Implicitly TB talks "consistency" within the scientific method. And you try to refute his reasoning with a metaphor for "consistency" outside of science.
His framework of thought is correct because it is consistent with the scientific approach to prove scientific theories. Your example of train of thought isn't applicable to science. Why isn't anything considered scientific as long as I can make up a convincing enough tale about it? Because this would be inconsistent with the Scientific Method.
Fine simple question for you. All religions say they are the true religion. Ok then why are there so many religions around the world? Breaking the broad question down of course: Why does it have to be Christianity or Islam or Buddism? Why is there Allah, why is there a Koran or a Bible, or Buddist verses? If god is not a product of human explaination for phenomenons that couldn't be explained in the past, (because of the lack of science) why does he exist in so many forms in different cultures?
"So you just blankedly assert that natural selection is THE mechanism" no he didn't. Your ignorance is blinding. you even quoted him saying, "Natural seletion is the EXPLANATION". It's the explanation, that fits all the facts, and don't bother with the "aliens made my neck itch" analogy, because occam's razor, as I stated before, crushes it.
As to your question, about a land mammal evolving into a whale, your question is completely nonsensical, and a DIRECT result of you being uneducated on the subject.
As to your aliens creating the scratch on your neck? It's strange how smug you are about your intelligence, yet you're completely uninformed as to what Occam's Razor is.
"you say speciation can develop into these big changes, how can you reasonably say that?" Because cumulative changes add up over time...which you granted.
"When I asserted that natural selection has a 'goal' all I was implying was that it had a 'direction'" Yes, and that's incorrect, and a result of you being uneducated. Worse than that. WILLFULLY ignorant. Because you know the books say that natural selction is not random, but you choose to ignore what that means, and slap on your own meaning to it, "Ah hah! then it's directed!" nope. False dichotomy. Non-randomness does not necessitate direction.
.... If there were hundreds, thousands of other people in random parts of the world, who had no contact with you, and they claiming the same thing, that aliens had flown to their homes and scratched them on their necks, what choice do you have but to think the story might be possible?
That's what evidence for Evolution is like. Hope you see the logic, or can point out any umm gaps in the logic.
Take this video off for your own sake man. Please, realise that this is making you seem stupid.
More knowledgeable on Evolution? Do you have a PhD in biology? Cos TheoreticalBullshit said he isn't that knowledgeable BECAUSE he doesn't.
Also, aliens scratching you on the neck? Consistent with all available evidence? True, just one problem though. There IS no other evidence. Evidence on evolution though, has hundreds, thousands of instances showing consistency with each other....
@npage85 "only irrational people believe in explanations without being shown that they are ontologically possible."
Can you explain what you mean by that? I mean God is ontologically possible in my head, but I don't think there's a way to demonstrate that it is ontologically possible. If your asking evolutionists to prove that it's ontologically possible, apart from the deductive and inductive arguments then by the same philosophy you shouldn't believe in God and you cannot prove him.
Your logic is so stupid. Evidence is evidence. We base our decisions on the physical evidence that we have. Yes, we might be wrong, but it's based on the physical evidence that we have at the present moment. When you say an alien flew down and scratched your neck, that's not evidence. That's your opinion. The way science works is we base our conclusions on the evidence that we have at the moment. Once the evidence changes, we can now switch up our conclusion. Read a book, get off Youtube.
"I don't understand how you can say it has no direction, it just makes no sense to me"
That's because you don't understand a thing about evolution by natural selection. Something that could easily be helped if you just READ A DAMN BOOK ABOUT IT.
"So do I understand evolution fully?"
Since you're making a fool of yourself I'd have to say, no, not even close.
kalam arguments a first cause is possible LOL. Its own argument defeats itself, i.e. who created god? A truck hole size flaw. And it is not science, it is philosophy. Science doesn't deal in fairy tales or philosophy, it deals in evidence. Trying to force a different study on it is illogical. If it used philosophy we would go backwards 400+ years. You don't go where it is philosophically satisfying, but where the evidence is. Get out of your agenda.
"All things that are random, have a direction" This is what you based your entire argument on. sorry but that isn't even true. It's not black and white.
Also, your standard of evidence is so absurd it would immediately rule out your own life. How do you know it is possible that the piece of bread you are going to put in your mouth will nourish you? After all consistency doesn't imply anything! HUR DE DURRR LETS EAT ROCKS oh wait, you don't do that. I wonder why.
Re alien and scratch: what if we had observed aliens on their home planet? What if we had alien footprints on the carpet? What if we had alien rocket residue from alien starships on your lawn? What if 5 people saw an alien climb into your window with a scratching device? What if we discovered remnants of alien metal in your wound?
Would you seriously suggest that all this accumulation of evidence, from so many different sources, tells us nothing at all?
That explanation is NOT consistent with all available evidence. Try again. Don't pretend like you know about evolution when you are clearly ignorant about it. Pretending to be smart and actually being smart are two very different things.
What are your reasons that such a transition CAN'T occur? What would be the mechanism to stop such a transition? Accumulation of small transition = big transition.
... yes we can't definitely prove that there is a LINK or possibility of change that actually happened, but it'd be pretty stupid to ignore the pattern when u can see it. There's no faith, there's just not enough of counter thought to 'hey there could b a link with these animals' to dismiss the possibility of change.
This dude is asking if it's POSSIBLE "for a land based animal to change to a whale..." he is caught up on the 'possibility'. His use of the alien scratch eg is flawed. Of course u can't prove something doesnt exist, u can only prove what does. Hence, the evidence shows that all these (small changes) animals that no longer exist show a pattern of similarity/progression towards whales...
To address your points. While natural selection does have a direction, the direction can change (i.e. if a rainforest becomes a dessert (pleistocene interglacials)). When something is able to change in any direction at any point, it is analogous to having no specific direction. Also, N.S. does not select for survivability, it selects for the spread of genes. If individual X lives longer than Y but has less offspring, N.S. will actually favor Y and therefore select against survivability.
To address your idea of the direction of natural selection & survivability. While natural selection does have a direction, the direction can change (i.e. if a rainforest becomes a dessert (look at pleistocene refugia model). In that sense natural selection has no long-term direction, it only ever works in the short term. When something is able to change in any direction at any point, it is analogous to having no specific direction
"It may work in your head just fine, but tells you nothing about whether is actually possible"
With just this single sentence, you nullified and obliterated every single ontological argument for the existence of God out there. Whe are talking here about centuries of metaphysical theology completely smashed into pieces by your razor sharp reasoning. Congratulations!
Also, you seem to not understand the process of science. A "theory" doesn't mean that it's something that people made up, like you claim. A theory is an idea, yes, that is true consistently UNTIL it is proven wrong. If a new explanation arises for whatever your measuring, then the theory is changed to the new one, AS LONG AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MEASURABLE DATA. We could be wrong that evolution is valid yes. But until a BETTER theory arises, it works just fine to explain life as we know it.
But if you wanted an evolutionary answer to your question, there's one possibility right there. And when you talk about speciation in a lab, it's true. When you hear doctors say "the virus evolved" it simply means that a genetic mutation gave that virus an advantage and it was able to survive the present medicines. Now, if you try to mate an earlier bacteria with a later bacteria, in many cases, they won't mate. Speciation is measured by the ability to mate. So there's your proof.
What do you think will happen? The animals without that special water adaption will begin to die. However, the animals that adapted to eating fish with their webbed feet, they will survive. And that genetic mutation will be passed on to their offspring. Now, next generation you have an increase number in webbed feet animals and a decrease number in non-webbed feet animals. There's your adaptation. I'm not saying it's correct, actually it's reverse because we evolved from aquatic animals.
And to your land animal to water animal question, here's a possible answer: There was a genetic variation in one animal's offspring that gave that animal's offspring webbed feet. When the animals went into water, they found that they swam better than other animals. Thus, they started eating fish instead of land animals. Now lets say that there was a catastrophic event where all the land animals died off due to some disease. Now you have an entire population with a food shortage.
And with natural selection, there is no underlying purposeful reason why certain animals live and others don't. It's simply a fact of surviving its present natural environment. That's it. There's no purpose of WHY that animal survived, it just simply did out of a survival advantage in it's genetic code that helped it get a physical trait that made it survive.
So when you say that natural selection has a direction, it's a simple play on words because natural selection is just a stationary event, due to some variations being better for survival than others. The less-survival variations will disappear progressively because the genetically varying information found in such animals will die off with the individual when it can't survive in it's present natural environment. So when you say "direction" it sounds like you're implying a reason.
Natural selection works by having a LARGE population with measurable variations, either genetically of phenotypically. You can have large or small members of the population. You can have fast or slow members of the population. So the essence of the "selection" part, is simply survivability by using such variations. If a large animal has a better chance of survival than a small one, it will simply do so. If a fast animal has a better chance of survival, it will simply do so.
I don't get how you can talk so arrogantly when you don't even know what you're talking about. I'm a creationist and you give other creationists a bad rep against evolutionists because you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a creationist scientist at NYU and I can tell you that your idea of evolution is very skeqerd with your opinion. Natural selection isn't an actual "selection" where you chose an apple over an orange.
fuck you're dumb. survivability does not imply a GOAL or DIRECTION. jesus. it just allows those who are well adapted to survive. its not that hard to understand.
i love your insecure little mannerisms during this clip as your ugly rat face sputters in front of that retarded background. quite amusing to watch.
"Do I understand evolution fully? Yah...probably more than you."
I have been debating and heavily researching evidence for and against on the subject for a year now and I don't understand it fully. What's your level of education on the subject, out of curiosity?
Also you seem very smug and full of yourself. Work on that.
