabitton 1 year ago
tommorow i have an embryology test and like a fool i thought u actually could teach me something , insted u made me angry with your stupied f***ed "cartoon" , get a life!! and yep no one blessess you on this stuiped waste of time!!!!!
alisabitton 1 year ago
@alisabitton If you're going to school, and can't spell out the word "you", I feel sorry for the next generation.
This video has nothing to do with Embryology, and might I suggest that if you're doing research on Embryology, you might want to look elsewhere. YouTube is a bunch of uploaded crap, specifically for the entertainment of morons with short attention spans.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@EricZombie , first of all , in computer language "u" is a shortcut for "you" so , please!! secondly there is a lot of clips on you tube that help, so i suggest that next time you will try harder.
alisabitton 1 year ago
@alisabitton No. "u" is NOT a shortcut for "you" in any computer language I know of. Are you talking about slang?
MAYBE you should watch this video with the original audio track, so you get the proper gist of it. Some religious Creationist bastard decided to flag the video for having an "inappropriate" audio track, forcing me to replace it with this heavy metal crap.
EricZombie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this entire video is based off of assumptions!
explain to me how you could have a car evolve from a pile of scrap while it still maintain a working function... impossible.
GabrielGroverMan 2 years ago
If a car were made of tiny polymers that (FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS) self assemble into chains, then sure. But saying that a pile of scrap should magically turn into a car is not only ridiculous, but it's a creationist strawman argument.
I'd suggest a few college courses in Biology, or barring that, this video:
youtube. com / watch ?v =m cAq9 bmCe R0
EricZombie 2 years ago
Why is it that moles and freckles do not turn into eyeballs, and why would only two eyes develop?
agnostic1100 2 years ago
Two very excellent questions.
First. Moles and freckles are sporadic generational skin flaws. They may respond to certain wavelengths of energy, but they do not get passed on in any predisposed way. Eyespots, however, do.
Second. There are plenty of creatures with more that two eyes. Just look at the insect world. 8 eyes, a thousand eyes... no matter. The reason mammals only have two eyes, is because it would be an unnecessary cost of energy to have any more.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Do you think that since our eyes need glasses that eventually they will evolve better. I hate how so many people have to wear glasses and I wonder why our eyes don't slowly get better. I suppose it may be because glasses are sexy and we marry people with them. Or it could be more complicated.
agnostic1100 2 years ago
By utilizing glasses, people evolve into a worse vision. If a creature evolves a worse vision, natural selection applies. A bad sighted eagle has a worse chance to pass genes, because it's more likely to die (say, of starvation because it can't catch enough prey). But, people with bad eyes can make and use glasses. So human eyes can worsen, not impairing human chance to survive (to some extent). So as man's ability to make tools increases, body function qualities can decrease.
dante4d 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How do you know that eyespots are passed on. As you describe in your video, they first start out as simple dimples in the chain of cells. These certainly sound like "skin flaws".
Hypothetically, imagine an early human ancestor with the fictional "eye in the back of his head". Placed in a competitive environment, this ancestor would certainly survive better than his counterparts with only two eyes.
uberjinks 2 years ago
Any genetically predetermined trait can be passed on. The wrinkly skin would be a genetic variation, not a physical condition caused by outside influences.
And ironically, reptiles DO have an eye on the back of their head. They developed a third "eye" that can sense light, but developed separately from their normal eyes.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Also, you only address the formation of the retina in this video. There are several other parts (optic nerve, optic chasm, optic tract, optic projection fibers, cerebral cortex). By only showing how the retina could have been formed, it's like showing how a power supply cable could have been formed but not the computer. If you could post a video on how all those parts were evolved at the same time it would be appreciated.
uberjinks 2 years ago
The retina still came much later in the evolutionary process. The first eyes were simple. All the parts you list developed together, and over time, from earlier designs.
The optic nerve is nothing more than a modified transport nerve. The cerebral cortex would need an entirely new video, but to make it simpler for you, watch these videos.
/watch?v=ctCzreJqouA
/watch?v=rconzwB422s
/watch?v=bPfBKZYrxgM
EricZombie 2 years ago
The last and shortest one by Carl Sagan doesn't tell how the brain could have evolve. He describes what happens in the brain but only posits that the brain evolved without giving any explanation or process for how. The others I will get to later as they are fairly long.
uberjinks 2 years ago
As I stated in the description, this video is a quick overview. I did not plan on getting into the mechanics of natural selection and mutation, but if you wish, I will.
