If evolution doesn't happen, then anti-viral vaccines and anti-bacterial drugs don't work.
If evolution doesn't happen, then all those experiments where actual speciation took place in laboratory environments also didn't happen.
If evolution doesn't happen, I wouldn't have an appendix or a tailbone.
Why would anyone deny facts and well-documented occurrences just to try to maintain the claimed veracity of a 2000 year-old book of religious fairy tales?
Just for the sake if stating a point, Darwin said and I quote "The intricacies of the human eye make me break out in a cold sweat" further more ten's of thousands of optical cords HAVE to connect to their EXACT connection to the brain if even one is off the eye will cease to function. Now not to start a fight I would also like to state that one of Darwin's death bed wishes was that if no concrete evidence was found to support his theory within 50 years it should be null and void, and as far as
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (continued)
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; (continued)
and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; (continued)
@DJohnson899 but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
To people who are saying "its only a theory", there is a difference between the scientific definition of word theory and the colloquial sense of the word. Social definition of theory, the colloquial definition, is a hypothesis or speculation that doesnt have to be based on facts or testable observation. The scientific definition of theory is more rigorous, its based on facts and testable predictions. In science a current theory is 1 that has no other equally acceptable or more acceptable theory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
it is NOT a 'simply established scientific theory' dimwit. It is only a theory, absolutely nothing more. Creationism is a theory, evolution is a theory. Get that into your fucking head. Ok done
@OldaurGold Creationism IS NOT a scientific theory, and Evolution is. In science, a theory is ABOVE a fact. A theory is a framework that takes many facts and brings them together to form a clear exlpanatory picture of the world. Evolution happened, and there is NO DISPUTE about that amoung serious scientists. The only thing scientists are still debating is the mechanisms that propel evolution, NOT the fact that it happened. It did. OK, done.
@john5899 Nothing improves over time but rather "de evolves". Look at the second law of thermal dynamics. This is law not theory. Evolution is just another cult and has little to do with science.
@1WhoSeeks You're just wrong. The second law does not even apply here. Besides, that is also a theory. There are no laws in science, just theory and hypothosis. We are as sure that evolution happened as we are that the earth revolves around the sun (the heliocentric theory) and gravity exists. We are as sure about evolution as we are of the germ theory of desease and that the earth is a sphere. We're as sure about it as we can be sure of anything. Anyone who denies it has their head in the sand.
I find evolution is far, far more plausible an explanation and makes so much more sense than the creation nonsense. I've felt that way since I was 10 years old, and I was raised in a religious home.
WHY do people think evolution means we came from monkeys? Don't these people ever read a book? Where were they when science was being taught? People who don't believe in evolution do NOT understand what it means.
@8698gil Well technically monkeys came before apes so it is not completely falls. However these monkeys are of course long extinct and not the monkeys today. This is what many anti-evolutionists don't get. Many (although believers in evolution often as well) actually think that we descended from chimps.
I believe in evolution to some extent. I don't believe that we came from monkeys but I do believe our lungs evolved significantly after the industrial revolution. Is that okay?
why do people have to force ths evolution sit on people? let them believe what they want! and people say americans are assholes, well maybe they should look at themselves
@NoNeedForGod im not necassarily angry if call someone an asshole, and if all christians are angry like your implying, then i guess all athiests are ungrateful bastards
I read a lot of comments on the topic of religion and sadly, name calling seems to be the atheist #1 response (title of the video for example). Thanks for calling it out.
For all there technological prowess,there is so much about the American mentality that is still stuck in the 17th century.It's astonishing how the most powerful country is the world is so divided down educational/intellectual lines.There is a historical parallel between the USA and Roman Empire.The latter was riddled with superstition like the former and contributed to it's eventual downfall.It will be China that will pick up the pieces and carry us forward.I'm NOT Chinese lol.
In the western world, this "controversy" is only in America. Quite incredible. One can wonder why there's such a difference between the US and the rest of the western countries when it comes to accepting evolution.
In western Europe, no one would ever ask a presidential candidate of his thoughts on evolution, or if he believes in God or whatnot. As a European, I find these questions in political debates quite shocking.
@Wotanraven I agree. As an American, I'm actually quite embarrassed that questions like that still get asked when they should be asking questions about the important issues like economics or foreign policy. Politics in America has turned into a bad reality TV show.
Don't forget who founded the USA. They were puritan protestants people. In Europe we really have the chance to have more than 30 different cultures in a space as big as the USA. We have been influenced through the centuries, we fought each other, we had to adapt ourselves to each other.
Do not forget also that most of western European countries have a roman catholic background, which implies a lot of things in our behaviors and in our way of thinking.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 That's a false argument, and completely narrow-minded. Also, the theory of evolution doesn't claim to explain how life started, only how it EVOLVED. So you're completely off topic here, proving that you know nothing of what evolution is about, yet you still want to deny over a century of scientific work which is backed by study, experiment and proof. Who do you think you are?
I don't see why a theist can't also accept evolution. I think they can be fairly compatible.
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
A scientific theory is not a "guess." A theory actually ties laws, principles, observations, etc. together into a cohesive explanation. Ergo, theories are actually the most strongly supported explanations in science.
Evolution (like gravity) is both theory & fact. Evolution is "accumulated change in genetic frequency of a population across generational time" & can be observed (i.e it is a fact). Evolutionary Theory explains how those changes have occurred throughout history, ex. kin selection.
Gravity is "only a theory" also. Therefore, I believe in an Intelligent Faller, one who draws me down to the earth when I jump off that bridge if ignorance and stupidity.
@jknengr796 .."Gravity is also 'only a theory'. I believe in an Intelligent Faller who draws me down to Earth when I jump off the bridge of ignorance and stupidity"lol ..well said Mr jknengr.
I offer $10,000 to any believer willing to jump from the CN tower in Toronto (no chute). After all, General Relativity (the theory of gravity) cannot be considered scientifically proved. So for creationists gravity is something that can be safely ignored. The jumpers will have 'god' to back them up
I understand that Charles Darwin put a 100 year time limit on the proving of his theories; beyond that we could stop looking for the fossils, as he doubted they'd ever be found. Does anyone know (definitively) if that's true or false and if so, could I have the quote concerned? Many thanks..
I didn't say it was 100% true, hence my request for confirmation. In theory, Darwin could have set a time limit as a means of falsifying his beliefs. AFAIK the evidence you refer to, wasn't found during his lifetime and there are quotes from Darwin, wherein he seems dubious, even of himself (leaving aside the bogus stories supposedly from his deathbed). It's a fact that transitional fossils exist however and he was ultimately borne out by science.
@1WhoSeeks And who did you hear that from exactly? Creationist propaganda? Don't listen to non-professionals on a scientific topic. Do the research yourself. (And, even if Darwin didn't believe in his own theory - which was NOT the case obviously - it wouldn't have any impact on the validity of his theory!)
From a completely unbiased standpoint, it's true, evolutionists are almost always on the offensive. Though, with a truly objective look at any "conversation" between an evolutionist and creationist you will have more of an understanding of the ignorance of each individual, not the concepts themselves.
