sad but true. and he ment it how he said it.dig deeper pls, what your saying about christians not understanding. might be true for some but you dont understand genesis so tit for tat
@seekatruth I think you'll find most atheists think the same. They are usually evidence based thinkers and that tends to push you towards athiesm. You can ask any athiest if they would believe in god and you'll probably get 'yes if there's some evidence'
i understand that people can take the bible to be allagorical and therefore not conflicting with evolution but what about adam and eve? do they represent more than just two individuals? because any notion of the human population starting out with two individuals absolutely conflicts with science
@bigmanoooo1 I see adam and eve and clearly representing the stage at which humans became fully conscience of their actions and themselves. At this stage we really are seperate from animals and are capable of being evil for the sake of evil, hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Animals can't be evil as such because they lack this awareness.
The genesis story is actually a great story about human behaviour and to take it literally COMPLETELY misses the whole message behind it. Ironic
@Octamed well yeah thats a good point but ive never spoken to a christian that doesnt take genesis literally or atleast doesnt think that god actually made man in his present form, there are not many christians are prepared to just see the bible as a fairytale which imo they would have to to be able to accept evolution
I don't think a lot of people understand where the frustration between atheists and theists lie. It's not just differences in beliefs, it about trying to get it through some very thick theists minds that we're not the center of the universe, and neither was the universe created for us!
Holding this subtle but deep mis-understandings about the world around us leaves atheists feeling the same as a math teacher would feel about a student saying there's no place for numbers in algebra.
Creation is right: God blew his bad breath( no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and voila, it became alive and upright, and all was well. Question, did Adan have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam complained about loneliness. What if god had given Adam a motorbike or a computer and he felt satisfied, no longer lonely, we would still be living in the garden of eden
Octamed, the part in your video where you said that looking at all the physical properties of the universe "set up the inevitability that evolution would appear from all of this" that was the part where your thinking departed from the scientific to the theoretical. Theory, while backed up by a lot of evidence, is still a generalization, a large skip over tons and tons of evidence in between that may (i'm not saying it will) discount the theory of evolution.
@kratos834 You're incorrect. Theory explains facts. A theory cannot exist if it does not have facts to support it. If there are facts that contradict the explanation, then the theory is wrong - and in science, that will be the point where it won't be refered to as "theory" any more.
The very fact that a Theory exists, implies that the facts do as well
Dna mutates. Bad mutations get the organism killed before having kids, good ones makes it able to have more kids. Kids get good mutation. Repeat.
Things everyone agrees on a) dna mutates
Therefore evolution exists. Any further evidence is a bonus. If you can't explain what would stop a species mutating at some arbitary point then speciation also must happen. No evidence required.
@agfigueroaa Actually, it doesn't contradict anything. In fact, variation and introduction of new genes to the gene pool of a tribe has been shown to accelerate evolution.
@dxrocker69 Hi, I have seen some of ur videos. Thanks for ur message. I am afraid that ur going much more beyong what the scientific literature states. Have u check the assumptions and the conclusions of those models?. Most of the literature I have checked, it shows that it converges.
Nevertheless, my argument did not go in that direction as u can check.
@agfigueroaa Your comments in this thread lead me to conclude I have spend a far bigger share of time reading about evolution then you have, that's for sure.
I have checked what the scientific conclusions of those models are and the result is that it fits perfectly with what we see in nature.
@dxrocker69 Let me ask you something. Very simple. When u are confronted to an article (of any nature), how do u scrutinise its scientific rigourness and validity? in other words, how do u review it?
Also, I did not deny evolution, my comments starts from a disparity in the definitions of species, ergo the scientific validity of evolution is subject of this definition.
@agfigueroaa: " how do u scrutinise its scientific rigourness and validity" I check the credentials of the author and go by general scientific consensus. Seeing how my computer can do the most amazing things, how meds cure my illnesses and how robots drive around on mars by remote control, I'm inclined to trust scientists.
Evolution is not at all subject to the definition of the word "species"... Dna mutates. Off spring inherits mutated dna. Repeat. => EVOLUTION.
@dxrocker69 thanks x ur reply. Unfortunately, u show u do not understand logic and science. First, to judge a claim by the author, it is fallacy of logical reasoning. Second, to trust in scientific concensus is also a fallacy is like saying democracy is always right. Scientists have a long record of frauds also, you cherry-pick with ur examples.
Third, the fail in ur thinking is the "REPEAT" step. Is this infinite?. What is the difference between ur statement and the following:
@agfigueroaa "to judge a claim by the author, it is fallacy of logical reasoning". Not by the author. By the credentials of the author. By the journal it was published in. These journals screen those papers for me. Other scientists read those journals. They double check and use whatever content of the paper to build technology. And when I see an atom bomb explode, or when I see the light go on by pressing a button, I know it's ok to trust atomic theory.
@agfigueroaa " to trust in scientific concensus is also a fallacy is like saying democracy is always right" No, it's not. And it's dishonest of you to say such a thing. Scientific consensus doesn't only mean that "the majority agrees". It firstly means that as good as ALL scientists of the field agree AND that we can see it's result (like again atom bombs exploding, robots on mars, new flu shots every year, etc etc). Democracy is completely different. Science is NOT a democracy.
@agfigueroaa "Scientists have a long record of frauds also, you cherry-pick with ur examples." Actually, taking those frauds among BILLIONS of discoveries and using them as an argument against science in general is what is the cherry picking...
The good thing about a self-correcting system like science is that those frauds are doomed from the start. The very fact that we are calling them frauds proves that they didn't last. Tricking science is really hard - if not impossible in the long run
@agfigueroaa "Third, the fail in ur thinking is the "REPEAT" step. Is this infinite?. "
It's not a fail at all, it's simple logic (I chuckled here at the irony). If mutations are inheritable by off spring (and they are, this is observed fact) then adding generations to that bloodline will only further accumulate inheritable mutations. So, yes... it is infinite for as long as there is life to reproduce and mutate. As long as there is reproductive life, there is evolution of life.
@dxrocker69 "I have an empty glass of water, big one, and I start pouring water drop by drop, and after 1000 drops I claime: hey, the glass can contain infinite water". What helps u assess my claim as false and ridiculous. When u find this out, it requires u to do some extra thinking to find the fail on ur repeat step, and why the definition of "Species" is fundamental.
@agfigueroaa You are not making any sense at all here. I fail to see the analogy. Do you even know what mutation is?
Let me put it simpler:
Every new born human has about 175 mutations in its DNA. This means it has things in his DNA that are unique for him. He didn't get it from his mom or dad. It's the result of mutation (which can be many different things like copies, insertioins, frame shifts etc). The children will inherit from that "new" dna. Evolution.
@dxrocker69 I will give u a clue: check the essentials of the scientific method. Look, for instance, Wikipedia. In particular, the first one listed there. I think this will help u to understand the analogy.
I understand evolution. thats why I am aware of the importance of the definition of "species".. :)
@agfigueroaa I'm still unaware of what you are trying to say. Why is it that hard to explain your analogy? Could it be because you know it's total bullshit?
And sorry, you just really do not give the impression to understand evolution. You wouldn't be caught up in the whole "species" thing if that were the case man. The only reason why we have a word "species" is because lifeforms appear to stay constant during the short lifespan of a human.
@dxrocker69 Because I understand evolution I was caught up in the "species thing".
As I said, ur problem is assuming the "repeat" step in the evolutionary process. In my analogy, "systematically dropping water to the glass" likens "the gradual accumulation of changes in a species". But, u know that it is not possible to pour infinite water to the glass, because u can experimentally observe that there is a limit given by the volume. This is science: the volume constrains the amount of water ..
@agfigueroaa LOL!!! So you have problem with the "repeat" step... hahahah. That's hilarious.
You do realise that the "repeat" step means that we just move on to the next generation right? Why is it wrong to "assume" that after this generation, a next generation will come? Seriously...
