@yakuann777 Lets not forget that the theory is not just based on Darwin's thoughts. The theory of evolution is based over multiple fields of science, ranging from physiology to genetic proof. We see proof in current day with even Wisdom teeth. Just because we do not see a "crocaduck" does not mean it does not happen.
A Salamander is still a Salamander. It may have different colors or more toes than other species but it's still a Salamander. It was never a worm and will never evolve into anything other than a Salamander.
@bornagain001 And what exactly is a non-salamander? That's non-scientific. Every time a new variation exists under the subclass Lissamphibia, creationists just say "oh that still looks like a salamander". Of course it does. What do you expect? A salamander to suddenly give rise to a bird?? And not to mention, salamander isn't even a scientific term. If you want to talk about classification, stick to the accepted KPCSO system.
@bornagain001 ''chimps lack a soul...therefore they are not human. A SOUL is exclusive to men and women only. No other creature has one'' Can you show me the evidence of a soul? no you can't! Or can you even explain to me what a soul is? Ah wait you can't! Now go some were else with your fairly tales! Okay?
@bornagain001 no authority, just common sense and acceptance of reality. by what authority do you know santa clause does not exist? he is just as fabricated as the idea of souls. i have nothing against belief, but saying something silly like only humans have souls is ridiculous. its such a blank statement.
@XGuynFc ...common sense and acceptance of reality? How can common sense tells us what exists in the spiritual realm? Only God can tell us that...and since you don't want to talk to Him or read HIS book....your spiritual existence is one of darkness.
@bornagain001 why do i need authority? by what authority do you know that it does exist? and why does science have to be some sort of quasi opposite to spiritual belief? the bible was written in a simpler time when humanity was not very knowledgeable about the world and its surroundings. we are now so many years ahead and developed, with much more knowledge than before. if you like to question authority so much, what authority do the cavemen who wrote the bible have to direct me?
@XGuynFc ...but you have an authority. IT'S YOURSELF. It doesn't matter that you have been wrong time after time in your life...you still continue to make poor decisions and this is just another one. Which caveman are you referring to who wrote the Bible? Matthew? He was employed by the GOVERNMENT as a Tax Collector. Luke? He was a PHYSICIAN. Peter? He was a fisherman so lived on the water most of his life. Paul? He too was a government employee. Help me out here about who was a caveman?
@bornagain001 Actually chimps aren't human because we're seperate species. We can't interbreed. If we could then they would be a class of human. Or we would be a class of chim. Whichever takes your fancy.
@AlishmcMalish ...100% CORRECT. Fish NEVER became reptiles. Reptiles never became birds and chimps never became man. We were CREATED seperately and are still that way today. There are highly intelligent people that are dumb as dirt when it comes to the MYTH of evolution.
@bornagain001 Is gravity a myth? We have more proof for evolution than we do gravity but you accept gravity is real. I am a missionary in China bu that does not mean I can not accept the truth that is evolution. By the way evolution does not say that man came from a chimpanzee, it says that we had a common ancestor. The same can be said about birds and reptiles. I implore you to understand more about evolution before you toss it to the side. It is no less a work of God.
@jeremiahdrigg ...a missionary of WHAT? Not God's INFALLIBLE WORD because it clearly tells us GOD CREATED everything in 6 days. Ther Bible does not tell us that man EVOLVED. It tells us that GOD CREATED Adam and Eve. No wonder your work as a missionary is bearing NO FRUIT. Your own life is deceived.
@jeremiahdrigg@jeremiahdrigg we can observe and experiment on gravity but evolution is simply pseudoscience and no experiment can be done to prove thats why they have to introduce billions of years into this. the bible is the plain truth. God bless you in your missionary work.
Good video thanks, There is a good chapter about this in the excellent book, " The ancestor's Tale " by Richard Dawkins. He talks about how the salamanders of The Central Valley, California are a Ring species. There is hybridization all round the ring, except where the two ends of the line meet, in the far south of California. For more about Ring species try wikipedia
This is a perfect example of evolution? Its still the same species. Its still a salamander. Yeah, there's all different colors of humans too. But were all humans. Same with cats and dogs, etc. When this salamander turns into a bird or whatever, let me know.
@MrTmel123 The main point here is reproductive isolation, which has not occurred with humans and dogs. These two don't produce offspring that can survive, meaning two things: 1) they changed. Right? Or else they could interbreed. 2) Since we've admitted animals can change, it now stands to reason both will continue to change- but since they can't interbreed, they will change in separate, diverging directions.
I'm sure you could have figured that out if you had an open mind. You should try.
Excellent, easy to understand (at least to me) specific example of evolution in action. Since it has taken roughly 10 million years so far in the speciation of the California salamander, I would not call this micro evolution. One of the harder ideas to understand with evolution is the time frames involved. Of course nobody living today has first handedly observed MACRO evolution, which takes millions and/or billions of years to happen, but we can follow the evidence. We'll get there!
MICRO evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED WITHIN A SPECIES. MACRO evolution HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. A fish becoming a reptile. A reptile becoming a bird and a salamander becoming a cat has never been observed.
@bornagain001 Try reading the section Axolotls tale in the good book, "The ancestor's tale " by Richard Dawkins. If Axolotls are treated with thyroxine they lose their gills and become dry land salamanders., just as their ancestors once did naturally. The key to deciding what is reality is cross referencing. Compare creation account in Genesis ch1 and see the order is different from Gen ch2. Look at fossils up mountains; life on earth is ancient. Bible=guesswork, it says Adam lived 4000BC.
@yukikohohoho Single celled organisms and also viruses are a different kettle of fish compared to plants and multicelled animals...
It is possible for example for one single celled organism to steal genetic code from another species entirely... but that hasn't been observed between large muticelled organisms... not without gene therapy anyway...
so you can look at that two ways... every division of a single celled organism is a new species... or none are... lol
@yukikohohoho Also its very unlikely there was a 'single' first cell which was the progenitor of all life. Just like all advents its more likely this happened a lot everywhere all at once.
To draw an analogy... who invented the first aircraft? Was it the Wright brothers? Bleriot? or was it just going to happen around the turn of the last century since it was the next logical step?
So it was a lot of first cells that couldn't vary too much given the chemistry and it was unlikely they used DNA.
Mayr's Biological Species Concept recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.
i dont want to troll but change in phenotype isnt speciation right?? its like saying asians and negros will become different species .... so how can this be an example of "instants of speciation" ?? i am confused =S
@ahmology change in phenotype is one of the early steps in speciation. As a matter of fact, if Blacks and Asians NEVER interacted, then eventually, they would become separate species. But that would take an extremely long time. And it won't happen, because of immigration and transportation techniques.
@ahmology well, actually, change in phenotype, if it changes the organism enough will result in specialization and yes, if the current ability for humans to travel to one spot on the globe to another so fast then asians, negros... everyone... may have ended up as different species.
@demondim5 There are greyt areas in the idea of speciation... for exmaple lions are a species... tigers are a species... ligers (lion / tiger cross) are theoretically a new species... or would be if they could breed well within their own group but although they are not completely sterile it would be unlikely they could continue to breed for too many generations.
There's no line in the sand, its more blurred lines with absolutes on either side. I think Haldane's rule is basically the rule!
What kind of Speciation is this an example of? I'm going to use this video as part of my my science project presentation and need to know when to use it. Is it Allopatric, Sympatric, Peripatric.....?
@librarylu Question for you since you posted this video. How does speciation cause an organism to evolve into another phylum of life that is structurally different? Speciation doesn't change the morphology(form and structure) of an organism. What structures are different between the species of lizards shown? How can changes to color,shape, or size cause a fish to evolve into an amphibian tetrapod. Evolution falls flat on it's face.
@librarylu The past 70 years of genetic experiments to do this very thing have proven that mutation can't change the morphology of an organism, even deformities are corrected within 1 to several generations due to DNA recombination. DNA recombination is a literal error correcting system. Do you have any examples of where mutations have causes structural change to an organism? There has never been such a case in the laboratory or in nature, it's biologically impossible.
So you're saying E. coli hasn't become F.coli in the lab yet? From which creationist site are you getting this nonsense?
The repair process doesn't always work and when it doesn't the mutations become permanent. The genes for the repair enzymes can become mutated and then the mistakes accumulate at a much higher rate.
Try reading DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation
@micah1116 these aren't lizards...they are amphibians... and they will always be amphibians...just like dinosaurs were always dinosaurs, and currently still are dinosaurs.... just that now we call them birds!
And thats what birds are... light, feathery, toothless dinosaurs...(although many dinosaurs had feathers, and many had hollow bone structures)....
Birds are still 'locked' into that line..and they are 'still just dinosaurs' even if they look a little different.
CONT. next the word dinosaur...is a classification given in the 18th century... it covered a huge swath of animals ....
in that classification there were dinosaurs with hollow bones, and ones with solid bones, ones with bird hips...and ones without.... it would probably more accurate to reclassify them into several super orders under 'reptilia'...or even outside 'reptilia'
There is even some discussion as to whether they were reptiles, since many were warm blooded, a property no reptile has.
@gamesbok yeah but the leatherback is not only unique among reptiles but also all endotherms because it achieves homeostasis by moving all the time... if they stop or slow down...then they cool down and die!
So in this case endothermy is achieved by the excess heat given off from muscles constantly working. Which is not really a metabolic control of internal heat.
An unusual characteristic the white sharks (shared by other mackerel sharks and thresher sharks, Family Alopiiidae) is the ability to maintain parts of their body (swimming muscles, stomach, and brain) at temperatures above that of the surrounding water, which classifies them as endothermic or warm-blooded, like mammals.