@technicallyabsurd I find it is the man who approaches subjects, particularly enormously complicated ones like evolutionary biology, with the premise that they know nothing about it. PhD's realized this and studied, did research and ran experiments, and they are still cognizant how much they still don't know about it.
@technicallyabsurd TheoreticalBullshit was being intellecually honest when he said that his knowledge on the subject was incomplete, and you just made a huge ass out of yourself by using that as a foothold and ingratiating your own "knowledge" on the subject. From what I see it's the idle ruminations of a layman with a bloated head.
I'm sorry npage85, but you truly are an ignorant fool.
How about instead of using arguments like 'I'm not convinced, so it can't be true' you try researching the subject, taking in the information available and basing your opinion on that. Otherwise you're just a mushroom. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.
Let us all know once you've blossomed from fungus into an open atmosphere breathing flower.
That is to say, it is fair to say that a person who thinks the world is flat is simply uneducated. Denying any large portion of evolution - like the evolution of whales from land animals - is exactly as uneducated as saying the world is flat. Thus Scott is justified in saying, we know evolution is a fact. Every single educated person does know that the world is round and that evolution is fact.
...evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-National Academy of Science
As such evolution is on par with the round earth theory and germ theory. Doubting that whales evolved from land mammals is exactly as uneducated as thinking the world is flat. If you have never seen the earth from space with your own eyes, you have no more foundation to believe it is round that you have to doubt evolution.
...evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-National Academy of Science
As such evolution is on par with the round earth theory and germ theory. Doubting that whales evolved from land mammals is exactly as uneducated as thinking the world is flat. If you have never seen the earth from space with your own eyes, you have no more foundation to believe it is round that you have to doubt evolution.
You're still wrong. Evolution has no direction. No, all things that are non-random do not have direction. I can demonstrate mathematical curve forms that are non-random and non linear. You sir, are an idiot.
If I see someone throw a rock on another person that is enough evidence for me to believe it happened. If there is evidence, for example a video recording, of that person throwing the rock that is enough for others to believe it happened.
In the case of evolution we have similar evidence in the form of dna evidence and the fossil record to name a few. I don't see what argument you are looking for. You would not need an argument to accept that the person threw the rock?
By the way, the reason why your "alien traveling faster than light" does't make sense is because it's a bad example. You wouldn't believe it because the fact that we can't excelerate to the speed of light means that in order to travel at the speed of light, you would have to be traveling at that speed from the moment you began existing. The example isnt consistent with what we know to be possible technologically. The idea of being skeptical of possibilities in general is a matter of consistency.
If you don't think consistency is an explanation for what's possible, you're just mentally inept. Say you were to pick up an object (a pencil, if you need a specific object), hold it out in front of you, let it go and watch it drop to the floor, and you repeated this process until you'd done it 9 times. If you were to pick it up a 10th time and if I were to ask you if it were possible that letting it go would result in it dropping to the floor, would you really say "No"?
when arguing for godz against stupid evotards in internets is not enough, make a video u are taken more serios! besides you could learn and talk like a man ffs. natural selection doesn't select guys who talk like wommen
lol uhhhh... You're seriously upset about this? He implies that you are "mis-informed" and oh my gosh the world is going to end? wahh calm down! Go have sex. Jeez
(continued) An example of speciation is the Jefferson salamander and Blue Spotted salamander. They're closely related, but two different species. They can also interbreed, producing hybridized offspring.
There are many more examples, if you would just do a little research.
No, but we don't have any evidence that extraterrestrials have ever visited earth, or that any live within a distance to our solar system that would make it possible for them to travel here. So it's not consistent with the data that we have, and your analogy fails yet again.
Yes, speciation is what the "big transition" is. Large changes happen over millions of years by way of small changes over generations.
1. Pretending to argue? Do you take yourself seriously? Even metaphor should be taken with a grain of salt, and this is beyond that.
2. Natural selection has no "direction". It is simply a principle that naturally selects for traits mutated that best suit the environment the organism is placed in. If you drop a polar bear into the amazon they probably won't do well. If they survived long enough to propagate you can bet their traits will be adaptations.
Thanks for contradicting yourself. If natural selection "selects for traits best suited for the environment," then after time, the organisms will survive better in their environment.
Isn't that a direction? They didn't survive as well.... then they survived better.... then they survived even better.
That's called a trend, which is a direction. Just because there is no "end goal" to evolution doesn't mean that there isn't a direction.
It would be direction if it were predisposed. Natural selection does not have a "plan". The mutations themselves are RANDOM. Nothing random can have a predisposed direction or path, thus the very definition of random.
And maybe you missed the memo, but there are plenty of mass-extinctions in the planets history. Those are examples of when something changed in the environment quickly, and the organisms not already suited for that change simply died out. It's no abstraction.
Ok, you know just as much? Tell me what allele frequencies are, and how they relate to genetic drift. Can you explain what an autosomal recessive gene disorder is? Try me. If you can, it's because the mechanism of genetic inheritance works, and because of that, evolution.
Natural selection is not the only mechanism that impacts evolution. Again, you do not understand the subject if you think there is a design to it. It's not even remotely complicated for the person who spends a little more time investigating it. But you are arguing against a form of evolution that does not exist. You are wasting people's time.
What I'm saying is that natural selection gives evolution a direction. A population of organisms will continue to evolve to be better and better fit for their environment.
That's called the definition of "direction," evotard. Tendency towards something? Yeah... direction.
It really amazes me that evotards like you will stop at nothing to deny that it has direction. Why are you so afraid of admitting it?
What is the purpose of labeling it a direction? Keep in mind that the environment undergoes radical changes over the course of history. The pattern of natural selection changes based on the environment and it's constituents. You are not getting anywhere with this reasoning. If you have an argument that is actually based on evolution's real claims, then address those. You are trying to make abstractions that aren't even relevant to the evidence.
So, just like the course of the river changes, the course of evolution changes. There still is direction to both (downhill, and towards maximum survivability in the environment), but downhill might go east instead of west, and maximum survivability might mean more fur instead of less.
I'm still right, and you've been shown to be a jackass with your condescending remarks. Sometimes I get sick of people like you and just have to tell you off.
Perhaps you missed this day in biology, but mutations do not happen during the life of an organism, they happen during reproduction. Nothing that happens during the life of an organism impacts whether or not a mutation will happen. And sometimes, mutations don't even happen. Do not presume to understand evolution if you're not even willing to educate yourself in good faith about it. You are arguing against a made-up version of evolution that is not even supported by science.
Again, a fundamental non-understanding of evolution. Mutations that are accrued and passed on to the next generation only occur in the gametes of the Meiosis generation of the sex cells. There is a reason you do not pass down gray hair (outside of specific disorders) just because you might have it.
Tell me how a mutation that accidentally duplicates a segment of a genetic sequence or changes the peptide chain by one letter (as we understand genomes) is not adding information.
I know... I was fucking with you because you're a moron. You told me that mutations don't happen outside of reproduction... you left yourself wide open for interpretation.
I like how you keep attacking this from different angles, yet you're putting words in my mouth. When did I ever claim that evolution can't add information...
If you agree that mutations can add information, then how is evolution not plausible? Changes, additions, and refinements over the course of a very long time. You seem to agree that mutations cause changes. You seem to agree that mutations cause additions. You seem to agree that natural selection keys in on specific successful traits. You don't even seem to disagree with any of it. So what is your real reason for not accepting it's proven evidence?
Simple: there's no argument showing it likely. I'm talking about neo-Darwinism now, not ust evolution.
I have no problem with evolution... it's those people who claim that Universal Common Ancestry is some type of fact, or close to it that really bother me. They offer no actual inductive arguments in favor of what they claim.
It's disheartening.... and you're one of them. You speak as if it's so likely, but neo-Darwinism has no actual argument concluding that it is likely.
Do you even know what theory means? It doesn't mean argument, that's for sure. It's like you think there has to be logic behind randomness.
A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. In science, the best theory is the one that accounts for ALL evidence in the most coherent manner. If you want to show evolution as an unlikely theory, you should submit evidence that is contrary to it, rather than attacking a non-existing logical argument for it. It needs none.
Oh, now you're going to lecture me on what a theory is? Really?
Haha... dude, you crack me up. Being a theory doesn't mean that it is likely true. Being the "most consistent explanation with the evidence" doesn't make a theory likely.
You say that I have to find a piece of evidence that contradicts it in order to show it unlikely... what a joke.
Learn some philosophy... and some of what the scientific method does (and is capable of doing) before you make a fool of yourself.
This is nothing more than appeal to ridicule. You have not falsified evolution, nor have you presented a better alternative. I am done here, because this argument is not even productive. Please do not waste people's time.
I'm having fun with you, because you are just the same as all other evotards.
You come on here and tell me that all the evide4nce shows that Universal Common Descent and neo-Darwinism is likely, but you never provide the inference.
You worship Science, and proudly proclaim that Science gives you likelihood when it actually doesn't. You need reason to get to likelihood... not just consistency of evidence.
So, I bid you adieu. Have fun strawmanning more evo-skeptics.
It is impossible to straw man your opponent when you are only representing your own position, and demonstrating that the other person does not have any knowledge on the subject as you describe it.
Are you not putting words in my mouth when you say I will never provide inference? I merely state that inference is not how you prove a theory, which in my opinion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
To say I worship it begets a dogma which does not exist.
The reason to accept evolution is the theory itself. It is the most accurate and explanatory theory binding together biology. I see no major issues with the theory, and the only contested issues are those awaiting more data, and are not established as facts within the theory.
It is not an effective form of persuasion to throw multiple insults at someone and then act offended when someone calls the quality of your intelligence into question.
In fact, it resembles the behavior of a toddler. "You're stupid for wanting that toy. Let me have it"
I think that resembles your attitude towards a disagreeing opinion. You treat it as childish as if you have some kind of grandfather complex and then after condescending get offended that someone might disagree.