If evolution happening in labs before scientist's eyes is not enough evidence for evolution, your standards are far to high. It's like looking at a Youtube video and saying "There's just not enough evidence for the existence of Youtube".
Reading these comments only strengthens my belief in GOD and the way you people attack us Christians shows just how scared you are of the truth. And believing in the Bible is a damn good reason for believing that the theory of evolution is a LIE.
Lol we could say the same for you christians attacking evolution, because you're scared that the bible might be wrong. However, you should know that the amount of criticism an idea gets doesn't make it any more true or false.
Nobody is scared of the truth, your logic is flawed.
@onesweetasuzy of course it can, probably on many levels. biologically, in a species like humans, which are half way between atournament and pair-bonding species, it most likely increases the likelihood of 2 parents raising a child and therefore increasing the likelihood of their genes being passed on to future generations.
interesting video, but shame about the offensive title. Americans are no more stupid than any other nation - people are simply pretty stupid the world over.
Yeah, except that in the developed world, NOBODY disputes the theory of evolution more than Americans.... which means Americans are at least stupider than 95% of the developed world.
creationists are still making the same stupid arguments they were 30 years ago. don't waste your time trying to show them any evidence, they're not interested in facts. they just want to believe in creation so they will no matter what. if they want to live in wonderland with alice then let them. just keep them out of your schools and out of political office. use your votes america.
I AM TELLING YOU FRICKIN PEOPLE I DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, the world was created by a UFO called TED! The big bang is just what happened when TED was trying to make beer and it exploded!!!!!!!!!!!!
"...An ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place."
Evolution is 'only a theory' in the way quantum mechanics and general relativity are 'only theories'. It's no longer possible for an intelligent and educated person to deny evolution, unless, of course, his/her brain is lethally poisoned with creationist nonsense.
It's high time academia and media replaced 'theory of evolution' with 'principle of evolution' or 'laws of evolution', so that evolution is seen in its rightful status as scientific fact
@roont .."people don't understand the word 'theory'" true, many do not
Theory: "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been REPEATEDLY TESTED or is WIDELY ACCEPTED and IS USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT NATURAL PHENOMENA"
The theory of evolution (by natural selection) is as firmly established as Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and The Laws of Thermodynamics.
The religious stupidity, notably from creationists, must stop
@gangster3591 The problem of using the word theory, is that creationists ALWAYS use it in the general, or "guess" definition, rather than the scientific use of the word, which is applied based on observation and evidence repeatedly tested supporting the hypothesis. In truth, there is a proper demarcation between the two. Hypothesis and theory. Creationists use the word theory when trying to imply hypothesis, which evolution theory is not.
Creationists desperately need to learn the difference.
@raptorcat61 .."creationists use 'theory' in the 'guess' sense; rather than the scientific definition, which is applied based on observation and evidence repeatedly tested. Creationists use 'theory' to imply 'hypothesis', which evolution is not"
Agree. Use of semantic trickery by creationists exposes more clearly than ever the absurdity of their belief system. Creationism cannot be believed by rational, thinking people - it can by the willfully self-deluded, a requirement for creationists
@gangster3591 There should be more folks like you and me out there pointing it out. We should not be the only voices of factual truth out there, in my opinion.
But creationists all depend on people not thinking, which is why they have so many gullible people still calling it creation theory, which as we both pointed out, is a lie of huge proportions.
But then, what else can we expect from creationists; it isn't as if they have evidence to prove their point; they just want to disprove science.
@gangster3591 Have you been on the NCSE website or to their Youtube channel yet? If you haven't, then you should meander through them. The website has a page that is nothing but links to case laws over teaching creationism in public school as well as the results of those cases and links to at least some of the transcripts (if I remember correctly). That is one thing that we need to address, above all others. Not just the fatal flaws in their theocracy based hypothesis.
@gangster3591 Also, even the Catholic church accepts evolution. It took them a while, though. Not as long as it took them to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the Universe, but in the end, the science won out. Just think of how much more advanced we would have been if Christianity had not spent those centuries during the dark ages and renaissance era opposing scientific advancement. We could have eradicated disease by now, had it not been for that.
@raptorcat61 .."the Catholic church accepts evolution. It took a while, not as long as it took them to accept that Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the Universe" yes
The church has no wish to find itself in a similar position visa-a-vis evolution ..since the enlightenment it has been forced into continual retreat from ground now occupied by science.
The church has barricaded itself inside the fortress of 'theistic evolution'. But it may not be safe even there
@gangster3591 Well, at least they can't threaten people with imprisonment or death for promoting science, like they did with Copernicus or Galileo.
This entire issue reminds me of the line from Robin Hood where Azhim said "How did your people ever take Jerusalem?" since Robin had no idea as to what a telescope was.
@gangster3591 But actually, the fight is not religion v science, no matter how often creationists make it out to be. It is religion opposing things that go against doctrinal misinterpretation and the fact that the doctrine is how the corrupt leaders maintain their power over the masses. I was accused of being against religion a couple of times and had to clarify that religion is not the problem; power-hungry religious leaders are.
Doctrine that fails to change and adapt will, eventually, die.
@raptorcat61 .."the fight is not religion vs science"
I believe that it is, but I prefer enlightenment & reason vs ignorance & stupidity.
"The fight is about religion opposing what goes against doctrinal misinterpretation"? not sure I follow you
"doctrine is how corrupt leaders maintain power over people" agree
Religious scripture is riddled with contradiction and obscurity; that makes it a pliant instrument of power. Religion has been invoked by evil men as often as by good men
@gangster3591 The reason that it is not religion v science is that there are religions that accept the findings of science as both viable and, in some cases, supportive of their beliefs. Buddhism and Wicca are two that come to mind, albeit in two different fields. But it is not all religion that opposes scientific advancement. Currently, only 2 are opposed to the advances of science in opposition to their doctrine: Some sects of protestant Christianity and some parts of Islam.
@gangster3591 And you are right, religious scripture is riddled with a lot of errors. Bad translations of Aramaic to bad translations of Sanskrit, to bad translations of Greek to bad translations of Latin.
Add to that, intended changes made in the KJV and we end up with a real mess that gets completely ignored by the blinded followers that question nothing that they are told.
The entomology of words and phrases is ignored and meanings changed by each generation of "newspeak" that develops, too.
@gangster3591 And disproving one's opponent is harder than proving one's own point of view when the opponent has the evidence to back up his/her side. Science has it and creationism doesn't. Is it still called creationism or did they change the name to intelligent design? I guess it doesn't matter. To paraphrase Shakespeare; A pile of crap, by any other name still stinks. All we can do is stand our ground and fight the stupidity.
@gangster3591 Well, it's because evolution IS a scientific fact. You're talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is simply a proposed (albeit heavily backed up with empirical evidence and has withstood intense criticism for decades) mechanism for the phenomenon called evolution. Evolution is the chance of gene/inherited traits among a species of organism over a period of time while natural selection is basically: "the most fit individuals survive and reproduce."
@gangster3591 You are on the right track, here. Gravity is still a theory, but how many creationists are going to test that theory by walking off the top of a skyscraper? In their version of "theory", it means that it is just a guess, but I would bet that there are a lot of paratroopers can attest to the fact of that "theory", which to them only means "a guess".