Cyrtodactylus tibetanus, Tebetian Gekko survive the 4.4° C (40° F) and cooler nights, while maintaining their 10° C (50° F) body temperatures,
@gamesbok I'm pretty sure all animals with muscle operate those muscles at temperatures above the external temperature... it'd be hard for them to do otherwise...
Isn't the ability of endotherms generally reliant on mitochondria? ie. Below a certain level the mitochondria aren't numerous enough to provide heat for the entire mass of the organism... which is what then classifys it as an ectotherm?
@MumblingMickey I'm not sure 'ectotherm' is much of a distinguishing feature. I mean bees get warmed up in the morning by de-clutching their wings and having a good rev-up.
I don't know enough about mitochondra, but I think for mamals it's got something to do with brown adipose, brown fat deposits. I believe it's one of those subjects which is so full of exceptions and compromise that it disolves on inspection. In cold environment I'd avoid altitude, eat fats, wrap in furs, light fire, exerc
Lovely specimens, but I do not see any actual speciation occurring. The current definition of speciation is defined as reproductive isolation and that definition is debatable. The phenotype of the salamanders has adapted to their individual environments, but their genotype has remained intact. No change in the genotype means no mutation has occurred. The phenotypic variations are merely epigenetic, not evolutionary.
@mizckd Speciation is very gradual. Organisms will give birth to severely defective offspring before they become 100% separate. This is almost never observed simply because the organisms would live in drastically different environments and they wouldn't interact with eachother. (The reason they are changing in the first place.)
@mizckd There has been change in their genes. Genes are, by the definition, units of heredity that define how an individual looks like. So, if a salamander looks different than another salamander, there has been a change in genes. Oh, and by the way, horses and donkeys are different species, and they can breed. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelming, that it is pointless to debate it. It has nothing to do with religion, there are plenty of religious people that accept it.
@JUANMO94 I am well aware of what a gene is as well as the mechanics involved in heredity. Differences in individual's via heredity are not examples of evolution. If you have brown hair and one of your parents is a blonde you have not evolved. The genes have not "changed". Many animals of separate species can reproduce, but the offspring are sterile. Hence they are still reproductively isolated as they cannot create future generational lines through the mixing of genetic material.
@JUANMO94 The theory of evolution is a good workable theory. However, I would not limit my pursuit of knowledge by claiming one theory already had all of the answers. Epigenetics does not conflict with the theory of evolution. It is merely another piece of the puzzle. The above examples of salamanders are still not examples of speciation. They are naturally occuring variations within the same species. Ex: poodles and Great Danes.
@mizckd Its pretty clear that genetic mutation is not the 'be all and end all' of phenomena selected for.
And example of this can be seen in 'farm foxes' where the animals were specifically chosen for their 'tameness' yet that 'choice' also inadvertently resulted in changes in color.
The changes were brought on by the animals now producing different hormones... as a result of their brain chemistry. Just as humans could change their morphology using hormone injections.
@mizckd When they cannot interbreed together to produce viable offspring then there is no debate...they are a different species. There are 'debates' around the grey areas... however 'no inability to produce offspring' is well outside the debating arena.
Next there are alterations clearly visible in the genomes (See D. Wake UC Berkley) of these different ring species. So this change is a result of mutation favored by selection and not epigenetic.
@mizckd I would have thought the same phenotypes could breed. Some sort of mutation that is replicated in the offspring must have occured, I would have thought.
Erm.... why do creationists end up on vids like this and then start commenting stupidly... I have no care in the world for their 'flat earth' mentality and therefore avoid creationist bullshit...
Lately they have become more desperate though... obviously the advent of social media has taught some of them stuff they shouldn't know... and they are desperately pluggin up the holes in their story! lol...
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIG ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY Science hater there are many more, do yourself a favor remove the blinders from your mouth and eyes that might do the trick.
So you think that creation science is the inventor of Babbages first computer?
You do of course realize WHEN this machine (which is in the Royal Museum) was built don't you?
Are you certain you are not choosing individuals who were theist as the inventors? In which case Charles Darwin should be on the list... along with Adolf Hitler!
I'm a computational theorist and a physicist btw... so science I know a shit load about!
You will also know a little about all of these subjects then having read all those books... I've read a few of them... many years ago... and most if not all whack the shit out of your crazy religion!
Cry me a river you turd, don't you understand what a creationists is, that is one who believes in the Creation. Creation is attribute it to one who believes in God whether they worship him or not is different. Catholics, baptists, or what have you believes in Creation, if you hate God so much and believes science is evolutionism well I can't change your mind you hater. Pity a bullet didn't hit me ha so much tolerance you stinking anti thought, anti- freedom of speech what else is new.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent BeingAll variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
God in the beginning formed matter.
Newton
Whether he was a Catholic, Anglican, or whatever He recognize That God Created all things, Newton was an instrument in understanding the Creation.
Oddly My GF sitting beside me... is a catholic... and she is laughing her ass off at your crazy notions... so since she has no belief in dinosaurs running about 6.000 yrs ago... or crazy floods or other bullshit...
Is she also a creationist?
So...in short... fuck off and leave the room...Adults are talking!
By the way cry baby do you know all catholics, if you don't can you say for certain they don't believe the same way as your ignorant girl, I am willing to bet she's just as ignorant as you. Get out get some fresh air and give the rest of humanity, history, and science a shot is way different than believing in metaphysics such as evolutionism.
@younhol00 Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
@gamesbok He wasn't known for his suffrage of religion napoleon... he also mentioned that it was only religion which prevented the poor from murdering the rich! lol...
I'd tend to go along with that.... to be poor and irreligious would certainly result in a lot of malevolent discontent! Just as well the poorest are also the most religious.
@MumblingMickey Being poor and religious did have the overwhelming advantage of not being burnt as a witch.
There is a wonderful hypothesis that says the periodic witch burning frenzies, including Salem, all occur in years of very wet springs. The ensuing ergotamine, especially on Rye and other cerials would gurantee trippy experiences. I'm sure that the fact that the majority of victims were defenceless widows who just happened to occupy valuable land was coincidence.
That crowd of money grabbing wasters have given the world nothing whatsoever...
Most current scientists are theist... that does not make them creationists... are you on a 'mormon' bent now... where anyone who believes in a God is counted as a creationist? Wow... well I eat cereal... so do Chinese people... am I Chinese? Twat!
Retard take your emotions somewhere else, If you wish to talk about the merits of the video great, otherwise take your anti-science, anti-liberty, anti-thought, God denier self somewhere else. I love always to beat the drums of your conscious wish kills you every day letting you know there is a Creator and Master of the Universe which you will bow and give an account of all the stupid, and rejection towards Him and science, take a Hike.
Science obeys rules, those rules are laid down very carefully to ensure the least amount of bullshit fallacy enters the equation. ALL science follows this principle. It is all testable, falsifiable, repeatable, predictable. Genetics (remember Mendal) and Evolution both adhere to this.
Creation Science does not. It is not in any way scientific. If it were you would be able to tell me something it produced. Your 'science' would be predictable you would be able to predict things based on it!
How do you explain the villages built in antiquity predating your young earth? Thousands of people labored for hundreds of years to build these villages. Every single form of dating independently dates them to 12k years ago.
Moreover, it seems that creation science only exists to put its point forward. It never makes any discoveries just piggy backs on the science you call false. What is creation science currently working on that will be testable, predictable, falsifiable and repeatable?
Negative on the dating methods these two articles should defuse your deniability to science:
ht tp : // w w w . ltrr . arizona . edu / dendrochronology . h t m l
ht tp : // w w w . ndt - ed . org / EducationResources / CommunityCollege / Radiography / Physics / carbondating . h t m
Furthermore anti-science man Polonium-Halos prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is young and not millions of years. It is Peer reviewed and consider a great find not that you care you will reject it.
@MumblingMickey What dating methods were used? I've seen several shows on the history channel that acknowledge that civilization started 5200 years ago. If your using radiometric dating as your evidence you need to actually research the problems associated with it and the huge margin of errors, they pick the dates that fit their paradigm.
@micah1116 well if its on the history channel then it must be true... (rolls eyes)
Civilization certainly did not start just 5,200 years ago since recorded history goes back further than that.
Narmer was the king of egypt in 3190bc and the Chinese were writing Jiahu symbols in 6600BC which is 3k years before that! So thats that idea out the window!
What research do I need to do? whose 'they?' What paradigm?
Finds like that are dated using several hundred dating methods.
@MumblingMickey Next ALL forms of radiometric dating carry two pieces of information. The first is the date that the items was dated to, the second is the deviation. That deviation is a further measure of how much it is physically possible for the measurement to be out by... for that reason the deviation obviously cannot be larger than the measurement.
Can it be faked? yes it can be... all experiments all tests.. can be faked, but that data won't stand up when the test is repeated.
@MumblingMickey The history channel and all media is wrong on many occasions. How did they determine that the jiahu symbols were from 6600BC? I'd like to see how they determine the ages of the things you are talking about. I personally believe the earth is between 6-10K years old, but closer to 6,000.
@micah1116 As I said... send off something to be carbon dated (you'll have to rely on carbon dating unless you possess something thats a few million years old)
Just make sure its reletively new (under 50k years old) and that you know with 100% confidence the date it died or stopped absorbing carbon... and that it wasn't subjected to a furnace or any other extraction method.
Thats all you need to do.
Now when you get the date back and its accurate...what will you do then?
@MumblingMickey I'll list a few assumptions that are used when carbon dating a sample. First they assume the amount of C14 in the atmosphere now was the same as when the organism lived. Secondly, they assume the rate of decay is constant. The man who invented carbon dating said that if the earth were more than 30,000 years old, C14 would be at equilbrium, and it's not!