As for the "complexity" of the brain, It started off as a string of nerves, just like you would find in any early chordate. If you have any disagreement with the content of the videos, please take it up with the scientists featured in said videos.
EricZombie 2 years ago
eric zombie
your cartoon evolution made an eyeball that obviously evolved in order to then wait around for optic nerves that it knew it would later need. you dumbass how did this eyeball know where the brain was and then later figure out a way to wire into it.........O IT WAS MAGIC! YEAH EVO!
NOW, GO TAKE A BATH, YOU WASTED REMNANT OF A HUMAN BEING
moogoogaipancake 2 years ago
The only people believing the eye *POOFED* into existence by magic are the religious nutters like yourself. POOF.
The nerves utilized by early eye spots were already there. Just as was a clump of nerve cells that made up a primitive brain. Didn't you learn anything while dissecting Planarians in science class?
Nothing just popped into existence on its own, then waited around to connect to other things.
EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU IGNORANT HICK.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Pfft... they nerves were of course already there, respectively developed together with the rest of the body. What good would any kind of sensory system be, if not connected to some sort of nerve cell system?
Besides: The human eye is not so great - is has obvious major flaws. Also, there are eg. animals that don't have a blindspot (the blindspot is where the nerves go into the brain.)
If the human eye prooves design, then why is the human eye so poorly designed compared to other species?
smarthandsomeguy 1 year ago
Steve and I have been sending messages back and forth for a couple of days now, and it's getting pretty hilarious. Just ask, and I'll send you the entire transcript, unedited!
EricZombie 2 years ago
I'll bite at that apple. I'd love the highlights.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Loved this video! I'd be interested in reading the transcript too. I've taken an interest in the psychology of people who need to maintain a delusion at any cost.
lauraeandress 2 years ago
i'll take a copy of that! if you still have it.
Zentz29 2 years ago 2
The very existence of ID proponents disprove an intelligent design. Period.
dreamy2 2 years ago
You can't actually believe what you have on this vid. This stuff just happens completely undirected? And bilaterally. On the head? Where is the optic nerve? Visual cortex? Code so the cortex can function? How does this indentation free itself up to become a ball? What are the steps to that amazing move? How do the muscles evolve? Cartoons are so neat. Reality is so tough. Muscles to the lens? Iris? Gad. Your two pieces of shit have more to them than you realize.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Nature is full of symmetry. It's easy to mirror something you already have. Of course evolution would place the eyes on the head. It's the highest point of the organism, easy to see predators and prey. It's natural selection again, remember? If they were placed in any other spot, and it didn't benefit the creature, IT WOULD DIE. All nerve cells are attached to the brain through the spinal column, why would photosensitive cells in the eye be any different? It's merely more developed.
EricZombie 2 years ago
That way, it can carry all those electrical pulses to the brain to be processed. How did it "free itself up to become a ball"? Probably in the same way you get goosebumps. More rotation equals better chance at survival, and if all that icky connective tissue is gone, it makes for frictionless rotation. The muscles were already connected to the skin, just took a few million generations to weed out the less desirable ones. The eye IS complex, but not irreducibly so.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Gawd. It's all so easy. Make two dents on the head, for FUTURE bilateral 3D vision, hook up the nerves, hook up the visual cortex, oh make one first. Make a visual code, and off you go. Ooops. Make TWO eyes, then off you go. Ooops. Make a lens, I mean two, hook some muscles to auto-focus the lenses, then........Wait, hook up some muscles to move the eye. Then.....what fun natural selection is! It can do ANYTHING.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
And all this stuff just easily fell into place, fully developed, and in a matter of minutes. Obvious strawman argument here. Try harder.
EricZombie 2 years ago
"I don't understand how it happened, therefore it didn't!"
Greywyn7 2 years ago 4
No. It can't possibly happen the way evolution says, therefore, evolution can't be the answer.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Why not? Is there an invisible mutation barrier somewhere?
Google evolutionary co-option.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 4
No, there is no barrier. It's just that nature doesn't make 'em. And no evolutionaut can see that. They pretend nature does. Belief over reality. Like your rabbit and reality. What the hell does a white/black rabbit have to do with the evolution of a complex visual system? Evolution of color shape and size, which is provable, has nothing to do with the evolution of complex visual systems, which isn't provable; except in your mind.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
That's what Behe thought with the flagellum. Until it was proven that each individual part had individual uses, and through co-option culminated into a complex system.