Fact: every new born individual has a certain amount of mutations.
Fact: living things reproduce and pass on (mutated) genes to off spring, who will do the same (= REPEAT)
@agfigueroaa The fail in your analogy is that drops of water are NOTHING LIKE mutations. Drops of water are limited. It is completely wrong to say that "only x amount of mutations are possible". Every new born has a varrying amount of mutations. As long as there is reproduction, there will be mutation in the off spring..
@dxrocker69 Unfortuantely, experiments on E-coli bacteria show the contrary, as I think I aforementioned. So this is not a scientific fact.
An observable fact: We do not see a hlaf monkey/half human, or a half turtle/half butterfly.
Fact: What we observe in evolution: Small changes to species, which by no means leads to a new species (under a reasonable definition), ergo the "gradual" and "accumulative" aspect is scientifically uncertain.
@agfigueroaa Come on now, don't lie. There is no limit on the possible amounts of mutations and you know it very well. Any gene or any dna strand can mutate. And every new generation new mutations occur.
This is observed fact.
We HAVE observed speciation in miniscule life (bacteria, insects, etc).
We CANNOT observe speciation on the "dinosaur to bird" kind of level, because we don't live to be 2 million years.
@agfigueroaa Direct observation furthermore is not always necessary to come to a conclusion... Good examples are atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons. None of these have ever been observed. NEVER. Nobody has ever SEEN an atom or any of it's even smaller components.
Likewise, the investigators who solve a murder did NOT observe the murder.
@agfigueroaa A correct analogy with a glass of liquid would be to take a glass of a liquid and poor it into another glass and repeat that process. And each time you poor the liquid in another glass, you change a couple of molecules of the liquid.
After you repeated that process a couple thousand times... i'll bet you the liquid will have a different color, taste and smell. Do you get it now?
@dxrocker69 My example is oriented to the limits and to the gradual aspect of evolution. These are not proven by science. The problem with ur example is that the process depends on how many times u change the water on the glass and how many drops the external force put into it. This is pointless to my remark.
The key question u have to scientifically prove is that: Is there any natural limit to the gradual cahnges? In ur analogy:
@agfigueroaa You're still not getting it. In my example, I don't care about drops. Drops have nothing to do with it. i'll explain as if you were a 5-year old:
1. take glass of liquid
2. pour glass into another (empty) glass and randomly change a few random molecules
3. repeat step 2 a couple thousand times.
4. end up with liquid vastly different then the liquid in original glass.
THAT is a correct analogy. Pouring into other glass with a few changed molecules = reproduction.
@dxrocker69 Can u pour infinite salt to the water? the answer no. There is a limit to the amount of salt that the water can absobe!. I wonder if this limit exists to the gradual evolution.
@dxrocker69 .. a glass can contain. I can meassure it, observe it and I can draw a final conclusion. If u check the essentials of the scientific method, u will see that it is applied to "observable and meassurable" phenomenon. Thus, on the other side of the analogy, the "repeat" step is observable. Well, it depends on the definition of "species". If by species u mean "kinds" (e.g., monkeys and humans), then no. Therefore, u cannot apply the scientific method...
@agfigueroaa I did my research. Taxonomy is the field that classifies living things in groups and it has names for each "level". The word "kind" is not one of them.
It's a bullshit meaningless term tossed around by creationists in a very intellectually dishonest way with as sole purpose to create confusion. Go ahead, give me the defenition of a "kind". What is a "kind"? And on what basis and through which parameters are creatures classified under a certain "kind"?
@agfigueroaa Mutation rates are absolutely measureable and observable. And they HAVE been measured and they HAVE been observed. It also has been observed that those mutations are inherited by off spring.
@agfigueroaa Ow, ok. In that case, you are completely wrong. There is no demonstrable constraint or limit with respect to the original organism whatsoever. Primarily because there is no real "orignal" organism when it comes to cumulative organisms anyway. Every new generation is a new "original" organism. Evolution always works with what it has at its disposal.
If gene A mutates in generation X, there is no reason at all why it shouldn't again mutate in generation x+2 or 5 or a million.
@dxrocker69 Exactly. Finally, u get my point. So ur claim is that "the history" of changes has no influence in the evolutionary process. This has not been shown scientifically. And as u said, there is no observable constraint or limit.
I agree, yes. But, the fact that it has not been observed, it does not mean it does not exist. Ergo, the "gradual" aspect of evolution is not a FACT, as u say.
@agfigueroaa I'm not claiming anything, I'm just trying to explain to you how mutation (and thus evolution) works, but you are keeping your brain in hibernation for some reason.
the "history" of mutations has no influence on the "future" changes. THAT is what I am saying. And that is what cumulative mutation IS. Do you know what a recursive function is? Look it up, that is a perfect analogy.
It's basicly a loop and the output of one run becomes the input of the next run.
@agfigueroaa Let's give an example... Suppose you have a string "XXX". This string reproduces with a mutation. The child string is now "XYX". XYX reproduces again. The input of the mutation process is now XYX, no longer is it XXX!!! Another mutation occurs... the new childstring is now for example XYA. Then XYA reproduces with another mutation. His child: XZA (=> mutation in the same gene as the first). And so it continues.
@agfigueroaa See how that works? The output of a generation becomes the input of the next generation. And that's how cumulative mutation works. And that is why every living creature that reproduces is in fact a transition between his parents and his children. Now take my example and let that process go on for another 1000 generations, add some dynamic selection parameters... et voila. Evolution through natural selection.
@agfigueroaa If you would do a bit of reading about evolutionary genetics, you'ld see that biologists are actually capable of building a family tree of all life based on this logic. We are able to trace back family ties with other species by following this history of changes through similarities in the DNA. We can even do this for individual genes. ANd here's the compelling part: they did the same with the fossil record based on age and fysiology traits. The EXACT same tree was the result.
@dxrocker69 Then, since u cannot observe it, test hypotheses, then Evolutionist claim that the gradual accumulation of changes brings about another kind of species. But, since nobody has been able to observe this, nobody knows if there is a contraint like in the case of the glass of water. Got it?
All in all, the definition of "species" is fundamental to agree or disagree with the key postulate of evolution. In general, this postulate cannot be scientifically tested, so far.
@agfigueroaa Nobody has ever observed an atom, electron, neutron or proton either. That didn't stop us from exploding nukes and smashing protons together at the speed of light.
@dxrocker69 I do agree. I do agree. But, one thing is calling something a "fact" or "scientific fact" which has not been "scientifically proven". Theories are theories, and speculation is only that speculation.
U call many thinks that are speculation, facts. U need to be more rigourouss with ur language.
@agfigueroaa Now I'm certain that you don't know how science works.
A scientific theory is not a "guess". It's a construct of explanation of facts. A scientific fact is a piece of DATA. You can't prove a piece of DATA. In fact, it's the DATA that supports the theory.
Scientific fact and scientific theory mean DIFFERENT things in scientific jargon compared to in every day to day language.
@agfigueroaa No, it's you who doesn't understand what a Scientific Theory is and how an idea or hypothesis gets to the stage of being called Theory, capital T.
@agfigueroaa Having said that, evolution is (just like gravity) both a fact and a theory.
It's a fact because inheritable mutation has been observed. Evolution doesn't just mean that animal A "changes" into animal b over the course of millions of years... An insect growing immunity to pesticide is ALSO mutation.
Evolution theory is the explanation of that fact.
Just like gravity is a fact (apples fall "down"). But that fact doesn't get you in orbit around mars... You need theory for that.
@agfigueroaa Well, then all you need to do is get it into your stubborn brain that mutations are cumulative.
Whatever inheritable mutation happens in generation X will be present in generation X +1. Every new inheritable mutation in generation x+1 will be present in generation x+2, which will also have the inheritable mutations of generation X.
Extrapolate that to thousands, millions of generations and the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME is vastly different DNA. What's so hard to understand about that?