@micah1116 No, the quantity of isotopes in the atmosphere is NOT assumed... the process for working that out is part of the calibration method. Not that C14 has changed much in the last 100k years anyway.
The rate of decay of carbon 14 to nitrogen 12 is constant... that rate of decay is 5,730±40. its not an assumption its an observed phenomena and also a mathematical universal constant.
The men who discovered carbon dating (Sam Ruben and Martin Kamen) said nothing of the sort.
@micah1116 As I said...this is really, really, really simple to validate... just pick something that can be carbon dated...and send it off to be carbon dated... thats how simple it is...
What could be easier?... you insist that its not a valid methodology... if you record each step of the process... and document it... then send away items to be dated and they all come back with the wrong date... then you will be literally a sensation over night with flocks of media outside your door!
@MumblingMickey So your saying that when you find soft tissue and blood cells inside a T rex bone, it's really just a rock? LOL! We do have dinosaur bones, and this individual sent in the bone, if there was no C14 in it, then why did it give a date at all? I'll show you the documentation if you wish. You mentioned a calibration curve, that's my entire point, your assuming! There are many examples of carbon dating being wildly off, and I can show you where the other methods are even worse.
@micah1116 And that blood cell story... (often repeated I might add)...wasn't soft tissue... and you can actually read the paper by the woman that discovered that online... it available to all... there wasn't any soft tissue... soft tissue can't last a hundred years...let alone thousand or millions.
It was fossilized.
In fact there are several different types of fossilization... you should read up on the actual science.
So yeah thats what I'm saying... Stop reading creationist junk.
@MumblingMickey So your saying that she lied when she talked about the soft tissue? If it wasn't soft tissue, then what was it? Here's a direct quote from her, from nat geo:
"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
@micah1116 Who lied? The woman (Mary Schweitzer ) who discovered the fossilised soft tissue in specimen MOR 1125 (thats what its called) said she had found fossilised soft tissue... now its only a fossil (albeit a chemical imprint not a rock one)
From this she could tell the T-rex was female and pregnant when it died.
Now the mechanism that allows for chemical fossilisation at such a small scale to leave individual cells and even proteins distinguishable is certainly unknown.
The other one...the allosaurus bone is a lesson in how to be bone headed, if you'll pardon the analogy!
A group of creationists claiming to be chemists turn up at the Carnegie museum looking for fossils for analysis... a paleontologist tells them that analysis would be a waste of time, since the fossils re on display, and as such have been subjected to preservation techniques, covered in shellac, and have many years of unknown polishes on them.
Later these very same creationist submit them (as you explained) anonymously to the Arizona states physics lab for c14 dating...
Again they are told by return that the samples can't be analysed since they are plainly contaminated and the results would be meaningless... they insist... so they get their wish.... after been told not once, but twice that the data would be useless, by independent experts and people who had no clue who they were!
@micah1116 Thats true, preservation at that level had not been seen before.
I'd guess that a lot of fossils on display have chemical processes which have fossilized and preserved not only the red blood cells, and not only proteins but its likely that some polymers that made up their dna are also recorded chemically.
You still won't be finding any carbon in there, its all been decayed to nitrogen... thats a process of nature. C14 has a half life...and thats unstoppable.
ConT. Look i thought you understood carbon dating? carbon dating requires 'carbon' to be present...carbon has a half life. Its is a mathematical universal constant. it doesn't speed up, or slow down and it has a deviation just like the speed of light, or gravity etc.
carbon is added to living things when alive through respiration and consumption but stops after they die and another natural process, radioactive decay...takes place.
Theres no known magical process that can stop that.
Now AIG will tell you there is no way of knowing 'how much' carbon was in the original animal...it might have been less or more...depending on the carbon in the atmosphere...and thats true...
But the differences in carbon 14 in the atmosphere rises or falls by a single percent in thousands of years....and thats part of the calibration anyway. its not like there was 10 times as much carbon 14.
Thats what would be needed to date something thats really 50k years as being only 10k yrs.
@micah1116 There WAS c14 and C12 and c13 in it... feom the fucking polish.... which is what the Carnegie museum uses on display artifacts ... in fact they are coated in shellac... and then sprayed with preservative...then bombarded with radiation...before being polished... thats almost more carbon than the bone had when it was inside the living dinosaur!
Which is what was explained to the customer before they took it from the museum... but they weren't listening...
@MumblingMickey Do you even know what the word 'preserved' means... when a paleontologist states that something has been preserved... they don't mean the actual soft tissue is still there... they mean that they managed to find blood or veins or some other 'soft' tissue other than bone that was fossilized.
Its very rare...but it does happen.... so there are even fossilized remains of leaves and single celled organisms.
Maybe you think there are only a few thousand fossils? Think again!
@MumblingMickey What are you talking about? Are you talking about the dinosar bone I mentioned? I'm not talking about a bone found in a museum, please clarify what your talking about
@micah1116 please, do yourself a favour. Send off a sample to be carbon dated and end this madness in your mind...
Only you will know the date... (ohh and obviously the guu in the lab after they date it, as if he could give a fuck about it)
$200 is not a lot of money to settle this in your mind for the rest of your life. At least you'll know how accurate c14 dating is... theres nothing like real evidence to sort that out.
@micah1116 In fact to be honest for the most part science and scientific labaratories and universities have sat back and sorta tken a back seat with creationist bullshit... they haven't bothered to get involved... why should they... its nothing to do with them...
But here you are believing their tripe... all you need to do is send off something you know to be 200 or 150 years old.
That'll settle it... no? yes? See how its easy to test? thats science for you... testable!
@micah1116 So this 'soft tissue' fossilization is important to you...because you think its actual soft tissue... which its not
but science thinks its important because it shows other things about this animal... from that t-rex bone we established that t-rex might be immune to cancer, also that it 'might' have been warm blooded... that it grey very quickly to adulthood.
Also that it had a good immune system and that it walked slowly and couldn't run after its prey...
@CONT. In your ignorance of the information (cos you won't read the actual source of the information, you insist on reading other peoples opinion of it.) you are missing the real information...
If I told you that I wanted to try to get a sample of plastic from a 12th century armchair would you advise me I'm wasting my time...
If I went on to try find it and found the armchair arrived coated in bubble wrap and I claimed it proved the armchair had plastic...what would you think of my analysis?
If you doubt its accuracy then radio carbon dating can be carried out for as little as $200.
So if I were you and I was basing my life on a belief that the world were only 5k years old... then it wouldn't hurt to find something old that you know the actual date of.
Try a piece of wood from some old furniture. Since antiques is the 'primary' use for carbon dating these days.
You'll be disappointed, but you will learn something. You'll learn that you are being lied to.
@MumblingMickey It's called radiometric dating, carbon dating is one of the methods used and there are many problems with it. If you would talk to me through PM or skype, I will gladly show you the many problems with it, I'm having problems with my headphones, so skype might not be the best option.
@MumblingMickey Ofcourse, any information that goes against your worldview, you don't want to see. I don't claim to be a scientist and the most informed person on carbon or any other element, but I do know how radiometric dating works and the problems associated with it.
@micah1116 No you do not know how radio carbon dating works... you even think that an 'imprint' is a bone.
Carbon dating can't work on rock. Fossils are not bones that turned into rock...they are literally imprints of the bone just like of you made a mold of a key and filled that mold with wax, the wax has no metal in it. And thus it cannot be tested for metal.
fossils are exactly the same... they are 'moldings' of the original.. there is no carbon in a fossil because these is no bone!
Theoretically if a large animal fell into some clay and lay on its side... then got up leaving a body imprint and walked away... If later that imprint was filled with mud from say a mudslide... if the mud then hardened and was covered. The rock imprint is now called a fossil.
Only carboniferous material can be carbon dated. Which is why rock can't be carbon dated... not because its too old... but because it doesn't 'and never did' contain any carbon.
You do realise that these samples were not tested at the outset because the laboratory informed the customer that they had been treated with preservation techniques, which would make 'any' radio dating technique totally meaningless.
The customer (CRSEF) 'insisted' on it being dated.
So they got the date for their erm... polishes and detritus but not obviously the fossils.
Not to mention the manner in which the samples were obtained!
@MumblingMickey Also, I can show you a document from Arizona state university where an individual sent in an allosaurus bone to be carbon dated, he didn't tell them what organism the bone belonged to. Sample A dated 9,890 years and sample B of the same bone dated 16,120 years. Now you have a conundrum, if you accept carbon dating, then the allosaurus didn't live 140 million years ago live evos say, and it shows how wildly off carbon dates can be from the same sample.
@micah1116 Fossils are not made of bone they are made of rock. There is no facility to carbon date rock its not like the tester can be fooled into doing it.
Rock cannot be carbon dated. Not because its too old but because it contains no carbon and therefore 'CAN'T' be carbon dated... the clue is in the name!
There is a 0% probability of sending a brick to somebody and they unwittingly put it in water and it floats... its not like they can be tricked into floating a brick...bricks don't float!
@micah1116 Fossils are not made of bone they are made of rock. There is no facility to carbon date rock. Its not like the tester can be fooled into doing it.
Rock cannot be carbon dated. Not because its too old but because it contains no carbon, the clue is in the name!
There is a 0% probability of sending a brick to somebody and they unwittingly put it in water and it floats.
Bricks don't float! They remain incapable of floating whether the tester thinks they can float or not!