@gangster3591 I like what you're saying however there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law. Theory describes a process where Law explains it. Scientific theories can't become laws. The maintenance of scientific convention is paramount. What needs to happen is a change in the way science is taught so that even the dumbest can at least understand the conventions and be more able to accept scientific theories as being as close to "fact" as science gets.
@uknowispeaksense .."there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law"
I understand that; my degrees are in physics and chemistry. Theory, hypothesis, scientific law ..often these terms are used carelessly, even by scientists. It's a problem that needs attention from academia, government and media
@126anonymous About Evolution being a theory. It partly is and isn't, because variations and adaptions within species HAS BEEN PROVEN. However Evolution as the origin of life, or evolution that creates new species is MASSIVELY UNPROVEN. There is tremendous evidence lacking.
Common descent, if you can show two contemporary species must have a common ancestor, evolution is inescapable, unless if aliens from outer space are periodically performing some bizarre genetic alterations on early terrified primate species to give rise to Neanderthals, homo erectus, homosapiens, chimps, and other extinct or extant species, which all appear relatively recently out of the billions of years of natural history. There's no escape from the fossil record.
@IndividualParties Now, first off how could you know that "two contemporary species" have a common ancestor. In other words, what kind of evidence would prove that they have a common ancestor? I'm not trying to frustrate you, I truly just don't know the answer to this.
Genetic markers shared between species, like an ERV (endogenous retro viruses). I'm not a biologists myself, but I know that they publish these findings in journals, for example, I was quickly able to find this paper on google scholar:
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
@GreatArye Have you ever noted the title of the book that was written by the father of evolution? "On The ORIGINS Of Life By Means Of Natural Selection.
@Diomedsspear "..written by the father of evolution" - An appeal to authority is fallacious.
"On the ORIGINS of life" - If you ever read the book, Darwin observes the evolutionary processes of life and then, through analogy, and then posits the theory that all life came from a common ancestor. What Darwin proposes as "the origin of life" (through evolution) is what Abiogenesis concerns itself.
"Have you ever noted the title.." - I don't make quick assertions based on a title.
@GreatArye Who said I was appealing to authority? I was merely noting what was discussed in a book which forms the majority of the basis of Evolutionary theory today. And if you had enough brains you would realize that the reason for most of the controversy involved in the topic of Evolution is because of of it's strong ideas regarding the origin of life. Therefore you would be a fool to think that Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.
@Diomedsspear "Who said I was appealing to authority?" - Well, you said "...was written by the father of evolution" as if "father of evolution" has any merit.
"...the topic of Evolution [has]...strong ideas regarding the origin of life" - Evolution has little to say regarding the origin of life since it involves only the process of change, I repeat, the origin of life is Abiogenesis,
"You'd be a fool to thing Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life" - It has little, not nothing.
@GreatArye Abiogenesis according to wikipedia is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Evolution and Abiogenesis are interrelated. Ok, so even if evolution has "little, not nothing" to do with the origin of life, it at least forms the base upon which Abiogenesis becomes conceivable.
@Diomedsspear Wikipedia is the basis for your support?
Your original point: " However Evolution as the origin of life..." Your latest point: "Evolution and Abiogenesis are interrelated..."
A = B and A is sometimes B are two different statements.
There are many subjects that interrelate with one another, such as: linguistics, anthropology and philosophy which are applied to one another. Anthropologists have said that primates can acquire human language, but linguistics and philosophy disagree.
@Diomedsspear (Cont'd) But to dismiss anthropology of making a unproven partial claim while anthropology itself does not strictly involve with (non human primates) is silly.
You stated originally "...About Evolution being a theory. It partly is and isn't....Evolution as the origin of life....is MASSIVELY UNPROVEN..."
Likewise, the subject of evolution does not involve with abiogenesis, albeit with some ramifications but placing the field of Abiogenesis with evolution is incorrect and a burden.
@GreatArye Well I guess it must have been correct. And just because I said something before doesn't mean that I can't change my opinion. Furthermore I don't see what your trying to prove by saying that Abiogenesis completely involves the origin of life and Evolution only involves it partially. So what? Wow thanks for wasting my time.
@tarasvoice Scientifically speaking, what evidence can you place on the table to back up your opinion. And it IS AN Opinion, and will remain so unless you provide hard cold evidence to back up what you claim to be true. :-)
@Diomedsspear Evolution HAS FACTS the bible is filled with contrived stories that contradict but meant well in the the beginning so we can live in peace. But over all there is no way to make sense of humans being created by anything we can fathom in our thought process .....it is arrogant and naive to assume this.
@Diomedsspear The B.S. with the snalke from adman and Eve is a set up it makes no sense to damn those two becuz of something that an all powerful god knew would happen if "he" pushed these people into this situation....and it would be the snake that was bad not them.
There are a bunch of things I do not know them off hand but they are read and reviewed by many Athesits and in videos HERE on youtube.
@tarasvoice Well, the best way to learn about the contradictions in the Bible is to read it yourself. And don't listen to even Christians, not even me!! I dare you to read the book of genesis and just try and find some contradictions. And if you do or don't just send me a message or something. Also if you take up on my dare then you can dare me to read something or whatever. Deal?
Oh, I wonder why people believe in Evolution more as they receive more education? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY FREAKIN TEACH THESE DAYS!!!! *GASP!!!!!*
It's kind of interesting how I find soooo many videos of evolutionists making fun of Creationists and hardly any vise versa. Why is that? Oh ya it's because that's all that they can do!!!!! Call names, scoff and mock instead of debating the scientific evidence like grown ups. I think you mistook the scientific world for middle school.
Of course thats y all of u haters r on my dick as soon as I say something. Jus admit it u wish u were american. That's y u spend your time looking up videos of y Americans are dumb jus so u can try to discourage yourself in the meantime ur not here. Who wouldn't want to chill out on Cali or shop in Manhattan, or even skii out in the Rockies. It's tough being from a loser country. I kno it's tough but take a chill pill. When u think of money an power, of course America comes to mind. Think about
"dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples" is often the claim that creationists make without realising that it defeats their own argument because, according to them, animals can only mate within their own "kind" (whatever that is). In which case there is absolutely no reason why a pair of lions cannot give birth to a tiger or vice versa. Meanwhile, in the real world we know that this never happens. One lie contradicting a previous lie is a common problem for Creationists.
The theory of gravity can actually be observed directly, whereas the theory of evolution can't since it takes millions and millions of years to happen, this is where the difference comes in, If you really want to see how confident scientists are when It comes to the theory of evolution, Get one by themselves and questions him or her, you will hear alot of "Well we don't know everything, yeah well we don't know everything, I know, I know everything is very complex, we are still studying"
@Londron Sorry pal, but adaptations have been observed in nature. The reason the theory of evolution is so dangerous is because it mixes a little bit of truth with a lot of error. Scientist see that specias have the ability to adapt to certain changes or environments, and say "Oh if this happens long enough that species would change into another species", this is far from the truth, since DNA has a barrier against such a change. There can be a variety but only within species.
Please give a link to a paper explaining this barrier then. Because personally having studied genetics I've never seen one nor do I see one being possible.