@dxrocker69 "your stubborn brain that mutations are cumulative" "Extrapolate that to thousands, millions of generations " ... I do not want to imagine, I want to observe it and then scientifically ananlyse it.
U might feel confortable imagining that it is true. But I am scientists, a rigouruos one.
@agfigueroaa There's nothing to imagine. It's basic mathematical fact.
Here's an example of what you are actually saing... We stand together on a road of 10 miles long. I take 5 steps. I realise that with every step I take, I move further and further forward. I then stop and say "If I would take hundreds, thousands of such steps, I will have walked 10 miles and reach the end of the road". Now, you are saying: "I'm gonna have to see you reach the end of the road before I can believe that".
@agfigueroaa So you don't believe that if I started walking taking one step at a time, that I would end up walking 10 miles after thousands of steps? Consider this: you stand in the center of a village. The center of the next village is 10 miles further. You take one step. Does the enivronment look different to you? You are STILL standing in the center of the first village... The answer is no, it looks exactly the same. Now walk the 10 miles, one step at a time. Is the answer still "no"?
@agfigueroaa Now realise that if we would see those 10 miles as a transition of a dinosaur to a bird... then a human life span doesn't even account for 1 inch of that distance.
What you are asking for is simply completely dishonest. Furthermore, Evolution Theory does NOT predict that you will see such radical change in one lifetime. In fact, if you COULD see such radical change in your lifetime.. then evolution theory IS WRONG, since its prediction wouldn't check out. Dumbass.
@agfigueroaa ps: in what are you a scientist? what field? where did you study? what are your credentials? care to share a few of your published papers?
@dxrocker69 Language. Not teaching, but understanding how languages evolve, are acquired, their structures and diferences, etc. Lots of experimentation there, and it is merged with psychology, little biology. Also, language study in involved in the DNA.
@agfigueroaa Right. And that makes you an authority on biology how exactly? You dropped the "i'm a scientist"-bomb yourself as an argument...
Anyhow, it's kind of strange that I need to explain to you the concept of cumulative change while you claim to be studying the evolution of languages - which follows the exact same pattern. Languages evolve through time.
The language we speak today is practically identical to the language we spoke last year. Not completely identical, but practically
@agfigueroaa So to conclude... you just shot yourself in the food. If you cannot understand the concept of cumulative change then you must be the worst scientist in your field that ever walked this planet.
Small gradual changes CAN ONLY and WILL ONLY result in BIG CHANGE after long periods of time, given the process is allowed to continue (which in both the evolution of life and language is nothing more or less then reproduction and passing on of genes/language). Epicly owned.
@dxrocker69 As aforementioned, because I understand it, I do not believe it. But, I do not want to reiterate what I have said at least two times.
Btw, How was I epicly owned? Do u remember my first question? and ur answers? the first two elements of ur answers were ridiculised quickly, and we extended on the third, which by no means, have u provided sth that satifies reason.
I did not use "I am scientist" as an argumente, check carefully, I used as the reason why
@dxrocker69 I do not "imagine" things as u do, but I rather demand rigourous scientific proofs or evidence. Thats the difference between u and me. I am rigourous and I am not leaned to believe fables.
On ur example on languages, please do not refer to it again.
Anyways, it seems to me that u now want to discredit me in order to "own me". But, what u fail to admit is that u have not scrutinised Evolution in such a way that allows u to state that what u call facts are facts.
@agfigueroaa The problem is that the thing that you "claim not to believe" is something as MINDBLOWINGLY SIMPLE that you can't avoid walking for miles if you continue to walk taking one step at a time.
@agfigueroaa What's there to scrutinise about the MINDBLOWINGLY SIMPLE CONCEPT that if you continue to add 1 to a number in a loop, using the output of the iteration as input of the next iteration, you can ONLY end up with an ever increasing number, dumbass?
Why wouldn't I use the language example again? It's a nice example. English today is only in details different from english 10 years ago. It is much more different from 100 years ago. It's unrecognisable 1500 years ago. Evolution.
@agfigueroaa Also keep in mind that I don't imagine anything. It's basic 1st grade logic that if you walk taking one step at a time, you can only end up walking for miles if you don't stop walking.
No imagination is needed to realise that. Just some common sense and 1st grade math.
@dxrocker69 But, u accepted that "the fact that there are o are not limits to changes" is sth that we have to imagine. This was my third point. U also did not tackle the "speciation problem", which u claimed did not exist. But, in fact, it is a major concern in the evolutionary comunity.
@agfigueroaa What part of that do we need "imagination" for? Please tell. You've been saying this for a while now, but never actually explained it.
And what speciation problem? You continue to ramble on about it, but fail to explain it. Google "observed speciation" for more information on the topic (and preferably before you reply).
I owned you because I have demonstrated that a concept that you denied actually exists in YOUR OWN FIELD OF STUDY.
@agfigueroaa No, do not get it, because it doesn't make sense. The constraint you provide with the glass of water example is NOT APPLICABLE to biological mutation. You are ADDING to the water in your example. Mutation doesn't ADD things. It CHANGES what is already there. There are several ways this can happen: frameshift of genes, deletion, insertions, duplication, etc... The only possible result in the long run is more dna in both amount as well as diversity.
@Octamed This proves that evolution exists in the form of microevolution. This does not prove anything about macro evolution. Take for instance a t.v. Tvs have come very far in their evolutionary process over the years since the 50's. Many changes have occured that brought the box from being a device with knobs to change the channel and antennas and an analog receptor to being digital with no need for antennas but it is still a tv.
@85vaboy You cannot compare an inanimate object to an organism of any complexity. When ya'll figure that teeny detail out, you'll be able to put it together. Till then you are slow, and redundent and does not have any interest in expanding your education. That being said, if you are not going to put forth the effort as the rest of us have, you have no place in arguing about it. I wish you all who can't put up or shut up, will realize this is a horrible representation of any 8th grader
right track.... wrong train!!! if you can not argue evolution with out knowing it, how can you argue the mind of God without know it? There are ties that bind and minds that do not. Is that enough B.S. for you?
I know because of that I'm sad. I hope you find that for which you are searching. I hope you will find the contentment and joy so many people throughout time sought and never found. Remember, they asked the same questions you ask. If you do not find them where you are searching, search somewhere else. Dont stay in your rocking chair.
It's human nature to demand an answer. Sometimes there just isn't one we're capable of understanding. That doesn't mean we're not going to try damn hard to though. The easier answer isn't usually the right one.
All the answers are easy. You can simply choose to make them difficult. Can a blind man see the wind? Can a deaf man hear the approach of a stamped? Can a mute cry out in pain and anguish? Just because the easy answer isnt obvious doesnt mean its not easy. Get out of your senses stop the scientific analysis. We never apply it equally anyway.
every decision is scientific, that's what makes us human. Animals run off pure instinct and emotion. While we have that, what makes us different is reason.
If you aren't thinking logically, you aren't thinking.
the fact is if god was real it'd be completely obvious. Not 'look around, it's so clear!!' obvious, but physics defying, mountains moving, unexplainable awe, obvious.
Evolution is a theory. Yet, you say christians dont understand evolution, but evolution is not a law. Its theory. There are two types of evolution, micro and macro. One, meaing that things change over time, like the islands of gallapagos where darwin found the birs and the differences in their beeks. That is micro, macro as far as humans coming from a slime and developing into apes then humans, is what the majority of christians dont believe in.
how do you know Jesus looked like him? how do you know Jesus was not Arabic? Or heck, what if Jesus is a symbolic symbol? What if Jesus was never actually a man, but what a couple of guys came up with the perfect man and told stories about him?
Jesus was semitic...so he looked kinda arab, but not modern arab. The middle east has mixed with africa, and white conquers from europe and asia... anyway give him a tan, and a jew nose and you might just have it.