@MumblingMickey How does evolution follow scientific rules? For one, it goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating: everything goes towards disorder. How is it testable, falsifiable, or repeatable. You can't even observe it. I can see how its predictable. Evolution is a giant prediction. Do you believe in the Big Bang then? Where did the matter come from to produce the Big bang? Evolution is flawed in so many other ways, how can you trust it? If the definition of a species is a... cont.
@MumblingMickey ... population that can only breed within its species, how do we get different species? If evolution happens because of mutations in a gene; have you ever seen a good mutation? How come their isn't links between a human and a monkey walking around? I grew up on a wheat farm and we seed new breeds of wheat all the time. Crop scientists are trying to get breeds of wheat that are durable to certain enviroments, herbicides, insects, etc. Of all the different breeds its all wheat.
@MumblingMickey Theres evolutionists that contradict with other evolutionists without knowing it, and they're constantly changing there beliefs on how this works or how that works. In my biology class, most of the kids are dozed out and not paying attention, their just agreeing. I don't blame them for dozin though, because its confusing, and doesn't make sense, and turns out to be boring.
@MrTmel123 yeah with over a million doctorates in biology granted every year there are certainly evolutionists that disagree.... there would be something wrong if they didn't... then again there are 100 physicists (doctorate level) in my university...and I can guarantee we all disagree on some point or other.
So your point is what? that science is in the process of discovery? that it's not absolute? well done... I think you might be getting the idea!
@MrTmel123 However as I said... real simple... just give an example of something produced based on creation science... it should be really easy. Whats the point in any discovery if it does not give rise to new innovation, discovery or invention?
So creation science produced what? Stop saying evolution is crap and demonstrate the opposite....one thing created, discovered or invented based on the discoveries of creation science please?
@MumblingMickey Dear God, I pray,with all my heart, that you will create a dog and put it before mumblingmickey's eyes so that he will believe. lol. Even though God could easily have done that, I imagine he won't (and I know why). Ok, I'm, by all means, not a scientist. I am only 19, not the brightest, and have a college GPA of about 2.6 maybe 7. So the fact that I can even debate this topic is sayin somethin. But, I do know what I believe and why I believe it...
@MrTmel123 We already have dogs... in fact y'know when they realise dogs are unacceptable to a new disease....well generally speaking the first port of call is all the animals related to dogs as a source... thats because the more closely related one species is to another...the more likely it is a virus or bacteria can cross the species barrier...
Of course since you don't understand any of that then you'd be left scratching your ass!
But the rest of us will continue to research the matter.
@MumblingMickey 2...I will only discuss this topic with you if you are ready to accept that you may be wrong. As far as myself, I am saturated with evolution all the time, since it is the only method taught in school. I am open to knew ideas. Evolution, so far, has not proved to be reasonable to me. I have talked with people (on youtube) before and the conversations always ended with them calling me a whole bunch of names, simply because they didn't want to accept my views. You have no need...
@MrTmel123 I have ...wait for it (you can take a look at my channel but that might of course also be bullcrap, even though its not)
Anyway I have a doctorate in applied classical physics, a degree in math, and I'm in the middle of a 4 yr degree in biotechnology.... so admitting I can be wrong is my very first instinct every day of the week for the past quarter century. You learn nothing from being right....you only learn new things from being wrong on occasion.
@MrTmel123 Next, I also have experience in conversing with creationists... I do not like ground rules...
But the block button is literally two clicks away....
I have no problem with your personal views... you can believe what you like... but just like the idea of democracy...their is 'opinion' and 'informed opinion'...and I have noticed a brick wall erected by creationists between those notions. Opinions with no knowledge are like assholes...everyone has one.
@MumblingMickey 3...to be intimidated by me. If I discuss this with you, I will try not to offend you in any way. I want to have a logical and rational discussion. I am called to love (brotherly love) unbelivers just as Jesus loved all of us. So, are you up for this or not?
@MrTmel123 I'm don't get intimidated.... If you were 43 years old and stood on a daily basis in front of several hundred knowledgeable morons with more hormones than knowledge you'd build a shell that protected you from such nonsense too!
So allow me to lay down my ground rules since you seem so determined to present yours. Even though I have an issue with those to begin with. They stifle education, and discovery...
CONT. BTW let me let you in on one of those 'atheist' or 'evolutionist' secrets that we discuss at all those atheist and 'evolutionist' meetings we have on sunday mornings while you are in church.
Atheists tend to be pedantic... I'm almost sure every atheist will confirm when I ask them if they have pubmed and wikipedia and nature open in separate tabs on their browser all the time.
Most if they are honest will agree they are information whores. It's what made most atheistic to begin with.
@MumblingMickey Oh yeah. When I said, "if you are ready to accept that you may be wrong", I'm not saying I want you to convert to a Christian on the spot. Whatever you choose to believe, I have no say in that. But for example: either of us could just end the conversation peacefully with, "Yeah, you got good points and you could possibly be right. Good talkin to ya."
@MrTmel123 " I'm not saying I want you to convert to a Christian on the spot. "
Given my education, job and family history that would be about as likely as aliens landing on the white house lawn for coffee and biscuits in the rose garden.
In the meantime off you go... please explain what issue you have with speciation....
@justforflag2 Or you could do as I always do. I turn the other cheek, then I pull out my Desert Eagle and blow the silly YEC's head off. *cute laughter*
@younhol00 nice to see almost a year later...and my comments are at the top of the list yours are the ones I was commenting on.
tell you what just pop along there and thumb down my comments...after all God needs people like you act unethically and to be immoral in his name. Go on I dare you!
You know you want to. Its immoral and unethical, but so what? or maybe I'm satan...enticing you to do wrong, you never know!
So what will your morality tell you to do? I'll be watching!
@MumblingMickey Way to set a milestone I bet is the only one congrats. How old are you?, like ten. Grow up Mickey, by the way the Law is in your heart just like the scriptures say way to pawn yourself genius.
@younhol00 really... others tend to disagree... funny that! Maybe whatever 'law' you think is in your heart...actaully resides in your mind... same body...different organ! And the bigger that god...the less room you have for other things like reason...what with all the 'law' and stuff in there!
@yakuann777 Lets not forget that the theory is not just based on Darwin's thoughts. The theory of evolution is based over multiple fields of science, ranging from physiology to genetic proof. We see proof in current day with even Wisdom teeth. Just because we do not see a "crocaduck" does not mean it does not happen.
jeremiahdrigg 1 day ago
It's not evolving its simply adapting to their habitat
EthanScottStenner 2 weeks ago
@EthanScottStenner ..... did you really just say that......
jeremiahdrigg 1 week ago
brilliant video
TheSpikeystuff 1 month ago
Very enjoyable thank you
clairebehun 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
chrispikeyp 1 month ago
Yes indeed, microevolution at work!
lorrainewands 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
chrispikeyp 1 month ago
A Salamander is still a Salamander. It may have different colors or more toes than other species but it's still a Salamander. It was never a worm and will never evolve into anything other than a Salamander.
bornagain001 3 months ago
@bornagain001 And what exactly is a non-salamander? That's non-scientific. Every time a new variation exists under the subclass Lissamphibia, creationists just say "oh that still looks like a salamander". Of course it does. What do you expect? A salamander to suddenly give rise to a bird?? And not to mention, salamander isn't even a scientific term. If you want to talk about classification, stick to the accepted KPCSO system.
Casshyr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr .... "What do you expect? A salamander to suddenly give rise to a bird?"
NO. Nor do I expect a fish to become a reptile, a reptile become a bird and an ape become a man.
bornagain001 2 months ago
@bornagain001 A chimp stil look like a human Thanks for admitting we are all apes!
MrThaPatrick 1 month ago
@MrThaPatrick ...chimps lack a soul...therefore they are not human. A SOUL is exclusive to men and women only. No other creature has one.
bornagain001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bornagain001 ''chimps lack a soul...therefore they are not human. A SOUL is exclusive to men and women only. No other creature has one'' Can you show me the evidence of a soul? no you can't! Or can you even explain to me what a soul is? Ah wait you can't! Now go some were else with your fairly tales! Okay?
MrThaPatrick 1 month ago
@bornagain001 theres no such thing as a soul but nice try
XGuynFc 1 month ago
@XGuynFc ...by WHAT AUTHORITY do you KNOW this to be true?
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 no authority, just common sense and acceptance of reality. by what authority do you know santa clause does not exist? he is just as fabricated as the idea of souls. i have nothing against belief, but saying something silly like only humans have souls is ridiculous. its such a blank statement.
XGuynFc 1 month ago
@XGuynFc ...common sense and acceptance of reality? How can common sense tells us what exists in the spiritual realm? Only God can tell us that...and since you don't want to talk to Him or read HIS book....your spiritual existence is one of darkness.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 the spiritual realm does not exist. and no i dont want to waste my time talking to nobody or reading a book written by simple humans.
XGuynFc 1 month ago
@XGuynFc ...by WHAT AUTHORITY do you known that the spiritual realm does not exist? Did you know that science books are written by simple humans?
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 why do i need authority? by what authority do you know that it does exist? and why does science have to be some sort of quasi opposite to spiritual belief? the bible was written in a simpler time when humanity was not very knowledgeable about the world and its surroundings. we are now so many years ahead and developed, with much more knowledge than before. if you like to question authority so much, what authority do the cavemen who wrote the bible have to direct me?
XGuynFc 1 month ago
@XGuynFc ...but you have an authority. IT'S YOURSELF. It doesn't matter that you have been wrong time after time in your life...you still continue to make poor decisions and this is just another one. Which caveman are you referring to who wrote the Bible? Matthew? He was employed by the GOVERNMENT as a Tax Collector. Luke? He was a PHYSICIAN. Peter? He was a fisherman so lived on the water most of his life. Paul? He too was a government employee. Help me out here about who was a caveman?
