(i) Macroevolution is change above the level of order, thus the overwhelming majority of taxonomic ranking (particularly speciation) falls under uncontroversial and irrelevant microevolution.
(ii) An identical classification system can be applied to known designs. For example, automobiles can be ranked by car, truck, boat, etc., and then further ranked by other physical traits.
The idea that taxonomy disproves design goes against every shred of evidence we've ever collected.
One of the propagandists in this video claims that taxonomy only makes sense in the light of evolution. This is a baffling claim seeing as how modern-day taxonomy was originated by the Biblical creationist Carl Linnaeus.
Taxonomy is ranked by physical similarity. This physical similarity does not logically entail common descent; common design is equally supported, which is why taxonomy make flawless sense from the perspective of its founder, Carl Linnaeus.
This video defines evolution in a way that isn't remotely controversial and has zero bearing on the whole evolution debate, thus the entire video is a waste of time.
Yes, life changes over time. We know this, in fact, we've likely known it since the dawn of mankind. That's not the issue. The issues are:
• To what extent does life change?
• What are the underlying causes behind those changes?
• What is the origin of those causes?
Thus far, the answers given by mainstream biology have failed.
the first fish spoke english but when they grew legs and lived on land they spoke russian and then and then and then and then they just grunted for a million years and then spoke russian again and then and then and then they used these tools for hunting and then and then they spoke english again and then and then they walked on one leg and cut there tails off to use as a belt and then and then there was the big bang and then dinosaurs lived for 50,000 years and then we made up the rest
Seriously. I dont care if they are fat or old. When I see PhD I know they are worth knowing. To me smart women are attractive. Their smarts will never fade, just grow. Think about the Miss XXXX pageant contestants. Its like fucking a hole in a cardboard cutout of a simulated woman. Smart women are worth knowing.
@MomoTheBellyDancer have you not seen secret of the ooze teenage mutant ninja turtles2? GO NINJA GO. The whole theory of evolution is right there. Splinter is a rat but evolved from jim hensons pet dog. The turtles are men dressed up in green rubber suits doing kung fu routines but they all evolved from actual turtles in the triassic period which was fifty thousand years ago. The dinosaurs lived eight hundred billion years ago then the bible was re-written, peace frogs were the original man
@IAmJoeAverage You failed to tell me anything so there is nothing I can learn from you. See if you can do better. Show me up. Explain things better. Prove something to me. Show me how to explain or say things better.
Did it ever occur to you that you are not telling me anything?
There is nothing I can learn from you because you are not saying anything.
@ohisnuccadoc Those are lyrics to the song Drawn and Quartered by The Acacia Strain, which is why i put "-The Acacia Strain" at the end of the comment.
To the people who deny evolution....you are denying that you went from 46 chromosomes to a human in 9 months inside a female womb. This makes you sound fucking stupid. Have a nice day.
@IAmJoeAverage You are a not telling the truth. I always show the evidence of us having a Maker. *They* never show me anything because they have nothing to show.
The function of hydrogen working as directed inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all function working parts and mechanisms working as directed always have a maker. If you have an issue with that, show me a mechanism working as directed that does not have a maker.
@IAmJoeAverage How dare you call the cut-&-paste creatard drone JungleJargon an idiot!!! Just because his only logic and biology education came via the "Rick Perry University single postcard correspondence course" is no reason to call him an idiot!! Those are highly respected credentials!!!
@IAmJoeAverage The only faith you need is faith in the truth. You have to have a basis for everything you believe.
You failed again to address any of the issues. What is your problem with having a Maker? The function of hydrogen inside of you proves that you have a Maker.
@IAmJoeAverage You think you can say anything and you think it does not need a basis. That is irrational and illogical.
You are not saying anything and your ad hominem does not prove anything. Yes, you do have to back up what you say. Your slander needs to have a basis.
@IAmJoeAverage You have no idea of what I have said.You either did not read what I said or you did not allow it to register.Every simple ordered function has a maker because objects are not able to order any functions of any kind because in random causes, there's more disorder than order so whatever is ordered is also disordered more that it was ordered. That's the reason, it doesn't matter how much chance there is, it will always be disordered more than ordered. Do you even care?
@JungleJargon Look up lysosomes and how they are formed. If you paid attention in biology class you would not be making up ideas out of scientific ignorance.
@IAmJoeAverage If you want to say there is evolution, the burden of proof is on you to show there is such a thing.
Throwing ad hominems is a sign of a poor debater.
I have evidence of a Maker. All function, working parts and mechanisms always have a Maker equal to or greater than the mechanism that is assembled. That is if you are talking about real science in the real world.
That is much better than you saying that objects made or refined what you are.
Yes, and evolutionary theory is the model that explains the nested hierarchies and other observations in biology and palaeontology in terms of what we know about genetics and population dynamics.
@Thinkdeep420 The only thing that is observed is the variations that only the genome is able to reorganize. It will always vary a little bit and the genome is able to reorganize it so that it remains viable. No other physical thing is ever able to organize the genome. Natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the genome.
@Thinkdeep420 that is not true...if you mean evolution from SCA. if you simply mean changes in generations, of course. No creationist would say otherwise. That's not the point. Equivocating variation to SCA is a giant leap at best.
@IAmJoeAverage If you knew anything yourself, you would be able to address the issues. You tried and failed so now you are just throwing your ad hominem at me.
You need to be able to explain to me in your own words why you think that objects made or refined what you are.
@IAmJoeAverage Carbon is another working part that requires a Maker. There are seventeen essential working parts inside of us all of which require a Maker and they will not ever do anything without being ordered to do something.
So objects make nothing, they also refine nothing which means there is no evolution because only the genome is able to reorganize the genome.
@IAmJoeAverage You must not have seen the entire argument.
The ordered function of hydrogen in life forms is what proves we have a maker because all function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker that is equal to or greater than the function that is ordered because everything always has a cause.
Be sure to address the issues.Objects did not make or refine what you are.I hope you don't enjoy giving all of the credit for what you are to the objects that you consist of.
If evolution is defined as change in genetic frequencies in population, how do these mere changes in frequency result in emergence of totally new genotypes of individuals which we call as different species?
@JungleJargon What happened to that science which requires material evidence for material things? You tell me. Your assumption is that non-material things cannot exist.
Through accumulation. Consider the allele-frequency domains of any two lifeforms (eg. dinosaurs and birds): all that is needed to go from one to the other is a change in allele frequencies - there is no secret ingredient. Evolution changes allele frequencies.
It is one the biggest myths when an educated person says that we would not be able to have modern day scientific breakthroughs if evolution did not exist. Lies. What does cholecystectomy have to do with evolution? What does modern drugs used in inhibiting macular degeneration have to do with evolution?
@JungleJargon Please explain the genuine evolution of the "Common Cold." If Evolution is nonsense, prove it. Or at the very least, state your side, don't just make a statement.
@CosmicVitamins I did explain it, only the genome is able to reorganize the genome, nothing else can. Mutations never reorganize the genome and natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the limited information in the genome. So there's not even a mechanism for evolution, it doesn't exist.
Variations are organized by the genome, and even the possibilites are made possible by the genome. All of the credit goes to the preexisting word in the genome.
@JungleJargon You... have explained nothing other than you're very bad at giving evidence or explaining anything. I give you credit for thinking you're smart. Congratulations. I'll just whistle like a bird and keep walking.
@CosmicVitamins Since you have trouble understanding, you that you are the one with the baseless, irrational and illogical belief that objects made or refined what you are.
All I am saying is that functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker that is equal to or greater than the parts and since a major essential working part inside of us is hydrogen that means the Maker of hydrogen is greater than the entire universe made primarily and initially of hydrogen.
@JungleJargon You misunderstand my emotional friend. I'm a Theist... I believe in ADAPTATION, (difference between Adaptation and Evolution) and it's no longer worth talking to you; you're as emotional as an insane atheist and you will convince no one of anything. Do Christianity/Theism/ANY RELIGION a favor and ponder a little more before representing it.
