I sometimes picture early 90's era Dawkins when I make love to my boyfriend. He knows this and finds it hilarious. He pictures Christopher Hitchens. Joke. But yes, these Christmas Lectures in particular drive me WILD. On several levels, they're beautifully worded and wonderfully accessible, but mainly his face is just so damn delicious anno 1991. Perfect features, hot brain. And then there's the hands. And don't get me started on the EPIC shirts. I'm more giddy in my desires than a monkey.
rainbow table code decypher , usually used for cracking wep key transmissions , uses a similiar princple as the darwin monkey in that joyous experiment , though the router itself creates the offspring to which the cypher will compare and then reorder the offspring to the parent hex key
Hmm, blind deaf and dumb cannot "climb". It is pathetic that these evolutionists need to use some figure of speech or metaphor that would describe what an intelligent source would do and place it over some natural process that wholly lacks any intelligence at all. If they were really truthful they would just say: Since evolution and natural selection lacks intelligence: is blind, deaf and dumb, there is no chance of it climbing mt. improbable or accomplishing anything regarding biological life.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
IDK why some people feel so threatened by evolution. You're seriously going to be scared for the fairy tales your parents told you growing up? lol I'm sure you cried when you found out santa wasn't real either.
@Olikiscrazy Uh, many Christians don't teach their kids about "Santan" Claus. In any case you don't teach your kids about Santa do you? Did your atheist parents teach you about Santa?
More and more evidence emerges that evolution is not gradual at all. What we find in stead is long periods of minor adaptations, resulting in new species forming that are not significantly morphologically different from their clade, followed by what might almost be termed 'jumps'; events that cause significant morphological changes to develop in no more than a few thousand generations.
This lecture was given in 1991. Thats 20 years ago. We have had all this wonderfull knowledge and science for so long, and yet we still have creationists and religions. How in the hell is that possible? Thats absolutely disgusting.
These lectures should be given every year, to all children on this planet.
Religion is poison, and creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity. We have suffered for too long for the stupidity of bronze age cults, we have to end superstition before it ends us.
I dont get it. Off course evolution could go back to the earlier versions of an organism. It just takes another set of mutations. We have plenty of animals who have lost their eyes completely for living in the darkness. And they would get their eyes back if they moved to lighted areas.
What does Dawkins mean by "you cant go back on mount impropable."
@bary1234 Yes but if you live in light, it is not better to move back to the more open eye. What you are talking about is if you changed the circumstances. If a mutation would have a worse eye would it then have a bigger chance of surviving? Nope. It would most lightly be less effective at reproducing than the others of the same species.
@MaxmimusArurealius: Oh please. Save the flat earth crap since it's going to backfire. The flat earth was a mainly religious idea. Even the ancient greeks already knew better. Secondly science never claims to have the truth(tm). Only religion does that (and have always proven to be dead wrong). Science only claims to have the best answer given the current data. As new data comes along science will change its mind. And if the creotards would present any evidence they would as well.
@badpanda84 "and the "scientist" at the creation musuem dont count as scientist" What YOU count or don't count as a scientist is meaningless. Evolution isn't science. It's nothing more than vague generalities that change from day to day, unverifiable assertions, logical fallacies, and one hoax, fraud or fake after another.
@MaximusArurealius : Do you enjoy being called a moron? I mean you are a moron, obviously, but is it fun for you to shout if from the rooftops like that?
Do you like being considered a complete tool and an asshole?
@bary1234 Does it bother you when a monkey calls you a moron? I mean, do you go home and think about it? Or do you just ignore it. Well that's what I do monkey boy. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@dumpanda This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. His colleagues call him a creationist & ban him forever. No Nobel Prize. They can't deal with the questions and calling him "creationist" is a perfect ad hominem. They no longer have to give him any credence. Calling him a creationist means in their minds he doesn't use science he uses the Bible even if he doesn't. The fact that they pull this shit proves that they really don't have a leg to stand on.
@MaximusArurealius "This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. "
Ok there is a difference between having doubts ( or not understanding) a part of evoultion... that is diffrenet from claiming evoultion never happened at all.
@badpanda84 So far you have not proved it did happen and neither has anyone else. All you have are excuses and the good ole boy buddy system of suppressing and dissent from Darwinism.
@badpanda84 You mean this museum? "250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -- Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"
Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.
"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
@badpanda84 Or this one? "9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -- Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.
"Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum"4 is commonly quoted by evolution deniers but turns out to have been an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
so...still not one single person from this century who actually is qualified in biology...damn you are stupid...
Dover trial already exposed your retarded quote mine tactics, you tard.
@badpanda84 "all scientist agree with evoultion" Yeah and all scientists agreed that the world is flat so don't be trying this logical fallacy. Science is all about proving the other 99% of scientists wrong. Anything else is just bullshit. As soon as a scientist finds some new discovery all the other scientists jump on the band wagon to disown him, belittle him, or destroy him. History is full of such incidents. Evolution is not about proving anything wrong. It's all about status quo.
@badpanda84 "And that hasn't happened with evoultion-- its hasnt been proven wrong" SO far they are still looking for the ONE scientist to prove creationists wrong.
@MaximusArurealius A creationist has no cat, no can and no opener. A cat magically pops into existance. the creationist then prays for the cat to be fed. The cat then starves to death.
Both result in a dead cat. However eventually a scientist will see the records of the preivous scientist works and be able to build on it, slowy reducing the time frame from hungry cat to open tin. Eventually the scientist will know from repeated examples how to open the tin and feed the cat. The creationist won't
@tangles01 HAR HAR HAR So you're another asshole who can't make up his own witty remarks. HAR HAR HAR My description of scientists really got to you didn't it. Hurt your little e-feelings huh? HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius No I have made 2 quite clear points. You inability to see them or understand them doesn't mean they do not exist. You just have fun in your ignorance now and leave me to get on with my only life.
@tangles01 First you said "point." Now you're claiming "points." Make up your rabbit mind. Now list your 2 points. BTW I am not expecting anything dumbo.
'Peer reviewed' means write a paper, give it to a couple of people that think the same way you do on a subject, and have them OK it for publishing. You're naive if you think it works any other way. BTW climategate wasn't anything that we didn't already know about peer review. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Don't tell me about peer reviews. I don't give a shit what one efing lying evolutionist says about another lying evolutionist. If a professor finds something about evolution that proves it wrong he is going to keep his mouth SHUT. They don't tolerate deviation from the party line. He will lose his job, his friends won't know who he is, other 'scientists' will harass him.
CONSENSUS! HAR HAR HAR HAR I also love it when some asshole uses consensus as scientific evidence. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR I keep forgetting that evolutionists are impressed with peer pressure, public opinion, and voting on scientific theories to prove them. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR that's just great science don't you think? OK NOW move on along you little robotized morons, knee-jerk for us. Let's hear "religious freaks are ruining evolution." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
BTW I just love how you people give yourselves away with "peer review." Those who succumb to peer pressure or who use it as a tool to suppress ideas are always referring to it without realizing that it means absolutely nothing. It's a logical fallacy at best. Take your choice, appeal to authority or ad populum, etc. Climategate has completely PWNED peer review.
#2 It insists that evolution is an "undirected process." The only reason it is an "undirected process" is because the atheists assume there is no other alternative and therefore refuse to allow any other idea.
#3 It also insists that everything is a natural process, again rejecting God. The atheists claim that science doesn't apply to the supernatural and therefore must not acknowledge it.
Yep, it's all about atheism and rejection of science.