You people don't understand evolution. What is is is that animals with genes that are benifitial, such as long necks in a area with tall trees have a better chance of survival and reproducing to pass on those genes. It's very simple.
youtube is great but why do so many feel the need to substitute vial language to mask impoverished vocabularies? really subtracts from what may be valid and interesting points of view.
fully expecting people to flex their 1st amendments rights in an onslaught of vulgarity in response :)
I'm not a clone of my father , evolution , mutation , i really think that for now with us that is all that is meant to be ! but we will evolve into a new species when the time is right . and when god speaks to you be prepared he is loud ! I've got my proof ! and i know Jesus works in me because when i sin i hate it ! dang sin !
nope , we do evolve , not like some people say , they have no proof , but i am not a clone of my father right , macro evolution , i am still just as human as my great great great grandfather , mite even look like him to !
Good work with this vid. Its nice to see a video response that is intelligent and well spoken. I wish more people would take time to study other possibilities aside from what has been drilled into their heads over and over again, especially with religion.
exactly what a religeos person would say...you ignorant fuck...how bout you n god come 2 my door and maybe then ille believe you.. ps. im not 100% athiest im just not religeos
Ok, I'll be the English teacher, you go wash your mouth out with soap. Oh, wait , this is a spelling lesson. It's "about", "you" and "English". Also, a "," after teacher. haha
If there is a God/Yahweh Evolution is the way he did it that was not included in the bible. Have your faith if you like but know that your creator gave the ability for man to think discover and question. He even put the tree in the garden knowing that man would discover it. If I held a box and in it where all Yahweh's secrets would you not peer inside? If I created you, would I not know your nature? Seems it is us that does not know Yahweh's nature.
Too many people believe in Miracles or Magic. Don't you know that if there is a God he knows how the trick was done. There are no miracles just things we do not yet understand.
Evolution is the biggest joke of the 21st century. Seriously..lol.. it takes more faith to believe in a fairytale story that i share a common acestore with a f..king carrot. wow..
right - I think people take the bible way too literally, too. It's been translated and with each translation and revision meaning is lost or replaced. For example the hebrew term for day has different meanings, from 24 hrs. to a week to a thousand years... and the bible says 7 days, so what is it really supposed to mean?
Creating something something complex from simple actions .DOH, try unknotting your fake-ipod's earsthingie. It is a miracle to how the wires always get so tangled up.
i don't give a DAMN about science/scientist/theories/monkeys/EVOLUTION
The only thing your lovely evolution theorie proves is that most humans are monsters THAT NEVER EVOLVED.
There are 2 many monsters on this planet walking on 2 legs.
The discovery of new ReVolutionary things mean nothing in the eye's of starving kid in ...
That thing on his chin is called a beard. The reason we evolved to lose most of our body hair but retain certain parts, and facial hair only in the male of the species, is still not fully understood. If you had a brain cell you might like to research it yourself.
By the way, Jesus is often portrayed with a beard but that's no reason to ignore him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There should easily be "millions and millions" of missing links (trans fossils), and yet Evolutionists desperately STRUGGLE to even find ONE! Every day scientists are using the table of current facts with more facts pouring in to continue to DISSPROVE Evolution. Like it or not the theory is dying out every day. Transitional fossils ONLY exist in books as assumed graphics and sketches. Get ready, because 2009 is the year Evolution gets blown apart and shelved as fiction.
That school system does define Theory as an item which must be believed, by faith and faith alone. Look at those high-school textbooks, that's where Christians get the knowledge of evolution from.
No idea what a theory is? Some creationists espouse the idea that a theory is a guess because that puts decades of research at the same level as their idle guesswork. In fact a theory is "an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations". Science has facts which lead, via hard work, to conclusions. Creationism has a conclusion which leads, via fundraising, pleading and politics, to the loss of America's leadership in the technological revolution.
Very well written post, however not required. I'm on the side of evolution. I fully understand the meaning and importance of a theory in science and the amount of work put into them, as well as how much validity they hold.
I am also quite sickened by the way religious fundamentalism is pushing science and actual knowledge in general back, attempting to bring around, if they can, another dark age.
which do you preferred to believe? the product of science or a book (bible) which cannot be proved to be true?????
abduljakol1985 4 months ago
moses wrote genesis
lorensweatman 6 months ago
sad but true. and he ment it how he said it.dig deeper pls, what your saying about christians not understanding. might be true for some but you dont understand genesis so tit for tat
okwoode 1 year ago
@seekatruth I think you'll find most atheists think the same. They are usually evidence based thinkers and that tends to push you towards athiesm. You can ask any athiest if they would believe in god and you'll probably get 'yes if there's some evidence'
Octamed 1 year ago
i understand that people can take the bible to be allagorical and therefore not conflicting with evolution but what about adam and eve? do they represent more than just two individuals? because any notion of the human population starting out with two individuals absolutely conflicts with science
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
@bigmanoooo1 I see adam and eve and clearly representing the stage at which humans became fully conscience of their actions and themselves. At this stage we really are seperate from animals and are capable of being evil for the sake of evil, hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Animals can't be evil as such because they lack this awareness.
The genesis story is actually a great story about human behaviour and to take it literally COMPLETELY misses the whole message behind it. Ironic
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed well yeah thats a good point but ive never spoken to a christian that doesnt take genesis literally or atleast doesnt think that god actually made man in his present form, there are not many christians are prepared to just see the bible as a fairytale which imo they would have to to be able to accept evolution
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
Sir,You shouldn't have made a video response with a face that belongs on radio.
lois0must0die 1 year ago
@lois0must0die I'm being repressed!
Octamed 1 year ago
I don't think a lot of people understand where the frustration between atheists and theists lie. It's not just differences in beliefs, it about trying to get it through some very thick theists minds that we're not the center of the universe, and neither was the universe created for us!
Holding this subtle but deep mis-understandings about the world around us leaves atheists feeling the same as a math teacher would feel about a student saying there's no place for numbers in algebra.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat *letters in algebra
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
there is proof that islam is the truth
chipsandkebabs 1 year ago
@chipsandkebabs elaborate please
Octamed 1 year ago
@Octamed
I will send you a personal message InshaAllah .
chipsandkebabs 1 year ago
way to use f%^k and god in the same sentence.
Dengora63 1 year ago
You are clueless. Magic doesn't exist fool.
bighrabovsky 1 year ago
Creation is right: God blew his bad breath( no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and voila, it became alive and upright, and all was well. Question, did Adan have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam complained about loneliness. What if god had given Adam a motorbike or a computer and he felt satisfied, no longer lonely, we would still be living in the garden of eden
lizazoon 1 year ago
Octamed, the part in your video where you said that looking at all the physical properties of the universe "set up the inevitability that evolution would appear from all of this" that was the part where your thinking departed from the scientific to the theoretical. Theory, while backed up by a lot of evidence, is still a generalization, a large skip over tons and tons of evidence in between that may (i'm not saying it will) discount the theory of evolution.
kratos834 1 year ago
@kratos834 You're incorrect. Theory explains facts. A theory cannot exist if it does not have facts to support it. If there are facts that contradict the explanation, then the theory is wrong - and in science, that will be the point where it won't be refered to as "theory" any more.
The very fact that a Theory exists, implies that the facts do as well
dxrocker69 1 year ago
did we ever seen god of devil christain suckers?
dickiedik5 2 years ago
I have read many scientific papers that have been trumpeted as the final proof to evolution. I came across:
1. The conclusions presented by the authors are a mile away of what the evolutionists parrot.
2. There is no scientific axioms that can help you to check whether or not their experiments proves their claims.
Evolution is a fable, and it does not resist
a minute examanation. Thus many Evolutionists have became Christians due to this fable.
agfigueroaa 2 years ago
Dna mutates. Bad mutations get the organism killed before having kids, good ones makes it able to have more kids. Kids get good mutation. Repeat.