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 Actually chimps aren't human because we're seperate species. We can't interbreed. If we could then they would be a class of human. Or we would be a class of chim. Whichever takes your fancy.
AlishmcMalish 1 month ago
@AlishmcMalish *chimp even
AlishmcMalish 1 month ago
@AlishmcMalish ...100% CORRECT. Fish NEVER became reptiles. Reptiles never became birds and chimps never became man. We were CREATED seperately and are still that way today. There are highly intelligent people that are dumb as dirt when it comes to the MYTH of evolution.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 Is gravity a myth? We have more proof for evolution than we do gravity but you accept gravity is real. I am a missionary in China bu that does not mean I can not accept the truth that is evolution. By the way evolution does not say that man came from a chimpanzee, it says that we had a common ancestor. The same can be said about birds and reptiles. I implore you to understand more about evolution before you toss it to the side. It is no less a work of God.
jeremiahdrigg 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeremiahdrigg ...a missionary of WHAT? Not God's INFALLIBLE WORD because it clearly tells us GOD CREATED everything in 6 days. Ther Bible does not tell us that man EVOLVED. It tells us that GOD CREATED Adam and Eve. No wonder your work as a missionary is bearing NO FRUIT. Your own life is deceived.
bornagain001 1 week ago
@jeremiahdrigg @jeremiahdrigg we can observe and experiment on gravity but evolution is simply pseudoscience and no experiment can be done to prove thats why they have to introduce billions of years into this. the bible is the plain truth. God bless you in your missionary work.
yakuan777 4 days ago
Good video thanks, There is a good chapter about this in the excellent book, " The ancestor's Tale " by Richard Dawkins. He talks about how the salamanders of The Central Valley, California are a Ring species. There is hybridization all round the ring, except where the two ends of the line meet, in the far south of California. For more about Ring species try wikipedia
zytigon 4 months ago 2
I watched this in class. my teacher put it on and i thought it was very educational. great video
SamLynn93 5 months ago
@SamLynn93 ....type this in your YouTube search bar. Mutations - Evidence for Evolution?
bornagain001 4 months ago
This is a perfect example of evolution? Its still the same species. Its still a salamander. Yeah, there's all different colors of humans too. But were all humans. Same with cats and dogs, etc. When this salamander turns into a bird or whatever, let me know.
MrTmel123 5 months ago
@MrTmel123 The main point here is reproductive isolation, which has not occurred with humans and dogs. These two don't produce offspring that can survive, meaning two things: 1) they changed. Right? Or else they could interbreed. 2) Since we've admitted animals can change, it now stands to reason both will continue to change- but since they can't interbreed, they will change in separate, diverging directions.
I'm sure you could have figured that out if you had an open mind. You should try.
JuniusFaction 5 months ago
@MrTmel123 That's right.
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
Excellent, easy to understand (at least to me) specific example of evolution in action. Since it has taken roughly 10 million years so far in the speciation of the California salamander, I would not call this micro evolution. One of the harder ideas to understand with evolution is the time frames involved. Of course nobody living today has first handedly observed MACRO evolution, which takes millions and/or billions of years to happen, but we can follow the evidence. We'll get there!
dyoung0684 7 months ago
MICRO evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED WITHIN A SPECIES. MACRO evolution HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. A fish becoming a reptile. A reptile becoming a bird and a salamander becoming a cat has never been observed.
bornagain001 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bornagain001
LMAO! You thick cunt!
bluemoonrising26 7 months ago
@bornagain001 Try reading the section Axolotls tale in the good book, "The ancestor's tale " by Richard Dawkins. If Axolotls are treated with thyroxine they lose their gills and become dry land salamanders., just as their ancestors once did naturally. The key to deciding what is reality is cross referencing. Compare creation account in Genesis ch1 and see the order is different from Gen ch2. Look at fossils up mountains; life on earth is ancient. Bible=guesswork, it says Adam lived 4000BC.
zytigon 4 months ago
@bornagain001
if you mean speciation, yes it has.
pyr666 3 months ago
did speciation happen from the first single-celled organism made and then many different variations separate the species? is this right?
yukikohohoho 10 months ago
@yukikohohoho Single celled organisms and also viruses are a different kettle of fish compared to plants and multicelled animals...
It is possible for example for one single celled organism to steal genetic code from another species entirely... but that hasn't been observed between large muticelled organisms... not without gene therapy anyway...
so you can look at that two ways... every division of a single celled organism is a new species... or none are... lol
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@yukikohohoho Also its very unlikely there was a 'single' first cell which was the progenitor of all life. Just like all advents its more likely this happened a lot everywhere all at once.
To draw an analogy... who invented the first aircraft? Was it the Wright brothers? Bleriot? or was it just going to happen around the turn of the last century since it was the next logical step?
So it was a lot of first cells that couldn't vary too much given the chemistry and it was unlikely they used DNA.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
biology STUFFF lmfao! Wtchinnq it in class right now! :p very boring to mee! SORRY MR. KIM!!! WAMP WAMP WAMP.!!!!
ThePreTTyBoYsWaQQ 1 year ago
@ThePreTTyBoYsWaQQ
What grade are you in, dear?
librarylu 1 year ago 7
biology STUFFF lmfao! Wtchinnq it in class right now! :p
ThePreTTyBoYsWaQQ 1 year ago
Mayr's Biological Species Concept recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.
librarylu 1 year ago
Hmmm, variation within a species. Nothing new.
c1zx 1 year ago
10,000,000 in the California Redwood Forest you say? That is just ridiculous!!
bRadicalmagic1 1 year ago
what genus do these species belong to???
SupermanJT07 1 year ago
i dont want to troll but change in phenotype isnt speciation right?? its like saying asians and negros will become different species .... so how can this be an example of "instants of speciation" ?? i am confused =S
ahmology 1 year ago
@ahmology change in phenotype is one of the early steps in speciation. As a matter of fact, if Blacks and Asians NEVER interacted, then eventually, they would become separate species. But that would take an extremely long time. And it won't happen, because of immigration and transportation techniques.
BellaBrackeen 1 year ago
@ahmology well, actually, change in phenotype, if it changes the organism enough will result in specialization and yes, if the current ability for humans to travel to one spot on the globe to another so fast then asians, negros... everyone... may have ended up as different species.
demondim5 11 months ago
@demondim5 There are greyt areas in the idea of speciation... for exmaple lions are a species... tigers are a species... ligers (lion / tiger cross) are theoretically a new species... or would be if they could breed well within their own group but although they are not completely sterile it would be unlikely they could continue to breed for too many generations.
There's no line in the sand, its more blurred lines with absolutes on either side. I think Haldane's rule is basically the rule!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
I went backpacking and I found that black salamander with an orange underside
AtomicExplosion95695 1 year ago
Is it just me or does he look like Richard Dawkins?
BLUEC0RE 1 year ago
What kind of Speciation is this an example of? I'm going to use this video as part of my my science project presentation and need to know when to use it. Is it Allopatric, Sympatric, Peripatric.....?
elckicker 1 year ago
@elckicker
I would say Allopatric, but think "ring species". More here (remove the spaces):
actionbioscience . org / evolution / irwin . html
librarylu 1 year ago
@librarylu Question for you since you posted this video. How does speciation cause an organism to evolve into another phylum of life that is structurally different? Speciation doesn't change the morphology(form and structure) of an organism. What structures are different between the species of lizards shown? How can changes to color,shape, or size cause a fish to evolve into an amphibian tetrapod. Evolution falls flat on it's face.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
Genetic drift. Mutation, mutation, mutation. Location, location location.
Don't I know you from somewhere? AOL boards? There's nothing wrong with evolution, but creationists are a waste of my time.
librarylu 1 year ago
@librarylu The past 70 years of genetic experiments to do this very thing have proven that mutation can't change the morphology of an organism, even deformities are corrected within 1 to several generations due to DNA recombination. DNA recombination is a literal error correcting system. Do you have any examples of where mutations have causes structural change to an organism? There has never been such a case in the laboratory or in nature, it's biologically impossible.
donnasue509 1 year ago
@donnasue509
So you're saying E. coli hasn't become F.coli in the lab yet? From which creationist site are you getting this nonsense?
The repair process doesn't always work and when it doesn't the mutations become permanent. The genes for the repair enzymes can become mutated and then the mistakes accumulate at a much higher rate.
Try reading DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation
By: Leslie A. Pray, Ph.D. © 2008 Nature Education
You may find it more accurate than AiG.
librarylu 1 year ago
@donnasue509 Care to cite the source of this claim? Try looking at fish in Lake Washington or Mexican tetra(I hope you love that one).
HybridD91 1 year ago
@micah1116 these aren't lizards...they are amphibians... and they will always be amphibians...just like dinosaurs were always dinosaurs, and currently still are dinosaurs.... just that now we call them birds!
And thats what birds are... light, feathery, toothless dinosaurs...(although many dinosaurs had feathers, and many had hollow bone structures)....
Birds are still 'locked' into that line..and they are 'still just dinosaurs' even if they look a little different.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT. next the word dinosaur...is a classification given in the 18th century... it covered a huge swath of animals ....
in that classification there were dinosaurs with hollow bones, and ones with solid bones, ones with bird hips...and ones without.... it would probably more accurate to reclassify them into several super orders under 'reptilia'...or even outside 'reptilia'
There is even some discussion as to whether they were reptiles, since many were warm blooded, a property no reptile has.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is warm blooded. So is the Great White shark, well, it is slightly.
gamesbok 9 months ago
@gamesbok yeah but the leatherback is not only unique among reptiles but also all endotherms because it achieves homeostasis by moving all the time... if they stop or slow down...then they cool down and die!
