We should send all religious people to Australia forever so they can worship ancient gods all they want. Let the sane humans have the rest of the world so we can maintain ecosystems and advance medicine etc. then when we move on to another planet you guys can have this one and you can blow as many people as you want up. We'll take our technological advancements with us and you can continue praying you're problems away.
If you want to do the right thing, then for the next two years only research what is wrong with evolution and you'll have a different outlook on the whole debate. You see, all (or almost all) of us have been thoroughly schooled in the myth of evolution, because it was shoved down our throughts in public school. On the other hand, most haven't had a fair opportunity to understand what is so wrong with evolution. Try to at least do honest research before you support one side of the debate.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda 2 discredit the Bible. Papal Rome cant have a satanic Despotism of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Yeah, and for over 100 years, the scientific consensus was the Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity was the cornerstone of physics. You know, E = mc2 and nothing travels faster than the speed of light, blah blah blah...
Do yourself a favor and google "Speed of light broken" and read 100+ years of scientific consensus go down the toilet...
Then read some history to learn how often we have had to revamp our scientific 'beliefs' over the centuries.
The main problem with that experiment, the GPS which tracks the neutrinos, has still not been eliminated. The experiment was replicated, but with the GPS still in the equation. You should do a bit more reading about the way scientists perform experiments. Just because one group of scientists record something at a certain speed doesn't mean it gets injected into school books and accepted without further question.
Many said as much when Newton attempted to replace the Ptolemaic universe ( he was successful), and again when Newtonian mechanics was devastated by Einstein.
Yes, sure... we finally know everything there is to know, its simply a matter of refining now... WOW! We've never witnessed this misnomer before ( read sarcasm).
Consider for example that many scientists now claim that space and time may not even be fundamental entities.
I don't care enough to even verify what you're saying about Newtonian mechanics and Einstein, but I'd bet that a great deal of what you said is flat out wrong.
Evolution has been WITNESSED happening in the wild. Who are you to say that it's not real?
Okay, do as I say. Don't shave for 5 months, don't even get a haircut, get naked, look at yourself in the mirror, and then look at a gorilla. NOW, come back and argue.
You mean its been witnessed that out of no life, there spontaneously appeared life?
Really?
You mean from some sticky puddle of goo, a vertebrae system,lungs with a respiration system and kidneys with a filtration system and eyes with the iris, the cornea, the eyelid flap, rods and cones all just CAME ABOUT over a few million years?
Because that's what evolution does? Even though,apparently, evolution is not an intelligent process?
It was not a "spontaneous" process. No one is really quite sure, but the concensus with scientists is that a self-replicating molecule had been formed near volcanic hotspots in the ocean floor, which got more and more complex until it formed into a primitive cell, and once these cells started toform colonies, THAT is how eukaryotes arose.
It's a beautiful process. It starts off with something so unsophisticated and primitive, and then evolves over time into what we have today.
An example of this would be lungs. Lungs are said to have first emerged as little outpockets in the esophagus of fish(who lived in oxygen-starved water) that enabled them to gulp air for the first time. Over time, these outpockets got more and more complex, becoming useful for fish who were increasingly enjoying the land, which was free of competition and predators. Amphibians arose, and then so did reptiles, and eventually, mammals, which includes us.
You call it a " beautiful process".... Yes.... A beautiful process which has no basis in empirical fact, except what these brilliant scientists conjured up to 'fix' the inconsistencies.
These are the same dudes who conjure up String-Theory and write millions of articles and books over a period of two decades to push this model onto the mainstream.
Physical variances and adaptation within an already existing species is not to be debated.
But where has it EVER been witnessed that some primordial soupy goo can become a talking, thinking creature? And all this for no reason! It just happens!
Famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle put it best: if you believe in evolution as it now stands,then you must also believe that a tornado traveling over a junk yard can potentially assemble a Boeing 747 from the scrap material lying around
A tornado traveling over a junk yard WILL NEVER assemble a Boeing 747 from the scrap material lying around, even if that tornado is whirling over that junk yard for 20 million years.
You say evolution has been witnessed...
For 500 million years, from first lobster fossil to the living model dropped in your boiling kettle - there's no change. And please explain to me what a lobster was JUST BEFORE it became a lobster, only to suddenly stop evolving.
The most obvious flaw in your logic is that you believe that evolution is a RANDOM process, which it is not. One of the three principles of evolution, natural selection, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of randomness. Natural selection is where specimens who are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to associate something that works so randomly as a tornado with evolution.
“Natural selection is where specimens who are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.”
So an organism that reproduces via the physically demanding act of sexual mating, putting the female at a constant disadvantage with the offspring in-utero, and even then only passes half its genes to the offspring is somehow ‘better suited’ than an organism that reproduces by dividing itself and passes 100% of its genes?
@SLAVESweARE Yes. The reproductive method of the cell is only practical and advantageous at the cellular level. It has serious limitations though. It passes 100% of its genes, as you said, and when you reproduce in that fashion you severely curtail opportunities for growth. Reproduction via recombination, on the other hand, is a method rife with possibilities. Viviparous vs. Oviparous is pretty obvious. Carrying the fetus allows for longer gestation, allowing the development of a superior brain.
Typing or speaking words verbatim form a tv program or textbook on out theory of evolution is nice and all, but its tantamount to a Christian typing or speaking on Jesus Christs miracles of resurrecting the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine or controlling a thunder-storm by will…
In both cases, no explanation is being given, and you are simply accepting the prevailing ideas because others did or do as well...
A more accurate and honest response to my question of how can our modern belief in the processes of natural selection explain sex coming into the equation would be WE DON'T REALLY KNOW!!!
And yet you are the 3rd individual to summarily dismiss this and other mysteries and gaps of knowledge on this subject with fancy words and explanations which have NO BASIS IN EMPIRICAL PRACTICE!
The science of how sex evolved is a HUGE problem to evolutionists, but u people don't admit this.
And before I am summary dismissed as a Ludite for questioning contemporary science, please consider that some of the greatest minds the last 5 centuries also believed in Luminiferous Aether, Einstein’s Static Universe,the The Expanding Earth Theory,etc…
The list is endless with obsolete,scientific theory's which were at one time considered to be descriptions of reality but which today have been shown to be false
I wish people would study this aspect of history, but oh well:(
@SLAVESweARE We actually do reproduce via cell division...there's just one hell of a lot more cells that have to divide before the process is complete for us than for algae.
Thanks for the information… Please understand, engaging in Youtube-typying flame wars is a guilty pleasure of mine form time to time, I embarrassingly admit…
This particular Youtube page is different; I truly desire a rational explanation on our current notion of evolution which I have never been satisfied with all the way back from grade school.
I read what you are saying but you are only explaining to me what we already see...
It would be like you explaining to a blind man the colors chosen and the size and direction of the brush strokes in a Monet painting... I want to know how and what Monet mixed to create those beautiful pigments of green and blue and purple, and no one is giving me this...
All you are explaining to me is how the car motor works, and I would like to know how the nuts and bolts which keeps the motor intact and inert came into existence if not honed by man or any other conscious force...
And then I want to know how those nuts and bolts found themselves through the pre-existing holes of the car motor and how they tightened themselves together, and how did they know to tighten themselves if this whole process is mere chance...
And it is this complete incredulity amongst those who accept the theory of evolution to confess or readily admit that gaps of knowledge and dead ends and a lot of guess work exist in the final process of this theory which made me question not only contemporary evolutionary theory as it is dispensed, but MANY of the sciences of today.
Do you realize that not a single test has been conducted to validate SuperString Theory since it was first proposed?
Simple division is practical. Sex takes much longer, & requires more energy.
How did we go from eukaryotes to a process which would have been remarkably unprofitable to its earliest practitioners, and how did it become so widespread via the ‘rules’ of Natural Selection?
Oh,but you will say evolution is a finely tuned process, spanning MILLIONS of years to achieve optimality.
You will say that a lobster needed no more change to suit its habitat, so evolution halts within that species, but other species maintained gradual evolution out of need for survival...
BUT...if a species depends on optimal adaptation for survival, then anything on the way to becoming optimal(so called transitional forms) couldn't survive to adapt.
The flaw in your second paragraph is that there is no SET condition that an animal needs to achieve. It just needs to be even SLIGHTLY MORE ADAPTED to its environment than other forms of the same species, therefore more likely to pass on its genes. It's not the same as trying to unlock a lock, understand?
I also love how easily accepted is this 'theory' with all its contradictions, conveniently ignored of course...
Example:the problem of simultaneity. The evolution of interactive parts of organisms (the iris, the cornea, the lens, the retina,the pupil,the eyelid flap,the rods and cones, the muscles, the aqueous humor) would all have to change at once.
An eyeball is only an eyeball with all those parts working together.
How could a blind process orchestrate such harmony?
The eye argument. Look, Richard Dawkins already explained that. Once again, your lack of understanding of evolution is showing. Why not go ahead and talk to biologist and clear your doubts, rather than to hold on to them? Are you afraid? All these arguments have been debunked thousands of times. Here's the link to the video:
It just amazes me how all these processes are so easily explained by you folks.
An answer for everything... Oh, and the RIGHT answer of course! Because future generations will not replace ANYTHING regarding our scientific notions ever again, startinggggggg....... NOW!
That the eye argument has been answered is sheer folly. Scientific Explanations? Yes.
Consensus? Absolutely not!
Remove just one thing, say, the automatic mechanism to blink.
No one ever says that future generations will not replace anything regarding our scientific notions. In FACT, science thrives on future generations updating and refining already existing knowledge, a maor advantage that it has over religion.
I won't talk any more about the eye. You have the power to go and ask a person who understands eyes and their evolution, but you simply DON'T.
The fact is, that if you were agnostic, atheist, or deist, we would not even be here having this discussion. IF evolution did not contradict your archaic religious beliefs, you would have no reason to doubt it, and then cling on to arguments that have been refuted THOUSANDS of times already.
And while we go back n forth about the 'eyeball' arguments, please consider we must then perform the same dance regarding the lungs,kidneys,liver, corpus callosum, and every other complex vital organ necessary for optimal survival.