Things everyone agrees on a) dna mutates
Therefore evolution exists. Any further evidence is a bonus. If you can't explain what would stop a species mutating at some arbitary point then speciation also must happen. No evidence required.
Evolution lesson 101 over :)
Octamed 2 years ago
Thats why myths are created, due to flawed reasonings:
"Things everyone agrees on a) dna mutates"
This is a flawed conlusion: populations convergue, thus contradicting the common ancestor theory.
agfigueroaa 2 years ago
@agfigueroaa Actually, it doesn't contradict anything. In fact, variation and introduction of new genes to the gene pool of a tribe has been shown to accelerate evolution.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Hi, I have seen some of ur videos. Thanks for ur message. I am afraid that ur going much more beyong what the scientific literature states. Have u check the assumptions and the conclusions of those models?. Most of the literature I have checked, it shows that it converges.
Nevertheless, my argument did not go in that direction as u can check.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Your comments in this thread lead me to conclude I have spend a far bigger share of time reading about evolution then you have, that's for sure.
I have checked what the scientific conclusions of those models are and the result is that it fits perfectly with what we see in nature.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Let me ask you something. Very simple. When u are confronted to an article (of any nature), how do u scrutinise its scientific rigourness and validity? in other words, how do u review it?
Also, I did not deny evolution, my comments starts from a disparity in the definitions of species, ergo the scientific validity of evolution is subject of this definition.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa: " how do u scrutinise its scientific rigourness and validity" I check the credentials of the author and go by general scientific consensus. Seeing how my computer can do the most amazing things, how meds cure my illnesses and how robots drive around on mars by remote control, I'm inclined to trust scientists.
Evolution is not at all subject to the definition of the word "species"... Dna mutates. Off spring inherits mutated dna. Repeat. => EVOLUTION.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 thanks x ur reply. Unfortunately, u show u do not understand logic and science. First, to judge a claim by the author, it is fallacy of logical reasoning. Second, to trust in scientific concensus is also a fallacy is like saying democracy is always right. Scientists have a long record of frauds also, you cherry-pick with ur examples.
Third, the fail in ur thinking is the "REPEAT" step. Is this infinite?. What is the difference between ur statement and the following:
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa "to judge a claim by the author, it is fallacy of logical reasoning". Not by the author. By the credentials of the author. By the journal it was published in. These journals screen those papers for me. Other scientists read those journals. They double check and use whatever content of the paper to build technology. And when I see an atom bomb explode, or when I see the light go on by pressing a button, I know it's ok to trust atomic theory.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa " to trust in scientific concensus is also a fallacy is like saying democracy is always right" No, it's not. And it's dishonest of you to say such a thing. Scientific consensus doesn't only mean that "the majority agrees". It firstly means that as good as ALL scientists of the field agree AND that we can see it's result (like again atom bombs exploding, robots on mars, new flu shots every year, etc etc). Democracy is completely different. Science is NOT a democracy.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa "Scientists have a long record of frauds also, you cherry-pick with ur examples." Actually, taking those frauds among BILLIONS of discoveries and using them as an argument against science in general is what is the cherry picking...
The good thing about a self-correcting system like science is that those frauds are doomed from the start. The very fact that we are calling them frauds proves that they didn't last. Tricking science is really hard - if not impossible in the long run
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa "Third, the fail in ur thinking is the "REPEAT" step. Is this infinite?. "
It's not a fail at all, it's simple logic (I chuckled here at the irony). If mutations are inheritable by off spring (and they are, this is observed fact) then adding generations to that bloodline will only further accumulate inheritable mutations. So, yes... it is infinite for as long as there is life to reproduce and mutate. As long as there is reproductive life, there is evolution of life.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 "I have an empty glass of water, big one, and I start pouring water drop by drop, and after 1000 drops I claime: hey, the glass can contain infinite water". What helps u assess my claim as false and ridiculous. When u find this out, it requires u to do some extra thinking to find the fail on ur repeat step, and why the definition of "Species" is fundamental.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa You are not making any sense at all here. I fail to see the analogy. Do you even know what mutation is?
Let me put it simpler:
Every new born human has about 175 mutations in its DNA. This means it has things in his DNA that are unique for him. He didn't get it from his mom or dad. It's the result of mutation (which can be many different things like copies, insertioins, frame shifts etc). The children will inherit from that "new" dna. Evolution.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 I will give u a clue: check the essentials of the scientific method. Look, for instance, Wikipedia. In particular, the first one listed there. I think this will help u to understand the analogy.
I understand evolution. thats why I am aware of the importance of the definition of "species".. :)
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa I'm still unaware of what you are trying to say. Why is it that hard to explain your analogy? Could it be because you know it's total bullshit?
And sorry, you just really do not give the impression to understand evolution. You wouldn't be caught up in the whole "species" thing if that were the case man. The only reason why we have a word "species" is because lifeforms appear to stay constant during the short lifespan of a human.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Because I understand evolution I was caught up in the "species thing".
As I said, ur problem is assuming the "repeat" step in the evolutionary process. In my analogy, "systematically dropping water to the glass" likens "the gradual accumulation of changes in a species". But, u know that it is not possible to pour infinite water to the glass, because u can experimentally observe that there is a limit given by the volume. This is science: the volume constrains the amount of water ..
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa LOL!!! So you have problem with the "repeat" step... hahahah. That's hilarious.
You do realise that the "repeat" step means that we just move on to the next generation right? Why is it wrong to "assume" that after this generation, a next generation will come? Seriously...
Fact: every new born individual has a certain amount of mutations.
Fact: living things reproduce and pass on (mutated) genes to off spring, who will do the same (= REPEAT)
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa The fail in your analogy is that drops of water are NOTHING LIKE mutations. Drops of water are limited. It is completely wrong to say that "only x amount of mutations are possible". Every new born has a varrying amount of mutations. As long as there is reproduction, there will be mutation in the off spring..
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Unfortuantely, experiments on E-coli bacteria show the contrary, as I think I aforementioned. So this is not a scientific fact.
An observable fact: We do not see a hlaf monkey/half human, or a half turtle/half butterfly.
Fact: What we observe in evolution: Small changes to species, which by no means leads to a new species (under a reasonable definition), ergo the "gradual" and "accumulative" aspect is scientifically uncertain.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Come on now, don't lie. There is no limit on the possible amounts of mutations and you know it very well. Any gene or any dna strand can mutate. And every new generation new mutations occur.
This is observed fact.
We HAVE observed speciation in miniscule life (bacteria, insects, etc).
We CANNOT observe speciation on the "dinosaur to bird" kind of level, because we don't live to be 2 million years.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Sorry about that, I meant to say "because we don't live to be millions of years".
obviously it took a *little* longer to get from a dino to a bird, lol.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Direct observation furthermore is not always necessary to come to a conclusion... Good examples are atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons. None of these have ever been observed. NEVER. Nobody has ever SEEN an atom or any of it's even smaller components.
Likewise, the investigators who solve a murder did NOT observe the murder.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa A correct analogy with a glass of liquid would be to take a glass of a liquid and poor it into another glass and repeat that process. And each time you poor the liquid in another glass, you change a couple of molecules of the liquid.
After you repeated that process a couple thousand times... i'll bet you the liquid will have a different color, taste and smell. Do you get it now?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 My example is oriented to the limits and to the gradual aspect of evolution. These are not proven by science. The problem with ur example is that the process depends on how many times u change the water on the glass and how many drops the external force put into it. This is pointless to my remark.
The key question u have to scientifically prove is that: Is there any natural limit to the gradual cahnges? In ur analogy:
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa You're still not getting it. In my example, I don't care about drops. Drops have nothing to do with it. i'll explain as if you were a 5-year old:
1. take glass of liquid
2. pour glass into another (empty) glass and randomly change a few random molecules
3. repeat step 2 a couple thousand times.
4. end up with liquid vastly different then the liquid in original glass.