There are three reasons why evolution is based on atheism and a total rejection of God. The clear proof the evolution is atheistic is found in these three things.
#1 Denial of design. Design has no conflict with evolution. It only has a conflict with atheism. Therefore the atheists insist on denying something that everyone can see. They are the only ones who cannot see design. cont.
Think about it this way chrismulz, instead of the computer choosing the sentence that most resembles shakespears phrase...nature selects the organism that is best suited to the envronment ... 'nature selects' meaning the mutation that better suites the surroundings is more likely to be passed on to the next generation as the organism with the mutation is more likely to be reproduced
He can't even tame the fabled Stickbeast. How can he be the atheist messiah predicted about on exactly June 4th 2011 at 3:53 pm by a 35 year old man named Greg Danson?
@Cripptic "TROLL" CODE FOR: Anyone who wins debates with evotards. In TEXAS when two men rassel (wrestle) the one who is pinned and quits yells "calf rope." Here on YouTube the evotarded atheists yell out "TROLL." HAR HAR HAR HAR
@GamblingDementor Richard Dawkins is extremely eloquent, seems intelligent, and gets his points across very well. That does not mean he has proof of evolution, in fact I have been watching a lot of his videos (with a completely open mind) and it appears to me as though he has no proof. Or rather, none that couldn't also explain Intelligent Design. If scientists ever obtain rock solid proof then I would be happy to agree with them. Until then, my religion has 99.9% of things answered to me.
@outdoorpooltable The fossil record, DNA, and many very stupid designs in nature directly contradict intelligent design, and are evidence for evolution. So far, there is no evidence for intelligent design.
The theory of evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of science for over 150 years. while design by now is rejected by science, because it lacks any evidence.
PS: Your idiocy doesn't disprove a scientific theory.
@Hedge "The theory of evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of science for over 150 years" No it hasn't. It's merely a bullshit creation story for atheists. AND THAT'S ALL IT IS
@GamblingDementor He explains what could conditionally reduce the improbability, and takes 20 mins to repeat the comparison of gradual step assembly vs instant, but he doesn't explain how it can conveniently be appearing to work toward an end goal if natural selection nor the species has no will and no logical ability to chose that end goal.
At 14:11 he admits that, but assumes that admitting it negates the counter-argument.
Darwin monkey was made to verify progress on that specific phrase.
@Cripptic YOU CAN'T TELL? You stupid sonofabitch. More preposterous evolution bullshit. Dinos turned into birds. Humans are apes. Animals can talk. Law of thermodynamics is false. A wolf crawled back into the ocean and became a whale. Mosquitoes had to diet a long long time waiting for animals to evolve. The first fish who crawled out on dry land had to use water snorkels to live long enough to evolve lungs. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
The supposed evolutionary steps in camouflage contradict themselves... even poorly sighted humans (compared to other creatures) can pick out clever camouflage! It would seem the best camouflage would be to simply hide from possible sight, in which case camouflage wouldn't matter ANYWAY!
The chemistry experiment of the beetle is also suspect as it doesn't explain the genesis of how the defense came to be! If the mixture was too weak, the beetles wouldn't be around to evolve stronger ones!!!
I don't get how you could me so mistaken after watching this.
Camouflage,even a bad one, is better than no camouflage.
A weak mixture is better than no mixture.
It's not like there was only one beetle at a time. The selection is between a whole pupulation of beetles. The one who could "fart" something (even a weak repelant) to a predator survived more and more than the one who couldn't do anytinhg, until they where the only left.
Then the one who had the best fatrs survived and so on
It's not at the same time. The offsrings of the best beetle will surely survive more (it's easier to think about animals which have thousand of offsrings) until they are the only ones.
@Sheraf83 So, the only real defense these critters have is that they reproduce madly? They can't be killed off just by eating them?
Otherwise, the camouflage fails rather quickly once somebody figures out what to look for... if you travel in packs hunting farting beetles, someone takes the hit and somebody else gets lunch (hopefully they'll share)!
Of course not. When birds looks for insects to eat, they'll always eat first the one that are easier to find. So in a "family" of beetles, the weaker one will die first. When camouflage, (like the insect that looked like a stick of wood) is one the best defence they have, the less skilled, or equiped to not be see the first will die faster, and will reproduce less, and less...
@Sheraf83 If you have camouflage, how are you not "equipped"? How much skill does it take to blend in? It would seem the best answer is to just hide, in which case camouflage is useless to you!
Better yet, behave like humans and protect the weak! We've been very successful because of it...
Two "brothers" insects: one is kinda brown, the other is also brown (they have the same parents) but has some green stains that make him more look like his environment. Well, the "just brown" brother and his offsprings will have more chance to get eaten. So the family of the brown and green insect will be more successful.
And evolution has nothing to do with behaving like humain. Some species help each other and have community, but most of them just don't.
@Sheraf83 That's fine, but even creationists believe in natural selection. So far it has not produced any new species. Try to learn something about genetics before making yourself look like an idiot.
@MaximusArurealius Perhaps you should watch the second video in this series "Design and Designoid Objects". In it Dawkins very clearly explains that evolution and natural selection takes many many hundreds of thousands of years to create a new organism. We've only been observing evoution for 200 years. Perhaps in our lifetimes we may be very lucky to observe a minor change in our species or another animal species that is a product of evolution but by its very definition we won't see major change
@PuppetsNStuff2 "but by its very definition we won't see major change" Yeah, very convenient, huh? BTW evolution has already been pwned. Why aren't you up on science dummass?
@MaximusArurealius I would argue evoution can be quite INconvenient. But if we look at convenience in the pejorative then no explanation for the origin of life could be more laden with convenience than one of intelligent design; so if your rejection of evolution is based on its perceived 'convenience' then surely you must reject creationism too? In which case this would be a good moment to offer your own third explanation for the origin of life. We can't wait to hear it.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey asshole, do you know what a strawman is? I believed in evolution before you were born. My religion doesn't forbid it you stupid shit. Do you realize that 99% of Christians have no objections to it? Unlike you, I have an open mind and I did research. Science, not religion, convinced me that it's pure bullshit. If you're not an imbecile you can see Dawkins lying in this video. He's completely full of shit. It's all showmanship. And that's all.
@MaximusArurealius A strawman is a logical fallacy in which someone misrepresents the opinion of someone they are arguing with. I did not do that; I simply asked for clarification of your position. I don't know where you get your statistics from but an independent poll by the Pew Forum has shown that only 48% of Protestants in the USA believe in evolution; not quite 99% is it? Now would you be kind enough to cite the science which causes you to doubt evolution?
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey asshole. You don't read very well. And then you twist things around to match your rabbit assed mind. I didn't say 99% believe in it ya dummass. I said 99% have no objections to it as far as their religion is concerned. My religion doesn't forbid it. That doesn't me that I believe in evolution. Protestants are only 10% of Christianity and the fundies are merely something of less that a 10% minority. That means that less than 1% of all Christianity is of a fundie persuasion.
@MaximusArurealius We may have a semantic difference here but I personally think that a disbelief counts as an objection. Protestants in fact make up 30% of the 73% of Americans who identify as Christian; that's significantly more than 10%. Catholics also hold a significant percentage and only slightly over half accept evolution. I would contend that disbelief in evolution makes you a fundamentalist, there are many non fundamental churches that reject evolution.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey dummass, do you think the Christians who live in America are the only Christians? Ya ignernt little turd, Protestants comprise about 10% of Christians WORLDWIDE.