And when folks from your camp choose to explain everything away with the latest "theory of the month" rather than be honest with yourselves and admit that mysteries still abound, it's only a matter of time before the other show drops
As I have said several times already, WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. Mystery surrounds all parts of science, and scientists are the first to admit that. The ONLY ones who claim there are no mysteries in life, are the bible thumpers, a group that you have nothing to say about.
And of course, the same process IS used for all these complex vital organs. These organs originally start off as something very simple and incomplex, but still being of great use for the animal in its respective habitat. As time passes and natural selection plays its course, the become more and more complex. Never underestimate 3.7 billion years of evolution.
Your arguments are what the 1966 Wistar Institute Symposium on Evolution called tautologous—little more than circular reasoning.
You choose to laugh off the idea of "intelligent design" as the basis of these 'mutations' yet avoid the term "random selection, realizing that randomness does not lead to complexity. And instead replace it with "natural selection".... not quite INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not quite RANDOMNESS.
So, you think that natural selection and random selection are the same thing, don't you? It seems you do. NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM. ANIMALS WITH TRAITS THAT ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEIR SURVIVAL ARE MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE, THEREFORE PASSING ON THOSE TRAITS. I don't usaully write entire sentences in capital letters, but your ignorance makes me think that it will increase the chances that you'll pick it up.
And I'm still not quite sure what is NATURAL or RANDOM about some sludgy pool of amino acids one day sprouting a central nervous system some 3.7 billion years ago.
We speak of mutations within a species physically evolving over a period of time to achieve optimality,to survive in their habitat,yes?
Then why did gooy sludge feel the need to "naturally sprout" an eventual central nervous system,when the same gooy sludge could have survived just fine on earth these last 3.7 billion years?
Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That is called Abiogenesis. Evolution is just about how life evolved AFTER it was already there. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY and COMPLEXITY of life.
The Dinosaurs had many similarities in their vital organs to us, but also many important differences. You can look that up on your own. That's all for now.
Oh, and if you don't want people to assume you're a bible thumper, it might be wise not to have a username like "SLAVESweARE". What the fuck do you think people are going to assume when they see a name like that?
So when we argue with you, we can NEVER use the word ‘random’ or ‘spontaneous’ mutation to describe evolution (even though this is basically what non-intelligent transformation is, random & spontaneous).
We must instead stick with the word ‘natural’ because…well..because YOU SAY SO! So ‘natural evolution’ APPEARS to be guided, methodical , intelligent with a planned purpose but actually isn’t, so its ‘natural’ but not ‘random’… ...
1. Genetic variability through mutations creates different traits
2. Animals with some of these traits are more likely to survive than others
3. These animals get to pass on their genetic information.
DNA mutations are a random process, but the selection of favorable specimens is NOT random. Natural selection, once again, is NOT random. Natural selection is a part of evolution, the most powerful part of evolution.
"Microevolution" is change WITHIN a species, and the evidence is abundant. But this is adaptation, as most experts will admit. And many of those same experts readily admit that this 'adaptation' is not enough to explain diversity of form we see today.
"Macroevolution" is change BETWEEN species, and lies at the heart of evolutionary theory.
But you have not provided me with any evidence of this process.
Please provide evidence and we will continue this debate:)
And I find it amusing that you, a simple man, can find so many flaws with a theory that the most intelligent people on the planet, with IQs that are 35 points higher than yours, couldn't even find. There's a reason why the theory is so universally accepted by scientists. Check this out.
"Evolution is just about how life evolved AFTER it was already there."
Very weak attempt to separate yourself from yet another problem which is incompatible with your quasi-scientific beliefs, and more evidence that perhaps YOU TOO may be working with incomplete knowledge about a topic you blindly subscribe to.
Sorry, but Neo-Darwinian Theory states that all living organisms on Earth today are descended from inanimate matter.
The Neo-Darwinian Theory says nothing about how life began. It doesn't even have anything to say about what human beings are. It is USED by scientists, like a tool, to figure out what we are and why we are like that.
The reason why some species dwindle/die out is because they are not able to evolve and adapt fast enough to their environment. Others remain suitable because they are well-adapted and evolved to their environment. Others multiply because they are VERY well adapted.
Darwin once used to describe how natural selections works.
Wolf inherits ability to run especially fast. Obvious advantage, yes?
Okay, now here's where NS dumbs it down... NS does not or cannot explain how running faster could well become a hindrance if other modifications did not accompany the increased speed.
Example: the added exertion to run faster places added strain on the wolfs heart.
This whole 'one-body-part at a time' is felonious and NS simplifies this to a fault
Most of the time, these changes will work without drawbacks, and if there are some drawbacks, they will be manageable. Sometimes, they aren't, and the animal dies. Animals usually have very high mortality rates, I'm sure you're aware of this.
Why should I sit here and explain everything to you? You have so far provided NO argument against evolution that does not stem for misunderstanding of the theory.
And as I said previous, deferring the argument to whomever questions modern evolutionary theory to ad hominems, whether it be religious cook or being too stupid to understand what is so clear to you is weak and silly.
Another tactic adopted from Dawkins camp.
Set up straw men arguments only to bowl them over.
I can provide countless academics who question Evolutionary orthodoxy.
Yes, some from the God-believing camp, and many others self-proclaimed athiests.
NS speaks on the survival of species, you are correct.
But NS does NOT change species,and certainly does not speak on the arrival of the species, and you cannot provide irrefutable evidence, I guarantee it!
Show me how Selection has produced anything new. For that is what Evolution claims, yes? Producing new things,yes? Not just more of what already exists.
Please provide me with evidence on how Selection produced anything new
Look it up yourself. Eventually, changes within a species will become so numerous that it is reasonable to declare them different species.
Humans and Chimps split off from a common ancestor. The animal kingdom is full of such examples.
You have all the power you need to go on the internet and look these things up, but you CHOOSE not to, because you realize that you're afraid that your pathetic fallacies will fall apart.
It's a very simple question, whose answer should be on the tip of every adherents tongue!
You've now spent 2 full days debating me ( and I appreciate it, as i do think you are a decent and smart enough person) yet you defer what should and what IS a simple question to not being important enough for you to waste any more time.
Here's your chance to shut me up!
ONE EXAMPLE OF CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES WHERE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS...
My apologies.... I did in fact type "within" in that paragraph, although I was more accurate in my description several times before then, which means you have the attention span of a shrew, or you don't read my entire type paragraphs, which is your right.
So now you have proven that you need a little time to navigate through the Google search engine, as it took you quite some time to come up with any kind of answer.
And I love how you so glibly speak of Fossas ( not Fassas) and synapsids as if you were even familiar with these genera even two seconds before your Googling activities.
I would intellectually eviscerate you where you stood, but for the universal equalizer that is anonymity behind the computer screen and Google.
You are as much a fraud as the 99% of laymen out there, who do not even have a complete understanding of the very same theory you espouse onto others.
It's like those idiots who bring Michio Kaku books to work to read on breaks, and randomly memorize verses so as to identify themselves as proponents of Superstring Theory, when in fact they are strict adherents to a science whose mathematics they do not even comprehend.
Most of you are merely pretenders, yourself included
150 years removed from that statement Darwin gave, and the absence of the MILLIONS of transitional fossils Darwin expected would be discovered remains. As many Dinosaur types we have found, we should have found just as many transitional species, at the least…So far, butkus!
You gave me two, count them, two genera, Fossa and synapsids.
For over 100 years, every textbook and evolutionist called Synapsids reptiles.
The word "synapsid" comes from the name of an opening behind the eye socket. Only one other group, mammals, possesses this opening,so we said that mammals evolved from reptilian Synapsids…
And then in the 1990’s that view was again changed, to the NEW belief that THEY ARE NOT,AND DID NOT COME FROM REPTILES,BUT SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR!!!
Yet another proverbial "missing link", and then we conveniently defer the difficulty of verification of these claims to future generations with the old " something will come up in the fossil records at a later date" bit...
The 2nd example you gave me was that Fossa...A creature where to the present day there is considerable dispute and no consensus over the taxonomy of this creature
The Fossa has been classified as a Felid (cat family, strictly carnivorous), then changed to belong in the family Viverridae (mongoose family,mostly omnivorous),
In 2011,the evolutionary merry-go-round places the Fossa in the Eupleridae family.
I wonder how many more family's it will belong to over the next century
Scientists create new families all the time to better categorize animals. They were orginally classified as Felids because we did not know much about them and thought they were cats back then. The Eupleridae family is an offshoot of the Viverridae family. The reason they seperated them is because although Euperidaes are very closely related, they are carnivorous.
Please consider re-educating yourself to the notion that the Darwin in The Origin of Species is quite separate from Darwin's theory combined with genetics and other 20th-century elements.
Your neo-evolution and all the examples which you gave me pertain to adaptive hereditary change.
It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.
The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.
Enough genetic difference within a species causes them to split and turn into different species. The species will probably go on to become more distinct genetically as time goes by.
"The species will probably go on to become more distinct genetically as time goes by."
And how exactly does this sentence in any way shed light on the fact that NO biologist alive today can offer up the primitive ancestors of the octopi,starfish, trilobites and other sea creatures which seemingly came into existence without a simpler predecessor?
Or that links between many major groups of animals simply aren’t there. Fish come about,fully formed, seemingly from nowhere?
You also seem to be yet another adherent of Dawkins, who most likely has not even bothered exploring what exactly Dawkins is selling, and simply assumes that their beliefs parallel Dawkins.
Dawkins advocates a gene-centred view of evolution, which is but another of the myriad of evolutionary schools of thought , distinct and slightly different from the other evolutionary theory's.
See, the reason we still call it the THEORY of evolution is because there is not always consensus
Here a quote from Ernst Mayr (1904–2005), one of the most influential evolutionists as far as biologists are concerned:
“The funny thing is...if you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins‘ basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian.”
Yet another quote from Ernst Mayr also proclaimed that Darwin's theory of natural selection is now the prevailing explanation of evolutionary change, but admitted that "it has achieved this position less by the amount of irrefutable proofs it has been able to present than by the default of all the opposing theories".
You show yourself to be as dogmatic and closed-minded to the possibility of differing yet honest and probing opinions as the religious zealots you so readily chastise.
You have referred to me as ignorant, even as I've posed questions you have no immediate answers to.