I sure do hope you have some evidence for this "barrier" in the DNA. That sounds like Nobel prize winning material, so if you don't want to claim your $1million+ for such a discovery, then I would be happy to take the proof you have and claim all that potential money for myself :)
@WitchHunter93 is it really that hard to see? dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples. fossils have been found of all of these organisms and you know what? they are still the same as they were back then.
Wow, "dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples"
It was right there in front of us and scientists didn't see it, what enlightening proof! Surely this is irrefutable evidence for your so-called "barrier" in DNA.
Sorry sir, that is not evidence. Please respond to what Londron said if you want to be taken seriously, I too would be interested in seeing such a paper.
We are all chomping at the bit to read your peer-reviewed journal describing this "DNA barrier". Surely you have documented evidence to support your claim, right?!? Because, I can't imagine that you would just make up shit to pretend you're smart. Would you??
@rmcdaniel423 The DNA system within your body and every other living things body on this planet, is equipped with repair enzymes, meaning if something happen to your DNA there is a repair system to fix the problem. If a mutation happens within the cells in your arm, that mutation won't be passed on to your offspring, only mutations within sex cells get passed on. since mutations within sex cells are bad, evolution isn't true, becuase mutated sex cells create mutated people. TRUTH.
@RespectMyHate wrote "mutated sex cells create mutated people. TRUTH."
Wrong (sorta). Some mutations cause spontaneous abortions. Some do not. Your DNA is chock full of worthless junk that doesn't really code for anything, or is just a relic of the past. Also, repair enzymes only fix things that seem wrong. Things like deletions, duplications, and inversions happen all the time. Lots of stuff is harmful, some is not. Non-lethal changes get passed on.
@rmcdaniel423 There is a lot of DNA that we don't know exactly what its used for, but that doesn't mean that its doesn't have a purpose. Dude you just have a problem with God, that's it. Evolution is not a fact, its a baseless science built on top of assumptions, hatered for God, out right lies, and deceit. That why if I saw you in person I would destroy all of your arguments, just like I do my teachers.
@RespectMyHate hahaha!!! You say "baseless", as though you have personally examined the entire spectrum of peer-reviewed research that supports it and have refuted every claim. You're such an arrogant prick. I'm GLAD I'll never meet you in person. Your teachers must hate your guts.
And what the hell does god have to do with evolution? The substance of the explanatory power of evolution doesn't say ANYTHING about the existence (or non-existence) of god.
@rmcdaniel423 You can respond with whatever crap you want. I'm done with this nonsense. Pretend that you've won, if it strokes your ego. Go back to church and pray for another heaping helping of hate to spread around.
@rmcdaniel423 Yeah my teachers hated me because I made them look stupid, and still got A's in all their classes LOL. I'm not arguing with you anymore.
Why can't more religious people believe in intelligent design? And haven't any of them stopped to think that creationism might just be metaphorical? I mean you have idiots with absolutely no problem with genetics but with the concept of evolution, and some believe in micro-evolution while still rejecting macro-evolution - how the hell can someone believe in one but not the other?
goodness......religion is so stupid
funcpl2741054 1 week ago
please, america
please tell me this is an episode of The Onion news
al3699 1 week ago
If evolution doesn't happen, then anti-viral vaccines and anti-bacterial drugs don't work.
If evolution doesn't happen, then all those experiments where actual speciation took place in laboratory environments also didn't happen.
If evolution doesn't happen, I wouldn't have an appendix or a tailbone.
Why would anyone deny facts and well-documented occurrences just to try to maintain the claimed veracity of a 2000 year-old book of religious fairy tales?
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
Just for the sake if stating a point, Darwin said and I quote "The intricacies of the human eye make me break out in a cold sweat" further more ten's of thousands of optical cords HAVE to connect to their EXACT connection to the brain if even one is off the eye will cease to function. Now not to start a fight I would also like to state that one of Darwin's death bed wishes was that if no concrete evidence was found to support his theory within 50 years it should be null and void, and as far as
DJohnson899 2 weeks ago
@DJohnson899 The whole quote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (continued)
john5899 5 days ago
@DJohnson899
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; (continued)
john5899 5 days ago
@DJohnson899
and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; (continued)
john5899 5 days ago
@DJohnson899 but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
john5899 5 days ago
I think whoever doesn't "believe" in Science should be denied medical science as well...
That way, their life expectancy would be around 35 years old, then we wouldn't have to hear them whining about how scary and complicated the world is.
(Just trolling, of course, I don't want anyone being denied medical care)
Unicron4ever 2 weeks ago
I'm glad I don't live in the US
tofuspud 1 month ago 4
To people who are saying "its only a theory", there is a difference between the scientific definition of word theory and the colloquial sense of the word. Social definition of theory, the colloquial definition, is a hypothesis or speculation that doesnt have to be based on facts or testable observation. The scientific definition of theory is more rigorous, its based on facts and testable predictions. In science a current theory is 1 that has no other equally acceptable or more acceptable theory.
Xiasyios 2 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it is NOT a 'simply established scientific theory' dimwit. It is only a theory, absolutely nothing more. Creationism is a theory, evolution is a theory. Get that into your fucking head. Ok done
OldaurGold 2 months ago
@OldaurGold Creationism IS NOT a scientific theory, and Evolution is. In science, a theory is ABOVE a fact. A theory is a framework that takes many facts and brings them together to form a clear exlpanatory picture of the world. Evolution happened, and there is NO DISPUTE about that amoung serious scientists. The only thing scientists are still debating is the mechanisms that propel evolution, NOT the fact that it happened. It did. OK, done.
john5899 2 months ago 13
@john5899 Nothing improves over time but rather "de evolves". Look at the second law of thermal dynamics. This is law not theory. Evolution is just another cult and has little to do with science.
1WhoSeeks 1 month ago
@1WhoSeeks You're just wrong. The second law does not even apply here. Besides, that is also a theory. There are no laws in science, just theory and hypothosis. We are as sure that evolution happened as we are that the earth revolves around the sun (the heliocentric theory) and gravity exists. We are as sure about evolution as we are of the germ theory of desease and that the earth is a sphere. We're as sure about it as we can be sure of anything. Anyone who denies it has their head in the sand.
john5899 6 days ago
America has "in god we trust" printed onto it's money
The UK has a picture of Charles Darwin printed on
This might explain alot.
ItsKnucklez 2 months ago 3
I find evolution is far, far more plausible an explanation and makes so much more sense than the creation nonsense. I've felt that way since I was 10 years old, and I was raised in a religious home.
8698gil 2 months ago 3
WHY do people think evolution means we came from monkeys? Don't these people ever read a book? Where were they when science was being taught? People who don't believe in evolution do NOT understand what it means.
8698gil 2 months ago 2
@8698gil Well technically monkeys came before apes so it is not completely falls. However these monkeys are of course long extinct and not the monkeys today. This is what many anti-evolutionists don't get. Many (although believers in evolution often as well) actually think that we descended from chimps.
inotaishu1 2 months ago
I believe in evolution to some extent. I don't believe that we came from monkeys but I do believe our lungs evolved significantly after the industrial revolution. Is that okay?