So in this case endothermy is achieved by the excess heat given off from muscles constantly working. Which is not really a metabolic control of internal heat.
Sharks are ectothermic.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey
An unusual characteristic the white sharks (shared by other mackerel sharks and thresher sharks, Family Alopiiidae) is the ability to maintain parts of their body (swimming muscles, stomach, and brain) at temperatures above that of the surrounding water, which classifies them as endothermic or warm-blooded, like mammals.
Cyrtodactylus tibetanus, Tebetian Gekko survive the 4.4° C (40° F) and cooler nights, while maintaining their 10° C (50° F) body temperatures,
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok I'm pretty sure all animals with muscle operate those muscles at temperatures above the external temperature... it'd be hard for them to do otherwise...
Isn't the ability of endotherms generally reliant on mitochondria? ie. Below a certain level the mitochondria aren't numerous enough to provide heat for the entire mass of the organism... which is what then classifys it as an ectotherm?
or am I just being picky in a grey area?
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey I'm not sure 'ectotherm' is much of a distinguishing feature. I mean bees get warmed up in the morning by de-clutching their wings and having a good rev-up.
I don't know enough about mitochondra, but I think for mamals it's got something to do with brown adipose, brown fat deposits. I believe it's one of those subjects which is so full of exceptions and compromise that it disolves on inspection. In cold environment I'd avoid altitude, eat fats, wrap in furs, light fire, exerc
gamesbok 8 months ago
Lovely specimens, but I do not see any actual speciation occurring. The current definition of speciation is defined as reproductive isolation and that definition is debatable. The phenotype of the salamanders has adapted to their individual environments, but their genotype has remained intact. No change in the genotype means no mutation has occurred. The phenotypic variations are merely epigenetic, not evolutionary.
mizckd 1 year ago
@mizckd Speciation is very gradual. Organisms will give birth to severely defective offspring before they become 100% separate. This is almost never observed simply because the organisms would live in drastically different environments and they wouldn't interact with eachother. (The reason they are changing in the first place.)
bouiglob 1 year ago
@mizckd There has been change in their genes. Genes are, by the definition, units of heredity that define how an individual looks like. So, if a salamander looks different than another salamander, there has been a change in genes. Oh, and by the way, horses and donkeys are different species, and they can breed. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelming, that it is pointless to debate it. It has nothing to do with religion, there are plenty of religious people that accept it.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94 I am well aware of what a gene is as well as the mechanics involved in heredity. Differences in individual's via heredity are not examples of evolution. If you have brown hair and one of your parents is a blonde you have not evolved. The genes have not "changed". Many animals of separate species can reproduce, but the offspring are sterile. Hence they are still reproductively isolated as they cannot create future generational lines through the mixing of genetic material.
mizckd 1 year ago
@JUANMO94 The theory of evolution is a good workable theory. However, I would not limit my pursuit of knowledge by claiming one theory already had all of the answers. Epigenetics does not conflict with the theory of evolution. It is merely another piece of the puzzle. The above examples of salamanders are still not examples of speciation. They are naturally occuring variations within the same species. Ex: poodles and Great Danes.
mizckd 1 year ago
@mizckd Oh so you do accept the theory of evolution?
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@mizckd Its pretty clear that genetic mutation is not the 'be all and end all' of phenomena selected for.
And example of this can be seen in 'farm foxes' where the animals were specifically chosen for their 'tameness' yet that 'choice' also inadvertently resulted in changes in color.
The changes were brought on by the animals now producing different hormones... as a result of their brain chemistry. Just as humans could change their morphology using hormone injections.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@JUANMO94 evolution works in a way where a mutation does not change the affected gene, but creates a new allele. Therefore, a variation of that gene.
BellaBrackeen 1 year ago
@mizckd When they cannot interbreed together to produce viable offspring then there is no debate...they are a different species. There are 'debates' around the grey areas... however 'no inability to produce offspring' is well outside the debating arena.
Next there are alterations clearly visible in the genomes (See D. Wake UC Berkley) of these different ring species. So this change is a result of mutation favored by selection and not epigenetic.
ie. yep they are different species all right.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@mizckd I would have thought the same phenotypes could breed. Some sort of mutation that is replicated in the offspring must have occured, I would have thought.
gamesbok 8 months ago
Comment removed
erycmoss 1 year ago
Comment removed
erycmoss 1 year ago
Comment removed
erycmoss 1 year ago
NICE!
I have heard about this wonderful example of speciation, but I've never seen how the salamndras looked before.
IsraeliAdamRusso 2 years ago
Erm.... why do creationists end up on vids like this and then start commenting stupidly... I have no care in the world for their 'flat earth' mentality and therefore avoid creationist bullshit...
Lately they have become more desperate though... obviously the advent of social media has taught some of them stuff they shouldn't know... and they are desperately pluggin up the holes in their story! lol...
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
younhol00 2 years ago
So you think that creation science is the inventor of Babbages first computer?
You do of course realize WHEN this machine (which is in the Royal Museum) was built don't you?
Are you certain you are not choosing individuals who were theist as the inventors? In which case Charles Darwin should be on the list... along with Adolf Hitler!
I'm a computational theorist and a physicist btw... so science I know a shit load about!
Idiot!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
You will also know a little about all of these subjects then having read all those books... I've read a few of them... many years ago... and most if not all whack the shit out of your crazy religion!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Newton was a Deist... And a theologan... he never heard of creation science since he died in the 1720's!
Gregor Mendal... was an Augustinian catholic monk... and produced the laws of segregation and inheritance! evolutionary genetics...
Faraday was a member of a small sect which was not in the slightest part of the creationist movement!
You have Fleming there simply because he set up the anti evolutionist movement .
You my friend would have us banging rocks to make fire....
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Cry me a river you turd, don't you understand what a creationists is, that is one who believes in the Creation. Creation is attribute it to one who believes in God whether they worship him or not is different. Catholics, baptists, or what have you believes in Creation, if you hate God so much and believes science is evolutionism well I can't change your mind you hater. Pity a bullet didn't hit me ha so much tolerance you stinking anti thought, anti- freedom of speech what else is new.
younhol00 2 years ago
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent BeingAll variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
God in the beginning formed matter.
Newton
Whether he was a Catholic, Anglican, or whatever He recognize That God Created all things, Newton was an instrument in understanding the Creation.
younhol00 2 years ago
Oddly My GF sitting beside me... is a catholic... and she is laughing her ass off at your crazy notions... so since she has no belief in dinosaurs running about 6.000 yrs ago... or crazy floods or other bullshit...
Is she also a creationist?
So...in short... fuck off and leave the room...Adults are talking!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
By the way cry baby do you know all catholics, if you don't can you say for certain they don't believe the same way as your ignorant girl, I am willing to bet she's just as ignorant as you. Get out get some fresh air and give the rest of humanity, history, and science a shot is way different than believing in metaphysics such as evolutionism.
younhol00 2 years ago
Well I do live in a country that is 88% catholic... and yes most couldn't give a flying fuck. How do I know that, simple math
Quantity of Churches X Seats Available = Capacity
Claimed weekly Patronage = 4 Million
And Capacity even though its less than 1 million is never achieved!
Same applies in the US! Capacity is less than the claimed patronage..
That ignorant Girl btw has a father who left the church to get married. So she is quiet acquainted with the crazyness of the bibles scribblings!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Metaphysics btw is a distinct philosophy... it does not include any of the classic sciences... you should learn a little more.
Ignorance also has a definition... that definition is as follows:
Ignorance:the lack of knowledge or education
SOURCE: Princeton University
Happy to say I suffer from neither! I'm very well educated... So who can we apply that definition to then? hmmmmmm
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@younhol00 Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok He wasn't known for his suffrage of religion napoleon... he also mentioned that it was only religion which prevented the poor from murdering the rich! lol...
I'd tend to go along with that.... to be poor and irreligious would certainly result in a lot of malevolent discontent! Just as well the poorest are also the most religious.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey Being poor and religious did have the overwhelming advantage of not being burnt as a witch.
There is a wonderful hypothesis that says the periodic witch burning frenzies, including Salem, all occur in years of very wet springs. The ensuing ergotamine, especially on Rye and other cerials would gurantee trippy experiences. I'm sure that the fact that the majority of victims were defenceless widows who just happened to occupy valuable land was coincidence.
gamesbok 8 months ago
I asked you what Creation Science had given the world... you can check out their address here
>4355 J Cobb Parkway, PMB 218, Atlanta, Georgia 30339-3887
That crowd of money grabbing wasters have given the world nothing whatsoever...
Most current scientists are theist... that does not make them creationists... are you on a 'mormon' bent now... where anyone who believes in a God is counted as a creationist? Wow... well I eat cereal... so do Chinese people... am I Chinese? Twat!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Retard take your emotions somewhere else, If you wish to talk about the merits of the video great, otherwise take your anti-science, anti-liberty, anti-thought, God denier self somewhere else. I love always to beat the drums of your conscious wish kills you every day letting you know there is a Creator and Master of the Universe which you will bow and give an account of all the stupid, and rejection towards Him and science, take a Hike.
younhol00 2 years ago
Science obeys rules, those rules are laid down very carefully to ensure the least amount of bullshit fallacy enters the equation. ALL science follows this principle. It is all testable, falsifiable, repeatable, predictable. Genetics (remember Mendal) and Evolution both adhere to this.
Creation Science does not. It is not in any way scientific. If it were you would be able to tell me something it produced. Your 'science' would be predictable you would be able to predict things based on it!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago 8
How do you explain the villages built in antiquity predating your young earth? Thousands of people labored for hundreds of years to build these villages. Every single form of dating independently dates them to 12k years ago.