@MaximusArurealius The USA alone has the highest percentage of Christians and thus serves as a good indicator for the rest of the world. Looking at the worldwide statistics we see that the statement that "only 10% of Christians in the world are Protestant" is still a gross understatement as the real figure is closer to 30% and this does not include other sects that reject evolution (Mormons, Mennonites, Lutherans etc.).
@PuppetsNStuff2 You don't know what you're talking about you stupid asshole. USA does NOT have the highest percentage of Christians. There are many countries who have 95% Christians and Catholics are 1.2 billion alone and growing.
@MaximusArurealius Well let's just clarify: yes some countries do have 95%; however the USA still has the most Christians by dint of it being a much larger country. The exact number of Christians in the US is: 243 million, whereas Mexico (95% Christian) only has 105mil. Also the US doesn't have a state religion and so permits all denominations equal rights to worship; hence it is a better statistical model for Christianity worldwide than say Vatican City (100% Christian).
@PuppetsNStuff2 How about YOUR citing the science which causes you to believe in evolution as the burden of proof is on you. You won't be able to do it. Therefore I need nothing more than that. But after you make a total fool of yourself, I will be glad to discuss how stupid the idea of a dino turning into a bird, wolf turning into a whale, and an ape turning into a man is. HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius I am afraid that you are incorrect. If you wish to make a claim against scientific consensus then the burden of proof is with you. Whilst you're at it would you care to prove that your 'god' exists? Burden of proof is with you there too.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Scientific consensus is only invoked when an argument is weak and unproven. Appeal to consensus is merely an ad populum logical fallacy and is proof of NOTHING. THEREFORE the burden of proof is on you. 1. You need to prove that it is really science 2. You need to prove that it really happened 3. You need to be objective (which so far you have not been).
@MaximusArurealius Again that's not quite true because scientific consensus is not what it was a hundred years ago; it's not the unproven opinion of the science elite. We won't get scientists telling us Earth is flat again because we have higher standards; scientific consensus is only reached when a large majority of scientists agree on something that has been PROVEN, not hypothesised. Every scientist could agree all black people are rapists but it's not scientific consensus till they prove it.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Yes it is quite true idiot boy. Scientific consensus is merely an ad populum argument. And NO we don't have higher standards. You're talking out your ass. Evolution HAS NOT been proven, but just the opposite. Scientific consensus is opinion. Science is all about 1 investigator proving the other 99.9% wrong. You know jack about science. Thanks for proving it to the whole world idiot boy.
@MaximusArurealius Again that's really not true. Like the word "theory" the word "consensus" has a very different meaning in science than it does colloquailly. Scientific consensus requires actual proof to be considered consensus. Hence why we can say it is scientific consensus that global warmng exists and is accelerating but not that it is the sole responsibility of mankind; there is empirical proof for the former but not for the latter.
@PuppetsNStuff2 1. Evolution is NOT a scientific theory 2. Consensus doesn't have a different meaning in science. Where did you come up with such shit? Your example shot you in the foot. There is no evidence that we have global warming. Why do you think they switched to calling it "climate change." Ya know what dummass you need to stick to your school work and stop running your stupid mouth here on YT. cont.
@MaximusArurealius 1. Yes it is. 2. Yes it does. These are both irrefutable facts; if you would like to continue to ignore them that's absolutely your perogative and I support your right to do soo 100%. But that doesn't make them any less true
@MaximusArurealius Whether you believe in the facts or not they will still be true. Just as believing in the fairytale of Judeo-Christian mythology doesn't make it any more true.
True, it's not "a" scientific theory, it's the most well-supported and mostly widely accepted scientific theory of all. Basically it is THE scientific theory, which just so happens to not only cover biology, but branch over into nearly all areas of Sciene. Claiming it's not a scientific theory makes you a moron, and I'm being conservative here.
@Hedge139 Thanks for proving that you are the biggest know-nothing idiot fucking dunce on this thread. Why did your mom raise a fucking loser like you? It has NOTHING to do with science. It's your wacko religion asshole and nothing more. It's all nothing more than the atheist's creation story. It has NO support. All it has are lies, peer preassure, media support, fakes, frauds, and hoaxes. AND that is ALL.
@MaximusArurealius I almost forgot: Evolution and Atheism have nothing to do with eachother. There are in fact theist biologists who accept Evolution, such as Ken Miller.
@Hedge129 Hey dumbo, atheism and evolution have EVERYTHING to do with each other. Evolution is designed by atheists. Theist biologists who believe in evolution? hahahaha You've been saying all along how stupid Christians are and now suddenly they're smart? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR BTW Ken Miller is a fucking dunce.
@MaximusArurealius Dude, the Catholic church officially supports evolution. You have no idea what you are talking about. Charles Darwin was a Christian, so how was evolution designed by atheists? Read a book.
@scjoiner Do you know what "supports" means ya lamebrain? Tell me what doctrine it is found in? Tell me where the Church has changed its official position on creation? YOU need to read a book.
@PuppetsNStuff2 You haven't even finished college. You actually haven't done ANYTHING in your miserable insipid life. You haven't been in the military, owned a business, or supported yourself. You haven't supported a wife or raised a family. You've never even done a man's work a day in your pathetic life? You're fkkking useless. All you have done is mooch off your parents, come here, and demonstrate diarrhea of the mouth. You haven't actually tested your beliefs. You took somebody else's word.
@MaximusArurealius Well not only is that untrue it's not relevant to our discussion. There are plenty of people who haven't done military service or married who understand science; neither is a prerequisite. For someone whp's so tetchy about purported "ad populum" arguments you're awfully fond of ad hominem arguments. Itd be nice also if you provided an example of when you actually put your belief in Judeo-Christian Mythology to the test.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Untrue? The important thing is that you haven't done shit in your pathetic miserable life. Understanding science? So far you haven't demonstrated that you do understand it. Now keep whining sonny. In the meantime move out of your parents house and make your own living while you still know everything. hahahahahahaa
@MaximusArurealius Again it's not important because none of what you have said is true and you have no way of proving it is. This is an entirely anonymous message board, you don't know any more about me than I've told you and I don't know any more about you then you've told me. Ergo so thus and therefore you've just pulled an ad hominem out of thin air that is totally irrelevant to our actual discussion on the validity of the Scientfic Theory of Evolution. Back on topic please.
As for the proof? Well there's so much of it that it's hard to know where to start when explaining to a novice. Transitional vertabrate fossils, radiocarbon dating (and the countless other dating technologies), the existence/observance of DNA and mitochondria in mammals and the various levels of genetic similarities between species. These are all good places to start (YouTube won't let me share links on here so you'll have to Google) but there's so much more evidence out there on top of this.
@PuppetsNStuff2 "Again that's not quite true because scientific consensus is not what it was a hundred years ago" No, it's far worse. It's now nothing more than pure good ole boy "let's stand together no matter what the evidence suggests" bullshit.
"We won't get scientists telling us the Earth is flat again because we have higher standards" HAR HAR HAR HAR you genius. You should tell that to Dawkins. He can put you in for a Nobel. HAR HAR HAR btw dumshit, nobody says, "we know the Earth is round because of a consensus of scientists." HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius That's not what is at all; and making the baseless claim that it is again and again won't make it any more true. But you're very strident on the matter which leads me to believe that you must have some compelling evidence to disprove evolution. Care to share it?