@CosmicVitamins You believe that objects refined what you are and that is no better than believing in evolution saying that objects made you what you are, it is the same thing. You are the same thing as a pagan ascribing atributes to objects that objects do not have.
The genome is the only physical thing that ever reorganizes the genome, nothing else does and natural selection will only select what is reorganized by the genome. You need to understand what you are representing!
@JungleJargon Again, you misunderstand. I don't believe in evolution as you are declaring it. I do not believe I evolved from an object.
Incidentally, I see you like to copy and paste previous comments.You've used this one a few times. Silly.
The way you treat people... the way you encourage your form of 'religious racism'... You believe in belittling others' beliefs, atheist or otherwise, even fellow Christians. Please for the benefit of us both: Troll Elsewhere. Waste of Time.
@JungleJargon Try Listening... I DON'T believe in evolution, I also don't believe in your constant Bullshit. Don't hide behind "Ad Hominems" like a high schooler.Try proving something with evidence, or ANY EVIDENCE, EVEN BAD EVIDENCE (other than your opinion).
THIS is why no one takes Theists/Christians seriously!
Here is a non thinking, over reacting bigot who speaks before they think, and continues too!
Stop portraying Theists in this light. You do no one any favors.
@JungleJargon Good God kid... I'm making statements about you because you portray yourself poorly. You're ridiculously biased, uneducated in Bible and Science.
This in turn portrays Christianity as being foolish to everyone, I wish you had a greater foundation, I wish you chose to portray yourself and your religion intelligently.
I will not respond to you again; I wish this were worth my time, I wish you were worth my time; but it's not. Bang away kid...
@TheJamezMan Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back to me on that. There are hundreds of books which outline the evidence in detail and reference the relevant scientific papers that describe the evidence, but this one was written especially for lay people so even creationists can understand.
It helps to actually research the evidence and try to understand it before making ridiculous statements like that and embarrassing yourself.
@PeaceAndGloryMB Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand.[34] This myth likely began with Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79), who wrote that Ostriches "imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed."
Another poorly understood myth put forth by a creationist and debunked by facts and research. Also, ostriches can't talk.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Biology, or any other branch of study for that matter save evolution itself, would virtually be unchanged if Darwin never published his thoughts. When asked if their work would be different if they thought Darwinian evolution were not true, the majority of biologists simply said, "no." Evolution is useless and is responsible only for wasted money and time.
@ScienceFictionHairdo I like how you backed up your response to my comment with tons of facts. That's cool. Thanks. I tend to think Skell was correct. Many others agreed with him. But, whatever.I also like how you made up a word in your comment. That's cool, also.
@ohisnuccadoc Which one was that? Falser? Look it up in the dictionary. Read a book for once. God forbid you might actually learn something :o! And as of the ''tons of facts'', I'm tired of constantly having to repeat myself to every John Doe on the internet. I have nothing againt you, Christianity or your faith in God. As a student biomedic sciences it just pisses me off to see people with obviously no scientific background whatsoever, spread bullshit like that. Good day to you.
@ScienceFictionHairdo I uh, I have a science background. I have a lot of education. I don't care if you do or I do, but you brought it up. Your "science" is crap. Your "science" is biased. Your "science" is lacking for actual hard facts. I'm no fool. I'm no nube. I've looked at this junk for a long time and can't figure out what is appealing aside from a disregard for a Designer.
@ohisnuccadoc That's alright. It's not for everyone. If everyone was capable of understanding the complex workings of DNA and evolution, we'd be much further along by now. Just remember that all major scientists that have actually contribitued something to science in the biological field (James Watson (polio vaccine), Francis Crick, Jonas Salk (DNA) etc. etc.) were evolutionists. Case closed.
@ScienceFictionHairdo So in other words, you have nothing meaningful to say? Is this correct? Was Carl Linnaeus an evolutionist? And did evolution (the idea that we all, every living thing came from pond scum) result in vaccines (which I actually detest)? Did they use that idea to produce anything? There are books written on the unimportance of this theory--that NOTHING in REAL science would be affected if a scientist believe evolution or not...
@ScienceFictionHairdo "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility... (cont)
@ScienceFictionHairdo (cont)Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Redi and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion --that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God... I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
@ohisnuccadoc Actually there is nothing unscientific about life arising from non-life. This is in fact entirely possible, given the needed requirements are met.The circumstances need to be just right, and all the required organic molecules need to be present. Also, because we don't observe this process happening around us every day, that doesn't mean it is impossible. It is an unlikely event to happen. Unlikely does not equate impossible.
@ScienceFictionHairdo So experiments that have failed to show it is possible don't sway your opinion? The Law of Biogenesis states life comes from life. Why is this any different? It's not that we don't see it happening every day. We don't see it happening at all even when we TRY to make it happen. It's a giant leap at best.
There is no such law. If you mean Haeckel's biogenetic law, that one has been disproved ages ago.
"life comes from life. "
Do you think living matter is different from non-living stuff? It's not. It's the same basic material, with the same chemical properties, which lead to certain processes in living organisms. In the end, all life boils down to chemistry.
@MomoTheBellyDancer you are totally right my ancestor family tree dates back all the way to the origins of life and the first of my family were fat handed twats floating in space and they evolved from the bits of nothing, they were gentle folk at first but gradually grew gills and learnt to breath in Sunday school, and lived on the land, some learnt how to fly but did not pass on this secret to others. My family today are still fat handed twats carrying the genes and DNA structures from day 1
@ohisnuccadoc + even if what you just stated was actually a proven scientific fact, that doesn't mean we can just fill in the blanks with the oh-so overrated ''God did it''. ''We don't know how it happened, therefore God did it.'' Imagine applying that same flawed logic to detective work. ''We don't know who broke into that bank last night. Therefore: God did it.'' Even if life from non-life is unscientific, that doesn't mean saying ''an invisible man in the sky did it'', is in fact scientific.
@ScienceFictionHairdo I see what you're saying and I think you have a good point. However, if it were literally impossible for whatever said detective was investigating to have happened by any known means, saying God did it would certainly qualify as an option. If some other explanation could fit, okay. In terms of abiogenesis, all we've done thus far is show it cannot happen even with intelligent direction from us.
@ohisnuccadoc And as for your books proving the unimportance of evolution. Is the author by any chance named Dr. Dino? Or the Banana Man? Does the author also state that all dinosaurs were herbivores? Or that God handcarved bananas to make them fit into our hands (and mouths)? All satire aside, check your sources before holding on to a book. Find out who the author is and what he/she has contributed to science before blindly reciting their crap on the internet.
@ScienceFictionHairdo About Dr. Dino and Bananas: I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not reciting anyone's anything. Thank you. I am aware of fairly prominent biologists who've stated evolution is worthless in terms of aiding in science. It gives a lot of people jobs and that's cool, but it hasn't done anything for us. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Thanks, though. You seem much cooler to talk with than most of these guys.
"I am aware of fairly prominent biologists who've stated evolution is worthless in terms of aiding in science."
What prominent biologists, where? This is nothing but an appeal to authority.
"it hasn't done anything for us."
It is the best explanation for the diversity of life BY FAR. Plus it has lead to a lead to huge advances in medicine and other sciences that use evolutionary methods to come up with better designs.
@ohisnuccadoc Lastly, evolution in micro biology is responsible for scientists staying ahead of diseases. When a virus/bacteria mutates, we might have to adapt the cure. Viruses such the flu are known to mutate, making them resistent to conventional vaccins, leading to periodic outbreaks of mutated viruses. Without evolution this would mean that God periodically ''plants'' new viruses on planet earth looking suspiciously much like the previous ones.
@ScienceFictionHairdo So I see where you may be confused. I've said this 100 times at least on youtube and elsewhere: No creationist on earth thinks variation doesn't happen. No creationist on earth believes species are static. Evolution from SCA is what we're referencing. The impotence of vaccines is not the issue to be discussed here. Are you saying a virus is a living thing? That's another discussion as well. "Evolution" doesn't mean small changes. SCA is the point.