To say the same couldn't happen with the eye is both intellectually dishonest and a risky assumption.
Anyway, answer the rabbit question. Is a white rabbit more likely to survive in a snowy environment than a black rabbit? Yes or no?
Greywyn7 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You fell for Miller's con? Miller used the injector that looked a bit like a flagellum motor, and fooled a bunch of people, including the Dover judge into believing he found uses for each part of the motor. What a con.
It's risky to look at the eyeball and see that it couldn't be invented & assembled without intelligence? You are really indoctrinated, and you believe anything that any evo says. I hope you are not that way with the rest of your life. A con artist would have a blast with you.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Miller showed that the TTSS' individual components had individual uses. The TTSS is the closest candidate to a flagellum ancestor.
Please stop moving the goalpost, I'm getting tired here.
By the way, stop avoiding my rabbit question.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Miller didn't show anything, and he fooled you and your fellow evolutionauts. I made a YT (IC) vid on the subject. You are a bunch of sheep just waiting to be fooled.
Arguing with the indoctrinated is a waste of time. I don't want to get you too tired.
Answer your rabbit question yourself. It's a worthless ask. Obviously species can change color, and trying to parallel that to the evolution of eyes is remarkable in its absurdity. Bye
stevebee92653 2 years ago
"Miller didn't show anything...You are a bunch of sheep..."
Funny. You completely ignore a relevant study that contradicts your opinion, then call someone else a sheep waiting to be fooled. Smells like hypocrisy.
My rabbit question has nothing to do with change in color. Your response was either an obvious ad-hominem attack or obvious stupidity on your part.
Is a white rabbit not more likely to survive in a snowy environment? There's a hint.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What "relevant" study? A con artist that fooled you made a relevant study? I can't wait to see.
I also can't wait to find out if a white rabbit would do better in a white environment or a black one.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Sounds like you didn't even read it. Sounds like you're taking creationist talking points verbatim off Dembski's website.
Regarding natural selection, what do you mean you can't wait to see? Are you really telling me that camouflage means nothing in nature?
Seriously, I want an answer to this. Do you REALLY think that camouflage is useless?
Greywyn7 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a dumb question. I do REALLY think you are grasping at straws.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
You're avoiding the question. Is camouflage useful or not?
Greywyn7 2 years ago 6
"Arguing with the indoctrinated is a waste of time."
Yes it sure is. That is exactly why scum like you cry your eyes out on your own web sites and in special support groups for your frail minds.
You clearly dont have a strong grasp on reality.
I feel sorry for brain damaged people like you.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 4
"You fell for Miller's con?"
Uh... wow, how much of a dumbass are you?
Miller didn't make that up, nor pull it out of his anus like the Discovery Institute did with their deception with ID.
Scientists all around the world verify what Miller was talking about.
You sound like any other zealot with a bible down their pants, unable and unwilling to look any further for "answers".
"Magic Man dun it" isn't an answer, its intellectual laziness. You need to educate yourself.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 4
He claims to not be religious, yet most of his "friends" grasp onto magical sky daddies, and even THANK him for his ignorance. He couldn't understand why a T-Rex didn't have bigger arms, thus all scientists are wrong.
EricZombie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Eric, you are really going downhill.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh gee. Shock of shocks. Another staunch indoctrinate. The more indoctrinated, the stupider the comment. Yours is really stupid.
"Magic Man dun it" isn't an answer, its intellectual laziness. You need to educate yourself.
How original. Did you get this out of your evo-handook?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
"Another staunch indoctrinate"
Says the Magic Man in the sky worshiper??
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Your acusations are pretty pathetic kid. Its called "psychological projection".
You cant stand what you are so you project it on to others and attack them for what you do, somehow making you feel better.
Taking your self hatred for your delusion, projecting it on others and then attacking it... wow.
Thats pretty messed up kid.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 3
Answer the question please.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 3
Theists like him arn't interested in answering questions, Greywyn7.
They think they have the answer already, and its "Magic Man dun it!", therefor they dont need to ask or answer any other questions.
Its intellectual suicide, nothing more. His brain rot seems to have rooted quite deeply, so I dont expect any intelligible answer.
Good question though!