You have as much inability to deal with anyone who challenges your notions as the Catholic or Muslim whom you share this world with.
In 2010 Stephen Hawking stated that since there are a 100+ billion galaxies in the universe it’s highly likely that life exists out there beyond the life on earth, saying
Quote:“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens PERFECTLY RATIONAL.”
Now, where is there ANY evidence, proof, data or justification for the existence of aliens to be “PERFECTLY RATIONAL” without so much as a smidgen of proof? This is science?
Now imagine any scientist claiming that the existence of God was “PERFECTLY RATIONAL” based purely on the insanely odds-defying mathematics associated with 6 Billion humans existing at all on our perfectly-balanced planet, which appears accurately programmed to sustain life?
Please convince me that science is not occasionally political and biased...
When you begin to “Womp womp womp” quotes from one of the more famous and respected biologist of the past century,with no explanation or come-back,I realize that any appeal to unbiased scientific debate with you is futile, and that your limited intellect has been overtaxed
It seems that challenging you with questions which you cannot immediately resolve simply forces you to slip into that realm of infantilism you earlier suggested was the exclusive province of creationists only
Throughout our exchanges, all you have offered is a history of how a pre-existing natural variation of a genetic trait comes to be more prevalent in some subsets of a species than others.
I and even many ‘creationists’ ( believe it or not) do not deny that microevolution exists. It happens on time scales so short that we can observe it happening ( ie,Italian Wall Lizard, thank you again for that story ).
But microevolution, either artificial or natural genetic selection as the mechanism, does not explain how new species "evolve" from older ones, nor does it explain the development of complex structures, nor indeed does it offer a mechanism for the greatest puzzle of all in organismal biology: namely, why is there sex?
In the end, you are but an example of how reliance on science is faith.
You do not have cogent explanations for what are otherwise basic questions yet you adhere to your beliefs in much the same manner as a religious zealot to his.
Apparently, there is no need to talk about gaps in the fossil record.
Darwin predicted them, saying there must have
occurred millions of such transformations for his theory to be true,
yet evolutionists ( OR YOU!!!) cannot supply even one.
Also, keep in mind that the mating field is more important to evolution than anything else. Often times, a trait may not be of any survival significance at all, but it is attractive to the opposite gender. In other words, sexy. And this will make the creature more likely to mate, and therefore the gene will get passed on.
I bring up one of Evolutionary biology’s greatest conundrum’s, and with just a couple of generic sentences , you just explain it away like it’s last night's episode of Jersey Shore.
Sheep like you just repeat verbatim what your holy textbooks print, no questions needed.
AMAZING!
Never mind that nowhere in your meandering comment did you even broach the possibility of even attempting to offer up an explanation of any kind.
I don't know about the evolution of sex. And sex isn't so hard if you're an animal out there who can't jerk off and only has sex a few times a year. They get really horny.
But seriously, I'm not the person to go for that. You are simply asking me questions about evolution of which YOU don't know the answer, and assume that there ARE NO answers to them. There are answers. Just go and look for them yourself for fuck's sake...
Sorry again, Stretch ( this is the nickname which I will give you from now on, since you seem to have one answer for EVERYTHING I ask,, just worded differently).
Natural selection cannot easily explain the origin and maintenance of sex.
Using Natural Selection, please explain why animals abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly , physiologically and energetically complex ,and inefficient sexual reproduction,and how we arrived at two separate genders...
How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?
How is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells?
This was all an 'oops!' ,correct?
A million and one 'oops!' moments over the course of your Natural Selection,huh?
@SLAVESweARE You argue from complete ignorance. If you were to take your time to research (which you seem to be inept of as of course thats why you remain religious) then you would be overwhelmed with evidence pointing you to your answer. As someone who once was a Christian until I saw the complete fallacies of every single point it raises I can tell you that to find your answer you need to get your head out of your own arse and research your own point.
I almost have to admire the willful ignorance and arrogance from you scientist-wannabe's, who couldn't even explain to me how a refrigerator keeps cold without running to the EHOW website.
You embrace contemporary science with the same zeal that every Jesus fanatic would be familiar with...
First off, I have about 40 posts on this page... Yes, 40!!!
I challenge you to find me a single one which even for one second broaches on ANYTHING Jesus or religious...
Don't waste your time, you won't find a single one...
Funny thing is, every time some nut-bar chooses to send me a message, they start off having already created a caricature of me which has been made famous by the Hitchens and Dawkin's cult followers....
And this religious caricature has no basis in reality... Its not much different form the old religious class which saw the devil in any atheist or agnostic, where there was none...
Anyhow,if you so choose, I'm more than game to demonstrate how similar you blind-contemporary science followers are to any religious cult which take most things at face value and simply assume that so many from the science community are just too darn smart to simply agree on things that are flawed... and you would be right!
So let me demonstrate for you the politics that poisons all of mans endeavors, including the sciences...
And along the way, I will prove ( although you will fight it tooth and nail every step of the way) how your notions of science, be it cosmology, or physics, and even evolution as it is presented AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY are as much politically-based as they are empirically, and that this bogus idea of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is a crock...
Yes,there is Western school TEXT-BOOK consensus- The same type of Western school TEXT-BOOK consensus that teaches that America is a true democracy.
"Darwin produced embarrassingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims. This includes the change of one species into another in succeeding geological strata, or the production of new structures and taxonomic types by natural selection."
"The basic theory ( of evolution) is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case. "
So now you are going to tell me that, using the empirical method with ZERO material evidence, we all HAVE TO ACCEPT that the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male evolved simultaneously,huh?
Remarkable story about the Italian wall lizards, and I thank you for making me more knowledgeable....
I'll be a smarter man for it at the next family dinner get-together.
(NOTE: as I read further, the 'completely new gut structure' cited by NG is nothing more than cecal valves, which exist in other lizards,namely Iguana's and is likely within every lizards DNA information).
Now.... do you have a single example in 3.7 billion years of a change BETWEEN species?.....
First of all, define between species. How specific? Do you mean like synapsids to modern mammals? Reptiles to synapsids? Tigers, lions, leopards, jaguar, and snow leopards all diverging from a common ancestor? Humans, gorillas, and chimps diverging from a common ancestor? Explain what it is exactly that you want...
Why can’t there ever be a fair critique of Darwinism without those of the Dawkins Cult resorting to portrayal of those critics as religiously motivated?
One need not appeal to any religious authority to contradict Darwinism, and I certainly don't, and I and many do not reject the idea of evolution in toto.
Fact is, many find the evidence and arguments for Darwinism to be deeply flawed.
The case with 99.99% of creationists is THE ONLY REASON they even begin to doubt evolution is because in contradicts their religious beliefs. I don't know whether or not you are one of them. You could very easily be lying to me, pretending that you have no religious motivation. If not, you would instead LISTEN to videos on evolution and see the arguments that you've presented here get torn apart, as they wre just now by ME.
You need to educate yourself about how government-funded science can result in unquestionable orthodoxy,rigidity of thought, & stifling free inquiry.
A recent example of this would be the neutrino tests conducted at CERN I spoke of,which demonstrated a possible contradiction of Einsteins relativity theory.
Note how, instead of getting giddy with excitement about the latest technology revealing unknowns,you simply dismissed this test as next to boring.
"organs originally start off as something very simple and incomplex,but still being of great use for the animal in its respective habitat. As time passes and natural selection plays its course, the become more and more complex."
So how different was Ardipithecus ramidus heart from ours 4.4 million years ago?
Or their lungs?Or their kidneys?Liver?Spinal cord? Eyeballs?Hair follicles?
No? No change in over 4 million years? Mutations just "naturally" stopped,huh?
How differently structured were the Dinosaurs' heart from ours biologically? Or their lungs? Kidneys? Liver? The vertebral column?The digestive tract?
You ask the Bible thumpers, and they have an answer for everything...and it all makes sense to them. As far as they are concerned, its all been explained already, thanks to the priestly community.
You ask the evolutionists, and they have an answer for everything...and it all makes sense to them. As far as they are concerned, its all been explained already,thanks to the scientific community.
Do you know ANYTHING about science? Of course you don't. All your information comes from that retarded, child-mollesting pastor in your church. I remember when I was in 6th grade science class, and my teacher had important facts regarding science. One of these was that SCIENCE CANNOT PROVIDE ANSWERS FOR ALL QUESTIONS. When scientists accept this fact, then who are you to say that they think that they know everything? The only ones claiming to know everything are the religious.
You claim that I deny science.... Yet what exactly is science according to you?
America was founded by arguably some of the most brilliant men of their era, be it Jefferson,Franklin,Hamilton,etc. Many scientists, astronomers, chemists, etc of that era are still spoken about today.
Question: did these remarkably brilliant people have the same 'science' which you embrace today?
Was there an E=MC2 then? Charles Darwin then? Dark matter then? Super-string or M-Theory then?
Most notions of what these men would have swore was the 'REAL SCIENCE' of their day has been rewritten in a form they would not recognize today.
And we can say the same about the 'Enlightenment era'... Or Ancient Greeks or Egyptians. Brilliant civilizations who accomplished wondrous things, but some of the notions of what THEY believed as the "REAL SCIENCE' is quite honestly laughable today.
I wonder how persons who questioned the knowledge of those day were characterized...
If you think you creationists are the Galileos of your day, think again. The theory of evolution is NOT going to disappear, unless you nutjobs get your way. There will definitely be modifications over time as we make new discoveries, but don't expect to us to find out we had it all wrong. There are some laws and theories which have far too much evidence behind them to just go away, and evolution happens to be one of them.
As for your second post, I'm not sure what you mean.
You are a subscriber to modern evolutionary theory.
But if u stood in front of me, you could not, without referring to some book or Google home page, tell me the “mostly” accepted sequence of where and how modern humans came about.
Or where horses came from. Or what came first, Aferensis or Africanis?
Or the name of the transitional species which made T-Rex.
You only “believe” because most scientists and academic institutions of your day say they have the answers.
Just like past BRILLIANT scientists also felt qualified to regard their science as absolute infallible truth, whether 200 or 2000 years ago.
Please explain to me again how only one side of this debate is clinging on to 'beliefs'?