@MaximusArurealius Well let's see there's the fossil record for a start, dated using all those different carbon dating methods that have all independently proved each other's results. Then there's the entire field of genetic science that has enabled us to chart genomes and compare genetic make-ups between species. And of course there's also the observable enviromental evidence: the New Zealand kakapo, the now extinct Yang Tze River Dolphin. Now please: your evidence.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Do you know how they independently prove the ages? They use the age of the rocks to prove the age of the fossils AND then they use the age of the fossils to prove the age of the rocks. It's all a laughing stock. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
BTW genetics disproves evolution. Study more genetics dummass.
@MaximusArurealius That's a glib oversimplification that doesn't even bear commenting on. If believing that helps you sleep at night then fine, but that doeesn't make it any more true. Genetics does not disprove evolution at all: another baseless claim, it supports it with compelling evidence. Again you neatly side stepped the evidence you don't yet have an ill-informed rebuke for: the kakapo? The Yang Tze River Dolphin? And while you're at it let's see the evidence for your theory.
@PuppetsNStuff2 glib? HAR HAR HAR that's exactly how they do it. And you DID comment so hahahaha. Did that help you sleep last night? AND YES genetics disproves evolution. There is NO compelling evidence FOR evolution. NONE. YOU explain the duckbill platypus. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius What would you like to know about the modeern platypus? It' a semi-aqutic mammal, a cousin of echidna and marsupials. Molecular clock and fossil dating indicate it evolved from its common ancestor with the echidna about 40million years ago. It was present on Gondwana before that continent split. Genetically it has asbout 80% of its genes in common with other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced. It's a perfect model for evolution. Now I ask again: your evidence please.
@PuppetsNStuff2 "It's a perfect model for evolution" That's just fucking hilarious. I can't believe how no matter the evidence or event you evotards always claim that it proves evolution. HAR HAR HAR Now prove diversity? I am waiting but you just keep dodging. Let's have your evidence please.
1. "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself.
2. "If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.
3. "So today's falsification, though it falsifies one of evolution's most treasured predictions, will be no different." - Cornelius Hunter
Cornelius, I know all this, but haven't put into those words. You have pretty much pwned them all. Thanks. OH BUT you forgot about their blaming it all on a "common ancestor" they cannot name.
@PuppetsNStuff2 Yeah it is. You can't explain it so you're full of shit. You just proved that evolution is nonsense. You're the laughing stock. So until you can come up with an explanation that is true YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
@MaximusArurealius The Fact that I can e.g. not explain how Computers work, proves that Computers are nonsense?.. .Oh Boy, you are such a Fool.
Evolution is demonstrably true and observable. It is documented in the Fossil-Record, the Genomes of the Animals and Plants of this Planet, and all the Opponents can field, are lies, ignorance and quotemining.
@PuppetsNStuff2 I don't have a "god." I believe in God. The One True God, the God of Abraham, the God of the Bible, the God of ALL men. It is not my responsibility to prove God to you. God cannot be proven to a liar. You need to prove that you don't believe in God.
@MaximusArurealius The burden of proof sits firmly with you I'm afraid. I shall refer you to Bertrand's teapot for an eloquent example of why the burden of proof is with you.
@PuppetsNStuff2 You failed to make a case for Bertrand's Teapot analogy. So keep being afraid. You have failed to refute my arguments against consensus.
@MaximusArurealius Also; I''d contend that Dawkins is a showman. If that's all he is then he's a piss poor one. Whilst some might say he has a certain charm I think he suffers from a certain stuffiness. His redeeming feature is the passion he has for his topic and the clarity with which he explains it. Derren Brown is a showman. Dawkins is a scientist.
What does the "flying squirrel" do right now? They "fall" softly of trees.
Flying squirrels is a perfect exemple of a "mid-wing" species. And if they survive, you can bet the species will fly. But it'll take thousands of generation for this to happen. Evolution is a VERY SLOW process.
@Sheraf83 Dummass, get with the program asshole. We're not talking about squirrels you lamebrain. We are talking about birds. Pull your head out of your ass and get some fresh air for a change. AND yeah yeah yeah, we know it's a slow process. So fucking slow in fact they have never found it happening ya moron.
I sometimes picture early 90's era Dawkins when I make love to my boyfriend. He knows this and finds it hilarious. He pictures Christopher Hitchens. Joke. But yes, these Christmas Lectures in particular drive me WILD. On several levels, they're beautifully worded and wonderfully accessible, but mainly his face is just so damn delicious anno 1991. Perfect features, hot brain. And then there's the hands. And don't get me started on the EPIC shirts. I'm more giddy in my desires than a monkey.
ostellamaria 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wpiszcie w googlach "bioslawek" a wszystko będzie jasne
maroo1233211 1 week ago
its so beautifuly simple
RapeJesusWithAStick 2 weeks ago in playlist Intelligent Design: Creationism's New Brand Name
me gusto elo del ojo. realmente impresionante.
lucholombar 2 weeks ago
48:30 - What's your name?
Alice
-Annie!
TweekDash 1 month ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins 2
rainbow table code decypher , usually used for cracking wep key transmissions , uses a similiar princple as the darwin monkey in that joyous experiment , though the router itself creates the offspring to which the cypher will compare and then reorder the offspring to the parent hex key
jmm1233 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
That 747 argument is way older than I thought.
TolstoyianFunk 1 month ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
@koalajones88 That means he will be able to breed! ;)
akshatj42 1 month ago
Science!
Sirchud68 2 months ago 4
Richard Dawkins is so cute with kids.
SeamusLight93 2 months ago 5
@SeamusLight93 he's cute period
spockck 2 weeks ago
Does anyone know the song from 21:40 to 22:15 PLEASE!!!!
greekpanther1 3 months ago
@mathill42 learning is always an achievement
4gimme 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmm, blind deaf and dumb cannot "climb". It is pathetic that these evolutionists need to use some figure of speech or metaphor that would describe what an intelligent source would do and place it over some natural process that wholly lacks any intelligence at all. If they were really truthful they would just say: Since evolution and natural selection lacks intelligence: is blind, deaf and dumb, there is no chance of it climbing mt. improbable or accomplishing anything regarding biological life.
timcp1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
how fucking long was this lecture
douggw 4 months ago
@douggw For patient people, and those who like to learn, it was a rather short, too short.
Mathill42 3 months ago
@Mathill42 i watched the whole thing one after the other but was it all in one day
douggw 3 months ago
@douggw When you say it like that, it sounds like an achievement.
Mathill42 3 months ago
@Mathill42 wasn't ment to be taken like that
douggw 3 months ago
IDK why some people feel so threatened by evolution. You're seriously going to be scared for the fairy tales your parents told you growing up? lol I'm sure you cried when you found out santa wasn't real either.
Olikiscrazy 4 months ago
Comment removed
timcp1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Olikiscrazy Uh, many Christians don't teach their kids about "Santan" Claus. In any case you don't teach your kids about Santa do you? Did your atheist parents teach you about Santa?
timcp1 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins should be forced to have more babies or he should be cloned.
6478225 4 months ago 13
27 Christians
laesphanie 4 months ago
@laesphanie Why the discrimination? There are also Muslims!
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@laesphanie you are wrong, 25 christians and 2 muslims.
ramiBudemaris 3 months ago
Evolution was not always 'gradual.' It can be boosted especially after a catastrophe event after climate change.
simpsonmark 4 months ago
« Evolution was not always 'gradual.' »
More and more evidence emerges that evolution is not gradual at all. What we find in stead is long periods of minor adaptations, resulting in new species forming that are not significantly morphologically different from their clade, followed by what might almost be termed 'jumps'; events that cause significant morphological changes to develop in no more than a few thousand generations.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
One of the best Dawkins videos, a true treasure.
praestvs 5 months ago 2
This lecture was given in 1991. Thats 20 years ago. We have had all this wonderfull knowledge and science for so long, and yet we still have creationists and religions. How in the hell is that possible? Thats absolutely disgusting.
bary1234 5 months ago 2
These lectures should be given every year, to all children on this planet.