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 2
If thats not natural at all, then i dont know what is.
Oh wait, according to you its magic man using his mouth to speak everything into existence huh? Yeah we can all see who needs more skepticism here.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU MUST BE the magic guy in the sky since you know what I believe by mind reading using only the net as a source. Impressive. Mystical! Do I pray to you, or anything? Please let me know.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
"How do the muscles evolve?"
This is a question, not an objection.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Oh, that's really easy. Natural selection.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Acting upon reproductive variation, yes.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Please learn evolution. The process by which the environment weeds out the less fit is natural selection. This means decent with modification. Please know that natural selection also is random mutations selected for by the ENVIRONMENT. JEEZ. Like the guy above me said, the very fact that ID proponents exist, goes to show that ID cant be true.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago 4
Please get some skepticism. Learn to think instead of spouting your indoctrination. You are a good little evolutionaut. JEEZ
stevebee92653 2 years ago
LOL youre one to talk. YOU, the one who believes in a magical sky daddy, are telling ME, the one who believes in a natural process, to get some skepticism? lol funniest thing ive ever heard out of a fundies mouth. Its BLATANTLY obvious that you dont know a single thing about the process by which evolution works through. Mistake on my part too, it is descent with modification, not decent.
In all honesty, idiots like you give all christians a bad name.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago
Me: Sorry, no sky daddy. What the hell is that anyway. Did you make that up? It's so original and clever.
You think that animals choosing or not to kill and eat other animals and non-occurring good mutations made all of nature? What a laugh. You are too indoctrinated to even see how brainwashed you are. I love the euphemisms: descent with modification, natural process. You mean, for evolution, fantasy processes don't you?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Which is more likely to reproduce in a snowy environment; a black rabbit or a white rabbit?
Answer that question and that question alone. I don't want a smartass retort. Respond with either "the white rabbit" or "the black rabbit".
Greywyn7 2 years ago 4
The sky daddy is the non-existant god that you believe in.
Heres how Natural selection works. Start out with a population of the same species of animal. Some of these animals get some mutations which help them survive better and as a result pass their traits along more often than others. After a few generations, most animals of that pop will have that particular trait. Do the same process for millions of yrs and you would eventually get organisms that are nothing like the ones you began with.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gee, that is just so fascinating. Thanks for explaining! That's pretty heavy science. I can see how that made all of nature.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, it did make "all of nature". Or, at least, the living organisms in nature. You have *yet *to provide an explanation that is better than natural selection, and you have yet to bring any evidence to the table that proves that natural selection is false, besides your observations based on ignorance. All you do is rant about T-Rex arms and eyes. You're either a moron, (which is highly unlikely, considering your background) or you're willfully ignorant, or just insane.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Gawd. Quit calling it natural selection. Call it what it is. Non-occurring good mutations and animals eating other animals or not. That made all of nature in your mind? And YOU think I am ignorant or insane? Bye
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Thanks for defining it. Natural selection is a mathematical process grounded in statistics and probability. Variation occurs in offspring, favorable variations are emphasized, the rest are culled. Over time, the variations become more pronounced. This is a very easy concept. To not get this shows ignorance on your part.
We've done it with dogs in the last 10,000 years. Just replace selective breeding with natural selection over a few billion years. Whammo, diversity of life, sucker.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Did what with dogs? Made hearts? Eyes? You are a locked in believer.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
So sad to see what Behe's bullshit can do to an otherwise intelligent human being.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 7
@Greywyn7 so sad to see what evolution pseudoscience can do to an otherwise intelligent human being.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope This brings back memories.
Greywyn7 2 months ago
In only 10,000 years, humans were able to selectively breed wolves into Chihuahuas, Great Danes, Chows, Char Peis, and all the other assorted breeds of dogs. Humans are not nearly as efficient as nature. Natural selection, over the course of billions of years, using only tiny changes from one generation to the next, was able to create eyes and hearts. You can't personally imagine any transitional forms of these organs, thus you dismiss natural selection and favor intelligent design.
EricZombie 2 years ago
"Gawd. Quit calling it natural selection. Call it what it is. Non-occurring good mutations..."
And you know these mutations don't happen because you sequence the genomes of individuals in populations?
Or, you 'know' these mutations don't happen because of opinions backed by zero science?
I think the answer is pretty obvious here.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago 3
And i can see how god made everything by word of mouth, especially with all the evidence pointing to an intelligent creator. (sarcasm, in case you didnt get it.)