THAT is a correct analogy. Pouring into other glass with a few changed molecules = reproduction.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Can u pour infinite salt to the water? the answer no. There is a limit to the amount of salt that the water can absobe!. I wonder if this limit exists to the gradual evolution.
Got it now?
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa No, you are not getting it.
I'm not adding anything extra to the glass. I'm taking what is allready in the glass and CHANGE parts of it (= MUTATION, COME ON!!!)
I don't ADD to it. I CHANGE it.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 .. a glass can contain. I can meassure it, observe it and I can draw a final conclusion. If u check the essentials of the scientific method, u will see that it is applied to "observable and meassurable" phenomenon. Thus, on the other side of the analogy, the "repeat" step is observable. Well, it depends on the definition of "species". If by species u mean "kinds" (e.g., monkeys and humans), then no. Therefore, u cannot apply the scientific method...
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa "kinds" is not a term known in taxonomy. You don't get to make shit up dude.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Do ur research on "the species problem" and then, please be honest and remove ur this post.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa I did my research. Taxonomy is the field that classifies living things in groups and it has names for each "level". The word "kind" is not one of them.
It's a bullshit meaningless term tossed around by creationists in a very intellectually dishonest way with as sole purpose to create confusion. Go ahead, give me the defenition of a "kind". What is a "kind"? And on what basis and through which parameters are creatures classified under a certain "kind"?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Mutation rates are absolutely measureable and observable. And they HAVE been measured and they HAVE been observed. It also has been observed that those mutations are inherited by off spring.
So your entire argument falls to its knees.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 The scientific questions is: Is there any limit? The scientific question is not whether mutations exist. U fail to understand again.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa A limit to what? Amount of mutations? In one generation or after thousands of generations or...? What are you saying REALLY?
I'm getting the feeling that you have NO CLUE what mutation really is.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Any limit and or constraint to the mutations with respect to the original organism.
Man, please so far I have proven u have no idea. Remember that we are arguing the third of ur fallacies.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Ow, ok. In that case, you are completely wrong. There is no demonstrable constraint or limit with respect to the original organism whatsoever. Primarily because there is no real "orignal" organism when it comes to cumulative organisms anyway. Every new generation is a new "original" organism. Evolution always works with what it has at its disposal.
If gene A mutates in generation X, there is no reason at all why it shouldn't again mutate in generation x+2 or 5 or a million.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Exactly. Finally, u get my point. So ur claim is that "the history" of changes has no influence in the evolutionary process. This has not been shown scientifically. And as u said, there is no observable constraint or limit.
I agree, yes. But, the fact that it has not been observed, it does not mean it does not exist. Ergo, the "gradual" aspect of evolution is not a FACT, as u say.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa I'm not claiming anything, I'm just trying to explain to you how mutation (and thus evolution) works, but you are keeping your brain in hibernation for some reason.
the "history" of mutations has no influence on the "future" changes. THAT is what I am saying. And that is what cumulative mutation IS. Do you know what a recursive function is? Look it up, that is a perfect analogy.
It's basicly a loop and the output of one run becomes the input of the next run.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Let's give an example... Suppose you have a string "XXX". This string reproduces with a mutation. The child string is now "XYX". XYX reproduces again. The input of the mutation process is now XYX, no longer is it XXX!!! Another mutation occurs... the new childstring is now for example XYA. Then XYA reproduces with another mutation. His child: XZA (=> mutation in the same gene as the first). And so it continues.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa See how that works? The output of a generation becomes the input of the next generation. And that's how cumulative mutation works. And that is why every living creature that reproduces is in fact a transition between his parents and his children. Now take my example and let that process go on for another 1000 generations, add some dynamic selection parameters... et voila. Evolution through natural selection.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa If you would do a bit of reading about evolutionary genetics, you'ld see that biologists are actually capable of building a family tree of all life based on this logic. We are able to trace back family ties with other species by following this history of changes through similarities in the DNA. We can even do this for individual genes. ANd here's the compelling part: they did the same with the fossil record based on age and fysiology traits. The EXACT same tree was the result.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Then, since u cannot observe it, test hypotheses, then Evolutionist claim that the gradual accumulation of changes brings about another kind of species. But, since nobody has been able to observe this, nobody knows if there is a contraint like in the case of the glass of water. Got it?
All in all, the definition of "species" is fundamental to agree or disagree with the key postulate of evolution. In general, this postulate cannot be scientifically tested, so far.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa repeating it doesn't make it so.
Inheritable mutation has been observed countless of times.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Nobody has ever observed an atom, electron, neutron or proton either. That didn't stop us from exploding nukes and smashing protons together at the speed of light.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 I do agree. I do agree. But, one thing is calling something a "fact" or "scientific fact" which has not been "scientifically proven". Theories are theories, and speculation is only that speculation.
U call many thinks that are speculation, facts. U need to be more rigourouss with ur language.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Now I'm certain that you don't know how science works.
A scientific theory is not a "guess". It's a construct of explanation of facts. A scientific fact is a piece of DATA. You can't prove a piece of DATA. In fact, it's the DATA that supports the theory.
Scientific fact and scientific theory mean DIFFERENT things in scientific jargon compared to in every day to day language.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Man, u do not understand what u read.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa No, it's you who doesn't understand what a Scientific Theory is and how an idea or hypothesis gets to the stage of being called Theory, capital T.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Having said that, evolution is (just like gravity) both a fact and a theory.
It's a fact because inheritable mutation has been observed. Evolution doesn't just mean that animal A "changes" into animal b over the course of millions of years... An insect growing immunity to pesticide is ALSO mutation.
Evolution theory is the explanation of that fact.
Just like gravity is a fact (apples fall "down"). But that fact doesn't get you in orbit around mars... You need theory for that.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 "It's a fact because inheritable mutation has been observed."
Did I say the contrary? I do not understand why u are arguing this. What is ur reading comprehension level?
"Evolution doesn't just mean that animal A "changes" into animal b over the course of millions of years... "
It is not, but I am debating this point. I made it clear earlier.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Well, then all you need to do is get it into your stubborn brain that mutations are cumulative.
Whatever inheritable mutation happens in generation X will be present in generation X +1. Every new inheritable mutation in generation x+1 will be present in generation x+2, which will also have the inheritable mutations of generation X.
Extrapolate that to thousands, millions of generations and the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME is vastly different DNA. What's so hard to understand about that?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 "your stubborn brain that mutations are cumulative" "Extrapolate that to thousands, millions of generations " ... I do not want to imagine, I want to observe it and then scientifically ananlyse it.
U might feel confortable imagining that it is true. But I am scientists, a rigouruos one.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa There's nothing to imagine. It's basic mathematical fact.
Here's an example of what you are actually saing... We stand together on a road of 10 miles long. I take 5 steps. I realise that with every step I take, I move further and further forward. I then stop and say "If I would take hundreds, thousands of such steps, I will have walked 10 miles and reach the end of the road". Now, you are saying: "I'm gonna have to see you reach the end of the road before I can believe that".
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 U believe that it is a fact, it is ok to u. But, I would like to observe it, and then believe it. I would not argue on belief with u.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa So you don't believe that if I started walking taking one step at a time, that I would end up walking 10 miles after thousands of steps? Consider this: you stand in the center of a village. The center of the next village is 10 miles further. You take one step. Does the enivronment look different to you? You are STILL standing in the center of the first village... The answer is no, it looks exactly the same. Now walk the 10 miles, one step at a time. Is the answer still "no"?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Now realise that if we would see those 10 miles as a transition of a dinosaur to a bird... then a human life span doesn't even account for 1 inch of that distance.
What you are asking for is simply completely dishonest. Furthermore, Evolution Theory does NOT predict that you will see such radical change in one lifetime. In fact, if you COULD see such radical change in your lifetime.. then evolution theory IS WRONG, since its prediction wouldn't check out. Dumbass.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa ps: in what are you a scientist? what field? where did you study? what are your credentials? care to share a few of your published papers?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 I do not want to unveil my identity in a surveilled medium such as utube. Do u think this is safe?