Religion is poison, and creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity. We have suffered for too long for the stupidity of bronze age cults, we have to end superstition before it ends us.
bary1234 5 months ago 2
I dont get it. Off course evolution could go back to the earlier versions of an organism. It just takes another set of mutations. We have plenty of animals who have lost their eyes completely for living in the darkness. And they would get their eyes back if they moved to lighted areas.
What does Dawkins mean by "you cant go back on mount impropable."
bary1234 5 months ago
@bary1234 Yes but if you live in light, it is not better to move back to the more open eye. What you are talking about is if you changed the circumstances. If a mutation would have a worse eye would it then have a bigger chance of surviving? Nope. It would most lightly be less effective at reproducing than the others of the same species.
SuspectDK 5 months ago
@SuspectDK : So by "moving backwards" I quess he means you cant turn in to a crappier version that cant survive. Because you wont survive.
bary1234 5 months ago
@bary1234 Much more simple than my exploitation. But yes :)
SuspectDK 5 months ago
@MaxmimusArurealius: Oh please. Save the flat earth crap since it's going to backfire. The flat earth was a mainly religious idea. Even the ancient greeks already knew better. Secondly science never claims to have the truth(tm). Only religion does that (and have always proven to be dead wrong). Science only claims to have the best answer given the current data. As new data comes along science will change its mind. And if the creotards would present any evidence they would as well.
compuholic82 5 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
", if the fossils proved evolution we wouldn't be having all these arguments about it. "
We don't -- all scientist agree with evoultion (and the "scientist" at the creation musuem dont count as scientist)
Just because s ome nutjob ( who has never studied biology) claim evoultion is a lie is not an argument.
Likewise some nutjob claiming the moonlanding is a hoax dosen't prove we didnt land on the moon
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 "and the "scientist" at the creation musuem dont count as scientist" What YOU count or don't count as a scientist is meaningless. Evolution isn't science. It's nothing more than vague generalities that change from day to day, unverifiable assertions, logical fallacies, and one hoax, fraud or fake after another.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius : Do you enjoy being called a moron? I mean you are a moron, obviously, but is it fun for you to shout if from the rooftops like that?
Do you like being considered a complete tool and an asshole?
bary1234 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bary1234 Does it bother you when a monkey calls you a moron? I mean, do you go home and think about it? Or do you just ignore it. Well that's what I do monkey boy. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@dumpanda This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. His colleagues call him a creationist & ban him forever. No Nobel Prize. They can't deal with the questions and calling him "creationist" is a perfect ad hominem. They no longer have to give him any credence. Calling him a creationist means in their minds he doesn't use science he uses the Bible even if he doesn't. The fact that they pull this shit proves that they really don't have a leg to stand on.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. "
Ok there is a difference between having doubts ( or not understanding) a part of evoultion... that is diffrenet from claiming evoultion never happened at all.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 So far you have not proved it did happen and neither has anyone else. All you have are excuses and the good ole boy buddy system of suppressing and dissent from Darwinism.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius to prove evoultion happen you would need to go to a musueum and see the fossils for yourself.
But of course we cant do that on youtube unfornutaley
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 You mean this museum? "250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -- Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@Maxisretarded
Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.
"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
Talkorigins
transtlantic 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Or this one? "9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -- Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@Maxisretarded
"Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum"4 is commonly quoted by evolution deniers but turns out to have been an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
so...still not one single person from this century who actually is qualified in biology...damn you are stupid...
Dover trial already exposed your retarded quote mine tactics, you tard.
transtlantic 5 months ago
@badpanda84 "all scientist agree with evoultion" Yeah and all scientists agreed that the world is flat so don't be trying this logical fallacy. Science is all about proving the other 99% of scientists wrong. Anything else is just bullshit. As soon as a scientist finds some new discovery all the other scientists jump on the band wagon to disown him, belittle him, or destroy him. History is full of such incidents. Evolution is not about proving anything wrong. It's all about status quo.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius " Science is all about proving the other 99% of scientists wrong"
And that hasn't happened with evoultion-- its hasnt been proven wrong..
badpanda84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badpanda84 "And that hasn't happened with evoultion-- its hasnt been proven wrong" SO far they are still looking for the ONE scientist to prove creationists wrong.
ANOTHER EPIC FAIL
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Muchas gracias por los episodios.
pipebalaguera 5 months ago
Do not feed the trolls please!
mallu000 5 months ago 2
@mallu000 OMG how many pages of crap has maximus arurealisu written -- just been looking though the comment and it gose on for 19 more pages..
badpanda84 5 months ago
A fucking scientist can't even open a can of tuna for his cat.
First, he needs empirical evidence that he even has a cat,
2nd he then needs a peer reviewed paper that proves the cat gets gets hungry,
3rd he now needs a plan to open the can,
4th then he decides on 1 of 8 different courses of action to get the can open, one of which was to blow it up with dynamite,
5th by time a dam scientist has figured out all this the poor dam cat has starved to death.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius A creationist has no cat, no can and no opener. A cat magically pops into existance. the creationist then prays for the cat to be fed. The cat then starves to death.
Both result in a dead cat. However eventually a scientist will see the records of the preivous scientist works and be able to build on it, slowy reducing the time frame from hungry cat to open tin. Eventually the scientist will know from repeated examples how to open the tin and feed the cat. The creationist won't
tangles01 5 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
@tangles01 HAR HAR HAR So you're another asshole who can't make up his own witty remarks. HAR HAR HAR My description of scientists really got to you didn't it. Hurt your little e-feelings huh? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Not really. Just using your own sub standard remark to demonstrate how stupid you are. Thanks for proving my point for me.
tangles01 5 months ago
@tangles01 You don't have a point dummass.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius No I have made 2 quite clear points. You inability to see them or understand them doesn't mean they do not exist. You just have fun in your ignorance now and leave me to get on with my only life.
tangles01 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tangles01 First you said "point." Now you're claiming "points." Make up your rabbit mind. Now list your 2 points. BTW I am not expecting anything dumbo.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
'Peer reviewed' means write a paper, give it to a couple of people that think the same way you do on a subject, and have them OK it for publishing. You're naive if you think it works any other way. BTW climategate wasn't anything that we didn't already know about peer review. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Don't tell me about peer reviews. I don't give a shit what one efing lying evolutionist says about another lying evolutionist. If a professor finds something about evolution that proves it wrong he is going to keep his mouth SHUT. They don't tolerate deviation from the party line. He will lose his job, his friends won't know who he is, other 'scientists' will harass him.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
CONSENSUS! HAR HAR HAR HAR I also love it when some asshole uses consensus as scientific evidence. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR I keep forgetting that evolutionists are impressed with peer pressure, public opinion, and voting on scientific theories to prove them. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR that's just great science don't you think? OK NOW move on along you little robotized morons, knee-jerk for us. Let's hear "religious freaks are ruining evolution." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
BTW I just love how you people give yourselves away with "peer review." Those who succumb to peer pressure or who use it as a tool to suppress ideas are always referring to it without realizing that it means absolutely nothing. It's a logical fallacy at best. Take your choice, appeal to authority or ad populum, etc. Climategate has completely PWNED peer review.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#2 It insists that evolution is an "undirected process." The only reason it is an "undirected process" is because the atheists assume there is no other alternative and therefore refuse to allow any other idea.