If he was so intelligent, why did he make cancer possible? Why are our eyes so bad, why arent they a little better at least? Did he make us like this on purpose so we would suffer? If so, what an ass. If he didnt do it on purpose, then what a retard. The way our biological systems are, its retarded to believe in a creator.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago 3
"the eye is a piece of shit" I loled.
zatousagi 2 years ago 3
You may already know this, but Audacity is free recording software that's pretty good. Also, in a pinch, you can use a pair of headphones as a microphone. It's not the greatest, but it's better than your built in microphone.
You can wrap it with a paper towel "mushroom" as a makeshift wind-screen.
sakodak 2 years ago
If only more people didn't just give up and give in to the easy way of life, hense why religion is so popular, our species would be so much better! I don't like excuses and many of my friends I give them shit for it. Oh I'll do it tomorrow they say. I'm like No do it today. Don't be a lazy ass just do it and be done with it! Why waste you're tomorrow? People used to walk miles and miles and then we got the horse, then the bike and the car and now everyone is so used to luxury. MAKES ME SICK
Eskimolz 2 years ago
Eyes are very weak. I think you said it best. The human eye is a piece of shit. Needs a lot of work. Hense why we have contacts and glasses for those people who don't have good eyes. I was born with horrible eye sight. The doctors told me I needed to wear glasses for possibly my entire life. I've always been abnormally aware and knew the cost of glasses at 7 and said no fuck that. I've done eye exercises my entire life and now have better vision then most people I know.
Eskimolz 2 years ago
wait a sec here. Youve got me intrigued. What kind of eye exercises if you dont mind sharing.
crackerkiller89 2 years ago
our eyes are developed for humans. Our eyes are not a piece of shit. If we had eyes as sharp as a eagles, our perferal vision would suck. For our life, our eyes are just right. If we saw in dark, we could not see better in day. If we saw in infered, then we miss out on natures colors. just my opinion
mikebe41 2 years ago
Well, you're correct in part. Our eyes do what they need to do to get us humans by. But I suspect, even in the recent past, the human eye was better. Even now, the eye is adapting to indoor light and focusing on nearby points. More and more people require glasses or contacts to see far distances.
The human eye is a decent light receptor to help humans get by. It could be better.
(plus, there's nothing saying we couldn't see in both visible AND infrared. some of those pics are beautiful.)
EricZombie 2 years ago
You forgot to mention the blind spot and the fact that the blood supply is in front of the retina.
marcluc1988 2 years ago 3
how an eye can develop?
hahahahahah
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Wow, you have a good enough of an imagination to believe in an invisible, unprovable, untestable, unreliable, unpredictable deity that was based on fairy tales written by cavemen, something that took more imagination than you have in that head of yours... but you don't have enough sense to figure out natural selection. Go figure.
Better hurry sheep boy, your herd is leaving you behind.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Then create an eye or shut up.
Cure the common cold .
You cant do crap but pretend you can.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
I can't do crap, and neither can your imaginary god. The only thing that can "make" an eye is NATURAL SELECTION. Environmental pressures that cull the less preferable traits in a constantly changing population OVER MANY GENERATIONS. Scientists have already shown natural selection in faster breeding organisms, so if you got a problem with it, I suggest a good remedial science class.
EricZombie 2 years ago
O so nature contains enough functional information to create eyes .
I see
If you know that then why cant you do it.
I recognize bull shit better than most.
Make the eye or say we dont know.
case closed with no absurdity
JAMRAND 2 years ago
blah blah blah. all i hear is stupidity pouring from your mouth-hole. you couldn't recognize bullshit if it fucked your mother.
we know the functions of the eye, and we know how natural selection works. give me a few million years and a few hundred thousand generations, and i'll give you an eye. if you're too impatient to wait for nature to take it's course, i've got one brown eye for ya.
EricZombie 2 years ago
and functional information? you talk like a retarded creationist. if you knew one iota about natural selection, you'd already know how natural properties easily self assemble into complex order, like crystals. no invisible sky daddy needed. (i'm not even going to call them "natural laws", since your dumb ass would ask something stupid like "so who passed the laws?") get a fucking education, learn your physics, go take biology, refresh yourself with mathematical probability.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Dr James Tour wants you to explain it to him.
he is a skeptic of macroevolution because he cant find anyone to explain it to him.