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa What I think is that it speaks volumes that you didn't even bother to mention in which field you are active.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Language. Not teaching, but understanding how languages evolve, are acquired, their structures and diferences, etc. Lots of experimentation there, and it is merged with psychology, little biology. Also, language study in involved in the DNA.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Right. And that makes you an authority on biology how exactly? You dropped the "i'm a scientist"-bomb yourself as an argument...
Anyhow, it's kind of strange that I need to explain to you the concept of cumulative change while you claim to be studying the evolution of languages - which follows the exact same pattern. Languages evolve through time.
The language we speak today is practically identical to the language we spoke last year. Not completely identical, but practically
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa However, the english we speak today is quite different from the english that was spoken 5 generations ago.
It is very very different from the english of a couple centuries ago.
And it is completely and totally different from the language that english branched from thousands of years ago!
French, Italian, etc are all languages that used to be LATIN. Transpose that to biology and you have... dun dun duuuun. SPECIATION.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa So to conclude... you just shot yourself in the food. If you cannot understand the concept of cumulative change then you must be the worst scientist in your field that ever walked this planet.
Small gradual changes CAN ONLY and WILL ONLY result in BIG CHANGE after long periods of time, given the process is allowed to continue (which in both the evolution of life and language is nothing more or less then reproduction and passing on of genes/language). Epicly owned.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 As aforementioned, because I understand it, I do not believe it. But, I do not want to reiterate what I have said at least two times.
Btw, How was I epicly owned? Do u remember my first question? and ur answers? the first two elements of ur answers were ridiculised quickly, and we extended on the third, which by no means, have u provided sth that satifies reason.
I did not use "I am scientist" as an argumente, check carefully, I used as the reason why
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 I do not "imagine" things as u do, but I rather demand rigourous scientific proofs or evidence. Thats the difference between u and me. I am rigourous and I am not leaned to believe fables.
On ur example on languages, please do not refer to it again.
Anyways, it seems to me that u now want to discredit me in order to "own me". But, what u fail to admit is that u have not scrutinised Evolution in such a way that allows u to state that what u call facts are facts.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa The problem is that the thing that you "claim not to believe" is something as MINDBLOWINGLY SIMPLE that you can't avoid walking for miles if you continue to walk taking one step at a time.
That makes you a dumbass. Sorry.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa What's there to scrutinise about the MINDBLOWINGLY SIMPLE CONCEPT that if you continue to add 1 to a number in a loop, using the output of the iteration as input of the next iteration, you can ONLY end up with an ever increasing number, dumbass?
Why wouldn't I use the language example again? It's a nice example. English today is only in details different from english 10 years ago. It is much more different from 100 years ago. It's unrecognisable 1500 years ago. Evolution.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Also keep in mind that I don't imagine anything. It's basic 1st grade logic that if you walk taking one step at a time, you can only end up walking for miles if you don't stop walking.
No imagination is needed to realise that. Just some common sense and 1st grade math.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 But, u accepted that "the fact that there are o are not limits to changes" is sth that we have to imagine. This was my third point. U also did not tackle the "speciation problem", which u claimed did not exist. But, in fact, it is a major concern in the evolutionary comunity.
In the end, u "owned me" only in ur mind.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa "But, u accepted that "the fact that there are o are not limits to changes"
What else can you do with a fact aside from accepting it? ow yea, sorry.. one can do like you and just ignore it. LOL.
Fact: every newborn has mutation.
Fact: as long as there are newborns, there will be mutations.
==> conclusion: mutation is limited only by birth rate.
As long as there is reproduction, there WILL be mutation, which will accumulate through generations.
Get it now?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa What part of that do we need "imagination" for? Please tell. You've been saying this for a while now, but never actually explained it.
And what speciation problem? You continue to ramble on about it, but fail to explain it. Google "observed speciation" for more information on the topic (and preferably before you reply).
I owned you because I have demonstrated that a concept that you denied actually exists in YOUR OWN FIELD OF STUDY.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa No, do not get it, because it doesn't make sense. The constraint you provide with the glass of water example is NOT APPLICABLE to biological mutation. You are ADDING to the water in your example. Mutation doesn't ADD things. It CHANGES what is already there. There are several ways this can happen: frameshift of genes, deletion, insertions, duplication, etc... The only possible result in the long run is more dna in both amount as well as diversity.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@Octamed You do not get it at all.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@Octamed This proves that evolution exists in the form of microevolution. This does not prove anything about macro evolution. Take for instance a t.v. Tvs have come very far in their evolutionary process over the years since the 50's. Many changes have occured that brought the box from being a device with knobs to change the channel and antennas and an analog receptor to being digital with no need for antennas but it is still a tv.
85vaboy 1 year ago
@85vaboy You cannot compare an inanimate object to an organism of any complexity. When ya'll figure that teeny detail out, you'll be able to put it together. Till then you are slow, and redundent and does not have any interest in expanding your education. That being said, if you are not going to put forth the effort as the rest of us have, you have no place in arguing about it. I wish you all who can't put up or shut up, will realize this is a horrible representation of any 8th grader
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Just read the selfish gene before spreading your babel from your bible.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat Only after u read the Bible and get educated by reading what it is really proven in the scientific community.
This will do u a real favour.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
right track.... wrong train!!! if you can not argue evolution with out knowing it, how can you argue the mind of God without know it? There are ties that bind and minds that do not. Is that enough B.S. for you?
dgo1951 2 years ago
"how can you argue the mind of God without know it?"
- we don't. We argue if there IS a mind there at all :) Totally different.
Octamed 2 years ago
I know because of that I'm sad. I hope you find that for which you are searching. I hope you will find the contentment and joy so many people throughout time sought and never found. Remember, they asked the same questions you ask. If you do not find them where you are searching, search somewhere else. Dont stay in your rocking chair.
dgo1951 2 years ago
It's human nature to demand an answer. Sometimes there just isn't one we're capable of understanding. That doesn't mean we're not going to try damn hard to though. The easier answer isn't usually the right one.
Octamed 2 years ago
All the answers are easy. You can simply choose to make them difficult. Can a blind man see the wind? Can a deaf man hear the approach of a stamped? Can a mute cry out in pain and anguish? Just because the easy answer isnt obvious doesnt mean its not easy. Get out of your senses stop the scientific analysis. We never apply it equally anyway.
dgo1951 2 years ago
"stop the scientific analysis"
every decision is scientific, that's what makes us human. Animals run off pure instinct and emotion. While we have that, what makes us different is reason.
If you aren't thinking logically, you aren't thinking.
Octamed 2 years ago
please re-read the entire last reply.... please. best wishes. dg
dgo1951 2 years ago
the fact is if god was real it'd be completely obvious. Not 'look around, it's so clear!!' obvious, but physics defying, mountains moving, unexplainable awe, obvious.
Octamed 2 years ago
Atheists don't understand Christians
faithmustbestrong 2 years ago
that's one thing we can all agree on :)
Octamed 2 years ago
CHUCK NORRIS!
satan60 2 years ago
now where's my cowboy hat..
Octamed 2 years ago
Theres nothing to understand evolution is crap.
ave383 2 years ago
google 'evolution 101 berkeley' and read about it.
Octamed 2 years ago
get some sun you bloody cockroach
nighthawk2075 2 years ago
Don't you get cracks in the end of your keyboards if you put them on their side like that?
KitRae 2 years ago
Evolution is a theory. Yet, you say christians dont understand evolution, but evolution is not a law. Its theory. There are two types of evolution, micro and macro. One, meaing that things change over time, like the islands of gallapagos where darwin found the birs and the differences in their beeks. That is micro, macro as far as humans coming from a slime and developing into apes then humans, is what the majority of christians dont believe in.
cjval09 2 years ago
"but evolution is not a law. Its theory"
- Theory in science means an explanation of a set of facts.