You keep saying I'm insulting your intelligence. I am merely pointing out how you are fighting against a phantom form of evolution. Either you are doing this dishonestly, or you genuinely don't know. Either way, you are not equipped to have this discussion.
It is meaningless to assert it is a direction. It does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. It is like relabeling beer as alcohol. We get it, they're the same thing. Does that mean it stops getting you drunk?
I'm not fighting against a "phantom form of evolution."
If evolution has direction (as in a tendency for organisms to become more and more fit in their environment), then I'm right... and not fighting against a "phantom form of evolution."
Give me a break man... why do you got to try and say that it doesn't so much that you would go to these lengths? It's like an alcoholic claiming that he doesn't have a problem because it's just beer... not alcohol.
And there's the point npage. Either you understand that a theory is based on undeniable observations (because you can replicate them if you really care enough), and thus the theory of evolution has massive evidence to prove it, or you believe it somehow has to justify itself with logic rather than evidence. You seem to be the latter, and exclude yourself from the conversation. Universal common descent is fact because it is observed, not because it's some abstraction.
There can be as much "evidence" as you like, but unless there is reason to back up the notion that it is likely it really means jack.
Yeah, sure... science doesn't care if a theory is likely or not... it just cares about scie3ntific progress...
But if that's the case, then you shouldn't expect rational people to believe every scientific theory put forth... since by definition scientific theories aren't necessarily shown to be likely.
Are you trying to seriously say that the over 270,000 peer reviewed articles showing examples of evolution in progress is not more likely than whatever alternative you believe? Are you saying it's justified to ignore all of those examples? Because there is no amount of logic that can falsify observations, besides the notion that observations themselves are not reliable instruments for objective reality. In which case you are self-refuting. So I don't think that's your belief.
You keep strawmanning me, so I'm going to bid you adieu... after explaining this comment away as just another pitiful attempt by you to poison the well.
I don't doubt evolution... I only doubt the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism to explain *all* the designs in nature that we observe.
So yeah... until you can give me an argument showing that neo-Darwinism is *likely* true, then I can't really believe it is true. I don't have as much faith as you.
Here's the thing. You are telling me that nobody has a convincing argument for you, but the facts themselves speak. It would seem to me that you are too lazy to actually find a flaw in the science itself. Because factual disputes are winnable against science, you just have to have a good observation that isn't accounted for in evolution (like a Pre-Cambrian Chicken would be a great example). But no, you take the easy route of "You have to cater to me" like some kind of snob.
If evidence shows a pattern, and there is literally several billion years of that pattern, it lends itself that there is a mechanism driving it. Any rational person observing an apple falling from a tree can see that it is accelerating downwards. They can conjecture something is pulling it down or pushing it down. They can even test that. Evolution is just the same. We can test evolution, and make meaningful predictions from it. It is based on an uningnorable reality.
you'r the biggest moron ever. If i can find a way in wich it could happened, htan it is possible. It is as simple as that. To say that it is true is something complelty different. But i just have to come up with ONE way for something to have happened, and than that thing is possible.
@npage85 Do you ever get tired of being told how wrong, stupid, and ignorant you are? No one is trying to prove a land mammal could turn into a whale!!!!! Get that through your head!!! We have wheelbarrow loads full of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that this HAS taken place. That is a FACT. That is not in question! No way no how, at least not for anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the evidence. Science doesn't look for evidence to support a theory, it fits theories to the evidence. Get it?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Natural Selection. Natural selection, as strange as it may seem, does not select. To say that it does is to imply an intelligence, that simply isn't present. What the theory of Natural selection says, is that animals better suited, or more productive, for, or in, their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. Natural selection is not a guiding force, it's a summation of observations.
If you clearify what you mean by "why", I'll give you a proper response. If the question was HOW, however, I could easily give you a good explanation.
As for the argument about the speed of light - since nothing can accellerate to the speed of light within space-time, it IS impossible for the alien in your story to travel at the speed of light. An object cannot travel at the speed of light without first having accelerated to that speed. Correct me if you can think of a way.
... Who ever said Natural Selection isn't random? The zebra doesn't choose to live in an area around the lion. It just HAPPENED to be that way.
Also. He says...or rather how you phrased it was... "we just know it happened"... he meant he wasn't going to take the time to explain/teach you when all YOU need to do is read from an unbiased website to find out.
you keep saying that its not practical and it only works out fine in the head but not in real. come on...go read a scientific paper. scientists dont make things up in their head and say thats true. theres countless evidence and research done to verify the claims, and those papers are critiqued and reviewed by other scientists and experimentally assured after which it is accepted. not like the creationist pseudoscientific idiots
If one is engaging in an argument and holding the argument then the argument is, in fact, an rgument. That you were being dishonest doesnt change that fact.
I seriously don't understand the question you ask at around 3:43. Why (?) is it possible?! Why is it possible that huge masses to have a pulling force called gravity?
Survivability isn't a trait, for two reasons you'd be an idiot not to understand:
1. Survivability is CONTINGENT on (a) Traits and (b) Environment.
2. Traits are contingent on proteins produced from DNA (a la genes passed on to offspring); is 'survivability' a product of proteins produced from DNA?
Quit calling survivability a trait. If you carry on, not only are you too (deliberately!) stupid to understand what I just said, but you're also misrepresenting evolutionary biology.
I think Scott's objection to the idea of direction is that natural selection does not direct mutation. A land mammal doesn't progress through mutation to a whale because natural selection wants it to. Random mutations occur and natural selection selects for the ones that provide survivability. The evolution of a whale was not necessary, it simply happened and worked out to be survivable.
The theory of natural selection provides currently the best and most parsimonious explanation that is consistent with the myriad evidence we have found, some categories of which Scott metioned.
Your scratch analogy was interesting but fails to address the requirement of parsimony. Your alien explanation is consistent with the evidence but seriously ignores occam's razor by making wild assumptions about the existence of aliens and supposing they would travel here only to scratch your neck.
Another place the scratch analogy fails is that the scratch is a phenomenon that you are attempting to explain. The alien hypothesis provides no testable predictions.
With evolution, the myriad of different types of life is the phenomenon that we seek to explain. The hypothesis provides a large number of testable predictions, and we continue to find new evidence that is consistent with the predictions. There is currently no other parsimonious explanation consistent with the evidence.
Finally, you asked a question of why a specific evolutionary path is possible. I don't think "why" is the right word to use there. You probably would be better served with "how".
At any rate, Scott nor I are likely qualified to answer that question precisely and completely. However, the possibility that such an evolution could occur has not been ruled out, and furthermore, that it happened is the most parsimonious explanation that is consistent with the large volumes of evidence we have.
npage, I'm afraid you simply don't understand the science at work, in spite of your protests to the contrary.
Scientific theories do not rise and fall merely on basis of their internal coherence and explanatory power. You've missed the other two-thirds of science: Falsifiability and predictive power.
The reason modern biology universally incoporates the ToE is because it WORKS. It explains. It's coherent. It generates testable predictions. Your alien theory doesn't.
An alien scratching you isn't consitant with all available evidence. Mostly cos of the reasons u bring up. The transition from land mammal 2 whale is constitant with all available evidence. If u can c the same thing happening in a similar subject, then u can assume that it's highly possible. E.g. if i find the window of my car smashed in & items inside the car gone, i assume a human being has broken, rather than an alien breaking the window, as nothing like the latter has ever been proven.
-- Nice... so now you understand the non-evolutionists mindset: We don't see how anyone has logically shown that the neo-Darwiniam mechanism can likely happen.
Sweet. Thanks for illustrating that my analogy *does* portray the situation perfectly... it's just that it looks just as absurd to you as a belief in neo-Darwinism looks to me.
Npage85, in regard to your statement that natural selection has direction you seem to be absolutely correct in your understanding. In his video of how the eye might have evolved, Dawkins says the "rule of evolution is just to keep going uphill." This firmly implies the current most popular proponent of the GTE thinks direction is necessarily involved. Either TB knows something Dawkins does not, or at least one of them is incorrect.
Let me clue you in on something: what TB was demonstrating is called modesty. You on the other hand, being the arrogant retard you are, took advantage of what he stated about not being qualified and used it as reason to claim superiority in the conversation.
There is a reason nobody takes you seriously and there's a reason you only have 300 subscribers after 2 years. You claim to be able to use logic to demonstrate something, yet your logic is so severely flawed on many levels to the point...
For example: "All things that are not random have a direction" is completely nonsensical. It may, in some regard be true, but extracting a truth from one field and generalizing it as an absolute rule is idiotic. It would be very easy to cite examples that contradict this rule.
Furthermore, consistency in evidence DOES shows us that an explanation is possible or likely. If you're going to doubt this fact, then you might as well reject the scientific method.
In regards to your alien example: there is no consistency in evidence that would lead you to construct such a hypothesis. You merely created the most elaborate and ludicrous explanation that COULD potentially be the case in our world; however, there is no positive (&consistent ) evidence suggesting it is. Labeling your little fantasy as an example is a misnomer.
Long story short: you're a cocky moron who CONSISTENTLY displays a deficiency in his cognitive reasoning.
If you don't want to be known as a creationist, then you should probably drop the ID tag you so proudly sport. It has been proven over and over that the ID movement started and has largely been continued as creationism under a different name. Those non-creationists who subscribe to ID should look for something else to call it, or you will be thought of as creationist, just like I would be thought of as a skinhead if I shaved my head and joined a skinhead group who simply changed their name.
Learn what evolution is, and what the evidence for it is, before you ask stupid questions about it. I could ask a million questions about quantum theory because I know nothing about it and that would likely piss off every quantum theorist out there.
Natural selection is 'random', but since survival filters only positive random changes it has a direction; hence the alternative definition 'survival of the fittest'.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
There is no conscious direction, just random mutations filtered by the life/death & advantage/disadvantage imparted on the host organism by a random change.
Evolution is no more subject to debate than gravity.
Whether they know god or not is irrelevant, their definition of god is logically impossible. I've found that to be true for the overwhelming majority of theistic definitions of god.
a typical creationist response would be to compare us to ants. we cant comprehend what God is just like ants cant comprehend what the theory of relativity is.
But do you understand the Great Cubicular Shift of 400,000 years ago? It's what drove human evolution, and what allowed us, one of the weakest, slowest, most hairless, toothless, clawless creatures, to rise to the top of the food chain. You must understand it! Much of the earth's surface was overtaken by an environment approximating that of a modern office building: there was heat, air conditioning, incandescent lighting, etc. The great beasts of yore couldn't compete w/our ancestors there!
agnostics are not the same thing as atheists. unlike atheists or creationists, they have an open mind. agnostics need 'all the evidence' that evolution or creation is responsible for the world today to be happy. its not that they are trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution, even if evolution is proven, they will always have that 1% doubt, therefore they will always be agnostic.
I'm an atheist and I admit that there is a possibility(a very remote possibility) that a god exists. However certain definitions of god are logically impossible. Anyone who doesn't believe in god is, by definition, an atheist.
And before you bang on about evolution not being proven I suggest that you look at all of the evidence first. You'll find that ALL of the available evidence supports the theory.
right-o. im really a believer/semi-agnostic type of believer. im not as ignorant as some creationists are. my faith is based on love, on the human spirit, and not on magic.. there is alot we dont yet understand. most things dont make sense but i go along with it because, well i havent figured out why i shouldnt.
in the Buddhist religion, i might be wrong but they dont necessarily believe in a god. by your definition, is a Buddhist an atheist?
you really do need to do some reading on evolution heres how we know a large change like that is possible, an organisms attributes is dependant on its dna sequence, a land mammal has a particular dna sequence, a water mammal has a different dna sequence, we know mutations occur in dna sequences causing change in the organism, and we understand what kinds of muations can occur, and there is nothing different about the dna of a water mammal that cant be caused by these mutations
you didn't read a science textbook yet, you still make these useless argument based on "why is it possible for a land-based mammal to evolve into a whale over millions of years by way of mutations and natural selection"
it's actually the other way round fucktard
it's from a whale into a land based mammal
you clearly didn't learn evolution, yet, you say you did.
and "IF" evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove anything, you point is fucking useless.
As for your question you may as well ask why is it possible for aeroplanes to fly from one country to another. I could present you with all kinds of evidence for aerodynamics and aeroplane design, but you could still deny it and make up some other fantasy explanation for flight (like your analogy). Thats because you are arguing from a position of personal incredulity and you are not interested in the evidence.
You think that an alien scratching you on the neck is consistent with the evidence? What evidence supports that theory? There is none, youre using a false analogy and an argument from personal incredulity.
Evolution of the whale is backed up by considerable evidence and is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If you have an alternative explanation, which is supported by the evidence please present it.
good one!i agree with u! a land mamal to whale is evolution is not really probable.there is actually no selection pressure for the land mamal to evolve into a whale unless there's a great glacier melting causing all land to be submerged.some fossils may look the same and seem that organisms have been modified thru time.but the truth is fossils only tell us such organisms existed.they may be new speices altogether,unrelated.
the background is so annoying , i keep getting distracted by the sides of your glasses disappearing.
btw...all available evidence of an alien scratching you?...there is none. Genetics, molecular structure and fossils are actual physical forms of evidence which can be studied and catalogued, and not just an imaginary story which somebody made up. That is such a horrible comparison to make. It holds zero (maybe even negative) weight. >_>
Wikipedia has a good article on FTL travel, and what is theoretically possible and not.
Anyways, I'm thinking the friction with our atmosphere would cause our itchy-necked hero to catch fire, or explode, or something. Also, the scratch would release tons of energy and cause decapitation, or more explosiveness probably XD.
Land animal to whale:What is you problem with this.
Evolution is a purely mechanical process.
As the environment of life forms change surtain traits appering through random mutation allows surtain individuals to survive whilst others die.Over an extented period of time this leads to whole new species.This in no way require any design or rational operating principle in nature.
You lost me when you attempted a horrific alien reference. Please do everyone a favor and attempt, at least, to educate yourself before allowing another mindless rant.
Implicitly TB talks "consistency" within the scientific method. And you try to refute his reasoning with a metaphor for "consistency" outside of science.
His framework of thought is correct because it is consistent with the scientific approach to prove scientific theories. Your example of train of thought isn't applicable to science. Why isn't anything considered scientific as long as I can make up a convincing enough tale about it? Because this would be inconsistent with the Scientific Method.
flueedo 2 weeks ago
Some of these Evos can't stand to get a little dosage of their own castor oil.
Ear4Beauty 1 month ago
Fine simple question for you. All religions say they are the true religion. Ok then why are there so many religions around the world? Breaking the broad question down of course: Why does it have to be Christianity or Islam or Buddism? Why is there Allah, why is there a Koran or a Bible, or Buddist verses? If god is not a product of human explaination for phenomenons that couldn't be explained in the past, (because of the lack of science) why does he exist in so many forms in different cultures?
AquaAriaSachou 1 month ago
"So you just blankedly assert that natural selection is THE mechanism" no he didn't. Your ignorance is blinding. you even quoted him saying, "Natural seletion is the EXPLANATION". It's the explanation, that fits all the facts, and don't bother with the "aliens made my neck itch" analogy, because occam's razor, as I stated before, crushes it.
Educate thineself.
BigLundi 2 months ago
As to your question, about a land mammal evolving into a whale, your question is completely nonsensical, and a DIRECT result of you being uneducated on the subject.
As to your aliens creating the scratch on your neck? It's strange how smug you are about your intelligence, yet you're completely uninformed as to what Occam's Razor is.
"you say speciation can develop into these big changes, how can you reasonably say that?" Because cumulative changes add up over time...which you granted.
BigLundi 2 months ago
"When I asserted that natural selection has a 'goal' all I was implying was that it had a 'direction'" Yes, and that's incorrect, and a result of you being uneducated. Worse than that. WILLFULLY ignorant. Because you know the books say that natural selction is not random, but you choose to ignore what that means, and slap on your own meaning to it, "Ah hah! then it's directed!" nope. False dichotomy. Non-randomness does not necessitate direction.
take the video down. You sound imbecilic.
BigLundi 2 months ago
.... If there were hundreds, thousands of other people in random parts of the world, who had no contact with you, and they claiming the same thing, that aliens had flown to their homes and scratched them on their necks, what choice do you have but to think the story might be possible?
That's what evidence for Evolution is like. Hope you see the logic, or can point out any umm gaps in the logic.
Would appreciate a response.
pragunkhera 2 months ago
Take this video off for your own sake man. Please, realise that this is making you seem stupid.
More knowledgeable on Evolution? Do you have a PhD in biology? Cos TheoreticalBullshit said he isn't that knowledgeable BECAUSE he doesn't.
Also, aliens scratching you on the neck? Consistent with all available evidence? True, just one problem though. There IS no other evidence. Evidence on evolution though, has hundreds, thousands of instances showing consistency with each other....
pragunkhera 2 months ago
@npage85 "only irrational people believe in explanations without being shown that they are ontologically possible."
Can you explain what you mean by that? I mean God is ontologically possible in my head, but I don't think there's a way to demonstrate that it is ontologically possible. If your asking evolutionists to prove that it's ontologically possible, apart from the deductive and inductive arguments then by the same philosophy you shouldn't believe in God and you cannot prove him.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
I'm a Christian and even I know that TheoreticalBullshit won this debate.
ShamamalamaSama 4 months ago 3
Your logic is so stupid. Evidence is evidence. We base our decisions on the physical evidence that we have. Yes, we might be wrong, but it's based on the physical evidence that we have at the present moment. When you say an alien flew down and scratched your neck, that's not evidence. That's your opinion. The way science works is we base our conclusions on the evidence that we have at the moment. Once the evidence changes, we can now switch up our conclusion. Read a book, get off Youtube.
MrSpeedyAce 4 months ago in playlist More videos from npage85
RETARD!!!
MrSpeedyAce 4 months ago in playlist More videos from npage85
"I don't understand how you can say it has no direction, it just makes no sense to me"
That's because you don't understand a thing about evolution by natural selection. Something that could easily be helped if you just READ A DAMN BOOK ABOUT IT.
"So do I understand evolution fully?"
Since you're making a fool of yourself I'd have to say, no, not even close.
Amsah 5 months ago
kalam arguments a first cause is possible LOL. Its own argument defeats itself, i.e. who created god? A truck hole size flaw. And it is not science, it is philosophy. Science doesn't deal in fairy tales or philosophy, it deals in evidence. Trying to force a different study on it is illogical. If it used philosophy we would go backwards 400+ years. You don't go where it is philosophically satisfying, but where the evidence is. Get out of your agenda.
motogriso1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wtf, evolution doesn't have a fucking direction.
truckcompany 6 months ago
wtf this guy is a retard.
Dadge42 6 months ago
Dude: are you still as much of a moron as you were in October of 2009? This video is so painfully dumb. You should delete it.
prescod 6 months ago
"All things that are random, have a direction" This is what you based your entire argument on. sorry but that isn't even true. It's not black and white.
HybridDBela 6 months ago
Also, your standard of evidence is so absurd it would immediately rule out your own life. How do you know it is possible that the piece of bread you are going to put in your mouth will nourish you? After all consistency doesn't imply anything! HUR DE DURRR LETS EAT ROCKS oh wait, you don't do that. I wonder why.