You the man
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Yeah. I know. He wants someone to explain "macroevolution" to him chemically. There's two things wrong with that. First, there's no such thing as "macroevolution". It's not even a word. Second, his idea of "macroevolution" is "chemically" the same as "microevolution. It's the same process, the only difference is the time frame. Small changes over a long time equals BIG CHANGE. I'm pretty sure that he's willfully ignorant enough, that his free dinner will never be claimed.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Can you make a cloud? Not too well I would guess, but nature can do it all by itself, natural laws are acting on life on Earth, that is why things operate, the processes of natural selection and mutation are the process going on here, we have a large diversity of eyeballs floating around the biosphere, and they range from simple eyes to complex, and everything in between, and all have their roots in prehistory.
scienceminded 2 years ago 3
A camera is more or less an eye.
Just artificial but works on the same principle.
So yes humans can create 'Eye's".
Swecan76 2 years ago 3
correct. a camera is human kind's attempt at reproducing an eye. it works on the exact same principles. to create an eye with natural selection, though, will still take many generations of trail and error.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Influenza in particular is always mutating, the main reason we need vaccines every few years is that natural selection allows only the immune members of the species thrive.
We aren't nature, we don't need to create an eye because it wouldn't prove anything, nature has enough of an example, I do agree that this video isn't the absolute greatest to show that, but the development of the eye is a large field of study, and looking elsewhere before commenting wouldn't kill you.
scienceminded 2 years ago 2
BTW, whatsoever is one word.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Excellent!
I loved the FULL quote from Dawrin's book.
Notice that, Theists? He used the FULL fucking text, not just cherry picking part of it.
Well done!!
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
ROFL@COCK
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
GREAT VIDEO! i am recommending this to my schools biology class.(basically put the teacher is slightly biased towards creationism and it is apparent on our standardised tests) GREAT VIDEO!!
householdhackernews 2 years ago
7. How was the universe created?
a) A random explosion from nothing.
b) Our father and lord Jesus Christ.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
the answer is A, since B is the creation of the minds of man. though you propose a strawman argument. something didn't just randomly come from nothing, it may have been from a previous collapse of a different universe, an interdimensional event, a meeting of two branes. there's plenty of possibilities, without explaining it all away by saying a stone age mythological deity did it.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Gotta think of it in the context of what I was responding to, Mr. Zombie =)
Greywyn7 2 years ago
its b
UnyieIdingFaith 2 years ago
Now, UnyieldingFaith, PROVE it is B
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"7. How was the universe created?"
The options offered present a logical fallacy known as a False Dichotomy.
The answer is invalid, please submit a new answer or your current one will be ignored as pathetically failed.
Look up "False Dichotomy" in the mean time.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Will do, you look up "sarcasm".
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Too bad sarcasm doesn't translate well or at all via text.
You might think its clear to you, but we cant hear your tone of voice or see your body language that is usually associated with it.
You didn't provide any additional text to give any hint of your real position what so ever.
The failure was yours. Please learn from it.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Here's a few excerpts from what I responded to:
'recommending this to my schools biology class'
'...teacher is slightly biased towards creationism'
'apparent on our standardised tests'
I started my comment with "7." as a allusion to a test/exam. I then purposely committed a false dichotomy to not only illustrate the stereotypical stupidity of creationists, but also to make it clear I was miming the standard layout of a multiple choice quiz.
The failure was yours at an intellectual level.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
You can pretend like you made a clever comment, Greywyn7, but you were simply unclear and unable to convey what you wanted.
Did you realize that 7 is also in your name? You could have been referencing some main point you might of had to make, or be referring to some chart or sheet you had on your channel.
Dont expect everyone to understand what you are talking about if you leave it so vague.
You assumed, thats why your comment failed.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Next time, I suggest you put "/sarcasm", or at the very least some additional text to actually show what you are trying to get across.
You could have said something like "Theist Science Exam, question 7" or a whole host of other things to make it clear what you were doing.
EricZombie seems to have interpreted your comment just as I had: a stupid Theist using fallacies again.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
The reason it was so easy to see as a Theist making a huge mistake again is because it happens all the time.
Just when you squash some logical fallacies, another Theist comes out of the woodwork who doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is and abuses them enough to make your eyes bleed.
Dont be so vague.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
'Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.'