#3 It also insists that everything is a natural process, again rejecting God. The atheists claim that science doesn't apply to the supernatural and therefore must not acknowledge it.
Yep, it's all about atheism and rejection of science.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are three reasons why evolution is based on atheism and a total rejection of God. The clear proof the evolution is atheistic is found in these three things.
#1 Denial of design. Design has no conflict with evolution. It only has a conflict with atheism. Therefore the atheists insist on denying something that everyone can see. They are the only ones who cannot see design. cont.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Think about it this way chrismulz, instead of the computer choosing the sentence that most resembles shakespears phrase...nature selects the organism that is best suited to the envronment ... 'nature selects' meaning the mutation that better suites the surroundings is more likely to be passed on to the next generation as the organism with the mutation is more likely to be reproduced
sadhana96 6 months ago
Beautiful. Beautiful.
Wiiownz16 6 months ago
I love Dawkins but damn that's an ugly shirt. Whew.
ZachRose88 6 months ago
@ZachRose88 crap! That shirt is the ONLY thing he's got going for him.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
I love the way he pwns 'creationists' .
LogicalStatements1 6 months ago
This series should be showed to every school kid on the planet.
mightyUFO 6 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
wow.. he really sounds like stewie from family guy XD the accents are alike :)
Rospandan 6 months ago
people zure had crazy names back then XD
Rospandan 6 months ago
Btw I'd rather have watched this as a kid alongside Bill Nye than Mr.Rogers Neightborhood or Sesame Street.
yillow1 6 months ago
He can't even tame the fabled Stickbeast. How can he be the atheist messiah predicted about on exactly June 4th 2011 at 3:53 pm by a 35 year old man named Greg Danson?
yillow1 6 months ago
@Cripptic "TROLL" CODE FOR: Anyone who wins debates with evotards. In TEXAS when two men rassel (wrestle) the one who is pinned and quits yells "calf rope." Here on YouTube the evotarded atheists yell out "TROLL." HAR HAR HAR HAR
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@Cripptic You didn't say anything of importance asshole. FAIL
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
It is so fascinating that he can explain that so easily, so clearly.
Has any creationist watched this before he/she starts speaking about the impossibility of the evolution ?!
GamblingDementor 6 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
@GamblingDementor Richard Dawkins is extremely eloquent, seems intelligent, and gets his points across very well. That does not mean he has proof of evolution, in fact I have been watching a lot of his videos (with a completely open mind) and it appears to me as though he has no proof. Or rather, none that couldn't also explain Intelligent Design. If scientists ever obtain rock solid proof then I would be happy to agree with them. Until then, my religion has 99.9% of things answered to me.
outdoorpooltable 6 months ago
@outdoorpooltable The fossil record, DNA, and many very stupid designs in nature directly contradict intelligent design, and are evidence for evolution. So far, there is no evidence for intelligent design.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Helge129 You dumshit. DESIGN is the ONLY thing that will stand up in a science context you dumfuk.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Design has been refuted and completely rejected by the scientific community. You dumb fuck.
Helge129 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Let me extend on that actually.
The theory of evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of science for over 150 years. while design by now is rejected by science, because it lacks any evidence.
PS: Your idiocy doesn't disprove a scientific theory.
Helge129 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hedge "The theory of evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of science for over 150 years" No it hasn't. It's merely a bullshit creation story for atheists. AND THAT'S ALL IT IS
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@GamblingDementor He explains what could conditionally reduce the improbability, and takes 20 mins to repeat the comparison of gradual step assembly vs instant, but he doesn't explain how it can conveniently be appearing to work toward an end goal if natural selection nor the species has no will and no logical ability to chose that end goal.
At 14:11 he admits that, but assumes that admitting it negates the counter-argument.
Darwin monkey was made to verify progress on that specific phrase.
chrismrulz 6 months ago
@Cripptic "OBVI0USLY DA SKY LORD MADE ERETHING" YOU made that up asshole. It's nothing more than a strawman.
EPIC FAIL
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@Cripptic YOU CAN'T TELL? You stupid sonofabitch. More preposterous evolution bullshit. Dinos turned into birds. Humans are apes. Animals can talk. Law of thermodynamics is false. A wolf crawled back into the ocean and became a whale. Mosquitoes had to diet a long long time waiting for animals to evolve. The first fish who crawled out on dry land had to use water snorkels to live long enough to evolve lungs. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
EVOLUTION FAIL
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago in playlist Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
Evolution is so easy to understand, especially with Richard as your teacher.
Creationism is so impossible to accept in the face of the evidence, unless one subscribes to a pseudo-science such as intelligent design.
Give me real science every time.
GuillemotWatcher 7 months ago
The supposed evolutionary steps in camouflage contradict themselves... even poorly sighted humans (compared to other creatures) can pick out clever camouflage! It would seem the best camouflage would be to simply hide from possible sight, in which case camouflage wouldn't matter ANYWAY!
The chemistry experiment of the beetle is also suspect as it doesn't explain the genesis of how the defense came to be! If the mixture was too weak, the beetles wouldn't be around to evolve stronger ones!!!
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf
I don't get how you could me so mistaken after watching this.
Camouflage,even a bad one, is better than no camouflage.
A weak mixture is better than no mixture.
It's not like there was only one beetle at a time. The selection is between a whole pupulation of beetles. The one who could "fart" something (even a weak repelant) to a predator survived more and more than the one who couldn't do anytinhg, until they where the only left.
Then the one who had the best fatrs survived and so on
Sheraf83 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 You're either able to hide or you are not... you are able to defend yourself or you are not! It boils down to that!
So the same mutation occurs to many members at the same time? So much for random mutation...
kc0itf 6 months ago
@kc0itf
Well, no and no.
It's not at the same time. The offsrings of the best beetle will surely survive more (it's easier to think about animals which have thousand of offsrings) until they are the only ones.
Sheraf83 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 So, the only real defense these critters have is that they reproduce madly? They can't be killed off just by eating them?
Otherwise, the camouflage fails rather quickly once somebody figures out what to look for... if you travel in packs hunting farting beetles, someone takes the hit and somebody else gets lunch (hopefully they'll share)!
kc0itf 6 months ago
@kc0itf
Of course not. When birds looks for insects to eat, they'll always eat first the one that are easier to find. So in a "family" of beetles, the weaker one will die first. When camouflage, (like the insect that looked like a stick of wood) is one the best defence they have, the less skilled, or equiped to not be see the first will die faster, and will reproduce less, and less...
Sheraf83 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 If you have camouflage, how are you not "equipped"? How much skill does it take to blend in? It would seem the best answer is to just hide, in which case camouflage is useless to you!
Better yet, behave like humans and protect the weak! We've been very successful because of it...
kc0itf 6 months ago
@kc0itf
I said LESS equiped.
Two "brothers" insects: one is kinda brown, the other is also brown (they have the same parents) but has some green stains that make him more look like his environment. Well, the "just brown" brother and his offsprings will have more chance to get eaten. So the family of the brown and green insect will be more successful.
And evolution has nothing to do with behaving like humain. Some species help each other and have community, but most of them just don't.