DarkestSymbiote 2 months ago
@DarkestSymbiote No.
moldyantics666 2 months ago
I hate questions like this. What do they mean by 'do you personally believe?" Is it possible to believe something impersonally?
psb1964 3 months ago
68% of republicans don't believe in evolution. explains why i hate republicans.
is it possible to evolve if you don't believe in it?
tomitstube 3 months ago
why do people have to force ths evolution sit on people? let them believe what they want! and people say americans are assholes, well maybe they should look at themselves
snaggletooth102 3 months ago
@snaggletooth102 Evolution isn't forced on anyone. Evolution is a reality. Reality is being forced on you.
NoNeedForGod 3 months ago
@NoNeedForGod kind of exactly what i said asshole, i personally am christian but believe evolution and christianity are both true
snaggletooth102 3 months ago
@snaggletooth102 Wow, you are an angry one aren't you? Very Christian of you. I expect nothing less.
NoNeedForGod 3 months ago
@NoNeedForGod im not necassarily angry if call someone an asshole, and if all christians are angry like your implying, then i guess all athiests are ungrateful bastards
snaggletooth102 3 months ago
@NoNeedForGod Quit being a jerk. You give the nicer atheists a bad name.
DarkestSymbiote 2 months ago
@DarkestSymbiote
I read a lot of comments on the topic of religion and sadly, name calling seems to be the atheist #1 response (title of the video for example). Thanks for calling it out.
813CR 2 months ago
@813CR I agree, it gets annoying.
DarkestSymbiote 2 months ago
For all there technological prowess,there is so much about the American mentality that is still stuck in the 17th century.It's astonishing how the most powerful country is the world is so divided down educational/intellectual lines.There is a historical parallel between the USA and Roman Empire.The latter was riddled with superstition like the former and contributed to it's eventual downfall.It will be China that will pick up the pieces and carry us forward.I'm NOT Chinese lol.
ScottyDavid1964 3 months ago
In the western world, this "controversy" is only in America. Quite incredible. One can wonder why there's such a difference between the US and the rest of the western countries when it comes to accepting evolution.
In western Europe, no one would ever ask a presidential candidate of his thoughts on evolution, or if he believes in God or whatnot. As a European, I find these questions in political debates quite shocking.
Wotanraven 4 months ago
@Wotanraven I agree. As an American, I'm actually quite embarrassed that questions like that still get asked when they should be asking questions about the important issues like economics or foreign policy. Politics in America has turned into a bad reality TV show.
jimmyconvulsion 3 months ago
@Wotanraven
Don't forget who founded the USA. They were puritan protestants people. In Europe we really have the chance to have more than 30 different cultures in a space as big as the USA. We have been influenced through the centuries, we fought each other, we had to adapt ourselves to each other.
Do not forget also that most of western European countries have a roman catholic background, which implies a lot of things in our behaviors and in our way of thinking.
fwine19 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 That's a false argument, and completely narrow-minded. Also, the theory of evolution doesn't claim to explain how life started, only how it EVOLVED. So you're completely off topic here, proving that you know nothing of what evolution is about, yet you still want to deny over a century of scientific work which is backed by study, experiment and proof. Who do you think you are?
I don't see why a theist can't also accept evolution. I think they can be fairly compatible.
Wotanraven 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
A scientific theory is not a "guess." A theory actually ties laws, principles, observations, etc. together into a cohesive explanation. Ergo, theories are actually the most strongly supported explanations in science.
Evolution (like gravity) is both theory & fact. Evolution is "accumulated change in genetic frequency of a population across generational time" & can be observed (i.e it is a fact). Evolutionary Theory explains how those changes have occurred throughout history, ex. kin selection.
GJHess890812 4 months ago
Gravity is "only a theory" also. Therefore, I believe in an Intelligent Faller, one who draws me down to the earth when I jump off that bridge if ignorance and stupidity.
jknengr796 4 months ago 18
@jknengr796 .."Gravity is also 'only a theory'. I believe in an Intelligent Faller who draws me down to Earth when I jump off the bridge of ignorance and stupidity"lol ..well said Mr jknengr.
I offer $10,000 to any believer willing to jump from the CN tower in Toronto (no chute). After all, General Relativity (the theory of gravity) cannot be considered scientifically proved. So for creationists gravity is something that can be safely ignored. The jumpers will have 'god' to back them up
gangster3591 4 months ago
@jknengr796
You can't prove gravity exists, it could just as well be angels pushing it down.
superwowie111 3 months ago
hahahahahaha
MrNoname0309 4 months ago
Because there is no evidence?? what about the bible, there is no evidence that it is anything more than a collection of fair tales.
AzumiRM 5 months ago
I understand that Charles Darwin put a 100 year time limit on the proving of his theories; beyond that we could stop looking for the fossils, as he doubted they'd ever be found. Does anyone know (definitively) if that's true or false and if so, could I have the quote concerned? Many thanks..
MatlockJack 5 months ago
@MatlockJack i have never heard that one before.
why would he even put it?
well, the time limit would be completely irrelevant anyway.
1. it doesnt make sense
2. tons of transitional fossils are found
OmfgItsHenu 5 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu
I didn't say it was 100% true, hence my request for confirmation. In theory, Darwin could have set a time limit as a means of falsifying his beliefs. AFAIK the evidence you refer to, wasn't found during his lifetime and there are quotes from Darwin, wherein he seems dubious, even of himself (leaving aside the bogus stories supposedly from his deathbed). It's a fact that transitional fossils exist however and he was ultimately borne out by science.
MatlockJack 5 months ago
@MatlockJack I heard that he stopped believing in his own theory in his latter stage of life.
1WhoSeeks 1 month ago
@1WhoSeeks LOL MORE RELIGIOUS PROPOGANDA ITS A LIE HE DIED HAPPILY ON HIS DEATH BED
Abbadon380 1 month ago
@Abbadon380 Its a lie he died happily in his death bed?
1WhoSeeks 1 month ago
@1WhoSeeks And who did you hear that from exactly? Creationist propaganda? Don't listen to non-professionals on a scientific topic. Do the research yourself. (And, even if Darwin didn't believe in his own theory - which was NOT the case obviously - it wouldn't have any impact on the validity of his theory!)
mydas1 3 weeks ago in playlist Religion: Evolution
From a completely unbiased standpoint, it's true, evolutionists are almost always on the offensive. Though, with a truly objective look at any "conversation" between an evolutionist and creationist you will have more of an understanding of the ignorance of each individual, not the concepts themselves.
myfairvanity 5 months ago
And we have more bombs than anyone...
scootkh 5 months ago
If evolution happening in labs before scientist's eyes is not enough evidence for evolution, your standards are far to high. It's like looking at a Youtube video and saying "There's just not enough evidence for the existence of Youtube".
Killur10 5 months ago
Reading these comments only strengthens my belief in GOD and the way you people attack us Christians shows just how scared you are of the truth. And believing in the Bible is a damn good reason for believing that the theory of evolution is a LIE.
josh94dn 5 months ago
@josh94dn
"I'm being attacked, so I must be right!"
Lol we could say the same for you christians attacking evolution, because you're scared that the bible might be wrong. However, you should know that the amount of criticism an idea gets doesn't make it any more true or false.