SkepticsClaw 8 months ago
Re alien and scratch: what if we had observed aliens on their home planet? What if we had alien footprints on the carpet? What if we had alien rocket residue from alien starships on your lawn? What if 5 people saw an alien climb into your window with a scratching device? What if we discovered remnants of alien metal in your wound?
Would you seriously suggest that all this accumulation of evidence, from so many different sources, tells us nothing at all?
SkepticsClaw 8 months ago
you are just so uneducated
aajr95 8 months ago
That explanation is NOT consistent with all available evidence. Try again. Don't pretend like you know about evolution when you are clearly ignorant about it. Pretending to be smart and actually being smart are two very different things.
kubush 8 months ago
What are your reasons that such a transition CAN'T occur? What would be the mechanism to stop such a transition? Accumulation of small transition = big transition.
kubush 8 months ago
... yes we can't definitely prove that there is a LINK or possibility of change that actually happened, but it'd be pretty stupid to ignore the pattern when u can see it. There's no faith, there's just not enough of counter thought to 'hey there could b a link with these animals' to dismiss the possibility of change.
twinqletwinqle 8 months ago
This dude is asking if it's POSSIBLE "for a land based animal to change to a whale..." he is caught up on the 'possibility'. His use of the alien scratch eg is flawed. Of course u can't prove something doesnt exist, u can only prove what does. Hence, the evidence shows that all these (small changes) animals that no longer exist show a pattern of similarity/progression towards whales...
twinqletwinqle 8 months ago
To address your points. While natural selection does have a direction, the direction can change (i.e. if a rainforest becomes a dessert (pleistocene interglacials)). When something is able to change in any direction at any point, it is analogous to having no specific direction. Also, N.S. does not select for survivability, it selects for the spread of genes. If individual X lives longer than Y but has less offspring, N.S. will actually favor Y and therefore select against survivability.
keenanmorrison 8 months ago
To address your idea of the direction of natural selection & survivability. While natural selection does have a direction, the direction can change (i.e. if a rainforest becomes a dessert (look at pleistocene refugia model). In that sense natural selection has no long-term direction, it only ever works in the short term. When something is able to change in any direction at any point, it is analogous to having no specific direction
keenanmorrison 8 months ago
"It may work in your head just fine, but tells you nothing about whether is actually possible"
With just this single sentence, you nullified and obliterated every single ontological argument for the existence of God out there. Whe are talking here about centuries of metaphysical theology completely smashed into pieces by your razor sharp reasoning. Congratulations!
lfzadra 8 months ago
you dont understand natural selection at all fail...
Spindel01 8 months ago
Evolution is cumulative change. So yeah. That's point 1.
Point 2. Natural Selection doesn't have a direction either. It simply goes for survival, survival isn't a direction.
Point 3. Yes, he can tell you you're uninformed, because you've demonstrated that.
Point 4. "All things that are not random have direction." Wrong. Demonstrably. God you fail so hard.
Point 5. No, you don't understand evolution fully, because you make questions that don't involve what evolution actually is.
BigLundi 9 months ago
Your an idiot....But, I might be pretending.
alueshen 10 months ago
Also, you seem to not understand the process of science. A "theory" doesn't mean that it's something that people made up, like you claim. A theory is an idea, yes, that is true consistently UNTIL it is proven wrong. If a new explanation arises for whatever your measuring, then the theory is changed to the new one, AS LONG AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MEASURABLE DATA. We could be wrong that evolution is valid yes. But until a BETTER theory arises, it works just fine to explain life as we know it.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
But if you wanted an evolutionary answer to your question, there's one possibility right there. And when you talk about speciation in a lab, it's true. When you hear doctors say "the virus evolved" it simply means that a genetic mutation gave that virus an advantage and it was able to survive the present medicines. Now, if you try to mate an earlier bacteria with a later bacteria, in many cases, they won't mate. Speciation is measured by the ability to mate. So there's your proof.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
What do you think will happen? The animals without that special water adaption will begin to die. However, the animals that adapted to eating fish with their webbed feet, they will survive. And that genetic mutation will be passed on to their offspring. Now, next generation you have an increase number in webbed feet animals and a decrease number in non-webbed feet animals. There's your adaptation. I'm not saying it's correct, actually it's reverse because we evolved from aquatic animals.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
And to your land animal to water animal question, here's a possible answer: There was a genetic variation in one animal's offspring that gave that animal's offspring webbed feet. When the animals went into water, they found that they swam better than other animals. Thus, they started eating fish instead of land animals. Now lets say that there was a catastrophic event where all the land animals died off due to some disease. Now you have an entire population with a food shortage.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
And with natural selection, there is no underlying purposeful reason why certain animals live and others don't. It's simply a fact of surviving its present natural environment. That's it. There's no purpose of WHY that animal survived, it just simply did out of a survival advantage in it's genetic code that helped it get a physical trait that made it survive.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
So when you say that natural selection has a direction, it's a simple play on words because natural selection is just a stationary event, due to some variations being better for survival than others. The less-survival variations will disappear progressively because the genetically varying information found in such animals will die off with the individual when it can't survive in it's present natural environment. So when you say "direction" it sounds like you're implying a reason.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
Natural selection works by having a LARGE population with measurable variations, either genetically of phenotypically. You can have large or small members of the population. You can have fast or slow members of the population. So the essence of the "selection" part, is simply survivability by using such variations. If a large animal has a better chance of survival than a small one, it will simply do so. If a fast animal has a better chance of survival, it will simply do so.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
I don't get how you can talk so arrogantly when you don't even know what you're talking about. I'm a creationist and you give other creationists a bad rep against evolutionists because you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a creationist scientist at NYU and I can tell you that your idea of evolution is very skeqerd with your opinion. Natural selection isn't an actual "selection" where you chose an apple over an orange.
MrSpeedyAce 10 months ago
fuck you're dumb. survivability does not imply a GOAL or DIRECTION. jesus. it just allows those who are well adapted to survive. its not that hard to understand.
i love your insecure little mannerisms during this clip as your ugly rat face sputters in front of that retarded background. quite amusing to watch.
ps - stop making videos and kill yourself.
scuzzulus 10 months ago
Around 3:15
"Do I understand evolution fully? Yah...probably more than you."
I have been debating and heavily researching evidence for and against on the subject for a year now and I don't understand it fully. What's your level of education on the subject, out of curiosity?
Also you seem very smug and full of yourself. Work on that.
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
@technicallyabsurd I find it is the man who approaches subjects, particularly enormously complicated ones like evolutionary biology, with the premise that they know nothing about it. PhD's realized this and studied, did research and ran experiments, and they are still cognizant how much they still don't know about it.
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
@technicallyabsurd TheoreticalBullshit was being intellecually honest when he said that his knowledge on the subject was incomplete, and you just made a huge ass out of yourself by using that as a foothold and ingratiating your own "knowledge" on the subject. From what I see it's the idle ruminations of a layman with a bloated head.
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
@technicallyabsurd I'm sorry, "aggrandizing", not "ingratiating".
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
I'm sorry npage85, but you truly are an ignorant fool.
How about instead of using arguments like 'I'm not convinced, so it can't be true' you try researching the subject, taking in the information available and basing your opinion on that. Otherwise you're just a mushroom. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.
Let us all know once you've blossomed from fungus into an open atmosphere breathing flower.
guybkt 1 year ago
"All things that are not random have a direction."
That's so stupid it hurts. Go add vectors & scalars to your list of things to learn.
notabernard 1 year ago
That is to say, it is fair to say that a person who thinks the world is flat is simply uneducated. Denying any large portion of evolution - like the evolution of whales from land animals - is exactly as uneducated as saying the world is flat. Thus Scott is justified in saying, we know evolution is a fact. Every single educated person does know that the world is round and that evolution is fact.
g24417 1 year ago
...evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-National Academy of Science
As such evolution is on par with the round earth theory and germ theory. Doubting that whales evolved from land mammals is exactly as uneducated as thinking the world is flat. If you have never seen the earth from space with your own eyes, you have no more foundation to believe it is round that you have to doubt evolution.
g24417 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-National Academy of Science
As such evolution is on par with the round earth theory and germ theory. Doubting that whales evolved from land mammals is exactly as uneducated as thinking the world is flat. If you have never seen the earth from space with your own eyes, you have no more foundation to believe it is round that you have to doubt evolution.
g24417 1 year ago
You're still wrong. Evolution has no direction. No, all things that are non-random do not have direction. I can demonstrate mathematical curve forms that are non-random and non linear. You sir, are an idiot.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
The "go to a fucking library" comment still seems to be relevant.
emilebosman 1 year ago
Your smug, slightly affected indignation is completely unfounded, because the questions you ask make it clear that you ARE uninformed.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago 10
Are you aware that everyone thinks you're stupid, maybe you're doing something wrong.
Sizzle3003 1 year ago
You are literally too stupid to insult.
BatcaveDilemma 1 year ago
actually possible? how about probable moron?
daemonowner 1 year ago 4
Did you read a book on evolution yet?
Benwoodruff 1 year ago 2
A thing that is not random has a cause or explanation NOT a direction. The causes for natural selection are given by the environment.
franky1901 1 year ago 2
If I see someone throw a rock on another person that is enough evidence for me to believe it happened. If there is evidence, for example a video recording, of that person throwing the rock that is enough for others to believe it happened.
In the case of evolution we have similar evidence in the form of dna evidence and the fossil record to name a few. I don't see what argument you are looking for. You would not need an argument to accept that the person threw the rock?
Hedning1390 1 year ago
By the way, the reason why your "alien traveling faster than light" does't make sense is because it's a bad example. You wouldn't believe it because the fact that we can't excelerate to the speed of light means that in order to travel at the speed of light, you would have to be traveling at that speed from the moment you began existing. The example isnt consistent with what we know to be possible technologically. The idea of being skeptical of possibilities in general is a matter of consistency.
travesham 1 year ago
If you don't think consistency is an explanation for what's possible, you're just mentally inept. Say you were to pick up an object (a pencil, if you need a specific object), hold it out in front of you, let it go and watch it drop to the floor, and you repeated this process until you'd done it 9 times. If you were to pick it up a 10th time and if I were to ask you if it were possible that letting it go would result in it dropping to the floor, would you really say "No"?
travesham 1 year ago
when arguing for godz against stupid evotards in internets is not enough, make a video u are taken more serios! besides you could learn and talk like a man ffs. natural selection doesn't select guys who talk like wommen
"sucks to be you" very good for you m8.
ageofcrackpipe 1 year ago
lol uhhhh... You're seriously upset about this? He implies that you are "mis-informed" and oh my gosh the world is going to end? wahh calm down! Go have sex. Jeez
StevenJKpower 1 year ago
(continued) An example of speciation is the Jefferson salamander and Blue Spotted salamander. They're closely related, but two different species. They can also interbreed, producing hybridized offspring.
There are many more examples, if you would just do a little research.
autumnsylver 1 year ago
No, but we don't have any evidence that extraterrestrials have ever visited earth, or that any live within a distance to our solar system that would make it possible for them to travel here. So it's not consistent with the data that we have, and your analogy fails yet again.
Yes, speciation is what the "big transition" is. Large changes happen over millions of years by way of small changes over generations.
(continued)
autumnsylver 1 year ago
1. Pretending to argue? Do you take yourself seriously? Even metaphor should be taken with a grain of salt, and this is beyond that.
2. Natural selection has no "direction". It is simply a principle that naturally selects for traits mutated that best suit the environment the organism is placed in. If you drop a polar bear into the amazon they probably won't do well. If they survived long enough to propagate you can bet their traits will be adaptations.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
Thanks for contradicting yourself. If natural selection "selects for traits best suited for the environment," then after time, the organisms will survive better in their environment.
Isn't that a direction? They didn't survive as well.... then they survived better.... then they survived even better.
That's called a trend, which is a direction. Just because there is no "end goal" to evolution doesn't mean that there isn't a direction.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
It would be direction if it were predisposed. Natural selection does not have a "plan". The mutations themselves are RANDOM. Nothing random can have a predisposed direction or path, thus the very definition of random.
And maybe you missed the memo, but there are plenty of mass-extinctions in the planets history. Those are examples of when something changed in the environment quickly, and the organisms not already suited for that change simply died out. It's no abstraction.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
Natural selection has no "plan," but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have direction.
A river has no "ultimate goal," but it always still goes downhill.
Just like rivers, natural selection makes populations of organisms change towards the best fit with their environment.
Don't insult my intelligence... I know everything you know about evolution, if not more.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Ok, you know just as much? Tell me what allele frequencies are, and how they relate to genetic drift. Can you explain what an autosomal recessive gene disorder is? Try me. If you can, it's because the mechanism of genetic inheritance works, and because of that, evolution.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@npage85
Natural selection is not the only mechanism that impacts evolution. Again, you do not understand the subject if you think there is a design to it. It's not even remotely complicated for the person who spends a little more time investigating it. But you are arguing against a form of evolution that does not exist. You are wasting people's time.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
I didn't say that there's a design to it.
What I'm saying is that natural selection gives evolution a direction. A population of organisms will continue to evolve to be better and better fit for their environment.
That's called the definition of "direction," evotard. Tendency towards something? Yeah... direction.
It really amazes me that evotards like you will stop at nothing to deny that it has direction. Why are you so afraid of admitting it?
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
What is the purpose of labeling it a direction? Keep in mind that the environment undergoes radical changes over the course of history. The pattern of natural selection changes based on the environment and it's constituents. You are not getting anywhere with this reasoning. If you have an argument that is actually based on evolution's real claims, then address those. You are trying to make abstractions that aren't even relevant to the evidence.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
There you go bro... good for you.
So, just like the course of the river changes, the course of evolution changes. There still is direction to both (downhill, and towards maximum survivability in the environment), but downhill might go east instead of west, and maximum survivability might mean more fur instead of less.
I'm still right, and you've been shown to be a jackass with your condescending remarks. Sometimes I get sick of people like you and just have to tell you off.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Perhaps you missed this day in biology, but mutations do not happen during the life of an organism, they happen during reproduction. Nothing that happens during the life of an organism impacts whether or not a mutation will happen. And sometimes, mutations don't even happen. Do not presume to understand evolution if you're not even willing to educate yourself in good faith about it. You are arguing against a made-up version of evolution that is not even supported by science.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
Don't insult my intelligence. Mutations happen all the time.
Why does your hair turn gray? Mutations.
Why does radiation kill you?
Mutations.
You insult my intelligence... and you don't even know what you're talking about. You're a disgrace.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Again, a fundamental non-understanding of evolution. Mutations that are accrued and passed on to the next generation only occur in the gametes of the Meiosis generation of the sex cells. There is a reason you do not pass down gray hair (outside of specific disorders) just because you might have it.
Tell me how a mutation that accidentally duplicates a segment of a genetic sequence or changes the peptide chain by one letter (as we understand genomes) is not adding information.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
I know... I was fucking with you because you're a moron. You told me that mutations don't happen outside of reproduction... you left yourself wide open for interpretation.
I like how you keep attacking this from different angles, yet you're putting words in my mouth. When did I ever claim that evolution can't add information...
Your an evotard.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
If you agree that mutations can add information, then how is evolution not plausible? Changes, additions, and refinements over the course of a very long time. You seem to agree that mutations cause changes. You seem to agree that mutations cause additions. You seem to agree that natural selection keys in on specific successful traits. You don't even seem to disagree with any of it. So what is your real reason for not accepting it's proven evidence?
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
Simple: there's no argument showing it likely. I'm talking about neo-Darwinism now, not ust evolution.
I have no problem with evolution... it's those people who claim that Universal Common Ancestry is some type of fact, or close to it that really bother me. They offer no actual inductive arguments in favor of what they claim.
It's disheartening.... and you're one of them. You speak as if it's so likely, but neo-Darwinism has no actual argument concluding that it is likely.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Do you even know what theory means? It doesn't mean argument, that's for sure. It's like you think there has to be logic behind randomness.
A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. In science, the best theory is the one that accounts for ALL evidence in the most coherent manner. If you want to show evolution as an unlikely theory, you should submit evidence that is contrary to it, rather than attacking a non-existing logical argument for it. It needs none.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
Oh, now you're going to lecture me on what a theory is? Really?
Haha... dude, you crack me up. Being a theory doesn't mean that it is likely true. Being the "most consistent explanation with the evidence" doesn't make a theory likely.
You say that I have to find a piece of evidence that contradicts it in order to show it unlikely... what a joke.
Learn some philosophy... and some of what the scientific method does (and is capable of doing) before you make a fool of yourself.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
This is nothing more than appeal to ridicule. You have not falsified evolution, nor have you presented a better alternative. I am done here, because this argument is not even productive. Please do not waste people's time.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
I'm having fun with you, because you are just the same as all other evotards.
You come on here and tell me that all the evide4nce shows that Universal Common Descent and neo-Darwinism is likely, but you never provide the inference.
You worship Science, and proudly proclaim that Science gives you likelihood when it actually doesn't. You need reason to get to likelihood... not just consistency of evidence.
So, I bid you adieu. Have fun strawmanning more evo-skeptics.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
It is impossible to straw man your opponent when you are only representing your own position, and demonstrating that the other person does not have any knowledge on the subject as you describe it.
Are you not putting words in my mouth when you say I will never provide inference? I merely state that inference is not how you prove a theory, which in my opinion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
To say I worship it begets a dogma which does not exist.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@npage85
The reason to accept evolution is the theory itself. It is the most accurate and explanatory theory binding together biology. I see no major issues with the theory, and the only contested issues are those awaiting more data, and are not established as facts within the theory.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@npage85
It is not an effective form of persuasion to throw multiple insults at someone and then act offended when someone calls the quality of your intelligence into question.
In fact, it resembles the behavior of a toddler. "You're stupid for wanting that toy. Let me have it"
I think that resembles your attitude towards a disagreeing opinion. You treat it as childish as if you have some kind of grandfather complex and then after condescending get offended that someone might disagree.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@npage85
You keep saying I'm insulting your intelligence. I am merely pointing out how you are fighting against a phantom form of evolution. Either you are doing this dishonestly, or you genuinely don't know. Either way, you are not equipped to have this discussion.
It is meaningless to assert it is a direction. It does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. It is like relabeling beer as alcohol. We get it, they're the same thing. Does that mean it stops getting you drunk?
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
I'm not fighting against a "phantom form of evolution."
If evolution has direction (as in a tendency for organisms to become more and more fit in their environment), then I'm right... and not fighting against a "phantom form of evolution."
Give me a break man... why do you got to try and say that it doesn't so much that you would go to these lengths? It's like an alcoholic claiming that he doesn't have a problem because it's just beer... not alcohol.
Give me a break.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
And there's the point npage. Either you understand that a theory is based on undeniable observations (because you can replicate them if you really care enough), and thus the theory of evolution has massive evidence to prove it, or you believe it somehow has to justify itself with logic rather than evidence. You seem to be the latter, and exclude yourself from the conversation. Universal common descent is fact because it is observed, not because it's some abstraction.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
There can be as much "evidence" as you like, but unless there is reason to back up the notion that it is likely it really means jack.