In the future, you should make a reference to Poe's Law before refuting what you think is a stupid theists opinion. That way you are covered either way.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"you should make a reference to Poe's Law"
Yes, but you fail miserably if EVERYONE thinks you are being serious.
That is the point. C'mon, Greywyn7, NO ONE reading that comment will ever think you are being anything but serious.
I just explained why. I'm sorry you cant get over the fact that you are unable to realize how poorly you managed your effort to be funny, but thats your fault.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Edward Current is an excellent example of sarcasm and parody.
You included absolutely nothing to indicate any level of sarcasm or parody in your incredibly short comment.
That is why you fail.
I'm amusing that you are taking it so personally, trying to insist that you were indeed clearly sarcastic when no one else will ever be able to tell that you were.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
How can people tell Edward Current is being sarcastic? Word choice, facial expressions, props, and body language.
You think you can let everyone know you were being sarcastic with putting a single number followed by a period.
While that makes all of the difference in the comment for you, it is meaningless to others, and there is even LESS connection as you have that very same number in your name.
Fail.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Greywyn7, I have a challenge for you.
Go around to all the major youtube channels on religion and post your comment.
Lets watch how many people see your "7." as the clue you intended to let everyone know you are being sarcastic.
We could set up a bank account and give you a dollar for ever person that interprets it correctly.
You wouldn't see a single dollar, that I promise you.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I'll reiterate my point again, just to be sure you can understand it.
I was not trying to make my sarcasm evident. I was trying to Poe you. In hindsight, I realized it was probably too "serious" to perceive as sarcasm and thus pointed it out.
I thought I made it sufficiently sarcastic to bring about pause, but obviously not. I'll try to go easier on you in the future.
PS: every once in a while I get a "I think this is a Poe, but just in case...".
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"I'll try to go easier on you in the future."
Arrogant prick. Learn how to actually do sarcasm in the first place.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Oh man, I got a good laugh out of that.
Take that comment. Did it happen? Yes. But pretend it was sarcastic.
If you don't understand it's sarcasm, it is still sarcasm? Yes, it is.
Not understanding a vector calculus equation does not invalidate it; it merely means you don't understand it.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
There is your problem right there. You used a logical fallacy we have heard over and over for decades, if not longer.
The False Dichotomy is in WIDE use, and not something ANYONE would see any other way than a serious note, especially when you give no hint otherwise or suggest any thing other than yet another retarded Theist posting a stupid comment.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Its like telling a joke. There are good jokes and there are bad jokes, but right from the start there is the context of a joke.
You didn't set it up in any way, shape or form. You used a VERY common fallacy trying to hope someone would somehow wonder if it was even serious?
That is why it failed. We have to debate against that fallacy so often its not even funny.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I understand this. This is why, in hindsight (I've said over 3 times, I believe) I realized it wasn't obvious enough and therefore admitted it was sarcasm instead of pursuing it.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Thank you for being more civil.
Either way, I thought it transcended the basic theists stupidity. I'll try to be more obvious in the future.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
False Dichotomy transcending theist stupidity?
This fallacy is at the core of most every single Theist debate you will find, even among the older and more "pro" apologists.
Maybe this is due to not being in too many youtube debates? You should have known how rampant this fallacy is, even with spending a few months on youtube debates.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Not the fallacy itself, but the choices offered
Greywyn7 2 years ago
The choices offered makes it a fallacy.
Theists specific version of reality, or the Atheist. They dont consider multiple religions in their thought process.
Thats why its a fallacy. Two options, a specific Theistic view and the only other one they seem to be aware of.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
And pointing this out to Theists usually scares them off the subject completely.
Its very funny to watch.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I'm not sure how I can explain this.
The number of choices put forward make it a fallacy, but the choices themselves make it ridiculous.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Please, dont presume you have to explain this to me.
Yes, the fallacy itself, EXACTLY like you stated, is used on a daily basis.
Why do I have to keep saying this? Yes, it is most certainly one of the most ridiculous thing Theists try to advocate.
You didn't state anything we havn't heard millions of times before.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I never denied it was used on a daily basis. What we were arguing was how my particular fallacy transcended the typical theistic stupidity.
I was arguing that it was the choices themselves, not the fact that there were only two.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"What we were arguing was how my particular fallacy transcended the typical theistic stupidity."
If its used on a daily basis, it doesn't transcend anything, its just par for the course.