Nobody is scared of the truth, your logic is flawed.
WitchHunter93 5 months ago 2
@onesweetasuzy of course it can, probably on many levels. biologically, in a species like humans, which are half way between atournament and pair-bonding species, it most likely increases the likelihood of 2 parents raising a child and therefore increasing the likelihood of their genes being passed on to future generations.
sugarcanegray 5 months ago
interesting video, but shame about the offensive title. Americans are no more stupid than any other nation - people are simply pretty stupid the world over.
sugarcanegray 5 months ago
Comment removed
fizzxman 5 months ago
Yeah, except that in the developed world, NOBODY disputes the theory of evolution more than Americans.... which means Americans are at least stupider than 95% of the developed world.
fizzxman 5 months ago
@fizzxman well this is true, but I still don't think dumb is the right word. Brainwashed, perhaps, in a heavily religious sense.
sugarcanegray 5 months ago
and this is why the rest of the world is laughing at you, america...
facepalmization 5 months ago
creationists are still making the same stupid arguments they were 30 years ago. don't waste your time trying to show them any evidence, they're not interested in facts. they just want to believe in creation so they will no matter what. if they want to live in wonderland with alice then let them. just keep them out of your schools and out of political office. use your votes america.
lordscully 5 months ago
Stop saying "believe in evolution"!
You don't believe in a theory, you understand and accept it. [or don't accept]
gladikitten 5 months ago 2
you are dumb americans are not , the theory of humans evolving from monkeys and stuff have been proved wrong so you are dumb my friend...
tom80cruse 5 months ago
evolution is stupid and has never been proven.
HoodieLover52 5 months ago
Silly Creationists.....fairy tales are for kids!
RTKFilms 5 months ago
I AM TELLING YOU FRICKIN PEOPLE I DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, the world was created by a UFO called TED! The big bang is just what happened when TED was trying to make beer and it exploded!!!!!!!!!!!!
MykhaMen 5 months ago
Half our population is retarded... Jesus Christ.
Polterguist 5 months ago
"...An ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place."
- results and discussion section..
IndividualParties 6 months ago
Evolution is 'only a theory' in the way quantum mechanics and general relativity are 'only theories'. It's no longer possible for an intelligent and educated person to deny evolution, unless, of course, his/her brain is lethally poisoned with creationist nonsense.
It's high time academia and media replaced 'theory of evolution' with 'principle of evolution' or 'laws of evolution', so that evolution is seen in its rightful status as scientific fact
gangster3591 6 months ago 18
@gangster3591 Thats the problem right there. There's nothing wrong with a scientific "theory". Its just that people don't understand the word at all.
roont 5 months ago
@roont .."people don't understand the word 'theory'" true, many do not
Theory: "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been REPEATEDLY TESTED or is WIDELY ACCEPTED and IS USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT NATURAL PHENOMENA"
The theory of evolution (by natural selection) is as firmly established as Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and The Laws of Thermodynamics.
The religious stupidity, notably from creationists, must stop
gangster3591 5 months ago
@gangster3591 The problem of using the word theory, is that creationists ALWAYS use it in the general, or "guess" definition, rather than the scientific use of the word, which is applied based on observation and evidence repeatedly tested supporting the hypothesis. In truth, there is a proper demarcation between the two. Hypothesis and theory. Creationists use the word theory when trying to imply hypothesis, which evolution theory is not.
Creationists desperately need to learn the difference.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 .."creationists use 'theory' in the 'guess' sense; rather than the scientific definition, which is applied based on observation and evidence repeatedly tested. Creationists use 'theory' to imply 'hypothesis', which evolution is not"
Agree. Use of semantic trickery by creationists exposes more clearly than ever the absurdity of their belief system. Creationism cannot be believed by rational, thinking people - it can by the willfully self-deluded, a requirement for creationists
gangster3591 4 months ago
@gangster3591 There should be more folks like you and me out there pointing it out. We should not be the only voices of factual truth out there, in my opinion.
But creationists all depend on people not thinking, which is why they have so many gullible people still calling it creation theory, which as we both pointed out, is a lie of huge proportions.
But then, what else can we expect from creationists; it isn't as if they have evidence to prove their point; they just want to disprove science.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 .."more folks needed to expose creationism: creationism depends on people not thinking"
Agree. The human race can no longer afford the luxury of superstition and self-delusion, not if we expect to survive our technological infancy.
"Creationists have no evidence proving creationism, so they try to disprove science"
Exactly. And Christianity always loses. Since the enlightenment the church has been forced into steady retreat from ground now occupied by science
gangster3591 4 months ago
@gangster3591 Have you been on the NCSE website or to their Youtube channel yet? If you haven't, then you should meander through them. The website has a page that is nothing but links to case laws over teaching creationism in public school as well as the results of those cases and links to at least some of the transcripts (if I remember correctly). That is one thing that we need to address, above all others. Not just the fatal flaws in their theocracy based hypothesis.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 Also, even the Catholic church accepts evolution. It took them a while, though. Not as long as it took them to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the Universe, but in the end, the science won out. Just think of how much more advanced we would have been if Christianity had not spent those centuries during the dark ages and renaissance era opposing scientific advancement. We could have eradicated disease by now, had it not been for that.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 .."the Catholic church accepts evolution. It took a while, not as long as it took them to accept that Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the Universe" yes
The church has no wish to find itself in a similar position visa-a-vis evolution ..since the enlightenment it has been forced into continual retreat from ground now occupied by science.
The church has barricaded itself inside the fortress of 'theistic evolution'. But it may not be safe even there
gangster3591 4 months ago
@gangster3591 Well, at least they can't threaten people with imprisonment or death for promoting science, like they did with Copernicus or Galileo.
This entire issue reminds me of the line from Robin Hood where Azhim said "How did your people ever take Jerusalem?" since Robin had no idea as to what a telescope was.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 But actually, the fight is not religion v science, no matter how often creationists make it out to be. It is religion opposing things that go against doctrinal misinterpretation and the fact that the doctrine is how the corrupt leaders maintain their power over the masses. I was accused of being against religion a couple of times and had to clarify that religion is not the problem; power-hungry religious leaders are.
Doctrine that fails to change and adapt will, eventually, die.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 .."the fight is not religion vs science"
I believe that it is, but I prefer enlightenment & reason vs ignorance & stupidity.
"The fight is about religion opposing what goes against doctrinal misinterpretation"? not sure I follow you
"doctrine is how corrupt leaders maintain power over people" agree
Religious scripture is riddled with contradiction and obscurity; that makes it a pliant instrument of power. Religion has been invoked by evil men as often as by good men
gangster3591 4 months ago
@gangster3591 The reason that it is not religion v science is that there are religions that accept the findings of science as both viable and, in some cases, supportive of their beliefs. Buddhism and Wicca are two that come to mind, albeit in two different fields. But it is not all religion that opposes scientific advancement. Currently, only 2 are opposed to the advances of science in opposition to their doctrine: Some sects of protestant Christianity and some parts of Islam.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 And you are right, religious scripture is riddled with a lot of errors. Bad translations of Aramaic to bad translations of Sanskrit, to bad translations of Greek to bad translations of Latin.