Moreover, it seems that creation science only exists to put its point forward. It never makes any discoveries just piggy backs on the science you call false. What is creation science currently working on that will be testable, predictable, falsifiable and repeatable?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago 10
Negative on the dating methods these two articles should defuse your deniability to science:
ht tp : // w w w . ltrr . arizona . edu / dendrochronology . h t m l
ht tp : // w w w . ndt - ed . org / EducationResources / CommunityCollege / Radiography / Physics / carbondating . h t m
Furthermore anti-science man Polonium-Halos prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is young and not millions of years. It is Peer reviewed and consider a great find not that you care you will reject it.
younhol00 2 years ago
@MumblingMickey What dating methods were used? I've seen several shows on the history channel that acknowledge that civilization started 5200 years ago. If your using radiometric dating as your evidence you need to actually research the problems associated with it and the huge margin of errors, they pick the dates that fit their paradigm.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 well if its on the history channel then it must be true... (rolls eyes)
Civilization certainly did not start just 5,200 years ago since recorded history goes back further than that.
Narmer was the king of egypt in 3190bc and the Chinese were writing Jiahu symbols in 6600BC which is 3k years before that! So thats that idea out the window!
What research do I need to do? whose 'they?' What paradigm?
Finds like that are dated using several hundred dating methods.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Next ALL forms of radiometric dating carry two pieces of information. The first is the date that the items was dated to, the second is the deviation. That deviation is a further measure of how much it is physically possible for the measurement to be out by... for that reason the deviation obviously cannot be larger than the measurement.
Can it be faked? yes it can be... all experiments all tests.. can be faked, but that data won't stand up when the test is repeated.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey The history channel and all media is wrong on many occasions. How did they determine that the jiahu symbols were from 6600BC? I'd like to see how they determine the ages of the things you are talking about. I personally believe the earth is between 6-10K years old, but closer to 6,000.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 As I said... send off something to be carbon dated (you'll have to rely on carbon dating unless you possess something thats a few million years old)
Just make sure its reletively new (under 50k years old) and that you know with 100% confidence the date it died or stopped absorbing carbon... and that it wasn't subjected to a furnace or any other extraction method.
Thats all you need to do.
Now when you get the date back and its accurate...what will you do then?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey I'll list a few assumptions that are used when carbon dating a sample. First they assume the amount of C14 in the atmosphere now was the same as when the organism lived. Secondly, they assume the rate of decay is constant. The man who invented carbon dating said that if the earth were more than 30,000 years old, C14 would be at equilbrium, and it's not!
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 No, the quantity of isotopes in the atmosphere is NOT assumed... the process for working that out is part of the calibration method. Not that C14 has changed much in the last 100k years anyway.
The rate of decay of carbon 14 to nitrogen 12 is constant... that rate of decay is 5,730±40. its not an assumption its an observed phenomena and also a mathematical universal constant.
The men who discovered carbon dating (Sam Ruben and Martin Kamen) said nothing of the sort.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 As I said...this is really, really, really simple to validate... just pick something that can be carbon dated...and send it off to be carbon dated... thats how simple it is...
What could be easier?... you insist that its not a valid methodology... if you record each step of the process... and document it... then send away items to be dated and they all come back with the wrong date... then you will be literally a sensation over night with flocks of media outside your door!
Try it.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey So your saying that when you find soft tissue and blood cells inside a T rex bone, it's really just a rock? LOL! We do have dinosaur bones, and this individual sent in the bone, if there was no C14 in it, then why did it give a date at all? I'll show you the documentation if you wish. You mentioned a calibration curve, that's my entire point, your assuming! There are many examples of carbon dating being wildly off, and I can show you where the other methods are even worse.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 And that blood cell story... (often repeated I might add)...wasn't soft tissue... and you can actually read the paper by the woman that discovered that online... it available to all... there wasn't any soft tissue... soft tissue can't last a hundred years...let alone thousand or millions.
It was fossilized.
In fact there are several different types of fossilization... you should read up on the actual science.
So yeah thats what I'm saying... Stop reading creationist junk.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey So your saying that she lied when she talked about the soft tissue? If it wasn't soft tissue, then what was it? Here's a direct quote from her, from nat geo:
"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Who lied? The woman (Mary Schweitzer ) who discovered the fossilised soft tissue in specimen MOR 1125 (thats what its called) said she had found fossilised soft tissue... now its only a fossil (albeit a chemical imprint not a rock one)
From this she could tell the T-rex was female and pregnant when it died.
Now the mechanism that allows for chemical fossilisation at such a small scale to leave individual cells and even proteins distinguishable is certainly unknown.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT. B
The other one...the allosaurus bone is a lesson in how to be bone headed, if you'll pardon the analogy!
A group of creationists claiming to be chemists turn up at the Carnegie museum looking for fossils for analysis... a paleontologist tells them that analysis would be a waste of time, since the fossils re on display, and as such have been subjected to preservation techniques, covered in shellac, and have many years of unknown polishes on them.
But they ask for samples anyway.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT. c.
Later these very same creationist submit them (as you explained) anonymously to the Arizona states physics lab for c14 dating...
Again they are told by return that the samples can't be analysed since they are plainly contaminated and the results would be meaningless... they insist... so they get their wish.... after been told not once, but twice that the data would be useless, by independent experts and people who had no clue who they were!
Thats creationists and science for you!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 Thats true, preservation at that level had not been seen before.
I'd guess that a lot of fossils on display have chemical processes which have fossilized and preserved not only the red blood cells, and not only proteins but its likely that some polymers that made up their dna are also recorded chemically.
You still won't be finding any carbon in there, its all been decayed to nitrogen... thats a process of nature. C14 has a half life...and thats unstoppable.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
ConT. Look i thought you understood carbon dating? carbon dating requires 'carbon' to be present...carbon has a half life. Its is a mathematical universal constant. it doesn't speed up, or slow down and it has a deviation just like the speed of light, or gravity etc.
carbon is added to living things when alive through respiration and consumption but stops after they die and another natural process, radioactive decay...takes place.
Theres no known magical process that can stop that.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT. 2
Now AIG will tell you there is no way of knowing 'how much' carbon was in the original animal...it might have been less or more...depending on the carbon in the atmosphere...and thats true...
But the differences in carbon 14 in the atmosphere rises or falls by a single percent in thousands of years....and thats part of the calibration anyway. its not like there was 10 times as much carbon 14.
Thats what would be needed to date something thats really 50k years as being only 10k yrs.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 There WAS c14 and C12 and c13 in it... feom the fucking polish.... which is what the Carnegie museum uses on display artifacts ... in fact they are coated in shellac... and then sprayed with preservative...then bombarded with radiation...before being polished... thats almost more carbon than the bone had when it was inside the living dinosaur!
Which is what was explained to the customer before they took it from the museum... but they weren't listening...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Do you even know what the word 'preserved' means... when a paleontologist states that something has been preserved... they don't mean the actual soft tissue is still there... they mean that they managed to find blood or veins or some other 'soft' tissue other than bone that was fossilized.
Its very rare...but it does happen.... so there are even fossilized remains of leaves and single celled organisms.
Maybe you think there are only a few thousand fossils? Think again!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey What are you talking about? Are you talking about the dinosar bone I mentioned? I'm not talking about a bone found in a museum, please clarify what your talking about
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 please, do yourself a favour. Send off a sample to be carbon dated and end this madness in your mind...
Only you will know the date... (ohh and obviously the guu in the lab after they date it, as if he could give a fuck about it)
$200 is not a lot of money to settle this in your mind for the rest of your life. At least you'll know how accurate c14 dating is... theres nothing like real evidence to sort that out.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 In fact to be honest for the most part science and scientific labaratories and universities have sat back and sorta tken a back seat with creationist bullshit... they haven't bothered to get involved... why should they... its nothing to do with them...
But here you are believing their tripe... all you need to do is send off something you know to be 200 or 150 years old.
That'll settle it... no? yes? See how its easy to test? thats science for you... testable!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 So this 'soft tissue' fossilization is important to you...because you think its actual soft tissue... which its not
but science thinks its important because it shows other things about this animal... from that t-rex bone we established that t-rex might be immune to cancer, also that it 'might' have been warm blooded... that it grey very quickly to adulthood.
Also that it had a good immune system and that it walked slowly and couldn't run after its prey...
Read the actual paper.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@CONT. In your ignorance of the information (cos you won't read the actual source of the information, you insist on reading other peoples opinion of it.) you are missing the real information...
If I told you that I wanted to try to get a sample of plastic from a 12th century armchair would you advise me I'm wasting my time...
If I went on to try find it and found the armchair arrived coated in bubble wrap and I claimed it proved the armchair had plastic...what would you think of my analysis?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116
If you doubt its accuracy then radio carbon dating can be carried out for as little as $200.
So if I were you and I was basing my life on a belief that the world were only 5k years old... then it wouldn't hurt to find something old that you know the actual date of.
Try a piece of wood from some old furniture. Since antiques is the 'primary' use for carbon dating these days.
You'll be disappointed, but you will learn something. You'll learn that you are being lied to.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey It's called radiometric dating, carbon dating is one of the methods used and there are many problems with it. If you would talk to me through PM or skype, I will gladly show you the many problems with it, I'm having problems with my headphones, so skype might not be the best option.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 I think I know at this stage what radiometric dating is. But thanks for the offer to help me in that field.
And seriously, no disrespect but I doubt very much you'd be teaching me very much about carbon... have you seen my channel?