Sheraf83 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 That's fine, but even creationists believe in natural selection. So far it has not produced any new species. Try to learn something about genetics before making yourself look like an idiot.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Perhaps you should watch the second video in this series "Design and Designoid Objects". In it Dawkins very clearly explains that evolution and natural selection takes many many hundreds of thousands of years to create a new organism. We've only been observing evoution for 200 years. Perhaps in our lifetimes we may be very lucky to observe a minor change in our species or another animal species that is a product of evolution but by its very definition we won't see major change
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 "but by its very definition we won't see major change" Yeah, very convenient, huh? BTW evolution has already been pwned. Why aren't you up on science dummass?
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I would argue evoution can be quite INconvenient. But if we look at convenience in the pejorative then no explanation for the origin of life could be more laden with convenience than one of intelligent design; so if your rejection of evolution is based on its perceived 'convenience' then surely you must reject creationism too? In which case this would be a good moment to offer your own third explanation for the origin of life. We can't wait to hear it.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey asshole, do you know what a strawman is? I believed in evolution before you were born. My religion doesn't forbid it you stupid shit. Do you realize that 99% of Christians have no objections to it? Unlike you, I have an open mind and I did research. Science, not religion, convinced me that it's pure bullshit. If you're not an imbecile you can see Dawkins lying in this video. He's completely full of shit. It's all showmanship. And that's all.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius A strawman is a logical fallacy in which someone misrepresents the opinion of someone they are arguing with. I did not do that; I simply asked for clarification of your position. I don't know where you get your statistics from but an independent poll by the Pew Forum has shown that only 48% of Protestants in the USA believe in evolution; not quite 99% is it? Now would you be kind enough to cite the science which causes you to doubt evolution?
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey asshole. You don't read very well. And then you twist things around to match your rabbit assed mind. I didn't say 99% believe in it ya dummass. I said 99% have no objections to it as far as their religion is concerned. My religion doesn't forbid it. That doesn't me that I believe in evolution. Protestants are only 10% of Christianity and the fundies are merely something of less that a 10% minority. That means that less than 1% of all Christianity is of a fundie persuasion.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius We may have a semantic difference here but I personally think that a disbelief counts as an objection. Protestants in fact make up 30% of the 73% of Americans who identify as Christian; that's significantly more than 10%. Catholics also hold a significant percentage and only slightly over half accept evolution. I would contend that disbelief in evolution makes you a fundamentalist, there are many non fundamental churches that reject evolution.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Hey dummass, do you think the Christians who live in America are the only Christians? Ya ignernt little turd, Protestants comprise about 10% of Christians WORLDWIDE.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The USA alone has the highest percentage of Christians and thus serves as a good indicator for the rest of the world. Looking at the worldwide statistics we see that the statement that "only 10% of Christians in the world are Protestant" is still a gross understatement as the real figure is closer to 30% and this does not include other sects that reject evolution (Mormons, Mennonites, Lutherans etc.).
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 You don't know what you're talking about you stupid asshole. USA does NOT have the highest percentage of Christians. There are many countries who have 95% Christians and Catholics are 1.2 billion alone and growing.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Well let's just clarify: yes some countries do have 95%; however the USA still has the most Christians by dint of it being a much larger country. The exact number of Christians in the US is: 243 million, whereas Mexico (95% Christian) only has 105mil. Also the US doesn't have a state religion and so permits all denominations equal rights to worship; hence it is a better statistical model for Christianity worldwide than say Vatican City (100% Christian).
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 How about YOUR citing the science which causes you to believe in evolution as the burden of proof is on you. You won't be able to do it. Therefore I need nothing more than that. But after you make a total fool of yourself, I will be glad to discuss how stupid the idea of a dino turning into a bird, wolf turning into a whale, and an ape turning into a man is. HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I am afraid that you are incorrect. If you wish to make a claim against scientific consensus then the burden of proof is with you. Whilst you're at it would you care to prove that your 'god' exists? Burden of proof is with you there too.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Scientific consensus is only invoked when an argument is weak and unproven. Appeal to consensus is merely an ad populum logical fallacy and is proof of NOTHING. THEREFORE the burden of proof is on you. 1. You need to prove that it is really science 2. You need to prove that it really happened 3. You need to be objective (which so far you have not been).
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Again that's not quite true because scientific consensus is not what it was a hundred years ago; it's not the unproven opinion of the science elite. We won't get scientists telling us Earth is flat again because we have higher standards; scientific consensus is only reached when a large majority of scientists agree on something that has been PROVEN, not hypothesised. Every scientist could agree all black people are rapists but it's not scientific consensus till they prove it.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Yes it is quite true idiot boy. Scientific consensus is merely an ad populum argument. And NO we don't have higher standards. You're talking out your ass. Evolution HAS NOT been proven, but just the opposite. Scientific consensus is opinion. Science is all about 1 investigator proving the other 99.9% wrong. You know jack about science. Thanks for proving it to the whole world idiot boy.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Again that's really not true. Like the word "theory" the word "consensus" has a very different meaning in science than it does colloquailly. Scientific consensus requires actual proof to be considered consensus. Hence why we can say it is scientific consensus that global warmng exists and is accelerating but not that it is the sole responsibility of mankind; there is empirical proof for the former but not for the latter.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 1. Evolution is NOT a scientific theory 2. Consensus doesn't have a different meaning in science. Where did you come up with such shit? Your example shot you in the foot. There is no evidence that we have global warming. Why do you think they switched to calling it "climate change." Ya know what dummass you need to stick to your school work and stop running your stupid mouth here on YT. cont.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius 1. Yes it is. 2. Yes it does. These are both irrefutable facts; if you would like to continue to ignore them that's absolutely your perogative and I support your right to do soo 100%. But that doesn't make them any less true
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 1. No it's not 2. No it doesn't. You failed to prove anything. yip yip yip wah wah wah
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Whether you believe in the facts or not they will still be true. Just as believing in the fairytale of Judeo-Christian mythology doesn't make it any more true.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "1. Evolution is NOT a scientific theory"
True, it's not "a" scientific theory, it's the most well-supported and mostly widely accepted scientific theory of all. Basically it is THE scientific theory, which just so happens to not only cover biology, but branch over into nearly all areas of Sciene. Claiming it's not a scientific theory makes you a moron, and I'm being conservative here.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Hedge139 Thanks for proving that you are the biggest know-nothing idiot fucking dunce on this thread. Why did your mom raise a fucking loser like you? It has NOTHING to do with science. It's your wacko religion asshole and nothing more. It's all nothing more than the atheist's creation story. It has NO support. All it has are lies, peer preassure, media support, fakes, frauds, and hoaxes. AND that is ALL.
EPIC FAIL MORON
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Thank you for nicely describing creationism. I couldn't have described it better myself.
Evolution has nothing to do with science? Science disagrees.
Helge129 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hedge, "Science disagrees" OH really? You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I almost forgot: Evolution and Atheism have nothing to do with eachother. There are in fact theist biologists who accept Evolution, such as Ken Miller.
Helge129 5 months ago
@Hedge129 Hey dumbo, atheism and evolution have EVERYTHING to do with each other. Evolution is designed by atheists. Theist biologists who believe in evolution? hahahaha You've been saying all along how stupid Christians are and now suddenly they're smart? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR BTW Ken Miller is a fucking dunce.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I never said anything about Christians you moron. I 'attacked' creationists.