Add to that, intended changes made in the KJV and we end up with a real mess that gets completely ignored by the blinded followers that question nothing that they are told.
The entomology of words and phrases is ignored and meanings changed by each generation of "newspeak" that develops, too.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 And disproving one's opponent is harder than proving one's own point of view when the opponent has the evidence to back up his/her side. Science has it and creationism doesn't. Is it still called creationism or did they change the name to intelligent design? I guess it doesn't matter. To paraphrase Shakespeare; A pile of crap, by any other name still stinks. All we can do is stand our ground and fight the stupidity.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 Well, it's because evolution IS a scientific fact. You're talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is simply a proposed (albeit heavily backed up with empirical evidence and has withstood intense criticism for decades) mechanism for the phenomenon called evolution. Evolution is the chance of gene/inherited traits among a species of organism over a period of time while natural selection is basically: "the most fit individuals survive and reproduce."
TheYipedo 4 months ago
@gangster3591 You are on the right track, here. Gravity is still a theory, but how many creationists are going to test that theory by walking off the top of a skyscraper? In their version of "theory", it means that it is just a guess, but I would bet that there are a lot of paratroopers can attest to the fact of that "theory", which to them only means "a guess".
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@gangster3591 I like what you're saying however there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law. Theory describes a process where Law explains it. Scientific theories can't become laws. The maintenance of scientific convention is paramount. What needs to happen is a change in the way science is taught so that even the dumbest can at least understand the conventions and be more able to accept scientific theories as being as close to "fact" as science gets.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense .."there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific law"
I understand that; my degrees are in physics and chemistry. Theory, hypothesis, scientific law ..often these terms are used carelessly, even by scientists. It's a problem that needs attention from academia, government and media
gangster3591 4 months ago
Educated people have brainwashed themselves!
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@126anonymous About Evolution being a theory. It partly is and isn't, because variations and adaptions within species HAS BEEN PROVEN. However Evolution as the origin of life, or evolution that creates new species is MASSIVELY UNPROVEN. There is tremendous evidence lacking.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear
No, evolution creates new species and this has been MASSIVELY PROVEN. Don't believe the desperate excuses creanderthals come up with to deny reality.
IndividualParties 6 months ago
@IndividualParties Where's all the massive evidence?
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear
Common descent, if you can show two contemporary species must have a common ancestor, evolution is inescapable, unless if aliens from outer space are periodically performing some bizarre genetic alterations on early terrified primate species to give rise to Neanderthals, homo erectus, homosapiens, chimps, and other extinct or extant species, which all appear relatively recently out of the billions of years of natural history. There's no escape from the fossil record.
IndividualParties 6 months ago
@IndividualParties Now, first off how could you know that "two contemporary species" have a common ancestor. In other words, what kind of evidence would prove that they have a common ancestor? I'm not trying to frustrate you, I truly just don't know the answer to this.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear
Genetic markers shared between species, like an ERV (endogenous retro viruses). I'm not a biologists myself, but I know that they publish these findings in journals, for example, I was quickly able to find this paper on google scholar:
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
cont...
IndividualParties 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear "However Evolution as the origin of life...is MASSIVELY UNPROVEN"
Have you ever thought (or more usefully, read) that Evolution doesn't even discuss the origins of life? That is the field of Abiogenesis.
GreatArye 5 months ago
@GreatArye Have you ever noted the title of the book that was written by the father of evolution? "On The ORIGINS Of Life By Means Of Natural Selection.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear "..written by the father of evolution" - An appeal to authority is fallacious.
"On the ORIGINS of life" - If you ever read the book, Darwin observes the evolutionary processes of life and then, through analogy, and then posits the theory that all life came from a common ancestor. What Darwin proposes as "the origin of life" (through evolution) is what Abiogenesis concerns itself.
"Have you ever noted the title.." - I don't make quick assertions based on a title.
GreatArye 5 months ago
@GreatArye Who said I was appealing to authority? I was merely noting what was discussed in a book which forms the majority of the basis of Evolutionary theory today. And if you had enough brains you would realize that the reason for most of the controversy involved in the topic of Evolution is because of of it's strong ideas regarding the origin of life. Therefore you would be a fool to think that Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear "Who said I was appealing to authority?" - Well, you said "...was written by the father of evolution" as if "father of evolution" has any merit.
"...the topic of Evolution [has]...strong ideas regarding the origin of life" - Evolution has little to say regarding the origin of life since it involves only the process of change, I repeat, the origin of life is Abiogenesis,
"You'd be a fool to thing Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life" - It has little, not nothing.
GreatArye 5 months ago
@GreatArye Abiogenesis according to wikipedia is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Evolution and Abiogenesis are interrelated. Ok, so even if evolution has "little, not nothing" to do with the origin of life, it at least forms the base upon which Abiogenesis becomes conceivable.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear Wikipedia is the basis for your support?
Your original point: " However Evolution as the origin of life..." Your latest point: "Evolution and Abiogenesis are interrelated..."
A = B and A is sometimes B are two different statements.
There are many subjects that interrelate with one another, such as: linguistics, anthropology and philosophy which are applied to one another. Anthropologists have said that primates can acquire human language, but linguistics and philosophy disagree.
GreatArye 4 months ago
@Diomedsspear (Cont'd) But to dismiss anthropology of making a unproven partial claim while anthropology itself does not strictly involve with (non human primates) is silly.
You stated originally "...About Evolution being a theory. It partly is and isn't....Evolution as the origin of life....is MASSIVELY UNPROVEN..."
Likewise, the subject of evolution does not involve with abiogenesis, albeit with some ramifications but placing the field of Abiogenesis with evolution is incorrect and a burden.
GreatArye 4 months ago 2
@GreatArye Well I guess it must have been correct. And just because I said something before doesn't mean that I can't change my opinion. Furthermore I don't see what your trying to prove by saying that Abiogenesis completely involves the origin of life and Evolution only involves it partially. So what? Wow thanks for wasting my time.
Diomedsspear 4 months ago
@Diomedsspear Thank you for playing the role as a troll quite well.
GreatArye 4 months ago
@126anonymous Well if they LIKE to debate than they LOVE to call names.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
Religions were created by HUMANS to create societies so we can have order and live in peace dumbass.
tarasvoice 6 months ago
@tarasvoice Scientifically speaking, what evidence can you place on the table to back up your opinion. And it IS AN Opinion, and will remain so unless you provide hard cold evidence to back up what you claim to be true. :-)
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
@Diomedsspear Evolution HAS FACTS the bible is filled with contrived stories that contradict but meant well in the the beginning so we can live in peace. But over all there is no way to make sense of humans being created by anything we can fathom in our thought process .....it is arrogant and naive to assume this.
tarasvoice 6 months ago
@tarasvoice Can you tell me specifically what contradictions are in the Bible.
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
@Diomedsspear The B.S. with the snalke from adman and Eve is a set up it makes no sense to damn those two becuz of something that an all powerful god knew would happen if "he" pushed these people into this situation....and it would be the snake that was bad not them.