@Aanthanur I'm sorry: my source for what claim? I am involved in too many conversations. Try including a reference when you're posting. Thanks and sorry:(
@littleiktomi No - your mixing up your philosophies and 'genics' here - Hitler and the Nazis followed the teachings of Eugenics, a philosophical concept that has long since been discredited and which is COMPLETELY different to Genenetic Modified organisms that you seem to think is the same thing. Its certainly nothing of the sort, so please read up on things properly before commenting so distastefully and publicly!
Being an Atheist, I understand and accept Evolution. What I took from this is the growing female participation in the biological sciences. That has to drive the Fundagelicals crazy! :D
Absolutely, natural selection teaches us the SURVIVAL of the species but not the ARRIVAL of the species. Bacteria with all its adaptations is still Bacteria.
@Truenorthman100 natural selection is an observable phenomenon that acts only to retain the most competitive genes. It has no 'goals,' and has no worry for whether a species 'lives' or 'dies.' And bacteria is a kingdom, not a species. Species change, and new species arrive as a result of natural selection driven evolution.
@Truenorthman100 It's kind of funny you mention the guy. I don't much care for him. It's his choice to be atheist. But I don't like the fact that he's overtly anti-religious.
@BassThumper777 m8 - Sorry, I need to correct you here... Natural selection is only one of the many driving forces that influences Evolution, but its not the sole mechanism, and natural selection does not act to retain competitive agents - forgive me, but that implies theres a direction, for which there is none with evolution of course. Finally, speciation is not the result of natural selection, although it is likely to have had a significant influence in that process. Regards
@ianww8 You're right. No argument there. But that's rather picky. I never said it was the ONLY driving force. And that's a big implication - again rather picky. It's almost like saying waste heat doesn't contribute to entropy because heat rises, and going up isn't 'chaotic' or something. And alas, you're speaking beyond my words again on the last one. I said the evolution was natural selection-driven. I didn't say it was a result of natural selection.
@BassThumper777 Well, unfortunately, those who dont want others to get their heads around the marvel that is evolution, will pick on points, so, in the true spirit of scientific peer review, being accurate is not picky - but I otherwise agree with you The amount of ignorance out there is astounding! All the best!
@ianww8 The response of natural selection to differing environments and geographic isolation, however, does result in speciation. Maybe we shouldn't pick so much at each other man. You sound like a smart guy. We ought to be getting together to educate the ignorant and shut down the trolls :D
@BassThumper777 Sorry, I dont mean to imply that I'm picking on you, I'm just politely correcting a minor error in what you said. Thats how and why the scientific method is so much stronger than pseudo science or beleif based thinking - we can, should & do correct each other, where the others will paper over their cracks with bullshit! :-) The reality of evollution is actually qute complicated, no wonder the closed mind fraternity cant get their heads around it! lol Regards!
@ianww8 Ok. Well, I don't necessarily think it is quite as error-ridden as you seem to think, but I also think it is hard to see the whole picture from both sides since text is harder to get across than an in-person discussion. But yes, I have to agree. Having civilized conversations is great for ironing out inconsistencies and expanding everyone's knowledge. Too many times 'agreeing to disagree' just means somebody's stubborn. The pursuit for truth is ongoing. Have a good one.
Evolution is so important, it's all about the survival of the fittest
Let's all listen to Huxley and make Atlantic cod go extinct
Let's all listen to Hitler and make Jews and minorities go extinct
Let's all believe that since life is meaningless and there is no good or bad and that it's only whether you survival or not, killing each other for our own benefits is okay. Oh and suicide is okay too because that only weeds weak people out to make the overall group stronger. What a beautiful ideology!
@RebornXify Hitler was a product of christian culture, and nothing to do with evolution. His speeches were peppered with references to Christ (not evolution) and his actions consistent with >1000 years of church history in Europe.
@denswei A product of Christian culture? Tell me where in the Bible it says to conduct genocide and wage wars with other countries. His speeches peppered with references to Christ? You derp, he wasn't saying that to instill a sense of religious fervor in his people. He was trying to win over the majority of Germany's Christian population. He claimed that "Germany" was his god. Why can't people understand that actions speak louder than words? Have you never heard of Machiavelli?
@RebornXify I see you haven't actually read the Old Testament, have you? Nor European church history (what does the word pogram mean to you?) They may have been poor & misguided christians, but it was christians who followed Hitler's orders. "Good" Catholics & Lutherans, indoctrinated from their youth with a hatred & suspiciousness of the "christ-killers".
Hitler's Germany had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution and everything to do with >1000 yrs of the church.
@denswei So what you're saying is that only the people were poor and misguided. And you're saying that the church never abused its powers and popes were always whole and perfectly Christian and that Hitler devoted his entire life to doing service for God. And you're also saying that Jesus promotes killing of anyone who doesn't believe in him. "Love your enemies" much? You, sir, are the one who is misguided. Try again. By your logic, I dare you to justify Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jung Il.
@RebornXify No. I'm saying that you are mentally improvised and spiritually misguided. You certainly have no sense of logic and little ability to read.
Hitler was an evil person, certainly no Christian, and certainly no atheist, but his success was in manipulating people like you with his spiritual sounding words.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
@RebornXify Obviously, I left out "hypocritically judgmental", "cartoonish stereotype", along with a number of other things, but there's a limit on the number of characters here.
You should really see a doctor for your cerebrally impacted cloaca.
@denswei "cerebrally impacted cloaca?" Good one, now you're trying to sound smarter by using big fancy words. I'm sorry, I'm a medical student and I can't help but understand every medical term you use. Not that a 12 year old would have difficulty seeing your tendency to generalize and amalgamate completely different motives into one giant mess of a criticism. Try again. I'm going to keep chuckling at your pathetic attempts to form an argument unless you give me answers about Mao/KJI/Stalin.
@RebornXify **ahem** you are the one generalizing & amalgamating all evil people as being atheists. My nuanced perspective is that there are good christians and bad christians, good atheists and bad atheists, and Mao/KJI/Stalin are to atheist morality as Hitler is to christian morality.
If you don't believe in evolution, I suggest you stay away from any branch of medicine treating infectious diseases (for every one's sake!)
@denswei I believe you meant genocide on a war-scale. Have you never heard of the term "A good offense is a good defense?" So what do you think the Israelites should have done? What better alternative do you suggest other than taking down a group of people inherently bent on doing the same to them in a society where like I said, it's "eye for eye and tooth for tooth?" It's not genocide for the sake of killing; it's called "the only way to stay alive is to kill those who want to kill you" derp.
@denswei I did ask for verses in the Bible about genocide. I've read the Old Testament about 6 times over in its entirety, and that the form of "genocide" conducted by the Israelites isn't the same as the "genocide" that occurs today, much less the form of "genocide" conducted by Hitler. Hitler did it for selfish pursuits, not because he needed to stay alive. Why can't your stubborn brain understand the difference between staying alive and killing for the sake of killing?
@RebornXify Only 6? I probably read the OT twice just in the 1st year I became a Christian. Thankfully, I read the Bible for myself before being told what it meant by spiritual misleaders. You've made my point: german christians justified their genocide by YOUR very same LOGIC: Germans were a chosen people who where threatened by a "jewish menace", as documented in the (fraudulent) Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you were alive then and there, you'd have joined the slaughter..
This is one reason why atheists make better neighbors: If God tells an atheist to slaughter his neighbors, he will say, "there's no god, this is an imaginary voice, I'd better see a psychiatrist". If God tells a believer to slaughter his neighbors, he is more likely to say, "OK. With what?"
@RebornXify Deuteronomy 7: "...and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you [a]defeat them, then you shall [b] UTTERLY DESTROY them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your [c]daughters to [d]their sons, nor shall you take [e]their daughters for your [f]sons. 4 For [g]they will turn your [h]sons away from [i]following Me to serve other g
@denswei There's a reason that you are to UTTERLY destroy a group of people who are targeting you and specifically trying to wipe you out. The only reason that God told his people back in the Old Testament to wipe them out was that they would otherwise conquer his chosen people and they would completely turn his people against him. It's like if you put a single drop of poison in a basin of drinking water, the whole thing now becomes unsafe to drink even if it's just one small drop.
@DepletedUrbranium Obviously, god can do whatever he wants, including genocide. The problem is when people "help" god out by doing the dirty work "for him"
@denswei What if the "genocide" was not against a group of helpless people like it is today but rather a group of people intent on destroying God's people? Would God let that happen? Don't think too hard; back then, when there really was no way of salvation except following strict guidelines, it was an "eye for an eye and tooth for tooth" situation. Nowadays it's a "turn the cheek" kind of situation.
@RebornXify Deuteronomy 20:16... "16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, YOU SHALL NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHE. 17 But you shall [b]utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
@denswei In addition, don't forget, it's in the Old Testament. I hardly think offering burnt sacrifices to God and building temples to God's exact specifications applies in today's society. You forgot the word "Christ" in "Christian." I'm Christian, not Jewish. Go complain to Jews about how strict God is. I just LOVE it when atheists like you quote from the Old Testament because you can't find a single thing wrong with the New Testament even according to your own made-up standards.
cough *still haven't justified Mao/Stalin/Kim Jung Il who have individually killed MORE people than Hitler ever did AND the amount of evil people that God ordered his people to wipe out* cough
Oh wow you're right, atheism DOES look incredibly tempting! Having no religion sure is great, time to go take over a country using fancy religious language and wipe everyone out!
@RebornXify That does seem to be your intent (and that of many, many other religious folk). Thankfully, I've known plenty of genuine Christians, so counterfeits like yourself stand out like a sore thumb.
@denswei The problem with you is that you judge God.You're looking at his actions from your puny, ignorant point of view. You're not assuming that God has perfect reasons and intentions to go about doing what he does, whether for justice or for protection & purity of his people or love. It's like me saying that just because Obama sent troops to Iraq, that means he's an evil socialist dictator. I have absolutely no ground to say that because I don't know his true intentions.
@RebornXify So God used evolution to create all the life on the Earth. (The alternative is that god is a deceptive liar, instantly creating the earth with all of the evidence of evolution) Like God said in the Bible, "my thoughts are not your thoughts....", and yet anti-evolutionists box god into their own puny, ignorant point of view, never dreaming that God might be smarter than they.
@denswei In addition, this so-called "genocide" that you're talking about is not for the sake of destroying a people or conducting holy wars or anything of the sort. If you knew even an inkling about warfare, you'd know that a group of wandering nomads are extremely vulnerable to attack from other factions and in order to gain land, it is best to take the land of those who are trying to hurt you as to kill two birds with one stone. This isn't as simple as killing people and that's that.
You said: "Tell me where in the Bible it says to conduct genocide and wage wars with other countries"
Having read the Bible more times that I can count, I did.
Your response is to justify genocide as self-defense, while the verses are very clear that the reasons are entirely spiritual--god explicitly forbid any peaceful coexistence on the grounds of religious purity.
"If you are not aware of a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory..." There is not any experiment or any evidence that invalidates evolutionary theory. (If so, the researcher would be well-published, get a raise, and likely be famous :) However, experiments aimed at specific evol. mechanisms in a time and place, a simulation, other quests, can be found to lack support for the proposer's hypothesis. These don't falsify evolution (a fact), but refine what we understand of it
The other thing to consider is that "the Theory of Evolution has never been about survival. What Darwin said was that heritable variations led to differences in reproductive success (Lindsay)." "The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits." And, biologists today would add, pass on those traits.
Regarding "Survival of the fittest ..." Survival of the fittest is an older way, and an incomplete way, to define evolution. It is incomplete because not all evolution happens via that mechanism. Some divergence between isolated populations can be nonselective genetic drift, due to something similar to sampling error. The defn of fitness used is slightly incomplete also. Fitness refers to the ability to both survive and reproduce. e.g I survived, but I have no children, so my fitness value is 0
"What intermediates?" These are just internal nodes on a phylogenetic tree representing Most Recent Common Ancestors MRCAs. Any internal node represents an intermediate between what was before and what came after. One method of ev bio is to ID and place fossils (e.g. using morphol. coding of data) onto phylo trees and then you can predict other yet undiscovered forms that would fall between those two. Thus predict undiscovered fossils, look for, and sometimes find them. e.g. Neil Shubin's work.
@jlfessler It is a powerful confirmation of Darwin's theory of evolution that the phylogenetic trees painstakingly assembled from fossils & comparative anatomy so closely match the phylogenetic trees blindly generated by computer programs analyzing genetic similarities and dissimilarities between species.
Two more notes:
(i) Macroevolution is change above the level of order, thus the overwhelming majority of taxonomic ranking (particularly speciation) falls under uncontroversial and irrelevant microevolution.
(ii) An identical classification system can be applied to known designs. For example, automobiles can be ranked by car, truck, boat, etc., and then further ranked by other physical traits.
The idea that taxonomy disproves design goes against every shred of evidence we've ever collected.
DrJaredJammer 2 days ago
One of the propagandists in this video claims that taxonomy only makes sense in the light of evolution. This is a baffling claim seeing as how modern-day taxonomy was originated by the Biblical creationist Carl Linnaeus.
Taxonomy is ranked by physical similarity. This physical similarity does not logically entail common descent; common design is equally supported, which is why taxonomy make flawless sense from the perspective of its founder, Carl Linnaeus.
Please educate yourselves, ladies.
DrJaredJammer 2 days ago
This video defines evolution in a way that isn't remotely controversial and has zero bearing on the whole evolution debate, thus the entire video is a waste of time.
Yes, life changes over time. We know this, in fact, we've likely known it since the dawn of mankind. That's not the issue. The issues are:
• To what extent does life change?
• What are the underlying causes behind those changes?
• What is the origin of those causes?
Thus far, the answers given by mainstream biology have failed.
DrJaredJammer 2 days ago
the first fish spoke english but when they grew legs and lived on land they spoke russian and then and then and then and then they just grunted for a million years and then spoke russian again and then and then and then they used these tools for hunting and then and then they spoke english again and then and then they walked on one leg and cut there tails off to use as a belt and then and then there was the big bang and then dinosaurs lived for 50,000 years and then we made up the rest
firstplacechickenegg 2 weeks ago
@firstplacechickenegg
"the first fish spoke english but when they grew legs and lived on land they spoke russian "
What the heck have you been smoking? And may I have some too?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
Seriously. I dont care if they are fat or old. When I see PhD I know they are worth knowing. To me smart women are attractive. Their smarts will never fade, just grow. Think about the Miss XXXX pageant contestants. Its like fucking a hole in a cardboard cutout of a simulated woman. Smart women are worth knowing.
699backstab 2 weeks ago
evolution is teenage mutant ninja turtles.
firstplacechickenegg 2 weeks ago
@firstplacechickenegg
"evolution is teenage mutant ninja turtles."
Except that it isn't. Geesh. Pay attention.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer have you not seen secret of the ooze teenage mutant ninja turtles2? GO NINJA GO. The whole theory of evolution is right there. Splinter is a rat but evolved from jim hensons pet dog. The turtles are men dressed up in green rubber suits doing kung fu routines but they all evolved from actual turtles in the triassic period which was fifty thousand years ago. The dinosaurs lived eight hundred billion years ago then the bible was re-written, peace frogs were the original man
firstplacechickenegg 2 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage You failed to tell me anything so there is nothing I can learn from you. See if you can do better. Show me up. Explain things better. Prove something to me. Show me how to explain or say things better.
Did it ever occur to you that you are not telling me anything?
There is nothing I can learn from you because you are not saying anything.
You have failed to address any of the issues.
Objects did not make or refine what you are.
See if you can say it better.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage If you are not here to prove anything, you cannot prove I am wrong.
If you believe I am right, then you also have nothing to prove.
The function of hydrogen inside of you proves that you have a Maker and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
Darwin read what he wrote and it all became so clear. This is evolution; theory, principle, fact.
-The Acacia Strain :)
IFWT94 3 weeks ago
@IFWT94 Darwin read what he wrote? You mean he was a proofreader. That is probably true. What's your point?
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc Those are lyrics to the song Drawn and Quartered by The Acacia Strain, which is why i put "-The Acacia Strain" at the end of the comment.
IFWT94 2 weeks ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 3 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage You did not say or prove anything. You did not address the issue.
The directed function that hydrogen has inside of you proves that you have a Maker who is greater than the entire universe made of hydrogen and such.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage The function of hydrogen proves there is a Maker and there is nothing you can do about it.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
To the people who deny evolution....you are denying that you went from 46 chromosomes to a human in 9 months inside a female womb. This makes you sound fucking stupid. Have a nice day.
IamYou86 3 weeks ago
@IamYou86 It was the preexisting word that made us what we are.
You must have never thought about that.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Yeah......you sound fucking stupid. Please read my previous comment.
IamYou86 3 weeks ago
@IamYou86 You are saying nothing and proving nothing to the contrary.
Objects did not make or refine what you are.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@IamYou86 you think evolution from a SCA is what happens in the womb? wow...
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage You are a not telling the truth. I always show the evidence of us having a Maker. *They* never show me anything because they have nothing to show.
The function of hydrogen working as directed inside of you proves that you have a Maker because all function working parts and mechanisms working as directed always have a maker. If you have an issue with that, show me a mechanism working as directed that does not have a maker.
There is nothing you can say, I am right.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
horseshoe crabs look the same today as they did millions of years ago looking at the fossil in vid
lynnethc 1 month ago
I am convinced God is real....humans are powerless to create life out of nothing or avoid death
lynnethc 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You say you agree with everything I said and say that I don't listen.
Listen to what??? You failed to say what I am not listening to.
It is not a matter of opinion.
All function, working parts and mechanisms that are organized always have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work.
If not, prove it!
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage How dare you call the cut-&-paste creatard drone JungleJargon an idiot!!! Just because his only logic and biology education came via the "Rick Perry University single postcard correspondence course" is no reason to call him an idiot!! Those are highly respected credentials!!!
dog1dog2 1 month ago 2
@dog1dog2 You failed to prove anything.
Address the issues, prove that objects made or refined what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You never had anything to say to begin with.
Objects did not make or refine what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage What someone believes does not prove anything.
You should know that is not a scientific basis.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage The only faith you need is faith in the truth. You have to have a basis for everything you believe.
You failed again to address any of the issues. What is your problem with having a Maker? The function of hydrogen inside of you proves that you have a Maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You think you can say anything and you think it does not need a basis. That is irrational and illogical.
You are not saying anything and your ad hominem does not prove anything. Yes, you do have to back up what you say. Your slander needs to have a basis.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage The function of hydrogen working inside of you as directed is observable evidence that you have a very great Maker.
Cut the ad hominem, that does nothing for you. Address the issues.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You say you don't believe in evolution and you think that function working parts and mechanisms don't have a maker.
So show me an ordered function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage Wrong, you are saying that objects made or refined what you are. That is illogical irrational and baseless.
I am saying that all mechanisms have a maker. This is logical rational and reasonable.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage Show me a function, working part or mechanism that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage The simple function of hydrogen is the evidence of a Maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You proved nothing.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage Bring them to me and I will watch them stutter.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You have no idea of what I have said.You either did not read what I said or you did not allow it to register.Every simple ordered function has a maker because objects are not able to order any functions of any kind because in random causes, there's more disorder than order so whatever is ordered is also disordered more that it was ordered. That's the reason, it doesn't matter how much chance there is, it will always be disordered more than ordered. Do you even care?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Look up lysosomes and how they are formed. If you paid attention in biology class you would not be making up ideas out of scientific ignorance.
grahamgeons 1 month ago
@grahamgeons Lysosomes are produded by the cells.
They do not exist apart from cells.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage If you want to say there is evolution, the burden of proof is on you to show there is such a thing.
Throwing ad hominems is a sign of a poor debater.
I have evidence of a Maker. All function, working parts and mechanisms always have a Maker equal to or greater than the mechanism that is assembled. That is if you are talking about real science in the real world.
That is much better than you saying that objects made or refined what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
Evolution is an observable FACT.
Thinkdeep420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thinkdeep420
Yes, and evolutionary theory is the model that explains the nested hierarchies and other observations in biology and palaeontology in terms of what we know about genetics and population dynamics.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@Thinkdeep420 The only thing that is observed is the variations that only the genome is able to reorganize. It will always vary a little bit and the genome is able to reorganize it so that it remains viable. No other physical thing is ever able to organize the genome. Natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the genome.
Tell that to your science or biology teacher.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@Thinkdeep420 that is not true...if you mean evolution from SCA. if you simply mean changes in generations, of course. No creationist would say otherwise. That's not the point. Equivocating variation to SCA is a giant leap at best.
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@IAmJoeAverage If you knew anything yourself, you would be able to address the issues. You tried and failed so now you are just throwing your ad hominem at me.
You need to be able to explain to me in your own words why you think that objects made or refined what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage Carbon is another working part that requires a Maker. There are seventeen essential working parts inside of us all of which require a Maker and they will not ever do anything without being ordered to do something.
So objects make nothing, they also refine nothing which means there is no evolution because only the genome is able to reorganize the genome.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@IAmJoeAverage You must not have seen the entire argument.
The ordered function of hydrogen in life forms is what proves we have a maker because all function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker that is equal to or greater than the function that is ordered because everything always has a cause.
Be sure to address the issues.Objects did not make or refine what you are.I hope you don't enjoy giving all of the credit for what you are to the objects that you consist of.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
If evolution is defined as change in genetic frequencies in population, how do these mere changes in frequency result in emergence of totally new genotypes of individuals which we call as different species?
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
@shadowsburnme Imagine if imagination was true and everyone believed anything!
- sounds more like a nightmare.
Whatever happened to real science that requires evidence?
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon What happened to that science which requires material evidence for material things? You tell me. Your assumption is that non-material things cannot exist.
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
@shadowsburnme That is not my claim, my claim is that working mechaisms always have a maker.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowsburnme
Through accumulation. Consider the allele-frequency domains of any two lifeforms (eg. dinosaurs and birds): all that is needed to go from one to the other is a change in allele frequencies - there is no secret ingredient. Evolution changes allele frequencies.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
It is one the biggest myths when an educated person says that we would not be able to have modern day scientific breakthroughs if evolution did not exist. Lies. What does cholecystectomy have to do with evolution? What does modern drugs used in inhibiting macular degeneration have to do with evolution?
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
The professor at 1:54 is ignorant. She does not know the antibiotics directly cannot stop viral replication.
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
Evolution is nonsense. Only the genome is able to reorganize the genome, nothing else can.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Please explain the genuine evolution of the "Common Cold." If Evolution is nonsense, prove it. Or at the very least, state your side, don't just make a statement.
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins I did explain it, only the genome is able to reorganize the genome, nothing else can. Mutations never reorganize the genome and natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the limited information in the genome. So there's not even a mechanism for evolution, it doesn't exist.
Variations are organized by the genome, and even the possibilites are made possible by the genome. All of the credit goes to the preexisting word in the genome.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon You... have explained nothing other than you're very bad at giving evidence or explaining anything. I give you credit for thinking you're smart. Congratulations. I'll just whistle like a bird and keep walking.
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins Since you have trouble understanding, you that you are the one with the baseless, irrational and illogical belief that objects made or refined what you are.
All I am saying is that functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker that is equal to or greater than the parts and since a major essential working part inside of us is hydrogen that means the Maker of hydrogen is greater than the entire universe made primarily and initially of hydrogen.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon You misunderstand my emotional friend. I'm a Theist... I believe in ADAPTATION, (difference between Adaptation and Evolution) and it's no longer worth talking to you; you're as emotional as an insane atheist and you will convince no one of anything. Do Christianity/Theism/ANY RELIGION a favor and ponder a little more before representing it.
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins You believe that objects refined what you are and that is no better than believing in evolution saying that objects made you what you are, it is the same thing. You are the same thing as a pagan ascribing atributes to objects that objects do not have.
The genome is the only physical thing that ever reorganizes the genome, nothing else does and natural selection will only select what is reorganized by the genome. You need to understand what you are representing!
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Again, you misunderstand. I don't believe in evolution as you are declaring it. I do not believe I evolved from an object.