Helge129 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Helge129 Yeah, I noticed how you avoided the term Christian ya chickenshit.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Dude, the Catholic church officially supports evolution. You have no idea what you are talking about. Charles Darwin was a Christian, so how was evolution designed by atheists? Read a book.
scjoiner 5 months ago
@scjoiner Do you know what "supports" means ya lamebrain? Tell me what doctrine it is found in? Tell me where the Church has changed its official position on creation? YOU need to read a book.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 You haven't even finished college. You actually haven't done ANYTHING in your miserable insipid life. You haven't been in the military, owned a business, or supported yourself. You haven't supported a wife or raised a family. You've never even done a man's work a day in your pathetic life? You're fkkking useless. All you have done is mooch off your parents, come here, and demonstrate diarrhea of the mouth. You haven't actually tested your beliefs. You took somebody else's word.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Well not only is that untrue it's not relevant to our discussion. There are plenty of people who haven't done military service or married who understand science; neither is a prerequisite. For someone whp's so tetchy about purported "ad populum" arguments you're awfully fond of ad hominem arguments. Itd be nice also if you provided an example of when you actually put your belief in Judeo-Christian Mythology to the test.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Untrue? The important thing is that you haven't done shit in your pathetic miserable life. Understanding science? So far you haven't demonstrated that you do understand it. Now keep whining sonny. In the meantime move out of your parents house and make your own living while you still know everything. hahahahahahaa
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Again it's not important because none of what you have said is true and you have no way of proving it is. This is an entirely anonymous message board, you don't know any more about me than I've told you and I don't know any more about you then you've told me. Ergo so thus and therefore you've just pulled an ad hominem out of thin air that is totally irrelevant to our actual discussion on the validity of the Scientfic Theory of Evolution. Back on topic please.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
As for the proof? Well there's so much of it that it's hard to know where to start when explaining to a novice. Transitional vertabrate fossils, radiocarbon dating (and the countless other dating technologies), the existence/observance of DNA and mitochondria in mammals and the various levels of genetic similarities between species. These are all good places to start (YouTube won't let me share links on here so you'll have to Google) but there's so much more evidence out there on top of this.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 "Again that's not quite true because scientific consensus is not what it was a hundred years ago" No, it's far worse. It's now nothing more than pure good ole boy "let's stand together no matter what the evidence suggests" bullshit.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
"We won't get scientists telling us the Earth is flat again because we have higher standards" HAR HAR HAR HAR you genius. You should tell that to Dawkins. He can put you in for a Nobel. HAR HAR HAR btw dumshit, nobody says, "we know the Earth is round because of a consensus of scientists." HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius That's not what is at all; and making the baseless claim that it is again and again won't make it any more true. But you're very strident on the matter which leads me to believe that you must have some compelling evidence to disprove evolution. Care to share it?
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Do YOU have any compelling evidence that evolution ever happened? OH I didn't think so.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Well let's see there's the fossil record for a start, dated using all those different carbon dating methods that have all independently proved each other's results. Then there's the entire field of genetic science that has enabled us to chart genomes and compare genetic make-ups between species. And of course there's also the observable enviromental evidence: the New Zealand kakapo, the now extinct Yang Tze River Dolphin. Now please: your evidence.
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Do you know how they independently prove the ages? They use the age of the rocks to prove the age of the fossils AND then they use the age of the fossils to prove the age of the rocks. It's all a laughing stock. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
BTW genetics disproves evolution. Study more genetics dummass.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius That's a glib oversimplification that doesn't even bear commenting on. If believing that helps you sleep at night then fine, but that doeesn't make it any more true. Genetics does not disprove evolution at all: another baseless claim, it supports it with compelling evidence. Again you neatly side stepped the evidence you don't yet have an ill-informed rebuke for: the kakapo? The Yang Tze River Dolphin? And while you're at it let's see the evidence for your theory.
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 glib? HAR HAR HAR that's exactly how they do it. And you DID comment so hahahaha. Did that help you sleep last night? AND YES genetics disproves evolution. There is NO compelling evidence FOR evolution. NONE. YOU explain the duckbill platypus. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The fossils proves evolution! Read about it, and if you read and still deny, that means you have a serious lack of logic!
SuperiorAI 5 months ago
@InferiorAI, hey dumbo, if the fossils proved evolution we wouldn't be having all these arguments about it.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius What would you like to know about the modeern platypus? It' a semi-aqutic mammal, a cousin of echidna and marsupials. Molecular clock and fossil dating indicate it evolved from its common ancestor with the echidna about 40million years ago. It was present on Gondwana before that continent split. Genetically it has asbout 80% of its genes in common with other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced. It's a perfect model for evolution. Now I ask again: your evidence please.
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 "It's a perfect model for evolution" That's just fucking hilarious. I can't believe how no matter the evidence or event you evotards always claim that it proves evolution. HAR HAR HAR Now prove diversity? I am waiting but you just keep dodging. Let's have your evidence please.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
1. "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
2. "If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
3. "So today's falsification, though it falsifies one of evolution's most treasured predictions, will be no different." - Cornelius Hunter
Cornelius, I know all this, but haven't put into those words. You have pretty much pwned them all. Thanks. OH BUT you forgot about their blaming it all on a "common ancestor" they cannot name.
EVOLUTION PWNED
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Again I ask: where is your evidence?
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 my evidence? The fact that YOU are unable to explain how evolution causes diversity is all the evidence I need.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Not good enough. Where is you evidence?
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 Yeah it is. You can't explain it so you're full of shit. You just proved that evolution is nonsense. You're the laughing stock. So until you can come up with an explanation that is true YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Not good enough. Where is your evidence?
PuppetsNStuff2 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The Fact that I can e.g. not explain how Computers work, proves that Computers are nonsense?.. .Oh Boy, you are such a Fool.
Evolution is demonstrably true and observable. It is documented in the Fossil-Record, the Genomes of the Animals and Plants of this Planet, and all the Opponents can field, are lies, ignorance and quotemining.
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PuppetsNStuff2 I don't have a "god." I believe in God. The One True God, the God of Abraham, the God of the Bible, the God of ALL men. It is not my responsibility to prove God to you. God cannot be proven to a liar. You need to prove that you don't believe in God.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The burden of proof sits firmly with you I'm afraid. I shall refer you to Bertrand's teapot for an eloquent example of why the burden of proof is with you.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@PuppetsNStuff2 You failed to make a case for Bertrand's Teapot analogy. So keep being afraid. You have failed to refute my arguments against consensus.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Bertrand's Teapot analogy makes it's own case, that's kind of the point of an analogy. So burden of proof: still with you.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Also; I''d contend that Dawkins is a showman. If that's all he is then he's a piss poor one. Whilst some might say he has a certain charm I think he suffers from a certain stuffiness. His redeeming feature is the passion he has for his topic and the clarity with which he explains it. Derren Brown is a showman. Dawkins is a scientist.
PuppetsNStuff2 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 So what did birds do during the short wing stage? Bump into buildings or fall off cliffs? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
What does the "flying squirrel" do right now? They "fall" softly of trees.
Flying squirrels is a perfect exemple of a "mid-wing" species. And if they survive, you can bet the species will fly. But it'll take thousands of generation for this to happen. Evolution is a VERY SLOW process.
har har har...
Sheraf83 6 months ago
@Sheraf83 Dummass, get with the program asshole. We're not talking about squirrels you lamebrain. We are talking about birds. Pull your head out of your ass and get some fresh air for a change. AND yeah yeah yeah, we know it's a slow process. So fucking slow in fact they have never found it happening ya moron.
MaximusArurealius 6 months ago
"Whenever we see an apparently well designed animal or plant it's as if nature has the lock and the creature has the key." -Richard Dawkins
That's hilarious! He just can't keep from acknowledging design. As ID people say, "Design is self-evident." Dawkins just proved it.
Dawkins just PWNED himself.
MaximusArurealius 7 months ago