There are a bunch of things I do not know them off hand but they are read and reviewed by many Athesits and in videos HERE on youtube.
tarasvoice 5 months ago
@tarasvoice Well, the best way to learn about the contradictions in the Bible is to read it yourself. And don't listen to even Christians, not even me!! I dare you to read the book of genesis and just try and find some contradictions. And if you do or don't just send me a message or something. Also if you take up on my dare then you can dare me to read something or whatever. Deal?
Diomedsspear 5 months ago
wtf this is astonishing...im embarrassed of this country.
TheLongestMile 6 months ago
Biblianity - (Bible + Inanity) The inane belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Spread the word.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, I wonder why people believe in Evolution more as they receive more education? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY FREAKIN TEACH THESE DAYS!!!! *GASP!!!!!*
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
Comment removed
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
It's kind of interesting how I find soooo many videos of evolutionists making fun of Creationists and hardly any vise versa. Why is that? Oh ya it's because that's all that they can do!!!!! Call names, scoff and mock instead of debating the scientific evidence like grown ups. I think you mistook the scientific world for middle school.
Diomedsspear 6 months ago
Of course thats y all of u haters r on my dick as soon as I say something. Jus admit it u wish u were american. That's y u spend your time looking up videos of y Americans are dumb jus so u can try to discourage yourself in the meantime ur not here. Who wouldn't want to chill out on Cali or shop in Manhattan, or even skii out in the Rockies. It's tough being from a loser country. I kno it's tough but take a chill pill. When u think of money an power, of course America comes to mind. Think about
RellupNorth 6 months ago
People who believe in evolution also believe that the earth was formed from a big bang lol. Can't argue with that logic smh
RellupNorth 6 months ago
"dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples" is often the claim that creationists make without realising that it defeats their own argument because, according to them, animals can only mate within their own "kind" (whatever that is). In which case there is absolutely no reason why a pair of lions cannot give birth to a tiger or vice versa. Meanwhile, in the real world we know that this never happens. One lie contradicting a previous lie is a common problem for Creationists.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
yepyep. go ellect leaders who fail to understand basic science...
go america! whee
Darusdei 6 months ago
can the theory of creationism be observed directly? and does it have more proof than the theory of evolution?
GamerAndStuff 6 months ago
The theory of gravity can actually be observed directly, whereas the theory of evolution can't since it takes millions and millions of years to happen, this is where the difference comes in, If you really want to see how confident scientists are when It comes to the theory of evolution, Get one by themselves and questions him or her, you will hear alot of "Well we don't know everything, yeah well we don't know everything, I know, I know everything is very complex, we are still studying"
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate Evolution has been observed directly.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Well no. Evolution has been observed both in the wild and in laboratory in over a 100 cases.
You can ofcourse ignore all this and keep spouting nonsense. But that's your choice.
Londron 6 months ago
@Londron Sorry pal, but adaptations have been observed in nature. The reason the theory of evolution is so dangerous is because it mixes a little bit of truth with a lot of error. Scientist see that specias have the ability to adapt to certain changes or environments, and say "Oh if this happens long enough that species would change into another species", this is far from the truth, since DNA has a barrier against such a change. There can be a variety but only within species.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Please give a link to a paper explaining this barrier then. Because personally having studied genetics I've never seen one nor do I see one being possible.
Londron 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate
I sure do hope you have some evidence for this "barrier" in the DNA. That sounds like Nobel prize winning material, so if you don't want to claim your $1million+ for such a discovery, then I would be happy to take the proof you have and claim all that potential money for myself :)
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 is it really that hard to see? dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples. fossils have been found of all of these organisms and you know what? they are still the same as they were back then.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Wow, "dogs make dogs, cats make cats, pineapples make pineapples"
It was right there in front of us and scientists didn't see it, what enlightening proof! Surely this is irrefutable evidence for your so-called "barrier" in DNA.
Sorry sir, that is not evidence. Please respond to what Londron said if you want to be taken seriously, I too would be interested in seeing such a paper.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate No. I will NOT respect your hate.
Ass. Get off the internet. You haven't passed the aptitude test yet.
rmcdaniel423 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 You're a clown. I'm going to pray for you.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate there is this thing called speciation, we have observed species change into different species in the lab.
in the wild we have whats called ring species, you might want to look that one up, its hard to explain in a couple sentences
oneadamtwelve86 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Re: your DNA barrier
We are all chomping at the bit to read your peer-reviewed journal describing this "DNA barrier". Surely you have documented evidence to support your claim, right?!? Because, I can't imagine that you would just make up shit to pretend you're smart. Would you??
rmcdaniel423 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Why are you wasting your time with me?
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 The DNA system within your body and every other living things body on this planet, is equipped with repair enzymes, meaning if something happen to your DNA there is a repair system to fix the problem. If a mutation happens within the cells in your arm, that mutation won't be passed on to your offspring, only mutations within sex cells get passed on. since mutations within sex cells are bad, evolution isn't true, becuase mutated sex cells create mutated people. TRUTH.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate ...I just had an aneurism out of sheer stupidity.
lcrone6 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Brooooo. mutated people is what evolution is about. Now your understanding of mutated people might not be the right one.
smallfellow 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate wrote "mutated sex cells create mutated people. TRUTH."
Wrong (sorta). Some mutations cause spontaneous abortions. Some do not. Your DNA is chock full of worthless junk that doesn't really code for anything, or is just a relic of the past. Also, repair enzymes only fix things that seem wrong. Things like deletions, duplications, and inversions happen all the time. Lots of stuff is harmful, some is not. Non-lethal changes get passed on.
Denial of reality does not change it.
rmcdaniel423 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 There is a lot of DNA that we don't know exactly what its used for, but that doesn't mean that its doesn't have a purpose. Dude you just have a problem with God, that's it. Evolution is not a fact, its a baseless science built on top of assumptions, hatered for God, out right lies, and deceit. That why if I saw you in person I would destroy all of your arguments, just like I do my teachers.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate hahaha!!! You say "baseless", as though you have personally examined the entire spectrum of peer-reviewed research that supports it and have refuted every claim. You're such an arrogant prick. I'm GLAD I'll never meet you in person. Your teachers must hate your guts.
And what the hell does god have to do with evolution? The substance of the explanatory power of evolution doesn't say ANYTHING about the existence (or non-existence) of god.
Show me a pre-cambrian chicken.
rmcdaniel423 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 You can respond with whatever crap you want. I'm done with this nonsense. Pretend that you've won, if it strokes your ego. Go back to church and pray for another heaping helping of hate to spread around.
rmcdaniel423 6 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Yeah my teachers hated me because I made them look stupid, and still got A's in all their classes LOL. I'm not arguing with you anymore.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
Why can't more religious people believe in intelligent design? And haven't any of them stopped to think that creationism might just be metaphorical? I mean you have idiots with absolutely no problem with genetics but with the concept of evolution, and some believe in micro-evolution while still rejecting macro-evolution - how the hell can someone believe in one but not the other?
MrFfuckUp 6 months ago
So Independents are smarter than both Democrats and Republicans, I knew it!
MrFfuckUp 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't believe in evolution" = "I'm too stupid to understand basic science".
sihsobhk 6 months ago
Wait, 49+48+2=99. -.-'
cahtush 6 months ago