Incidentally, I see you like to copy and paste previous comments.You've used this one a few times. Silly.
The way you treat people... the way you encourage your form of 'religious racism'... You believe in belittling others' beliefs, atheist or otherwise, even fellow Christians. Please for the benefit of us both: Troll Elsewhere. Waste of Time.
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins You misunderstand because evolution requires objects to refine what things are.
This is the first time I have ever used the word "refined" by itself.
Stop projecting your problems onto me. Deal with the issues without the ad hominem attack.
Objects did not refine what you are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Try Listening... I DON'T believe in evolution, I also don't believe in your constant Bullshit. Don't hide behind "Ad Hominems" like a high schooler.Try proving something with evidence, or ANY EVIDENCE, EVEN BAD EVIDENCE (other than your opinion).
THIS is why no one takes Theists/Christians seriously!
Here is a non thinking, over reacting bigot who speaks before they think, and continues too!
Stop portraying Theists in this light. You do no one any favors.
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins First, you say you don't believe in abiogenesis and now you say you don't believe in evolution and you are still attacking me.
You need to figure out what side you are on, take a position and stick with it for a while to see if it stands up to scrutiny.
You don't even know what my basis is because attacking me is more important to you.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Good God kid... I'm making statements about you because you portray yourself poorly. You're ridiculously biased, uneducated in Bible and Science.
This in turn portrays Christianity as being foolish to everyone, I wish you had a greater foundation, I wish you chose to portray yourself and your religion intelligently.
I will not respond to you again; I wish this were worth my time, I wish you were worth my time; but it's not. Bang away kid...
CosmicVitamins 1 month ago
@CosmicVitamins ...ad hominem ...ad hominem ...ad hominem ...
You said nothing and proved nothing.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@TheJamezMan Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne and then come back to me on that. There are hundreds of books which outline the evidence in detail and reference the relevant scientific papers that describe the evidence, but this one was written especially for lay people so even creationists can understand.
It helps to actually research the evidence and try to understand it before making ridiculous statements like that and embarrassing yourself.
frankmademedoit 2 months ago
@PeaceAndGloryMB Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand.[34] This myth likely began with Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79), who wrote that Ostriches "imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed."
Another poorly understood myth put forth by a creationist and debunked by facts and research. Also, ostriches can't talk.
frankmademedoit 2 months ago
@PeaceAndGloryMB nothing to repent and i have seen no credible evidence for the existence of any gods.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@PeaceAndGloryMB LOL you are an ignorant fool .
Aanthanur 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
@TrumpetCallofGodLT go away with your immoral fantasy monster called YHWH.
this is about science, not fairytales.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur HE IS REAL! HE WILL RULE! REPENT! youtube.com/watch?v=pTOo7vPnFmE
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
@TrumpetCallofGodLT lol whatever, try reposting the vid, doesnt work. semms to be as real as your dumb god.
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Biology, or any other branch of study for that matter save evolution itself, would virtually be unchanged if Darwin never published his thoughts. When asked if their work would be different if they thought Darwinian evolution were not true, the majority of biologists simply said, "no." Evolution is useless and is responsible only for wasted money and time.
ohisnuccadoc 2 months ago
@ohisnuccadoc Falser words have never been spoken.
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo I like how you backed up your response to my comment with tons of facts. That's cool. Thanks. I tend to think Skell was correct. Many others agreed with him. But, whatever.I also like how you made up a word in your comment. That's cool, also.
ohisnuccadoc 2 months ago
Whic
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ohisnuccadoc Which one was that? Falser? Look it up in the dictionary. Read a book for once. God forbid you might actually learn something :o! And as of the ''tons of facts'', I'm tired of constantly having to repeat myself to every John Doe on the internet. I have nothing againt you, Christianity or your faith in God. As a student biomedic sciences it just pisses me off to see people with obviously no scientific background whatsoever, spread bullshit like that. Good day to you.
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo I uh, I have a science background. I have a lot of education. I don't care if you do or I do, but you brought it up. Your "science" is crap. Your "science" is biased. Your "science" is lacking for actual hard facts. I'm no fool. I'm no nube. I've looked at this junk for a long time and can't figure out what is appealing aside from a disregard for a Designer.
ohisnuccadoc 2 months ago
@ohisnuccadoc That's alright. It's not for everyone. If everyone was capable of understanding the complex workings of DNA and evolution, we'd be much further along by now. Just remember that all major scientists that have actually contribitued something to science in the biological field (James Watson (polio vaccine), Francis Crick, Jonas Salk (DNA) etc. etc.) were evolutionists. Case closed.
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo *Jonas Salk - polio vaccine, Francis Crick and James Watson - DNA
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo So in other words, you have nothing meaningful to say? Is this correct? Was Carl Linnaeus an evolutionist? And did evolution (the idea that we all, every living thing came from pond scum) result in vaccines (which I actually detest)? Did they use that idea to produce anything? There are books written on the unimportance of this theory--that NOTHING in REAL science would be affected if a scientist believe evolution or not...
ohisnuccadoc 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility... (cont)
ohisnuccadoc 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo (cont)Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Redi and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion --that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God... I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
ohisnuccadoc 1 month ago
@ohisnuccadoc Actually there is nothing unscientific about life arising from non-life. This is in fact entirely possible, given the needed requirements are met.The circumstances need to be just right, and all the required organic molecules need to be present. Also, because we don't observe this process happening around us every day, that doesn't mean it is impossible. It is an unlikely event to happen. Unlikely does not equate impossible.
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo So experiments that have failed to show it is possible don't sway your opinion? The Law of Biogenesis states life comes from life. Why is this any different? It's not that we don't see it happening every day. We don't see it happening at all even when we TRY to make it happen. It's a giant leap at best.
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc
"The Law of Biogenesis"
There is no such law. If you mean Haeckel's biogenetic law, that one has been disproved ages ago.
"life comes from life. "
Do you think living matter is different from non-living stuff? It's not. It's the same basic material, with the same chemical properties, which lead to certain processes in living organisms. In the end, all life boils down to chemistry.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer you are totally right my ancestor family tree dates back all the way to the origins of life and the first of my family were fat handed twats floating in space and they evolved from the bits of nothing, they were gentle folk at first but gradually grew gills and learnt to breath in Sunday school, and lived on the land, some learnt how to fly but did not pass on this secret to others. My family today are still fat handed twats carrying the genes and DNA structures from day 1
firstplacechickenegg 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc + even if what you just stated was actually a proven scientific fact, that doesn't mean we can just fill in the blanks with the oh-so overrated ''God did it''. ''We don't know how it happened, therefore God did it.'' Imagine applying that same flawed logic to detective work. ''We don't know who broke into that bank last night. Therefore: God did it.'' Even if life from non-life is unscientific, that doesn't mean saying ''an invisible man in the sky did it'', is in fact scientific.
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo I see what you're saying and I think you have a good point. However, if it were literally impossible for whatever said detective was investigating to have happened by any known means, saying God did it would certainly qualify as an option. If some other explanation could fit, okay. In terms of abiogenesis, all we've done thus far is show it cannot happen even with intelligent direction from us.
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc And as for your books proving the unimportance of evolution. Is the author by any chance named Dr. Dino? Or the Banana Man? Does the author also state that all dinosaurs were herbivores? Or that God handcarved bananas to make them fit into our hands (and mouths)? All satire aside, check your sources before holding on to a book. Find out who the author is and what he/she has contributed to science before blindly reciting their crap on the internet.
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo About Dr. Dino and Bananas: I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not reciting anyone's anything. Thank you. I am aware of fairly prominent biologists who've stated evolution is worthless in terms of aiding in science. It gives a lot of people jobs and that's cool, but it hasn't done anything for us. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Thanks, though. You seem much cooler to talk with than most of these guys.
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc
"I am aware of fairly prominent biologists who've stated evolution is worthless in terms of aiding in science."
What prominent biologists, where? This is nothing but an appeal to authority.
"it hasn't done anything for us."
It is the best explanation for the diversity of life BY FAR. Plus it has lead to a lead to huge advances in medicine and other sciences that use evolutionary methods to come up with better designs.
In short: you're lying.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc Lastly, evolution in micro biology is responsible for scientists staying ahead of diseases. When a virus/bacteria mutates, we might have to adapt the cure. Viruses such the flu are known to mutate, making them resistent to conventional vaccins, leading to periodic outbreaks of mutated viruses. Without evolution this would mean that God periodically ''plants'' new viruses on planet earth looking suspiciously much like the previous ones.
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo So I see where you may be confused. I've said this 100 times at least on youtube and elsewhere: No creationist on earth thinks variation doesn't happen. No creationist on earth believes species are static. Evolution from SCA is what we're referencing. The impotence of vaccines is not the issue to be discussed here. Are you saying a virus is a living thing? That's another discussion as well. "Evolution" doesn't mean small changes. SCA is the point.
ohisnuccadoc 2 weeks ago
@ohisnuccadoc
"No creationist on earth thinks variation doesn't happen."
A lot of them of them do. And those who don't then admit evolution occurs.
"No creationist on earth believes species are static."
Uh.. Not true. Most of them do believe that.
"Evolution from SCA is what we're referencing"
I think you mean Single Common Ancestor? There is so much evidence for that that it's pretty much a given.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo - Scientific American, August, 1954--George Wald: evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner
ohisnuccadoc 1 month ago
@ohisnuccadoc and your source for this claim is?
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur I'm sorry: my source for what claim? I am involved in too many conversations. Try including a reference when you're posting. Thanks and sorry:(
ohisnuccadoc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ohisnuccadoc this claim :
When asked if their work would be different if they thought Darwinian evolution were not true, the majority of biologists simply said, "no."
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Was this video by any chance made by a feminist...?
ScienceFictionHairdo 2 months ago
@ScienceFictionHairdo who cares, these women are smart!!!
metaldave08096 2 months ago
@littleiktomi No - your mixing up your philosophies and 'genics' here - Hitler and the Nazis followed the teachings of Eugenics, a philosophical concept that has long since been discredited and which is COMPLETELY different to Genenetic Modified organisms that you seem to think is the same thing. Its certainly nothing of the sort, so please read up on things properly before commenting so distastefully and publicly!
ianww8 2 months ago
Being an Atheist, I understand and accept Evolution. What I took from this is the growing female participation in the biological sciences. That has to drive the Fundagelicals crazy! :D
dieseldog00 2 months ago
Absolutely, natural selection teaches us the SURVIVAL of the species but not the ARRIVAL of the species. Bacteria with all its adaptations is still Bacteria.
Truenorthman100 3 months ago
@Truenorthman100 natural selection is an observable phenomenon that acts only to retain the most competitive genes. It has no 'goals,' and has no worry for whether a species 'lives' or 'dies.' And bacteria is a kingdom, not a species. Species change, and new species arrive as a result of natural selection driven evolution.
BassThumper777 2 months ago
@BassThumper777 You must be smarter than Dawkins because he couldn't even think of one when interviewed....interesting.
Truenorthman100 2 months ago
@Truenorthman100 It's kind of funny you mention the guy. I don't much care for him. It's his choice to be atheist. But I don't like the fact that he's overtly anti-religious.
BassThumper777 2 months ago
@BassThumper777 m8 - Sorry, I need to correct you here... Natural selection is only one of the many driving forces that influences Evolution, but its not the sole mechanism, and natural selection does not act to retain competitive agents - forgive me, but that implies theres a direction, for which there is none with evolution of course. Finally, speciation is not the result of natural selection, although it is likely to have had a significant influence in that process. Regards
ianww8 2 months ago
@ianww8 You're right. No argument there. But that's rather picky. I never said it was the ONLY driving force. And that's a big implication - again rather picky. It's almost like saying waste heat doesn't contribute to entropy because heat rises, and going up isn't 'chaotic' or something. And alas, you're speaking beyond my words again on the last one. I said the evolution was natural selection-driven. I didn't say it was a result of natural selection.
BassThumper777 2 months ago
@BassThumper777 Well, unfortunately, those who dont want others to get their heads around the marvel that is evolution, will pick on points, so, in the true spirit of scientific peer review, being accurate is not picky - but I otherwise agree with you The amount of ignorance out there is astounding! All the best!
ianww8 2 months ago
@ianww8 Ah, well all right then. And oh yes, it is quite astounding. The best to you as well.
BassThumper777 2 months ago
@ianww8 The response of natural selection to differing environments and geographic isolation, however, does result in speciation. Maybe we shouldn't pick so much at each other man. You sound like a smart guy. We ought to be getting together to educate the ignorant and shut down the trolls :D
BassThumper777 2 months ago
Comment removed
ianww8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BassThumper777 Sorry, I dont mean to imply that I'm picking on you, I'm just politely correcting a minor error in what you said. Thats how and why the scientific method is so much stronger than pseudo science or beleif based thinking - we can, should & do correct each other, where the others will paper over their cracks with bullshit! :-) The reality of evollution is actually qute complicated, no wonder the closed mind fraternity cant get their heads around it! lol Regards!
ianww8 2 months ago
@ianww8 Ok. Well, I don't necessarily think it is quite as error-ridden as you seem to think, but I also think it is hard to see the whole picture from both sides since text is harder to get across than an in-person discussion. But yes, I have to agree. Having civilized conversations is great for ironing out inconsistencies and expanding everyone's knowledge. Too many times 'agreeing to disagree' just means somebody's stubborn. The pursuit for truth is ongoing. Have a good one.
BassThumper777 2 months ago
Discussing about religion has no sense, so please stfu.
Franccescco1 3 months ago
@yoxgevo Did you even watch the video? Evolution is a fact dumbfuck.
Bandersnatch191 3 months ago 3
Evolution is so important, it's all about the survival of the fittest
Let's all listen to Huxley and make Atlantic cod go extinct
Let's all listen to Hitler and make Jews and minorities go extinct
Let's all believe that since life is meaningless and there is no good or bad and that it's only whether you survival or not, killing each other for our own benefits is okay. Oh and suicide is okay too because that only weeds weak people out to make the overall group stronger. What a beautiful ideology!
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify Hitler was a product of christian culture, and nothing to do with evolution. His speeches were peppered with references to Christ (not evolution) and his actions consistent with >1000 years of church history in Europe.
denswei 3 months ago 2
@denswei A product of Christian culture? Tell me where in the Bible it says to conduct genocide and wage wars with other countries. His speeches peppered with references to Christ? You derp, he wasn't saying that to instill a sense of religious fervor in his people. He was trying to win over the majority of Germany's Christian population. He claimed that "Germany" was his god. Why can't people understand that actions speak louder than words? Have you never heard of Machiavelli?
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify I see you haven't actually read the Old Testament, have you? Nor European church history (what does the word pogram mean to you?) They may have been poor & misguided christians, but it was christians who followed Hitler's orders. "Good" Catholics & Lutherans, indoctrinated from their youth with a hatred & suspiciousness of the "christ-killers".
Hitler's Germany had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution and everything to do with >1000 yrs of the church.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei So what you're saying is that only the people were poor and misguided. And you're saying that the church never abused its powers and popes were always whole and perfectly Christian and that Hitler devoted his entire life to doing service for God. And you're also saying that Jesus promotes killing of anyone who doesn't believe in him. "Love your enemies" much? You, sir, are the one who is misguided. Try again. By your logic, I dare you to justify Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jung Il.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify No. I'm saying that you are mentally improvised and spiritually misguided. You certainly have no sense of logic and little ability to read.
Hitler was an evil person, certainly no Christian, and certainly no atheist, but his success was in manipulating people like you with his spiritual sounding words.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire
denswei 3 months ago
Comment removed
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify Obviously, I left out "hypocritically judgmental", "cartoonish stereotype", along with a number of other things, but there's a limit on the number of characters here.
You should really see a doctor for your cerebrally impacted cloaca.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei "cerebrally impacted cloaca?" Good one, now you're trying to sound smarter by using big fancy words. I'm sorry, I'm a medical student and I can't help but understand every medical term you use. Not that a 12 year old would have difficulty seeing your tendency to generalize and amalgamate completely different motives into one giant mess of a criticism. Try again. I'm going to keep chuckling at your pathetic attempts to form an argument unless you give me answers about Mao/KJI/Stalin.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify **ahem** you are the one generalizing & amalgamating all evil people as being atheists. My nuanced perspective is that there are good christians and bad christians, good atheists and bad atheists, and Mao/KJI/Stalin are to atheist morality as Hitler is to christian morality.
If you don't believe in evolution, I suggest you stay away from any branch of medicine treating infectious diseases (for every one's sake!)
denswei 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@denswei I believe you meant genocide on a war-scale. Have you never heard of the term "A good offense is a good defense?" So what do you think the Israelites should have done? What better alternative do you suggest other than taking down a group of people inherently bent on doing the same to them in a society where like I said, it's "eye for eye and tooth for tooth?" It's not genocide for the sake of killing; it's called "the only way to stay alive is to kill those who want to kill you" derp.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@denswei I did ask for verses in the Bible about genocide. I've read the Old Testament about 6 times over in its entirety, and that the form of "genocide" conducted by the Israelites isn't the same as the "genocide" that occurs today, much less the form of "genocide" conducted by Hitler. Hitler did it for selfish pursuits, not because he needed to stay alive. Why can't your stubborn brain understand the difference between staying alive and killing for the sake of killing?
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify Only 6? I probably read the OT twice just in the 1st year I became a Christian. Thankfully, I read the Bible for myself before being told what it meant by spiritual misleaders. You've made my point: german christians justified their genocide by YOUR very same LOGIC: Germans were a chosen people who where threatened by a "jewish menace", as documented in the (fraudulent) Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you were alive then and there, you'd have joined the slaughter..
denswei 3 months ago
@RebornXify
This is one reason why atheists make better neighbors: If God tells an atheist to slaughter his neighbors, he will say, "there's no god, this is an imaginary voice, I'd better see a psychiatrist". If God tells a believer to slaughter his neighbors, he is more likely to say, "OK. With what?"
denswei 3 months ago
@RebornXify Deuteronomy 7: "...and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you [a]defeat them, then you shall [b] UTTERLY DESTROY them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your [c]daughters to [d]their sons, nor shall you take [e]their daughters for your [f]sons. 4 For [g]they will turn your [h]sons away from [i]following Me to serve other g
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei There's a reason that you are to UTTERLY destroy a group of people who are targeting you and specifically trying to wipe you out. The only reason that God told his people back in the Old Testament to wipe them out was that they would otherwise conquer his chosen people and they would completely turn his people against him. It's like if you put a single drop of poison in a basin of drinking water, the whole thing now becomes unsafe to drink even if it's just one small drop.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify Exactly. God ordered genocide, and YOU SAY it was perfectly JUSTIFIED.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei how would it be unjustified for God to destroy anything he made?
DepletedUrbranium 3 months ago
@DepletedUrbranium Obviously, god can do whatever he wants, including genocide. The problem is when people "help" god out by doing the dirty work "for him"
denswei 3 months ago
Comment removed
types10000 2 months ago
@denswei What if the "genocide" was not against a group of helpless people like it is today but rather a group of people intent on destroying God's people? Would God let that happen? Don't think too hard; back then, when there really was no way of salvation except following strict guidelines, it was an "eye for an eye and tooth for tooth" situation. Nowadays it's a "turn the cheek" kind of situation.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify Deuteronomy 20:16... "16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, YOU SHALL NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHE. 17 But you shall [b]utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei In addition, don't forget, it's in the Old Testament. I hardly think offering burnt sacrifices to God and building temples to God's exact specifications applies in today's society. You forgot the word "Christ" in "Christian." I'm Christian, not Jewish. Go complain to Jews about how strict God is. I just LOVE it when atheists like you quote from the Old Testament because you can't find a single thing wrong with the New Testament even according to your own made-up standards.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify You make atheism look better with every post. I bet you are a plant to make Christians look stupid.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei Atheism looks better?
cough *still haven't justified Mao/Stalin/Kim Jung Il who have individually killed MORE people than Hitler ever did AND the amount of evil people that God ordered his people to wipe out* cough
Oh wow you're right, atheism DOES look incredibly tempting! Having no religion sure is great, time to go take over a country using fancy religious language and wipe everyone out!
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify That does seem to be your intent (and that of many, many other religious folk). Thankfully, I've known plenty of genuine Christians, so counterfeits like yourself stand out like a sore thumb.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei The problem with you is that you judge God.You're looking at his actions from your puny, ignorant point of view. You're not assuming that God has perfect reasons and intentions to go about doing what he does, whether for justice or for protection & purity of his people or love. It's like me saying that just because Obama sent troops to Iraq, that means he's an evil socialist dictator. I have absolutely no ground to say that because I don't know his true intentions.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify So God used evolution to create all the life on the Earth. (The alternative is that god is a deceptive liar, instantly creating the earth with all of the evidence of evolution) Like God said in the Bible, "my thoughts are not your thoughts....", and yet anti-evolutionists box god into their own puny, ignorant point of view, never dreaming that God might be smarter than they.
denswei 3 months ago
@RebornXify wrote: "Tell me where in the Bible it says to conduct genocide and wage wars with other countries"
ROTL.
denswei 3 months ago
@denswei In addition, this so-called "genocide" that you're talking about is not for the sake of destroying a people or conducting holy wars or anything of the sort. If you knew even an inkling about warfare, you'd know that a group of wandering nomads are extremely vulnerable to attack from other factions and in order to gain land, it is best to take the land of those who are trying to hurt you as to kill two birds with one stone. This isn't as simple as killing people and that's that.
RebornXify 3 months ago
@RebornXify I've won this point.
You said: "Tell me where in the Bible it says to conduct genocide and wage wars with other countries"
Having read the Bible more times that I can count, I did.
Your response is to justify genocide as self-defense, while the verses are very clear that the reasons are entirely spiritual--god explicitly forbid any peaceful coexistence on the grounds of religious purity.
ROTL
denswei 3 months ago
Comment removed
RebornXify 3 months ago
"If you are not aware of a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory..." There is not any experiment or any evidence that invalidates evolutionary theory. (If so, the researcher would be well-published, get a raise, and likely be famous :) However, experiments aimed at specific evol. mechanisms in a time and place, a simulation, other quests, can be found to lack support for the proposer's hypothesis. These don't falsify evolution (a fact), but refine what we understand of it
jlfessler 3 months ago
The other thing to consider is that "the Theory of Evolution has never been about survival. What Darwin said was that heritable variations led to differences in reproductive success (Lindsay)." "The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits." And, biologists today would add, pass on those traits.
jlfessler 3 months ago
Regarding "Survival of the fittest ..." Survival of the fittest is an older way, and an incomplete way, to define evolution. It is incomplete because not all evolution happens via that mechanism. Some divergence between isolated populations can be nonselective genetic drift, due to something similar to sampling error. The defn of fitness used is slightly incomplete also. Fitness refers to the ability to both survive and reproduce. e.g I survived, but I have no children, so my fitness value is 0
jlfessler 3 months ago
"What intermediates?" These are just internal nodes on a phylogenetic tree representing Most Recent Common Ancestors MRCAs. Any internal node represents an intermediate between what was before and what came after. One method of ev bio is to ID and place fossils (e.g. using morphol. coding of data) onto phylo trees and then you can predict other yet undiscovered forms that would fall between those two. Thus predict undiscovered fossils, look for, and sometimes find them. e.g. Neil Shubin's work.
verdetree4 3 months ago 2
Although for a man of his time with no knowledge of modern genetics, Darwin (and Wallace) did get a lot right.
jlfessler 3 months ago
@jlfessler It is a powerful confirmation of Darwin's theory of evolution that the phylogenetic trees painstakingly assembled from fossils & comparative anatomy so closely match the phylogenetic trees blindly generated by computer programs analyzing genetic similarities and dissimilarities between species.
denswei 3 months ago