You don't really understand the sequences, names, genetic merry-go-round which constitute the theory of evolution, any more than you understand quadratic equations.
You simply assume ( believe?) that the brilliant folks of today must have it right.
@jeremythehuman Unfortunately there are those out there, brainwashed by religion and media, or just being ignorant, who would believe anything, including creation... It's a shame that education is not getting through. I am not against any belief, as long as it is treated as a personal matter and not rubbed into the faces of us.
They just arrested a scientist in the UK because he was creating Chimeras and experimenting on apes do you understand how much greed is in that? Remember what I tell you things are going to get very sick in the future and it won't be God or religions involved.
Why do religious people insist on spewing their verbal diarrhea all over the comment sections in all of these rational interviews? It fucking reeks of verbal crap every time I want to watch a Dawkins, Harris, or Sagan video. Fucking morons, get an education you daft cunts.
How can humans came from bacteria; this is worse than the ape theory. I think I'm going to start a theory write a book and then make millions. Good idea atheist gave me.
@NorthNorth2009 You have no idea how evolution works. How do you think apes came from? Apes evolved from bacteria too, as the all life on Earth did.
You can think of your own theory, but not to make fool of yourself you need many evidence. For example there are tons od eveidence for evolution. But evolution is not theory, it'd prooven fact!
@NorthNorth2009 Much much much less than churches make. Not to mention you know what you are going to get when you buy his book, he tells you up front what to expect, it is not full of lies and deceit. He is selling an educational product full of years of researched and peer reviewed scientific data.
@pimpymcdougall Well you don't have to give money to the churchs nor do you have to attend them. I don't think his book is educational. I have read many science text books and they're just as good and they were written before his. Should we have to pay to have access to science? maybe if it was free more people would read it. I can go to a library but not everyone has this privlege and why doesn't he use his science to teach children in third world countries they need teachers badly.
@NorthNorth2009 Why should he give anything away for free? He has an expensive education that he worked hard for. You do have free access to science considering that you are watching a video about evolution on Youtube and Youtube is free. People being interested in science has nothing to do with not having access to it. They are told by the church and religious people not to trust science, all in the name of making more money for themselves so they can build bigger temples, cars, and houses.
@pimpymcdougall Everyone deserves a chance at an education. When I do go to church I am never told anything about science. No one talks about it. I went to a catholic school run by the clergy we were taught science. I have never heard anyone say not to trust science. I formed my own opinion as the world is in danger because of science and we need to help our planet.
@NorthNorth2009 the world is in danger because the people we entrust to wield science don't understand it or have opposing interests (politicians controlling nuclear weapons, oil companies controlling pollution legislation, etc.), not because science is inherently negative. poor argument. and the fact that they don't mention science in church isn't because its not important; its because it isnt in the interest of the church to confer value on the concept of evidence or they'd be out of business.
@ericfeinberg28 The church and the bible are all spirituality. Science is science. There are some pretty horrific experiments done in the name of science going on right now. Things we don't need; most likely. They just arrested a scientist that is doing horrific experiments on animals in the UK.
@NorthNorth2009 you answered your own point here. people like that may be doing bad things "in the name of science" but to deny that the overall effect of science hasn't been beneficial to humanity is absurd. people used to live to 30 and suffer constantly. now they can live to 100 in luxury compared to their ancestors. religion has made no such substantive contributions. it only serves to dispel people into smaller groups when they should be uniting together as fellow humans.
@ericfeinberg28 No people lived healthy lives and lived to 90s at least in europe they did. The big Pharma companies are ruining our health on purpose. There are natural cures for everything and the other technology is all worthless. The real technologies we need like free energy and fuel have been burried by the large corporations as they want us slaves.
@NorthNorth2009 i cant imagine you actually believe that medicine hasn't gotten anywhere in the last few centuries. the fact that corporations may skimp on paying for treatments doesn't mean they don't exist. and as for life expectancy, it never topped 40 until early modern britain (you can look up average world life expectancy by time period). either it shot up to 70 by some statistical magic in the last few centuries, or science did something right. theres no denying it
@NorthNorth2009 life expactancy isn't equal to maximum a human can live to. Saying some lucky people lived to 90 a few hundred years ago doesn't change the fact that most died much younger do to health complications
i can't believe this man is the controversial one...
Everybody must be insane..scientists look out for evidence, dedicate their lives to it, we have a technology that has never had, and most people would still believe in one stupid, single book...
that's because your thinking is evil (intelligence and reason has corrupted you).
you aren't ignorant enough to accept and believe the holy bible as translated.
the tree of knowledge is clearly planted in your backyard and bearing the wicked fruit of sanity and scientific observation. i'll pray for you, you heathen.
i'll pray right after i finish robbing my ministry blind and when i'm done having sex with the altar boy.
"majesty of a more created existence" excuse me, but is there no majesty in the way the universe really works. Its so beautiful but its being dulled down by idiots. that is so frustrating. oh well as long as some of us still appreciate it. 7% of scientists have an average IQ ...the other 93% are above :)
in the very near future we will not have cash, we will buy and sell with an RFI chip in our hand or forehead , It was written 2000 years ago that we will be forced to buy and sell with a mark on our foreheads or hands , can anyone explain this to me ??
@sparticusnuts The chip thing is real and it would be easier to purchase things. I'm thinking if you don't want one you don't have to participate , though. Just blow off the city life and fend for yourself, people have been doing it for millions of years.
We should send all religious people to Australia forever so they can worship ancient gods all they want. Let the sane humans have the rest of the world so we can maintain ecosystems and advance medicine etc. then when we move on to another planet you guys can have this one and you can blow as many people as you want up. We'll take our technological advancements with us and you can continue praying you're problems away.
dawkins20ish 1 month ago
loving the tie
joannakatewallace 1 month ago
If you want to do the right thing, then for the next two years only research what is wrong with evolution and you'll have a different outlook on the whole debate. You see, all (or almost all) of us have been thoroughly schooled in the myth of evolution, because it was shoved down our throughts in public school. On the other hand, most haven't had a fair opportunity to understand what is so wrong with evolution. Try to at least do honest research before you support one side of the debate.
CoopersQuill 2 months ago
@CoopersQuill There is not one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.
Find one and I'll give you all the money in my PayPal account.
ninjajesus81 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda 2 discredit the Bible. Papal Rome cant have a satanic Despotism of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Watch Stem Cells & the Nephilim - Chuck Missler - 1/6 AND THEN MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHAT TO BELIEVE
.youtube .com/watch?v=cCTuiugo7mU
simonmathew615 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I think the percentage of scientists that accept evolution is higher than 93%.
jeremythehuman 5 months ago 16
@jeremythehuman Im sure its about 100%
tinroofbusted 1 month ago
Yeah, and for over 100 years, the scientific consensus was the Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity was the cornerstone of physics. You know, E = mc2 and nothing travels faster than the speed of light, blah blah blah...
Do yourself a favor and google "Speed of light broken" and read 100+ years of scientific consensus go down the toilet...
Then read some history to learn how often we have had to revamp our scientific 'beliefs' over the centuries.
See u in 100 years time:)
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The main problem with that experiment, the GPS which tracks the neutrinos, has still not been eliminated. The experiment was replicated, but with the GPS still in the equation. You should do a bit more reading about the way scientists perform experiments. Just because one group of scientists record something at a certain speed doesn't mean it gets injected into school books and accepted without further question.
tl;dr = peer review
Niadivedct 1 month ago
Yes, indeed... a 'problem' with the experiment.
Many said as much when Newton attempted to replace the Ptolemaic universe ( he was successful), and again when Newtonian mechanics was devastated by Einstein.
Yes, sure... we finally know everything there is to know, its simply a matter of refining now... WOW! We've never witnessed this misnomer before ( read sarcasm).
Consider for example that many scientists now claim that space and time may not even be fundamental entities.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
I don't care enough to even verify what you're saying about Newtonian mechanics and Einstein, but I'd bet that a great deal of what you said is flat out wrong.
Evolution has been WITNESSED happening in the wild. Who are you to say that it's not real?
Okay, do as I say. Don't shave for 5 months, don't even get a haircut, get naked, look at yourself in the mirror, and then look at a gorilla. NOW, come back and argue.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
"Evolution has been WITNESSED"...
Really?
You mean its been witnessed that out of no life, there spontaneously appeared life?
Really?
You mean from some sticky puddle of goo, a vertebrae system,lungs with a respiration system and kidneys with a filtration system and eyes with the iris, the cornea, the eyelid flap, rods and cones all just CAME ABOUT over a few million years?
Because that's what evolution does? Even though,apparently, evolution is not an intelligent process?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
It was not a "spontaneous" process. No one is really quite sure, but the concensus with scientists is that a self-replicating molecule had been formed near volcanic hotspots in the ocean floor, which got more and more complex until it formed into a primitive cell, and once these cells started toform colonies, THAT is how eukaryotes arose.
It's a beautiful process. It starts off with something so unsophisticated and primitive, and then evolves over time into what we have today.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
An example of this would be lungs. Lungs are said to have first emerged as little outpockets in the esophagus of fish(who lived in oxygen-starved water) that enabled them to gulp air for the first time. Over time, these outpockets got more and more complex, becoming useful for fish who were increasingly enjoying the land, which was free of competition and predators. Amphibians arose, and then so did reptiles, and eventually, mammals, which includes us.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
You call it a " beautiful process".... Yes.... A beautiful process which has no basis in empirical fact, except what these brilliant scientists conjured up to 'fix' the inconsistencies.
These are the same dudes who conjure up String-Theory and write millions of articles and books over a period of two decades to push this model onto the mainstream.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Physical variances and adaptation within an already existing species is not to be debated.
But where has it EVER been witnessed that some primordial soupy goo can become a talking, thinking creature? And all this for no reason! It just happens!
Famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle put it best: if you believe in evolution as it now stands,then you must also believe that a tornado traveling over a junk yard can potentially assemble a Boeing 747 from the scrap material lying around
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
A tornado traveling over a junk yard WILL NEVER assemble a Boeing 747 from the scrap material lying around, even if that tornado is whirling over that junk yard for 20 million years.
You say evolution has been witnessed...
For 500 million years, from first lobster fossil to the living model dropped in your boiling kettle - there's no change. And please explain to me what a lobster was JUST BEFORE it became a lobster, only to suddenly stop evolving.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The most obvious flaw in your logic is that you believe that evolution is a RANDOM process, which it is not. One of the three principles of evolution, natural selection, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of randomness. Natural selection is where specimens who are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to associate something that works so randomly as a tornado with evolution.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
With all due respect, it is most certainly NOT ridiculous to associate something that works so randomly as a tornado with evolution.
You reiterate the idea of natural, not random, selection.
Please explain and define what 'natural' means to you?
When I look up the word 'natural', the Oxford dictionary defines it this way:
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind".
So you have chosen to replace the word 'God' with 'natural'.
Ur as dogmatic as I am
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
YOUR WORDS:
“Natural selection is where specimens who are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.”
So an organism that reproduces via the physically demanding act of sexual mating, putting the female at a constant disadvantage with the offspring in-utero, and even then only passes half its genes to the offspring is somehow ‘better suited’ than an organism that reproduces by dividing itself and passes 100% of its genes?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE Yes. The reproductive method of the cell is only practical and advantageous at the cellular level. It has serious limitations though. It passes 100% of its genes, as you said, and when you reproduce in that fashion you severely curtail opportunities for growth. Reproduction via recombination, on the other hand, is a method rife with possibilities. Viviparous vs. Oviparous is pretty obvious. Carrying the fetus allows for longer gestation, allowing the development of a superior brain.
TomVodkaCollins 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomVodkaCollins
Typing or speaking words verbatim form a tv program or textbook on out theory of evolution is nice and all, but its tantamount to a Christian typing or speaking on Jesus Christs miracles of resurrecting the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine or controlling a thunder-storm by will…
In both cases, no explanation is being given, and you are simply accepting the prevailing ideas because others did or do as well...
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A more accurate and honest response to my question of how can our modern belief in the processes of natural selection explain sex coming into the equation would be WE DON'T REALLY KNOW!!!
And yet you are the 3rd individual to summarily dismiss this and other mysteries and gaps of knowledge on this subject with fancy words and explanations which have NO BASIS IN EMPIRICAL PRACTICE!
The science of how sex evolved is a HUGE problem to evolutionists, but u people don't admit this.
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And before I am summary dismissed as a Ludite for questioning contemporary science, please consider that some of the greatest minds the last 5 centuries also believed in Luminiferous Aether, Einstein’s Static Universe,the The Expanding Earth Theory,etc…
The list is endless with obsolete,scientific theory's which were at one time considered to be descriptions of reality but which today have been shown to be false
I wish people would study this aspect of history, but oh well:(
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
@SLAVESweARE We actually do reproduce via cell division...there's just one hell of a lot more cells that have to divide before the process is complete for us than for algae.
TomVodkaCollins 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomVodkaCollins
Hey there,
Thanks for the information… Please understand, engaging in Youtube-typying flame wars is a guilty pleasure of mine form time to time, I embarrassingly admit…
This particular Youtube page is different; I truly desire a rational explanation on our current notion of evolution which I have never been satisfied with all the way back from grade school.
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomVodkaCollins
I read what you are saying but you are only explaining to me what we already see...
It would be like you explaining to a blind man the colors chosen and the size and direction of the brush strokes in a Monet painting... I want to know how and what Monet mixed to create those beautiful pigments of green and blue and purple, and no one is giving me this...
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All you are explaining to me is how the car motor works, and I would like to know how the nuts and bolts which keeps the motor intact and inert came into existence if not honed by man or any other conscious force...
And then I want to know how those nuts and bolts found themselves through the pre-existing holes of the car motor and how they tightened themselves together, and how did they know to tighten themselves if this whole process is mere chance...
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And it is this complete incredulity amongst those who accept the theory of evolution to confess or readily admit that gaps of knowledge and dead ends and a lot of guess work exist in the final process of this theory which made me question not only contemporary evolutionary theory as it is dispensed, but MANY of the sciences of today.
Do you realize that not a single test has been conducted to validate SuperString Theory since it was first proposed?
Its all theory & guess work
SLAVESweARE 2 days ago
Simple division is practical. Sex takes much longer, & requires more energy.
How did we go from eukaryotes to a process which would have been remarkably unprofitable to its earliest practitioners, and how did it become so widespread via the ‘rules’ of Natural Selection?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Oh,but you will say evolution is a finely tuned process, spanning MILLIONS of years to achieve optimality.
You will say that a lobster needed no more change to suit its habitat, so evolution halts within that species, but other species maintained gradual evolution out of need for survival...
BUT...if a species depends on optimal adaptation for survival, then anything on the way to becoming optimal(so called transitional forms) couldn't survive to adapt.
Am I missing something?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The flaw in your second paragraph is that there is no SET condition that an animal needs to achieve. It just needs to be even SLIGHTLY MORE ADAPTED to its environment than other forms of the same species, therefore more likely to pass on its genes. It's not the same as trying to unlock a lock, understand?
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
I also love how easily accepted is this 'theory' with all its contradictions, conveniently ignored of course...
Example:the problem of simultaneity. The evolution of interactive parts of organisms (the iris, the cornea, the lens, the retina,the pupil,the eyelid flap,the rods and cones, the muscles, the aqueous humor) would all have to change at once.
An eyeball is only an eyeball with all those parts working together.
How could a blind process orchestrate such harmony?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
*sigh*
The eye argument. Look, Richard Dawkins already explained that. Once again, your lack of understanding of evolution is showing. Why not go ahead and talk to biologist and clear your doubts, rather than to hold on to them? Are you afraid? All these arguments have been debunked thousands of times. Here's the link to the video:
/watch?v=PhDWCujcFEY
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
It just amazes me how all these processes are so easily explained by you folks.
An answer for everything... Oh, and the RIGHT answer of course! Because future generations will not replace ANYTHING regarding our scientific notions ever again, startinggggggg....... NOW!
That the eye argument has been answered is sheer folly. Scientific Explanations? Yes.
Consensus? Absolutely not!
Remove just one thing, say, the automatic mechanism to blink.
How long does the eye survive?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
No one ever says that future generations will not replace anything regarding our scientific notions. In FACT, science thrives on future generations updating and refining already existing knowledge, a maor advantage that it has over religion.
I won't talk any more about the eye. You have the power to go and ask a person who understands eyes and their evolution, but you simply DON'T.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The fact is, that if you were agnostic, atheist, or deist, we would not even be here having this discussion. IF evolution did not contradict your archaic religious beliefs, you would have no reason to doubt it, and then cling on to arguments that have been refuted THOUSANDS of times already.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
And while we go back n forth about the 'eyeball' arguments, please consider we must then perform the same dance regarding the lungs,kidneys,liver, corpus callosum, and every other complex vital organ necessary for optimal survival.
And when folks from your camp choose to explain everything away with the latest "theory of the month" rather than be honest with yourselves and admit that mysteries still abound, it's only a matter of time before the other show drops
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
As I have said several times already, WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. Mystery surrounds all parts of science, and scientists are the first to admit that. The ONLY ones who claim there are no mysteries in life, are the bible thumpers, a group that you have nothing to say about.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
And of course, the same process IS used for all these complex vital organs. These organs originally start off as something very simple and incomplex, but still being of great use for the animal in its respective habitat. As time passes and natural selection plays its course, the become more and more complex. Never underestimate 3.7 billion years of evolution.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
"Never underestimate 3.7 billion years of evolution."
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE MAN'S INFINITE CAPACITY FOR HUBRIS!
See, even after 2 full days of back n forth messaging, you still insist on categorizing me as some religious nut.
This is what the Cult of Dawkinites have been indoctrinated with.
The Cult of Dawkin followers simply cannot fathom that persons from the very same scientific community may have doubts about the consensus.
I haven't been to church in 20 years friend:)
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Your arguments are what the 1966 Wistar Institute Symposium on Evolution called tautologous—little more than circular reasoning.
You choose to laugh off the idea of "intelligent design" as the basis of these 'mutations' yet avoid the term "random selection, realizing that randomness does not lead to complexity. And instead replace it with "natural selection".... not quite INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not quite RANDOMNESS.
Just words replacing words.Circular reasoning.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
So, you think that natural selection and random selection are the same thing, don't you? It seems you do. NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM. ANIMALS WITH TRAITS THAT ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEIR SURVIVAL ARE MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE, THEREFORE PASSING ON THOSE TRAITS. I don't usaully write entire sentences in capital letters, but your ignorance makes me think that it will increase the chances that you'll pick it up.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
And I'm still not quite sure what is NATURAL or RANDOM about some sludgy pool of amino acids one day sprouting a central nervous system some 3.7 billion years ago.
We speak of mutations within a species physically evolving over a period of time to achieve optimality,to survive in their habitat,yes?
Then why did gooy sludge feel the need to "naturally sprout" an eventual central nervous system,when the same gooy sludge could have survived just fine on earth these last 3.7 billion years?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That is called Abiogenesis. Evolution is just about how life evolved AFTER it was already there. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY and COMPLEXITY of life.
The Dinosaurs had many similarities in their vital organs to us, but also many important differences. You can look that up on your own. That's all for now.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Oh, and if you don't want people to assume you're a bible thumper, it might be wise not to have a username like "SLAVESweARE". What the fuck do you think people are going to assume when they see a name like that?
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
So when we argue with you, we can NEVER use the word ‘random’ or ‘spontaneous’ mutation to describe evolution (even though this is basically what non-intelligent transformation is, random & spontaneous).
We must instead stick with the word ‘natural’ because…well..because YOU SAY SO! So ‘natural evolution’ APPEARS to be guided, methodical , intelligent with a planned purpose but actually isn’t, so its ‘natural’ but not ‘random’… ...
Does your brain hurt too?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
1. Genetic variability through mutations creates different traits
2. Animals with some of these traits are more likely to survive than others
3. These animals get to pass on their genetic information.
DNA mutations are a random process, but the selection of favorable specimens is NOT random. Natural selection, once again, is NOT random. Natural selection is a part of evolution, the most powerful part of evolution.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
"Microevolution" is change WITHIN a species, and the evidence is abundant. But this is adaptation, as most experts will admit. And many of those same experts readily admit that this 'adaptation' is not enough to explain diversity of form we see today.
"Macroevolution" is change BETWEEN species, and lies at the heart of evolutionary theory.
But you have not provided me with any evidence of this process.
Please provide evidence and we will continue this debate:)
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
And I find it amusing that you, a simple man, can find so many flaws with a theory that the most intelligent people on the planet, with IQs that are 35 points higher than yours, couldn't even find. There's a reason why the theory is so universally accepted by scientists. Check this out.
/watch?v=x5YhE3a5dqw
See this too.
/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
Your basic contention is that ‘Nature’ selected and produced each species. The proof? It just did. How do we know it did it? Because it did it.
Question:
Why do some species multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?
You have ZERO proof to discern this information,whether environmental triggers or some unknown.
You simply ASSUME that ‘this’ or ‘that’ must have happened because Evolution happened.
WOW! Nice science indeed!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
"Evolution has nothing to do with how life began"
"Evolution is just about how life evolved AFTER it was already there."
Very weak attempt to separate yourself from yet another problem which is incompatible with your quasi-scientific beliefs, and more evidence that perhaps YOU TOO may be working with incomplete knowledge about a topic you blindly subscribe to.
Sorry, but Neo-Darwinian Theory states that all living organisms on Earth today are descended from inanimate matter.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The Neo-Darwinian Theory says nothing about how life began. It doesn't even have anything to say about what human beings are. It is USED by scientists, like a tool, to figure out what we are and why we are like that.
The reason why some species dwindle/die out is because they are not able to evolve and adapt fast enough to their environment. Others remain suitable because they are well-adapted and evolved to their environment. Others multiply because they are VERY well adapted.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
Darwin once used to describe how natural selections works.
Wolf inherits ability to run especially fast. Obvious advantage, yes?
Okay, now here's where NS dumbs it down... NS does not or cannot explain how running faster could well become a hindrance if other modifications did not accompany the increased speed.
Example: the added exertion to run faster places added strain on the wolfs heart.
This whole 'one-body-part at a time' is felonious and NS simplifies this to a fault
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Most of the time, these changes will work without drawbacks, and if there are some drawbacks, they will be manageable. Sometimes, they aren't, and the animal dies. Animals usually have very high mortality rates, I'm sure you're aware of this.
Why should I sit here and explain everything to you? You have so far provided NO argument against evolution that does not stem for misunderstanding of the theory.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
Comment removed
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
And as I said previous, deferring the argument to whomever questions modern evolutionary theory to ad hominems, whether it be religious cook or being too stupid to understand what is so clear to you is weak and silly.
Another tactic adopted from Dawkins camp.
Set up straw men arguments only to bowl them over.
I can provide countless academics who question Evolutionary orthodoxy.
Yes, some from the God-believing camp, and many others self-proclaimed athiests.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
NS speaks on the survival of species, you are correct.
But NS does NOT change species,and certainly does not speak on the arrival of the species, and you cannot provide irrefutable evidence, I guarantee it!
Show me how Selection has produced anything new. For that is what Evolution claims, yes? Producing new things,yes? Not just more of what already exists.
Please provide me with evidence on how Selection produced anything new
What was a Tyranosaurs Rex before it was a TREX?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Look it up yourself. Eventually, changes within a species will become so numerous that it is reasonable to declare them different species.
Humans and Chimps split off from a common ancestor. The animal kingdom is full of such examples.
You have all the power you need to go on the internet and look these things up, but you CHOOSE not to, because you realize that you're afraid that your pathetic fallacies will fall apart.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
WHY LOOK IT UP YOURSELF?
It's a very simple question, whose answer should be on the tip of every adherents tongue!
You've now spent 2 full days debating me ( and I appreciate it, as i do think you are a decent and smart enough person) yet you defer what should and what IS a simple question to not being important enough for you to waste any more time.
Here's your chance to shut me up!
ONE EXAMPLE OF CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES WHERE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS...
JUST ONE!...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
I ask for just ONE species name which we have scientific consensus on the taxonimic charts...
Don't speak of a common ancestor, which is used to fill in the gaps, but has no place ( as it now stands) in reality.
Who is this common ancestor of chimps and man?
What is the name given on the taxonomic charts?
What prestigious museum houses the fossilized remains?
What famous, or not, anthropologist has studied this creature?
I want facts, not nouns.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Within a species? Sure. Look at your domestic dog. You may even happen to own one.
ALL of these are descended from wolves. But do most of these dogs look anything LIKE wolves? No.
Since wolves and dogs are classified under the same species, there's your proof. "Oh, but that's not natural, humans did it" you say.
Well, evolution is the same thing, except things are chosen naturally depending on environmental factors.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
HA HA HA!
Two full days of debate, and your best argument for change BETWEEN species is wolf and dog?
My two 4 old son mistook a wolf on a National Geographic special as a dog on television.
You serious?
I asked for evidence of of change BETWEEN species, not WITHIN.
I do not question change within species. I believe that as being scientifically proven without a shadow of a doubt.
I told you I'm no creationist.
I asked for change BETWEEN species, and you know I did...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Dumbass...Look what you wrote yourself.
"ONE EXAMPLE OF CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES WHERE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS..."
Notice how you said within and not between.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
And I also expect to not receive an answer, which I will state again, should be on the tip of every Darwin believers tongue if there was one...
This should be one of those 'facts' that one would think every Darwin adherent would be ready with, to shut idiots like me up, yes?
If evolution is as you suggest, then you should have, oh, I don't know, A MILLION DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.
I mean, you have 3.7 BILLION years to work with, yes?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Oh, and I have examples of change between species.
Fassas from mongooses.
Or why not we look at ourselves? All mammals today are said to have evolved from something like a shrew.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
My apologies.... I did in fact type "within" in that paragraph, although I was more accurate in my description several times before then, which means you have the attention span of a shrew, or you don't read my entire type paragraphs, which is your right.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
So now you have proven that you need a little time to navigate through the Google search engine, as it took you quite some time to come up with any kind of answer.
And I love how you so glibly speak of Fossas ( not Fassas) and synapsids as if you were even familiar with these genera even two seconds before your Googling activities.
I would intellectually eviscerate you where you stood, but for the universal equalizer that is anonymity behind the computer screen and Google.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Okay. Just so you know, I didn't use google at all. I just decided to come back and attack your idiocracy even more.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
You are as much a fraud as the 99% of laymen out there, who do not even have a complete understanding of the very same theory you espouse onto others.
It's like those idiots who bring Michio Kaku books to work to read on breaks, and randomly memorize verses so as to identify themselves as proponents of Superstring Theory, when in fact they are strict adherents to a science whose mathematics they do not even comprehend.
Most of you are merely pretenders, yourself included
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Okay.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
Ah, whatever.. I tire of our exchanges…
I already admitted that I already acknowledge Evolution within already existing species as a sound principle. There is consensus on that.
The evidence that life is engaged in a continual reprogramming of its genetic coding is sound.
But Natural Selection Theory has major flaws in its current form, needing vast improvement.
You yourself admit that your beliefs cannot answer the beginnings of life...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
You’re just another devotee convinced the science of his age has gone as far as it can go, and it’s all a matter of just refining the details.
Where some of you get the notion that evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs have been unquestionably obtained boggles the mind.
Darwin himself admitted that the absence of intermediate species one should expect to find was the major flaw in his theory.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
150 years removed from that statement Darwin gave, and the absence of the MILLIONS of transitional fossils Darwin expected would be discovered remains. As many Dinosaur types we have found, we should have found just as many transitional species, at the least…So far, butkus!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
You gave me two, count them, two genera, Fossa and synapsids.
For over 100 years, every textbook and evolutionist called Synapsids reptiles.
The word "synapsid" comes from the name of an opening behind the eye socket. Only one other group, mammals, possesses this opening,so we said that mammals evolved from reptilian Synapsids…
And then in the 1990’s that view was again changed, to the NEW belief that THEY ARE NOT,AND DID NOT COME FROM REPTILES,BUT SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR!!!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
Yet another proverbial "missing link", and then we conveniently defer the difficulty of verification of these claims to future generations with the old " something will come up in the fossil records at a later date" bit...
YAWWWN... Same old same old
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
So Synapsids, were reptiles, and now they are not reptiles.
So Homo Habilus is said to be a human ancestor, but the famous Leaky family says Homo Habilus should not even belong in the human family tree.
Gotta love those neo-evolutionists, huh?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
I'm sick and tired of your endless babbling and countless factual errors. Once you get your facts straight, come back and talk to me.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
I brought up the 'eyeball and evolution' conundrum, and you referred me to check out a Youtube video where Dawkins explains that away..
Richard Dawkins------a fellow who has not worked in the science laboratory for decades is your source of evolutionary inspiration.
GREAAAAAAT!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
The 2nd example you gave me was that Fossa...A creature where to the present day there is considerable dispute and no consensus over the taxonomy of this creature
The Fossa has been classified as a Felid (cat family, strictly carnivorous), then changed to belong in the family Viverridae (mongoose family,mostly omnivorous),
In 2011,the evolutionary merry-go-round places the Fossa in the Eupleridae family.
I wonder how many more family's it will belong to over the next century
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Scientists create new families all the time to better categorize animals. They were orginally classified as Felids because we did not know much about them and thought they were cats back then. The Eupleridae family is an offshoot of the Viverridae family. The reason they seperated them is because although Euperidaes are very closely related, they are carnivorous.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
Please consider re-educating yourself to the notion that the Darwin in The Origin of Species is quite separate from Darwin's theory combined with genetics and other 20th-century elements.
Your neo-evolution and all the examples which you gave me pertain to adaptive hereditary change.
It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.
The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.
Good luck:)
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Enough genetic difference within a species causes them to split and turn into different species. The species will probably go on to become more distinct genetically as time goes by.
A highschool textbook should straighten you out.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The species will probably go on to become more distinct genetically as time goes by."
Probably?
Not exactly a word one would expect to enter a conversation involving scientific analysis, but whatever turns you on my good man...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The species will probably go on to become more distinct genetically as time goes by."
And how exactly does this sentence in any way shed light on the fact that NO biologist alive today can offer up the primitive ancestors of the octopi,starfish, trilobites and other sea creatures which seemingly came into existence without a simpler predecessor?
Or that links between many major groups of animals simply aren’t there. Fish come about,fully formed, seemingly from nowhere?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You also seem to be yet another adherent of Dawkins, who most likely has not even bothered exploring what exactly Dawkins is selling, and simply assumes that their beliefs parallel Dawkins.
Dawkins advocates a gene-centred view of evolution, which is but another of the myriad of evolutionary schools of thought , distinct and slightly different from the other evolutionary theory's.
See, the reason we still call it the THEORY of evolution is because there is not always consensus
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here a quote from Ernst Mayr (1904–2005), one of the most influential evolutionists as far as biologists are concerned:
“The funny thing is...if you ask a man in the street who the greatest living Darwinian is, he will say Richard Dawkins. And indeed, Dawkins has done a marvelous job of popularizing Darwinism. But Dawkins‘ basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian. I would not call him the greatest Darwinian.”
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Yet another quote from Ernst Mayr also proclaimed that Darwin's theory of natural selection is now the prevailing explanation of evolutionary change, but admitted that "it has achieved this position less by the amount of irrefutable proofs it has been able to present than by the default of all the opposing theories".
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Womp womp womp...
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whatever fiend....
You show yourself to be as dogmatic and closed-minded to the possibility of differing yet honest and probing opinions as the religious zealots you so readily chastise.
You have referred to me as ignorant, even as I've posed questions you have no immediate answers to.
You have as much inability to deal with anyone who challenges your notions as the Catholic or Muslim whom you share this world with.
You simply substitute one book for another.
Sheep:)
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 2010 Stephen Hawking stated that since there are a 100+ billion galaxies in the universe it’s highly likely that life exists out there beyond the life on earth, saying
Quote:“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens PERFECTLY RATIONAL.”
Now, where is there ANY evidence, proof, data or justification for the existence of aliens to be “PERFECTLY RATIONAL” without so much as a smidgen of proof? This is science?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now imagine any scientist claiming that the existence of God was “PERFECTLY RATIONAL” based purely on the insanely odds-defying mathematics associated with 6 Billion humans existing at all on our perfectly-balanced planet, which appears accurately programmed to sustain life?
Please convince me that science is not occasionally political and biased...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you begin to “Womp womp womp” quotes from one of the more famous and respected biologist of the past century,with no explanation or come-back,I realize that any appeal to unbiased scientific debate with you is futile, and that your limited intellect has been overtaxed
It seems that challenging you with questions which you cannot immediately resolve simply forces you to slip into that realm of infantilism you earlier suggested was the exclusive province of creationists only
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Throughout our exchanges, all you have offered is a history of how a pre-existing natural variation of a genetic trait comes to be more prevalent in some subsets of a species than others.
I and even many ‘creationists’ ( believe it or not) do not deny that microevolution exists. It happens on time scales so short that we can observe it happening ( ie,Italian Wall Lizard, thank you again for that story ).
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But microevolution, either artificial or natural genetic selection as the mechanism, does not explain how new species "evolve" from older ones, nor does it explain the development of complex structures, nor indeed does it offer a mechanism for the greatest puzzle of all in organismal biology: namely, why is there sex?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the end, you are but an example of how reliance on science is faith.
You do not have cogent explanations for what are otherwise basic questions yet you adhere to your beliefs in much the same manner as a religious zealot to his.
Apparently, there is no need to talk about gaps in the fossil record.
Darwin predicted them, saying there must have
occurred millions of such transformations for his theory to be true,
yet evolutionists ( OR YOU!!!) cannot supply even one.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You incorrectly gave me the Fossa and Synapsids , as neither is a transitional species.
In fact, for 100 + years, scientists were taught that Synapsids were reptiles which evolved into mammals. A TRANSITIONAL SPECIES,RIGHT?
But gosh… a century later its revealed THEY ARE NOT REPTILES, AND DID NOT EVEN COME FROM REPTILES!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Also, keep in mind that the mating field is more important to evolution than anything else. Often times, a trait may not be of any survival significance at all, but it is attractive to the opposite gender. In other words, sexy. And this will make the creature more likely to mate, and therefore the gene will get passed on.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN!
I bring up one of Evolutionary biology’s greatest conundrum’s, and with just a couple of generic sentences , you just explain it away like it’s last night's episode of Jersey Shore.
Sheep like you just repeat verbatim what your holy textbooks print, no questions needed.
AMAZING!
Never mind that nowhere in your meandering comment did you even broach the possibility of even attempting to offer up an explanation of any kind.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
I don't know about the evolution of sex. And sex isn't so hard if you're an animal out there who can't jerk off and only has sex a few times a year. They get really horny.
But seriously, I'm not the person to go for that. You are simply asking me questions about evolution of which YOU don't know the answer, and assume that there ARE NO answers to them. There are answers. Just go and look for them yourself for fuck's sake...
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
Sorry again, Stretch ( this is the nickname which I will give you from now on, since you seem to have one answer for EVERYTHING I ask,, just worded differently).
Natural selection cannot easily explain the origin and maintenance of sex.
Using Natural Selection, please explain why animals abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly , physiologically and energetically complex ,and inefficient sexual reproduction,and how we arrived at two separate genders...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?
How is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells?
This was all an 'oops!' ,correct?
A million and one 'oops!' moments over the course of your Natural Selection,huh?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE You argue from complete ignorance. If you were to take your time to research (which you seem to be inept of as of course thats why you remain religious) then you would be overwhelmed with evidence pointing you to your answer. As someone who once was a Christian until I saw the complete fallacies of every single point it raises I can tell you that to find your answer you need to get your head out of your own arse and research your own point.
ItsmeJohnny91 2 weeks ago
I almost have to admire the willful ignorance and arrogance from you scientist-wannabe's, who couldn't even explain to me how a refrigerator keeps cold without running to the EHOW website.
You embrace contemporary science with the same zeal that every Jesus fanatic would be familiar with...
First off, I have about 40 posts on this page... Yes, 40!!!
I challenge you to find me a single one which even for one second broaches on ANYTHING Jesus or religious...
JUST ONE!!!
SLAVESweARE 2 weeks ago
Don't waste your time, you won't find a single one...
Funny thing is, every time some nut-bar chooses to send me a message, they start off having already created a caricature of me which has been made famous by the Hitchens and Dawkin's cult followers....
And this religious caricature has no basis in reality... Its not much different form the old religious class which saw the devil in any atheist or agnostic, where there was none...
Same old, same old....
But where
SLAVESweARE 2 weeks ago
Anyhow,if you so choose, I'm more than game to demonstrate how similar you blind-contemporary science followers are to any religious cult which take most things at face value and simply assume that so many from the science community are just too darn smart to simply agree on things that are flawed... and you would be right!
So let me demonstrate for you the politics that poisons all of mans endeavors, including the sciences...
SLAVESweARE 2 weeks ago
And along the way, I will prove ( although you will fight it tooth and nail every step of the way) how your notions of science, be it cosmology, or physics, and even evolution as it is presented AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY are as much politically-based as they are empirically, and that this bogus idea of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is a crock...
Yes,there is Western school TEXT-BOOK consensus- The same type of Western school TEXT-BOOK consensus that teaches that America is a true democracy.
SLAVESweARE 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Two final quote ( of many ) by Ernst Mayr:
"Darwin produced embarrassingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims. This includes the change of one species into another in succeeding geological strata, or the production of new structures and taxonomic types by natural selection."
"The basic theory ( of evolution) is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case. "
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
So now you are going to tell me that, using the empirical method with ZERO material evidence, we all HAVE TO ACCEPT that the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male evolved simultaneously,huh?
PERHAPS JUST MINUTES APART!!!
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Remarkable story about the Italian wall lizards, and I thank you for making me more knowledgeable....
I'll be a smarter man for it at the next family dinner get-together.
(NOTE: as I read further, the 'completely new gut structure' cited by NG is nothing more than cecal valves, which exist in other lizards,namely Iguana's and is likely within every lizards DNA information).
Now.... do you have a single example in 3.7 billion years of a change BETWEEN species?.....
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
First of all, define between species. How specific? Do you mean like synapsids to modern mammals? Reptiles to synapsids? Tigers, lions, leopards, jaguar, and snow leopards all diverging from a common ancestor? Humans, gorillas, and chimps diverging from a common ancestor? Explain what it is exactly that you want...
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
Why can’t there ever be a fair critique of Darwinism without those of the Dawkins Cult resorting to portrayal of those critics as religiously motivated?
One need not appeal to any religious authority to contradict Darwinism, and I certainly don't, and I and many do not reject the idea of evolution in toto.
Fact is, many find the evidence and arguments for Darwinism to be deeply flawed.
This is not Creationism vs Evolution.
This is Science vs. Evolution
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
The case with 99.99% of creationists is THE ONLY REASON they even begin to doubt evolution is because in contradicts their religious beliefs. I don't know whether or not you are one of them. You could very easily be lying to me, pretending that you have no religious motivation. If not, you would instead LISTEN to videos on evolution and see the arguments that you've presented here get torn apart, as they wre just now by ME.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
You need to educate yourself about how government-funded science can result in unquestionable orthodoxy,rigidity of thought, & stifling free inquiry.
A recent example of this would be the neutrino tests conducted at CERN I spoke of,which demonstrated a possible contradiction of Einsteins relativity theory.
Note how, instead of getting giddy with excitement about the latest technology revealing unknowns,you simply dismissed this test as next to boring.
Science too is dogmatic
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthCitySider
You then say
"organs originally start off as something very simple and incomplex,but still being of great use for the animal in its respective habitat. As time passes and natural selection plays its course, the become more and more complex."
So how different was Ardipithecus ramidus heart from ours 4.4 million years ago?
Or their lungs?Or their kidneys?Liver?Spinal cord? Eyeballs?Hair follicles?
No? No change in over 4 million years? Mutations just "naturally" stopped,huh?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
How differently structured were the Dinosaurs' heart from ours biologically? Or their lungs? Kidneys? Liver? The vertebral column?The digestive tract?
No? Just stopped "naturally" mutating,huh?