"There are two types of evolution, micro and macro"
- no there isn't. Evolution is evolution. If you believe 'micro' you believe 'macro'
Octamed 2 years ago
everything you stated has evan been a hoax or never found.
ave383 2 years ago
Fun Fact: You look like Jesus.
I find that deliciously ironic.
YellowMagikoopa 2 years ago
how do you know Jesus looked like him? how do you know Jesus was not Arabic? Or heck, what if Jesus is a symbolic symbol? What if Jesus was never actually a man, but what a couple of guys came up with the perfect man and told stories about him?
Buddyb309 2 years ago
Jesus was semitic...so he looked kinda arab, but not modern arab. The middle east has mixed with africa, and white conquers from europe and asia... anyway give him a tan, and a jew nose and you might just have it.
beefygoblin 2 years ago
You people don't understand evolution. What is is is that animals with genes that are benifitial, such as long necks in a area with tall trees have a better chance of survival and reproducing to pass on those genes. It's very simple.
Digibutternerrbiz 2 years ago
ok sorry for not being relevant
and i like your vid
but your beard is really really thick
no offense of course
but shave....
BoredAndTiredToNoEnd 2 years ago
youtube is great but why do so many feel the need to substitute vial language to mask impoverished vocabularies? really subtracts from what may be valid and interesting points of view.
fully expecting people to flex their 1st amendments rights in an onslaught of vulgarity in response :)
sdinger74 2 years ago
I'm not a clone of my father , evolution , mutation , i really think that for now with us that is all that is meant to be ! but we will evolve into a new species when the time is right . and when god speaks to you be prepared he is loud ! I've got my proof ! and i know Jesus works in me because when i sin i hate it ! dang sin !
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
aussi aussi aussi...
btw
Shave T_T.......
:)
shredder266 2 years ago
well then that means GOD lied.................and I have a relationship with the Great Lord! he would never lie,so I don't think this is right.
tricksterD8 2 years ago
nope , we do evolve , not like some people say , they have no proof , but i am not a clone of my father right , macro evolution , i am still just as human as my great great great grandfather , mite even look like him to !
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
evolution is god's hand.
the3dguy2 2 years ago
Good work with this vid. Its nice to see a video response that is intelligent and well spoken. I wish more people would take time to study other possibilities aside from what has been drilled into their heads over and over again, especially with religion.
AleronNightshade 2 years ago
fuck evolution.god did everything and there is no other POSSIBLE explanation.
halo3MLG25766 2 years ago 4
stuuuuuupid
craigshrimpton1 2 years ago 2
good comment except the f-word , made me smile f-in a. ha ha ha .
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
exactly what a religeos person would say...you ignorant fuck...how bout you n god come 2 my door and maybe then ille believe you.. ps. im not 100% athiest im just not religeos
xInfamous187x 2 years ago
xln; Learn to spell, it will make you look better. You need it
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
how bout u become a english teacher fucker
xInfamous187x 2 years ago
Ok, I'll be the English teacher, you go wash your mouth out with soap. Oh, wait , this is a spelling lesson. It's "about", "you" and "English". Also, a "," after teacher. haha
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
here you go folks the biggest fag on youtube....
xInfamous187x 2 years ago
@halo3MLG25766 Evolution: the most wonderful, simple process of man`s ascend.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Even still your misunderstanding most people. Yes there is a status quo and is sucks if you want to change the world lead by example.
Theronguardaaah 2 years ago
If there is a God/Yahweh Evolution is the way he did it that was not included in the bible. Have your faith if you like but know that your creator gave the ability for man to think discover and question. He even put the tree in the garden knowing that man would discover it. If I held a box and in it where all Yahweh's secrets would you not peer inside? If I created you, would I not know your nature? Seems it is us that does not know Yahweh's nature.
PeckerGoblin 2 years ago
Too many people believe in Miracles or Magic. Don't you know that if there is a God he knows how the trick was done. There are no miracles just things we do not yet understand.
PeckerGoblin 2 years ago
who cares i just accept both - virus - bacteria - common ancestors - etc - genesis. no worries. i like reading bout both.
sdinger74 2 years ago
smart , holy cow !!
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
God created everything,,,but does it matter how long a week was????
Rob187ok 2 years ago
i could listen to your accent all day ;) nice points
rootsm3 2 years ago
You've messed up again. You're replying to the wrong posts.
jimladx 2 years ago
Hes ugly. ugly, Ugly. UFLY
NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA PANG PANG PANG PANG:
LOOK AT HIM TEDIUS: DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
dubbeltid 2 years ago
I think you must have messed up somewhere.
jimladx 2 years ago
Evolution is the biggest joke of the 21st century. Seriously..lol.. it takes more faith to believe in a fairytale story that i share a common acestore with a f..king carrot. wow..
SassyTress 2 years ago
right - I think people take the bible way too literally, too. It's been translated and with each translation and revision meaning is lost or replaced. For example the hebrew term for day has different meanings, from 24 hrs. to a week to a thousand years... and the bible says 7 days, so what is it really supposed to mean?
Richinator2000 2 years ago
Creating something something complex from simple actions .DOH, try unknotting your fake-ipod's earsthingie. It is a miracle to how the wires always get so tangled up.
i don't give a DAMN about science/scientist/theories/monkeys/EVOLUTION
The only thing your lovely evolution theorie proves is that most humans are monsters THAT NEVER EVOLVED.
There are 2 many monsters on this planet walking on 2 legs.
The discovery of new ReVolutionary things mean nothing in the eye's of starving kid in ...
boredbyondblieve 2 years ago
Wow you're a fucking moron.....LMAO
jimladx 2 years ago
That thing on his chin is called a beard. The reason we evolved to lose most of our body hair but retain certain parts, and facial hair only in the male of the species, is still not fully understood. If you had a brain cell you might like to research it yourself.
By the way, Jesus is often portrayed with a beard but that's no reason to ignore him.
jimladx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There should easily be "millions and millions" of missing links (trans fossils), and yet Evolutionists desperately STRUGGLE to even find ONE! Every day scientists are using the table of current facts with more facts pouring in to continue to DISSPROVE Evolution. Like it or not the theory is dying out every day. Transitional fossils ONLY exist in books as assumed graphics and sketches. Get ready, because 2009 is the year Evolution gets blown apart and shelved as fiction.
bravetoday 3 years ago
Just stop talking please, your vacuity is showing.
madmodder 3 years ago 7
That's funny. You idiocy is showing.
sabboth42 3 years ago
You cant sink somethink that lies already at the bottom.
Eskon2 3 years ago
Bones rarely fossilize, it's amazing we have the fossils we do. We have thousands of transistion fossils. How do you explain them without evolution?
mattdistad 2 years ago 5
you must be a monkey huh? im not a monkey
chooechooe 3 years ago
That school system does define Theory as an item which must be believed, by faith and faith alone. Look at those high-school textbooks, that's where Christians get the knowledge of evolution from.
brentpieczynski 3 years ago
Wrong completely. You have no idea what a theory is.
sabboth42 3 years ago 4
No idea what a theory is? Some creationists espouse the idea that a theory is a guess because that puts decades of research at the same level as their idle guesswork. In fact a theory is "an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations". Science has facts which lead, via hard work, to conclusions. Creationism has a conclusion which leads, via fundraising, pleading and politics, to the loss of America's leadership in the technological revolution.
Where the communists failed...
jimladx 2 years ago
Very well written post, however not required. I'm on the side of evolution. I fully understand the meaning and importance of a theory in science and the amount of work put into them, as well as how much validity they hold.
I am also quite sickened by the way religious fundamentalism is pushing science and actual knowledge in general back, attempting to bring around, if they can, another dark age.
sabboth42 2 years ago
Thank you and sorry.
jimladx 2 years ago