This is why it failed.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
What I am arguing is that the choices I put forward were/sounded more idiotic than what some theists do.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
The problem is that, like I said many times now, people use that exact same statement on a daily basis.
That is why no one will react to it with anything more than disgust at typical and classic Theist arrogance, presumption, and self-importance.
There is nothing new or shocking, in the slightest, with your two options.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
I guess I've been fortunate then; I've never heard a theist commit an equally idiotic false dichotomy.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Edward Current uses Poe's Law as well. That is what I am aspiring to do.
I'd wager the first EC video you watched you thought he was serious. When I saw his "Checkmate Atheists" video I thought he was serious for a minute or two.
I'm amused that you think I was attempting to make my sarcasm overly conspicuous. That would constitute a "wink or a nudge" and would invalidate what I was actually attempting.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"I'm amused that you think I was attempting to make my sarcasm overly conspicuous."
Then why the fuck didn't you just shut the hell up and let everyone think you were serious in the first place, idiot?
Everyone here thought you were serious. No one will EVER see that comment as anything but serious.
That is why you fail at making a "clever" bit of sarcasm-because it was only sarcastic in your mind.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
"Edward Current uses Poe's Law as well."
Idiot-did you read anything I posted?
Edward Current uses facial expressions, word choice, body language, props, and environment to give NON-BLATANT hints and clues that he isn't serious.
You clued in only after you picked up on those hints. Nothing was blatant, nor does it need to be for good sarcasm. You posted FAILED sarcasm.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
No need to be condescending, friend.
Yes, I did read what you said. EC does use a "wink and a nudge" when he's acting like a theist. I figured I did it sufficiently in my comment. Obviously not.
I've taken your critique to heart. I'll dumb down my comments in the future.
PS you can't "fail" at sarcasm. Like I said; you not perceiving the inherent sarcasm of a comment does not equate to the failure of the comment being sarcastic in of itself.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa... calm down man, calm down!
What I was attempting to do was introduce a theistic comment that would make someone think, "theists can be this stupid, but it might be a Poe...". Unfortunately, nobody read it in the context to what it was a response to and thus it fell flat on it's face.
Once again, I'll try to make it more obvious for people in the future.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"That is what I am aspiring to do."
Trying and failed, miserably.
Take my fucking challenge, you moron. Post your comment on Thunderf00t's videos and see just how many people think you are trying to be sarcastic.
You wont get one single fucking person asking if you are serious or even doubting it for an instant.
You fucking fail.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
No need to use such fierce language, friend.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Did you read anything I wrote?
When I act like a theist, my OBJECTIVE is to use Poe's Law to it's full extent. That is, I WANT people to think I'm serious.
In this case, only in hindsight did I realize the impossibility of defending my theistic argument in any shape or form. This is why, instead of drawing out the argument, I immediately labeled it as sarcasm.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Actually, it did exactly what I wanted; Poe's Law you into responding with some form of anger or contempt.
The fact that I immediately pointed out its sarcastic nature was only due to it being an impossibly stupid position to defend. Usually, when I act like a theist, I defend my points to further anger the uptight atheists on Youtube.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
C) none of the above, fucktard.
pablovirus 2 years ago
Dont worry, pablovirus, Gerywyn7 was trying to be sarcastic.
He failed pretty miserably, as I was just telling him, but hey, thats how we learn.
In any case, go to his channel and look at the vid he favorited "How to piss off an atheist". Thats a pretty good one!
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
Your failure to detect my sarcasm does not equate to my failing at being sarcastic. One can not fail at being sarcastic.
It would make more sense for you to say that I failed at making it easy to discern the fact that my response was sarcastic in nature. However, being that this is not what I was trying to do in the first place, it is an illegitimate critique.
But hey, that's how we learn.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
No-one bless you too.
draagon66 2 years ago
Mine's already developed ONE eye...
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 3
I thought it was a penis in the beginning of the video, lol, great video by the way :D
THADI0US 2 years ago
180 views in two minutes.
EricZombie 2 years ago
79 views, and the video isn't even processed yet? I smell the work of a votebot. Either that, or I'm immensely more popular that I thought.
EricZombie 2 years ago
Nice. I like it. I referred some of my friends to view it, too.
coryboy6 2 years ago 2
Thanks. I tried my best with what I had. Unfortunately, all I own right now is a crappy built in mic that came with my laptop.
EricZombie 2 years ago