Yeah, sure... science doesn't care if a theory is likely or not... it just cares about scie3ntific progress...
But if that's the case, then you shouldn't expect rational people to believe every scientific theory put forth... since by definition scientific theories aren't necessarily shown to be likely.
Use your brain man, and think for yourself.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Are you trying to seriously say that the over 270,000 peer reviewed articles showing examples of evolution in progress is not more likely than whatever alternative you believe? Are you saying it's justified to ignore all of those examples? Because there is no amount of logic that can falsify observations, besides the notion that observations themselves are not reliable instruments for objective reality. In which case you are self-refuting. So I don't think that's your belief.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@snoman99991
You keep strawmanning me, so I'm going to bid you adieu... after explaining this comment away as just another pitiful attempt by you to poison the well.
I don't doubt evolution... I only doubt the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism to explain *all* the designs in nature that we observe.
So yeah... until you can give me an argument showing that neo-Darwinism is *likely* true, then I can't really believe it is true. I don't have as much faith as you.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
Here's the thing. You are telling me that nobody has a convincing argument for you, but the facts themselves speak. It would seem to me that you are too lazy to actually find a flaw in the science itself. Because factual disputes are winnable against science, you just have to have a good observation that isn't accounted for in evolution (like a Pre-Cambrian Chicken would be a great example). But no, you take the easy route of "You have to cater to me" like some kind of snob.
snoman99991 1 year ago
@npage85
If evidence shows a pattern, and there is literally several billion years of that pattern, it lends itself that there is a mechanism driving it. Any rational person observing an apple falling from a tree can see that it is accelerating downwards. They can conjecture something is pulling it down or pushing it down. They can even test that. Evolution is just the same. We can test evolution, and make meaningful predictions from it. It is based on an uningnorable reality.
snoman99991 1 year ago
I was writing a comment on your ignorance and correcting you on the mistakes you make in this video, but they're just too many.
I can't believe how little you know about evolution and natural selection.
I hope you've already taken TB's advice and began reading some books on biology...
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
Natural selection has no direction. No scientist has ever said Natural Selection has direction.
You can repeat that all you want.
This video is a huge argument from ignorance.
ThieleM 1 year ago
npage85's commentary is sadly lacking in intelligence, relevance, coherence, and common sense. Nothing to see here, folks... move along now.
ottotellick 1 year ago
you'r the biggest moron ever. If i can find a way in wich it could happened, htan it is possible. It is as simple as that. To say that it is true is something complelty different. But i just have to come up with ONE way for something to have happened, and than that thing is possible.
goncass14 1 year ago
Ok you're not creationist...so you're just anti-science for the hell of it?
freethinker923 1 year ago
@npage85 Do you ever get tired of being told how wrong, stupid, and ignorant you are? No one is trying to prove a land mammal could turn into a whale!!!!! Get that through your head!!! We have wheelbarrow loads full of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that this HAS taken place. That is a FACT. That is not in question! No way no how, at least not for anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the evidence. Science doesn't look for evidence to support a theory, it fits theories to the evidence. Get it?
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Natural Selection. Natural selection, as strange as it may seem, does not select. To say that it does is to imply an intelligence, that simply isn't present. What the theory of Natural selection says, is that animals better suited, or more productive, for, or in, their environment are more likely to pass on their genes. Natural selection is not a guiding force, it's a summation of observations.
Valkes 1 year ago
It's very brave of you to make this video about your crippling mental retardation.
hopolko 1 year ago 3
@hopolko that has to be the funniest thing i've heard for ages
123columbo123 1 year ago
If you clearify what you mean by "why", I'll give you a proper response. If the question was HOW, however, I could easily give you a good explanation.
As for the argument about the speed of light - since nothing can accellerate to the speed of light within space-time, it IS impossible for the alien in your story to travel at the speed of light. An object cannot travel at the speed of light without first having accelerated to that speed. Correct me if you can think of a way.
steffenml 1 year ago
... Who ever said Natural Selection isn't random? The zebra doesn't choose to live in an area around the lion. It just HAPPENED to be that way.
Also. He says...or rather how you phrased it was... "we just know it happened"... he meant he wasn't going to take the time to explain/teach you when all YOU need to do is read from an unbiased website to find out.
Idofphoenix 1 year ago
I would say the Genesis explanation is consistent with all available evidence:
- We should find similar animals for similar purpose have similar designs (economy of design classic to 'IDs'),
- We could find some of these rapidly buried in sediment. We do.
For example - we may expect to find large Amphibian fossils in certain areas. We do.
We could expect they have similar 'morphology' (and similar codes) to similar animals like whales.
So the evidence is consistent with Genesis.
ElProximo 1 year ago
you keep saying that its not practical and it only works out fine in the head but not in real. come on...go read a scientific paper. scientists dont make things up in their head and say thats true. theres countless evidence and research done to verify the claims, and those papers are critiqued and reviewed by other scientists and experimentally assured after which it is accepted. not like the creationist pseudoscientific idiots
elborrador 1 year ago
consistent with available evidence? then inconsistency of the available evidence (creationism) would be even less believeable
mexhapati 1 year ago
Totally pwned!!! Theoretical Smartass is a great actor, but he doesn't pack his lunch.
spankula123 1 year ago
@spankula123 do you reallly think so
123columbo123 1 year ago
Everything he said was answered in his previous response video.
spankthereasoner 1 year ago
Wow. We have the second coming of Kent Hovind.
ThieleM 1 year ago 9
Kent Hovind needs a someone to take over his ministry. You would be perfect.
ThieleM 1 year ago
If one is engaging in an argument and holding the argument then the argument is, in fact, an rgument. That you were being dishonest doesnt change that fact.
ThieleM 1 year ago
How was Scott not right in assuming you were a creationist? If you reject evolution, you are a creationist, right?
Youlube32 1 year ago
I seriously don't understand the question you ask at around 3:43. Why (?) is it possible?! Why is it possible that huge masses to have a pulling force called gravity?
Dude, what is your problem with whales?
Ylven 1 year ago
Survivability isn't a trait, for two reasons you'd be an idiot not to understand:
1. Survivability is CONTINGENT on (a) Traits and (b) Environment.
2. Traits are contingent on proteins produced from DNA (a la genes passed on to offspring); is 'survivability' a product of proteins produced from DNA?
Quit calling survivability a trait. If you carry on, not only are you too (deliberately!) stupid to understand what I just said, but you're also misrepresenting evolutionary biology.
JacobLW 1 year ago 3
Still making videos, still have no clue.
BOXCARHOBO79 1 year ago
Wow, seriously. Shouldn't you know what evolution is before you refute it?
Let me guess, you learned from a creationist who does not know evolution either
Why is learning so scary?
At worst you'd know about it (evolution) so much better you could then better attack it.
Now wouldn't that make sense?
A5Hellcat 2 years ago
I think Scott's objection to the idea of direction is that natural selection does not direct mutation. A land mammal doesn't progress through mutation to a whale because natural selection wants it to. Random mutations occur and natural selection selects for the ones that provide survivability. The evolution of a whale was not necessary, it simply happened and worked out to be survivable.
Arkalius80 2 years ago 3
The theory of natural selection provides currently the best and most parsimonious explanation that is consistent with the myriad evidence we have found, some categories of which Scott metioned.
Your scratch analogy was interesting but fails to address the requirement of parsimony. Your alien explanation is consistent with the evidence but seriously ignores occam's razor by making wild assumptions about the existence of aliens and supposing they would travel here only to scratch your neck.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
Another place the scratch analogy fails is that the scratch is a phenomenon that you are attempting to explain. The alien hypothesis provides no testable predictions.
With evolution, the myriad of different types of life is the phenomenon that we seek to explain. The hypothesis provides a large number of testable predictions, and we continue to find new evidence that is consistent with the predictions. There is currently no other parsimonious explanation consistent with the evidence.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
Finally, you asked a question of why a specific evolutionary path is possible. I don't think "why" is the right word to use there. You probably would be better served with "how".
At any rate, Scott nor I are likely qualified to answer that question precisely and completely. However, the possibility that such an evolution could occur has not been ruled out, and furthermore, that it happened is the most parsimonious explanation that is consistent with the large volumes of evidence we have.
Arkalius80 2 years ago 3
npage, I'm afraid you simply don't understand the science at work, in spite of your protests to the contrary.
Scientific theories do not rise and fall merely on basis of their internal coherence and explanatory power. You've missed the other two-thirds of science: Falsifiability and predictive power.
The reason modern biology universally incoporates the ToE is because it WORKS. It explains. It's coherent. It generates testable predictions. Your alien theory doesn't.
Back to school for you.
Vic92084 2 years ago 13
"all things that are not random, have a direction" npage85
You've made my night, lol
Khronofox 2 years ago
An alien scratching you isn't consitant with all available evidence. Mostly cos of the reasons u bring up. The transition from land mammal 2 whale is constitant with all available evidence. If u can c the same thing happening in a similar subject, then u can assume that it's highly possible. E.g. if i find the window of my car smashed in & items inside the car gone, i assume a human being has broken, rather than an alien breaking the window, as nothing like the latter has ever been proven.
olleywoodstudios 2 years ago
@olleywoodstudios:
"as nothing like the latter has ever been proven"
-- Nice... so now you understand the non-evolutionists mindset: We don't see how anyone has logically shown that the neo-Darwiniam mechanism can likely happen.
Sweet. Thanks for illustrating that my analogy *does* portray the situation perfectly... it's just that it looks just as absurd to you as a belief in neo-Darwinism looks to me.
npage85 2 years ago
Npage85, in regard to your statement that natural selection has direction you seem to be absolutely correct in your understanding. In his video of how the eye might have evolved, Dawkins says the "rule of evolution is just to keep going uphill." This firmly implies the current most popular proponent of the GTE thinks direction is necessarily involved. Either TB knows something Dawkins does not, or at least one of them is incorrect.
deftoneart01 2 years ago
Let me clue you in on something: what TB was demonstrating is called modesty. You on the other hand, being the arrogant retard you are, took advantage of what he stated about not being qualified and used it as reason to claim superiority in the conversation.
There is a reason nobody takes you seriously and there's a reason you only have 300 subscribers after 2 years. You claim to be able to use logic to demonstrate something, yet your logic is so severely flawed on many levels to the point...
metainfinity 2 years ago 24
where it's laughable.
For example: "All things that are not random have a direction" is completely nonsensical. It may, in some regard be true, but extracting a truth from one field and generalizing it as an absolute rule is idiotic. It would be very easy to cite examples that contradict this rule.
Furthermore, consistency in evidence DOES shows us that an explanation is possible or likely. If you're going to doubt this fact, then you might as well reject the scientific method.
metainfinity 2 years ago 3
In regards to your alien example: there is no consistency in evidence that would lead you to construct such a hypothesis. You merely created the most elaborate and ludicrous explanation that COULD potentially be the case in our world; however, there is no positive (&consistent ) evidence suggesting it is. Labeling your little fantasy as an example is a misnomer.
Long story short: you're a cocky moron who CONSISTENTLY displays a deficiency in his cognitive reasoning.
metainfinity 2 years ago 2
If you don't want to be known as a creationist, then you should probably drop the ID tag you so proudly sport. It has been proven over and over that the ID movement started and has largely been continued as creationism under a different name. Those non-creationists who subscribe to ID should look for something else to call it, or you will be thought of as creationist, just like I would be thought of as a skinhead if I shaved my head and joined a skinhead group who simply changed their name.
firegod001 2 years ago
Learn what evolution is, and what the evidence for it is, before you ask stupid questions about it. I could ask a million questions about quantum theory because I know nothing about it and that would likely piss off every quantum theorist out there.
kyledavidbyron 2 years ago
Natural selection is 'random', but since survival filters only positive random changes it has a direction; hence the alternative definition 'survival of the fittest'.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
There is no conscious direction, just random mutations filtered by the life/death & advantage/disadvantage imparted on the host organism by a random change.
Evolution is no more subject to debate than gravity.
HumanMan1234 2 years ago
While it is theoretically possible for a god/gods to exist, god as defined by most christians is a logically impossible being.
Tavereen 2 years ago
most Christians don't know God though. they pretend to.
tra12345iscool 2 years ago 2
Whether they know god or not is irrelevant, their definition of god is logically impossible. I've found that to be true for the overwhelming majority of theistic definitions of god.
Tavereen 2 years ago
a typical creationist response would be to compare us to ants. we cant comprehend what God is just like ants cant comprehend what the theory of relativity is.
tra12345iscool 2 years ago
But do you understand the Great Cubicular Shift of 400,000 years ago? It's what drove human evolution, and what allowed us, one of the weakest, slowest, most hairless, toothless, clawless creatures, to rise to the top of the food chain. You must understand it! Much of the earth's surface was overtaken by an environment approximating that of a modern office building: there was heat, air conditioning, incandescent lighting, etc. The great beasts of yore couldn't compete w/our ancestors there!
ProfessorFoolio 2 years ago
Why do people get such a kick out of trying to shoot holes into evolution?
The factual approach hasn't worked, the theoretical approach hasn't worked and now we're into the philosophical approach.
It has never been "shown" that any god is ontologically possible. It is a concept. An old try at bringing in another view as everything else fails.
The "land-mammal to whale transition" doesn't need to rely on ontology as there is tangible evidence.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
agnostics are not the same thing as atheists. unlike atheists or creationists, they have an open mind. agnostics need 'all the evidence' that evolution or creation is responsible for the world today to be happy. its not that they are trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution, even if evolution is proven, they will always have that 1% doubt, therefore they will always be agnostic.
agnostics = cautious peeps
oldpervyhermit 2 years ago
I'm an atheist and I admit that there is a possibility(a very remote possibility) that a god exists. However certain definitions of god are logically impossible. Anyone who doesn't believe in god is, by definition, an atheist.
And before you bang on about evolution not being proven I suggest that you look at all of the evidence first. You'll find that ALL of the available evidence supports the theory.
Tavereen 2 years ago
right-o. im really a believer/semi-agnostic type of believer. im not as ignorant as some creationists are. my faith is based on love, on the human spirit, and not on magic.. there is alot we dont yet understand. most things dont make sense but i go along with it because, well i havent figured out why i shouldnt.
in the Buddhist religion, i might be wrong but they dont necessarily believe in a god. by your definition, is a Buddhist an atheist?
tra12345iscool 2 years ago
Yes, they are an atheistic religion. And it's not my definition, it's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition.
Tavereen 2 years ago
This is a pretty sad response
MatrixWisconsin 2 years ago
you really do need to do some reading on evolution heres how we know a large change like that is possible, an organisms attributes is dependant on its dna sequence, a land mammal has a particular dna sequence, a water mammal has a different dna sequence, we know mutations occur in dna sequences causing change in the organism, and we understand what kinds of muations can occur, and there is nothing different about the dna of a water mammal that cant be caused by these mutations
FireStorm821 2 years ago
Lol...Theoretical Bullshit meet Nonsensical Bullshit.
Apples -> apples = Good comparison
Apples -> oranges = not so good comparison
evolutionary science -> aliens scratching your neck while you sleep = absolute fucking insanity
please stop making a fool of yourself....eh.....never mind...it's pretty funny LOL
deceptiveat70 2 years ago 3
to theist dont worry god has been showen to be ontollogically posible... LOL.
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
sucks to be you
you are a fucking liar
you didn't read a science textbook yet, you still make these useless argument based on "why is it possible for a land-based mammal to evolve into a whale over millions of years by way of mutations and natural selection"
it's actually the other way round fucktard
it's from a whale into a land based mammal
you clearly didn't learn evolution, yet, you say you did.
and "IF" evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove anything, you point is fucking useless.
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
Um, actually the whale "line" goes from water, to land, and back to water.
blueleadpot 2 years ago
oops my bad
watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
As for your question you may as well ask why is it possible for aeroplanes to fly from one country to another. I could present you with all kinds of evidence for aerodynamics and aeroplane design, but you could still deny it and make up some other fantasy explanation for flight (like your analogy). Thats because you are arguing from a position of personal incredulity and you are not interested in the evidence.
NoCreatorRequired 2 years ago
You think that an alien scratching you on the neck is consistent with the evidence? What evidence supports that theory? There is none, youre using a false analogy and an argument from personal incredulity.
Evolution of the whale is backed up by considerable evidence and is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If you have an alternative explanation, which is supported by the evidence please present it.
NoCreatorRequired 2 years ago 2
good one!i agree with u! a land mamal to whale is evolution is not really probable.there is actually no selection pressure for the land mamal to evolve into a whale unless there's a great glacier melting causing all land to be submerged.some fossils may look the same and seem that organisms have been modified thru time.but the truth is fossils only tell us such organisms existed.they may be new speices altogether,unrelated.
fragilez 2 years ago
4:51 Try Occam's razor!
bananabread119 2 years ago
the background is so annoying , i keep getting distracted by the sides of your glasses disappearing.
btw...all available evidence of an alien scratching you?...there is none. Genetics, molecular structure and fossils are actual physical forms of evidence which can be studied and catalogued, and not just an imaginary story which somebody made up. That is such a horrible comparison to make. It holds zero (maybe even negative) weight. >_>
addycastro 2 years ago 2
I'm still stuck on the whole "Evil Vowel" question.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Because organisms such as land mammals have a huge amount of genetic variability. That is why it is possible.
Why are intermediates found in the fossil record between land mammals and whales?
If you can explain the genetic evidence and the fossil record without evolution, lets hear it.
If something can't accelerate to faster than light speed how is possible to travel at faster than light speeds?
MichaelSJLH 2 years ago
Wikipedia has a good article on FTL travel, and what is theoretically possible and not.
Anyways, I'm thinking the friction with our atmosphere would cause our itchy-necked hero to catch fire, or explode, or something. Also, the scratch would release tons of energy and cause decapitation, or more explosiveness probably XD.
blueleadpot 2 years ago
Land animal to whale:What is you problem with this.
Evolution is a purely mechanical process.
As the environment of life forms change surtain traits appering through random mutation allows surtain individuals to survive whilst others die.Over an extented period of time this leads to whole new species.This in no way require any design or rational operating principle in nature.
Selection just means adaption to change
All this is documented in many ways.
So I do not see what your problem is
Espinozaize 2 years ago
You lost me when you attempted a horrific alien reference. Please do everyone a favor and attempt, at least, to educate yourself before allowing another mindless rant.
heatherb70 2 years ago
No wonder this guy gets terrible ratings.... He's a moron,
JRuni0r 2 years ago
Npage85, you should stop being so intellectually dishonest. There's a reason why so many of your videos are rated so lowly.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago 16
what direction does natural selectin have, bitch its an abstract concept it has no momentum i think your getting very confused
1qaz6yhn5tgb 2 years ago
what direction is natural selection... foward, bitch
1qaz6yhn5tgb 2 years ago 2
basic point: it is impossible to both know what evoulution is and disagre with it.
point 2people who believe in magical sky daddys are fucktards
1qaz6yhn5tgb 2 years ago
are you serious? or taking the piss? why do you believe in magic?
1qaz6yhn5tgb 2 years ago
Holy shit, Nick, watch your videos before you post them for everyone else.