Okay
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
You ask the Bible thumpers, and they have an answer for everything...and it all makes sense to them. As far as they are concerned, its all been explained already, thanks to the priestly community.
You ask the evolutionists, and they have an answer for everything...and it all makes sense to them. As far as they are concerned, its all been explained already,thanks to the scientific community.
Hubris will be the end of both these camps
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Do you know ANYTHING about science? Of course you don't. All your information comes from that retarded, child-mollesting pastor in your church. I remember when I was in 6th grade science class, and my teacher had important facts regarding science. One of these was that SCIENCE CANNOT PROVIDE ANSWERS FOR ALL QUESTIONS. When scientists accept this fact, then who are you to say that they think that they know everything? The only ones claiming to know everything are the religious.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
People like you are the reason why America is the ASS of the Western world.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
Please explain "people like me"....
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
Jesusfreaks who deny evolution and all science in order to cling on to archaic religious beliefs, and then preach their crap to others.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
See, and I would make the argument that "People like you are the reason why America is the ASS of the Western world."
Now all we have to do is debate with proper honesty and articulation…
My question to u; how did you come to the conclusion regarding my personal beliefs or notions by simply reading a single Youtube message of mine?
Do u know my favorite color, or what scares me most, or where I went to school?
No?..... But you assume to know my 'beliefs'?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@NorthCitySider
And where, pray tell, did you come to the conclusion that there are only tewo choices?
Either you are an evolutionist or a creationist, huh?
And I guess thee are only two political choices in the United Mistakes of American too, huh, Democrat and Republican.
Stay with me kid, and watch as I effortlessly prove that you are as indoctrinated as the the folks you point an accusatory finger at....
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
You claim that I deny science.... Yet what exactly is science according to you?
America was founded by arguably some of the most brilliant men of their era, be it Jefferson,Franklin,Hamilton,etc. Many scientists, astronomers, chemists, etc of that era are still spoken about today.
Question: did these remarkably brilliant people have the same 'science' which you embrace today?
Was there an E=MC2 then? Charles Darwin then? Dark matter then? Super-string or M-Theory then?
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Most notions of what these men would have swore was the 'REAL SCIENCE' of their day has been rewritten in a form they would not recognize today.
And we can say the same about the 'Enlightenment era'... Or Ancient Greeks or Egyptians. Brilliant civilizations who accomplished wondrous things, but some of the notions of what THEY believed as the "REAL SCIENCE' is quite honestly laughable today.
I wonder how persons who questioned the knowledge of those day were characterized...
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@SLAVESweARE
If you think you creationists are the Galileos of your day, think again. The theory of evolution is NOT going to disappear, unless you nutjobs get your way. There will definitely be modifications over time as we make new discoveries, but don't expect to us to find out we had it all wrong. There are some laws and theories which have far too much evidence behind them to just go away, and evolution happens to be one of them.
As for your second post, I'm not sure what you mean.
NorthCitySider 1 month ago
You are a subscriber to modern evolutionary theory.
But if u stood in front of me, you could not, without referring to some book or Google home page, tell me the “mostly” accepted sequence of where and how modern humans came about.
Or where horses came from. Or what came first, Aferensis or Africanis?
Or the name of the transitional species which made T-Rex.
You only “believe” because most scientists and academic institutions of your day say they have the answers.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
Just like past BRILLIANT scientists also felt qualified to regard their science as absolute infallible truth, whether 200 or 2000 years ago.
Please explain to me again how only one side of this debate is clinging on to 'beliefs'?
You don't really understand the sequences, names, genetic merry-go-round which constitute the theory of evolution, any more than you understand quadratic equations.
You simply assume ( believe?) that the brilliant folks of today must have it right.
SLAVESweARE 1 month ago
@jeremythehuman Unfortunately there are those out there, brainwashed by religion and media, or just being ignorant, who would believe anything, including creation... It's a shame that education is not getting through. I am not against any belief, as long as it is treated as a personal matter and not rubbed into the faces of us.
DeVizardofOZ 1 month ago
Comment removed
Djallen2000 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They just arrested a scientist in the UK because he was creating Chimeras and experimenting on apes do you understand how much greed is in that? Remember what I tell you things are going to get very sick in the future and it won't be God or religions involved.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
Why do religious people insist on spewing their verbal diarrhea all over the comment sections in all of these rational interviews? It fucking reeks of verbal crap every time I want to watch a Dawkins, Harris, or Sagan video. Fucking morons, get an education you daft cunts.
torontoBluejays87 6 months ago 28
@torontoBluejays87 Technically, since they're text comments, it's not 'verbal' crap.
Assdafflabaff 4 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 bravo friend, bravo
CarlSagan6 3 months ago
How can humans came from bacteria; this is worse than the ape theory. I think I'm going to start a theory write a book and then make millions. Good idea atheist gave me.
NorthNorth2009 7 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 You have no idea how evolution works. How do you think apes came from? Apes evolved from bacteria too, as the all life on Earth did.
You can think of your own theory, but not to make fool of yourself you need many evidence. For example there are tons od eveidence for evolution. But evolution is not theory, it'd prooven fact!
Goold luck with your theory.
korzoable 7 months ago
@korzoable Naw; I will just call it a theory and leave it at that. Theory's don't have to be proven it seems.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009
Still better then thinking we were made by sadistic god.
4funzDOTcom 6 months ago
Is his book free? How many millions did he make?
NorthNorth2009 7 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 Much much much less than churches make. Not to mention you know what you are going to get when you buy his book, he tells you up front what to expect, it is not full of lies and deceit. He is selling an educational product full of years of researched and peer reviewed scientific data.
pimpymcdougall 6 months ago
@pimpymcdougall Well you don't have to give money to the churchs nor do you have to attend them. I don't think his book is educational. I have read many science text books and they're just as good and they were written before his. Should we have to pay to have access to science? maybe if it was free more people would read it. I can go to a library but not everyone has this privlege and why doesn't he use his science to teach children in third world countries they need teachers badly.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 Why should he give anything away for free? He has an expensive education that he worked hard for. You do have free access to science considering that you are watching a video about evolution on Youtube and Youtube is free. People being interested in science has nothing to do with not having access to it. They are told by the church and religious people not to trust science, all in the name of making more money for themselves so they can build bigger temples, cars, and houses.
pimpymcdougall 6 months ago
@pimpymcdougall Everyone deserves a chance at an education. When I do go to church I am never told anything about science. No one talks about it. I went to a catholic school run by the clergy we were taught science. I have never heard anyone say not to trust science. I formed my own opinion as the world is in danger because of science and we need to help our planet.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 the world is in danger because the people we entrust to wield science don't understand it or have opposing interests (politicians controlling nuclear weapons, oil companies controlling pollution legislation, etc.), not because science is inherently negative. poor argument. and the fact that they don't mention science in church isn't because its not important; its because it isnt in the interest of the church to confer value on the concept of evidence or they'd be out of business.
ericfeinberg28 6 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 The church and the bible are all spirituality. Science is science. There are some pretty horrific experiments done in the name of science going on right now. Things we don't need; most likely. They just arrested a scientist that is doing horrific experiments on animals in the UK.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 you answered your own point here. people like that may be doing bad things "in the name of science" but to deny that the overall effect of science hasn't been beneficial to humanity is absurd. people used to live to 30 and suffer constantly. now they can live to 100 in luxury compared to their ancestors. religion has made no such substantive contributions. it only serves to dispel people into smaller groups when they should be uniting together as fellow humans.
ericfeinberg28 6 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 No people lived healthy lives and lived to 90s at least in europe they did. The big Pharma companies are ruining our health on purpose. There are natural cures for everything and the other technology is all worthless. The real technologies we need like free energy and fuel have been burried by the large corporations as they want us slaves.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 i cant imagine you actually believe that medicine hasn't gotten anywhere in the last few centuries. the fact that corporations may skimp on paying for treatments doesn't mean they don't exist. and as for life expectancy, it never topped 40 until early modern britain (you can look up average world life expectancy by time period). either it shot up to 70 by some statistical magic in the last few centuries, or science did something right. theres no denying it
ericfeinberg28 6 months ago
Comment removed
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 fuck chemotherapy. Cancer can be beaten by eating bananas
wHisperis001 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 life expactancy isn't equal to maximum a human can live to. Saying some lucky people lived to 90 a few hundred years ago doesn't change the fact that most died much younger do to health complications
wHisperis001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Biological reproduction has been Scientifically Debunked. Stork theory is now showing to be our best answer for this miracle.
scotttebben 7 months ago
i can't believe this man is the controversial one...
Everybody must be insane..scientists look out for evidence, dedicate their lives to it, we have a technology that has never had, and most people would still believe in one stupid, single book...
Humanity is more primitive than i thought.....
TheDarkFenix 8 months ago
@TheDarkFenix
that's because your thinking is evil (intelligence and reason has corrupted you).
you aren't ignorant enough to accept and believe the holy bible as translated.
the tree of knowledge is clearly planted in your backyard and bearing the wicked fruit of sanity and scientific observation. i'll pray for you, you heathen.
i'll pray right after i finish robbing my ministry blind and when i'm done having sex with the altar boy.
*joke* sarcasm*
MrNytn2001 7 months ago
"majesty of a more created existence" excuse me, but is there no majesty in the way the universe really works. Its so beautiful but its being dulled down by idiots. that is so frustrating. oh well as long as some of us still appreciate it. 7% of scientists have an average IQ ...the other 93% are above :)
CloverCATOREE 8 months ago
the other 7% technically aren't scientists
krogdog101 8 months ago 3
why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive?
ctommy205 8 months ago
Its funny how Dawkins says "God only knows" when refering to the complexity of bacteria.
senor47 10 months ago
in the very near future we will not have cash, we will buy and sell with an RFI chip in our hand or forehead , It was written 2000 years ago that we will be forced to buy and sell with a mark on our foreheads or hands , can anyone explain this to me ??
sparticusnuts 10 months ago
@sparticusnuts The chip thing is real and it would be easier to purchase things. I'm thinking if you don't want one you don't have to participate , though. Just blow off the city life and fend for yourself, people have been doing it for millions of years.
Jboogie19 9 months ago
@Jboogie19 million of years??? prove it !!!
sparticusnuts 9 months ago