Tell me... have you any confidence in Joo Seok Oh's extrusion methodology for entangled carbon nanotubes... lol
Seriously.... talk with you about carbon?... wtf? the irony of it... thats a friggin classic
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Ofcourse, any information that goes against your worldview, you don't want to see. I don't claim to be a scientist and the most informed person on carbon or any other element, but I do know how radiometric dating works and the problems associated with it.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 No you do not know how radio carbon dating works... you even think that an 'imprint' is a bone.
Carbon dating can't work on rock. Fossils are not bones that turned into rock...they are literally imprints of the bone just like of you made a mold of a key and filled that mold with wax, the wax has no metal in it. And thus it cannot be tested for metal.
fossils are exactly the same... they are 'moldings' of the original.. there is no carbon in a fossil because these is no bone!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Cont.
Theoretically if a large animal fell into some clay and lay on its side... then got up leaving a body imprint and walked away... If later that imprint was filled with mud from say a mudslide... if the mud then hardened and was covered. The rock imprint is now called a fossil.
Only carboniferous material can be carbon dated. Which is why rock can't be carbon dated... not because its too old... but because it doesn't 'and never did' contain any carbon.
Seriously...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT.
Lastly I done a little research on this subject.
You do realise that these samples were not tested at the outset because the laboratory informed the customer that they had been treated with preservation techniques, which would make 'any' radio dating technique totally meaningless.
The customer (CRSEF) 'insisted' on it being dated.
So they got the date for their erm... polishes and detritus but not obviously the fossils.
Not to mention the manner in which the samples were obtained!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Also, I can show you a document from Arizona state university where an individual sent in an allosaurus bone to be carbon dated, he didn't tell them what organism the bone belonged to. Sample A dated 9,890 years and sample B of the same bone dated 16,120 years. Now you have a conundrum, if you accept carbon dating, then the allosaurus didn't live 140 million years ago live evos say, and it shows how wildly off carbon dates can be from the same sample.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Fossils are not made of bone they are made of rock. There is no facility to carbon date rock its not like the tester can be fooled into doing it.
Rock cannot be carbon dated. Not because its too old but because it contains no carbon and therefore 'CAN'T' be carbon dated... the clue is in the name!
There is a 0% probability of sending a brick to somebody and they unwittingly put it in water and it floats... its not like they can be tricked into floating a brick...bricks don't float!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@micah1116 Fossils are not made of bone they are made of rock. There is no facility to carbon date rock. Its not like the tester can be fooled into doing it.
Rock cannot be carbon dated. Not because its too old but because it contains no carbon, the clue is in the name!
There is a 0% probability of sending a brick to somebody and they unwittingly put it in water and it floats.
Bricks don't float! They remain incapable of floating whether the tester thinks they can float or not!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Man, Mickey, you mumble a lot! ;D
XVIagent 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey How does evolution follow scientific rules? For one, it goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating: everything goes towards disorder. How is it testable, falsifiable, or repeatable. You can't even observe it. I can see how its predictable. Evolution is a giant prediction. Do you believe in the Big Bang then? Where did the matter come from to produce the Big bang? Evolution is flawed in so many other ways, how can you trust it? If the definition of a species is a... cont.
MrTmel123 5 months ago
@MumblingMickey ... population that can only breed within its species, how do we get different species? If evolution happens because of mutations in a gene; have you ever seen a good mutation? How come their isn't links between a human and a monkey walking around? I grew up on a wheat farm and we seed new breeds of wheat all the time. Crop scientists are trying to get breeds of wheat that are durable to certain enviroments, herbicides, insects, etc. Of all the different breeds its all wheat.
MrTmel123 5 months ago
@MumblingMickey Theres evolutionists that contradict with other evolutionists without knowing it, and they're constantly changing there beliefs on how this works or how that works. In my biology class, most of the kids are dozed out and not paying attention, their just agreeing. I don't blame them for dozin though, because its confusing, and doesn't make sense, and turns out to be boring.
MrTmel123 5 months ago
@MrTmel123 yeah with over a million doctorates in biology granted every year there are certainly evolutionists that disagree.... there would be something wrong if they didn't... then again there are 100 physicists (doctorate level) in my university...and I can guarantee we all disagree on some point or other.
So your point is what? that science is in the process of discovery? that it's not absolute? well done... I think you might be getting the idea!
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 However as I said... real simple... just give an example of something produced based on creation science... it should be really easy. Whats the point in any discovery if it does not give rise to new innovation, discovery or invention?
So creation science produced what? Stop saying evolution is crap and demonstrate the opposite....one thing created, discovered or invented based on the discoveries of creation science please?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey Dear God, I pray,with all my heart, that you will create a dog and put it before mumblingmickey's eyes so that he will believe. lol. Even though God could easily have done that, I imagine he won't (and I know why). Ok, I'm, by all means, not a scientist. I am only 19, not the brightest, and have a college GPA of about 2.6 maybe 7. So the fact that I can even debate this topic is sayin somethin. But, I do know what I believe and why I believe it...
MrTmel123 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 We already have dogs... in fact y'know when they realise dogs are unacceptable to a new disease....well generally speaking the first port of call is all the animals related to dogs as a source... thats because the more closely related one species is to another...the more likely it is a virus or bacteria can cross the species barrier...
Of course since you don't understand any of that then you'd be left scratching your ass!
But the rest of us will continue to research the matter.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey 2...I will only discuss this topic with you if you are ready to accept that you may be wrong. As far as myself, I am saturated with evolution all the time, since it is the only method taught in school. I am open to knew ideas. Evolution, so far, has not proved to be reasonable to me. I have talked with people (on youtube) before and the conversations always ended with them calling me a whole bunch of names, simply because they didn't want to accept my views. You have no need...
MrTmel123 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 I have ...wait for it (you can take a look at my channel but that might of course also be bullcrap, even though its not)
Anyway I have a doctorate in applied classical physics, a degree in math, and I'm in the middle of a 4 yr degree in biotechnology.... so admitting I can be wrong is my very first instinct every day of the week for the past quarter century. You learn nothing from being right....you only learn new things from being wrong on occasion.
Even then you should check.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 Next, I also have experience in conversing with creationists... I do not like ground rules...
But the block button is literally two clicks away....
I have no problem with your personal views... you can believe what you like... but just like the idea of democracy...their is 'opinion' and 'informed opinion'...and I have noticed a brick wall erected by creationists between those notions. Opinions with no knowledge are like assholes...everyone has one.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey 3...to be intimidated by me. If I discuss this with you, I will try not to offend you in any way. I want to have a logical and rational discussion. I am called to love (brotherly love) unbelivers just as Jesus loved all of us. So, are you up for this or not?
MrTmel123 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 I'm don't get intimidated.... If you were 43 years old and stood on a daily basis in front of several hundred knowledgeable morons with more hormones than knowledge you'd build a shell that protected you from such nonsense too!
So allow me to lay down my ground rules since you seem so determined to present yours. Even though I have an issue with those to begin with. They stifle education, and discovery...
CONT.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MrTmel123
1. Do not post facts that are not factual. (this might require some research)
2. Do not post your personal opinion without supporting it.
3. Do not copy and paste without quotes and the source.
4. Do not get out of your depth... it ruins the conversation.
5. Stick to the subject or supporting facts of the subject (in this case speciation)
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
CONT. BTW let me let you in on one of those 'atheist' or 'evolutionist' secrets that we discuss at all those atheist and 'evolutionist' meetings we have on sunday mornings while you are in church.
Atheists tend to be pedantic... I'm almost sure every atheist will confirm when I ask them if they have pubmed and wikipedia and nature open in separate tabs on their browser all the time.
Most if they are honest will agree they are information whores. It's what made most atheistic to begin with.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey Oh yeah. When I said, "if you are ready to accept that you may be wrong", I'm not saying I want you to convert to a Christian on the spot. Whatever you choose to believe, I have no say in that. But for example: either of us could just end the conversation peacefully with, "Yeah, you got good points and you could possibly be right. Good talkin to ya."
MrTmel123 4 months ago
@MrTmel123 " I'm not saying I want you to convert to a Christian on the spot. "
Given my education, job and family history that would be about as likely as aliens landing on the white house lawn for coffee and biscuits in the rose garden.
In the meantime off you go... please explain what issue you have with speciation....
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Good to see that the supposed creator of the universe has idiots like you to fight his battles.
You don't know the first thing about the process of science.
Aaberg123 2 years ago 3
Should I turn the other cheek?
justforflag2 2 years ago
@justforflag2 Or you could do as I always do. I turn the other cheek, then I pull out my Desert Eagle and blow the silly YEC's head off. *cute laughter*
CalicoVall 2 years ago
Modern Warfare 2 much? :D
Cute laughter = Bowser laughter (in my world).
Bua. Ha. Ha.
justforflag2 2 years ago
@younhol00 nice to see almost a year later...and my comments are at the top of the list yours are the ones I was commenting on.
tell you what just pop along there and thumb down my comments...after all God needs people like you act unethically and to be immoral in his name. Go on I dare you!
You know you want to. Its immoral and unethical, but so what? or maybe I'm satan...enticing you to do wrong, you never know!
So what will your morality tell you to do? I'll be watching!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Way to set a milestone I bet is the only one congrats. How old are you?, like ten. Grow up Mickey, by the way the Law is in your heart just like the scriptures say way to pawn yourself genius.
younhol00 1 year ago
@younhol00 really... others tend to disagree... funny that! Maybe whatever 'law' you think is in your heart...actaully resides in your mind... same body...different organ! And the bigger that god...the less room you have for other things like reason...what with all the 'law' and stuff in there!
Maybe a spot of spring cleaning is called for?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago