human race isnt the only complex organism on this planet, there are organisms that can rapidly regenerate lost limbs, reproduce 100 times faster than humans, run far faster than us, possess greater physical strength than we can ever dream of
humans like every other organism is created by accident
God didnt creat Evolution are you a dumbass with evolution there is no need for god. If god created perfect creatures then why is there need to improve them.
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
We all know why they deny evolution. If Adam and Eve weren't the two first humans 6000 years ago then there was no original sin, and if there wasn't original sin there's no need for atonement and Jesus is not necessary.
The National Academy of Science and all it's affiliations might have something to say about this creationist nonsense.
Please don't listen to the sorts of people that create these anti-Science Propoganda, they are so desperate to sway you to what they want you to believe, but they use lies and subdifuge to do this , Hitler did the same with the Jews.
Just find out for yourself , think for yourself , research what you don't know for yourself, do it !, empower you!.Don't leave it to people that are so scared of what they don't understand ...they will hold back mankind, .visit my channel , no conversion required.
Why not argue the validity of the theory of electromagnetism then. I mean what better than an uneducated guy discussing something he has no clue about or even if his arguments are valid. Have at it.
"There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders"
HEY THIS IS SERIOUS!!! we have to do stop ignoring the genetic entropy of our genome!
@czechboy3 are you questioning God's Creation? Is that not a sin in our group, well they are insulting people in this video, that is also a sin, and you supporting it is all so a sin. Stop accusing people and try to make a difference. Was man also wrong when we invented medicine? No. Please do not question the way our God works. Love your neighbor and respect him. I love and respect atheists, they are his children too :)
@czechboy3 So does our bible and our religion, there are religions older than ours that have the same story as us. Please respect you fellow man, to not enforce our religion on others teach the words of thy father but to not make his children turn their back on our God because of peoples hateful speech. A book can not prove its self sir, there is much evedience to disprove our faith, and evidence to prove evolution true.
@FoxboyTheWereFox Obviously, you've never touched a Bible. Read John first, the the rest of the New Testament, then the Old Testament backs itself up. Evolution does nothing of the sort.
@czechboy3 Prove our book with out it self, you are acting like a fool. Evolution backs it self up many time, but I still remain truth to my faith. If you say our book proves it self then you are a fool. This is why no one takes us seriously. I want you to find this verse for me "And I leave you with two commandments, love your God, and love your neighbor as thy self". Our bible is fool of hatred, racism, sexism, homophobia, and genocide. The love of our God is not that.
@THEalfalfa1 Sorry, this is my account. To say anything is because of "God' is a philosophical claim not a scientific claim. In order for something to be a scientific claim you need measurements or results that back up your theory. It also needs lots of rigorous attempts at falsifying the theory. You're claim of "evolution was God's way of making earth ready for us" is not implied in any measurements or results. No where is there an implied correlation between God and evolution.
@ohanatachiable I don't see a problem other than you don't believe in God and the Bible and I do? I may not be a scientist, but I'm simply stating what I believe. To me, science goes to prove God's worth because to a Christian it shows us the beautiful world and universe He has created for us. To believe any of this happened by chance would be too much of a coincidence, in my opinion.
@THEalfalfa1 Fair enough as far as our differences go, You're right. That may be our difference but regardless of whether you FEEL that it's too much of a coincidence in order for it to have happened by chance is not relevant. It still doesn't imply the existence of a "God". Not only that but you should probably look up the history of the Old and New Testament if you're going to believe in a peace of mythology. Not trying to offend but I honestly consider it that.
Respond to this video... That's fine that you feel it's a piece of mythology, that is your belief, and I half to respect that. But these days it seems like it's only the atheists standing and saying stuff and getting all the listening to, and I'm trying to stand up for my beliefs. I'm asking you though, however you believe our universe started and all, is it not strange that humans should have any idea of a higher being, should care when somebody dies, or argue about what we are now?
@THEalfalfa1 The reason people are listening to the atheist now is because they tend to, most of the time, point out something worthy of considering. If theist start to bring up better arguments I'm pretty damn sure they will be listened to. Basically, the good arguments rise and the bad arguments fall. I used to think it was strange as well as other things and now not so much. It the universe that is strange all around.
@THEalfalfa1 Humans are just egocentric. Thinking of anything as anything more than what it is, is wishful thinking. I don't have a problem with people believing in God, at least not a severe problem. I just argue for the sake of arguing. I do have a problem with certain ideologies and cultures though, specifically the Abrahamic Religions in this case.
@StoreyNUFC the brain washed one here is you. I have learned a lot from high school and college, science out weighs the bible, I would rather put my fate in humanity then a God who cares more about his ego, then his own children.
@FoxboyTheWereFox So you first comment was slightly misleading? i thought you were one of those people that thought god made it how it is and never changes. EVOLUTION!
if you compare the amount of atheist now and the last generation, you'll see that it there are way more atheists now than before. Like the countries in Scandinavia are some of the most atheist parts of the world, but for only 70 years ago, there were almost no atheists here. Therefor, christianity is slowly fading away, but that is a good thing though ;)
Yes, but he specifically said "Christianity." Worldwide, Christianity has about 33% market share, whereas "Non-religious" has about a 16% share. So yes, fading away.
@owchywawa Assuming that those numbers are correct (Theists outnumber atheists more than that, at least in the states, but whatever), then 100 years ago, theists outnumbered atheists 100 to 1.
You're saying that christianity isn't fading away? Wow...
@owchywawa Christianity IS slowly fading away. The number of atheists in America has grown from roughly 10 to 20% in the past decade. In other countries such as England, Australia, and Germany the numbers are closing in on 50% atheist. Atheism is slowly taking over as Christianity dies. Other countries laugh at the fact that American politicians still say "God bless America".
@owchywawa Being a theist and being a Christian are two different things. One usually implies the other, specifically being "christian" implies also being a theist (usually), but being a theist doesn't necessarily imply being a "christian".
@owchywawa and of those 10 'theists' about 2 are christian, 2 are muslim, 1 is sikh, 0.5 is jewish, 1 is hindu, 0.1 is buddhist and the other 3.4 are agnostic. Learn the bloody difference between them. Of course that information doesnt include the less serious religions. Did you know that in the most recent results more people claimed to be 'jedi' than christian in over 37 different countries.
@MagMag96 no im not brained wash i just think outside physical elements like mind and body but spiritual feeling of what i know an many others what is right.
@MagMag96 Don't you love how so many people (christian and atheist) are so insecure about their own beliefs that they have to bag on other people's beliefs ^_^
Speaking as someone who is currently studying evolution, I have to say that this whole series is rubbish. Don't think for a second that this about actual science, because it's not. I suggest that the author looks up ANY evolutionary theory that is LESS than FIFTY YEARS OLD if he really is so "unsure" about evolution.
@owchywawa I will give a full responce when I have the time (Exams- arghh) Meanwhile, I'm confused. Are the first few videos supposed to be detailing the latest genetic evidence? All I see are problems with the theory that were solved decades ago, and a report so young that scientists haven't had chance to support or rebut the claims yet.
For instance, have you looked up Modern synthysis? It's a theory that states that random mutations are vital for evolution, because it leads to variation.
@Twick78 That's fine. I have examines to study for as well. The first two are just to present to present some background information to the third.
If I remember correctly, I quoted a few of the Modern synthysis's founders. For example, “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.” - Theodosius Dobzhansky
@Twick78 An you know, this post is really unhelpful. My purpose was to get answers to the creationist's objections. Saying this is wrong and you just have to trust me because I am studying evolution just strikes me as BS.
@wildreams I don't really care actually. Either way it doesn't effect christianity if that's what your suggesting. I suppose that if creationism was correct though, I would have a big laugh at Thunderf00t at the like. lol
It is much easier to accept the Theory of Evolution than the idea that the tribal god of a bunch of dumb-ass Middle Eastern cultists created the Universe.
Also, something to consider: WHY the HELL would you name this video "Why Evolution is Wrong" when you admit yourself that you're ignorant on the subject and that you don't know the validity of the arguments made against it? Why not call it: "Counter-arguments to Evolution" or "Why Evolution could be wrong" or something of that nature? You're playing a Creationist tactic by directly lying before you even started the video.
@owchywawa Then you admit being ignorant (or possibly being ignorant) on other things that may be related. You say "Although I don't consider myself a Creationist or especially well educated..." That implies ignorance or possible ignorance. It's humble, which I like, but the title should be equally humble.
@owchywawa Well I'm sure you're ignorant on something since scientist who specialize in it admit ignorance on various things such as where DNA/Protein synthesis originated, but I get what you're trying to say.
"...because I am presenting the reasons creationist think evolution is wrong."
Then why not call it "Why Creationists Say Evolution is Wrong." or something to that effect? Do you see what I'm saying? I know I'm being persistently critical, but the point is the false connotation.
@owchywawa Lol. Yeah, it's too late now. The big deal to me is that it's a blatant lie. Evolution has overwhelming support from various fields, as you mention in the video. The theory has survived over 150 years without ONE fact to disprove it and has improved our society by far.
Even if we were to assume that it was only slightly (say 30%) plausible, it would be unfair to say it's "wrong". It's like making the titles: "Why Atomic Theory is Wrong" or "Why [insert Political Party] is wrong"
WHAT THE HELL? What is the purpose of posting Creationist arguments when you don't know their validity (which, by the way, is extremely questionable since they're almost NEVER educated in the field of Biology) and personally don't necessarily agree with them?
I recommend you watch the series "Why do People Laugh at Creationists?" by thunderf00t before you post your videos. You will very likely see everything you're planning on publishing as possible discredits from Creationists disproven.
@owchywawa "I'm posting them because I want someone to rebut them. I've seem thunderf00t's videos and he hasn't come close."
I see. Well I'll definitely watch them and see what I think.
"The first creationists I quote is a plant geneticists. The second is a biophysicist who has done research with cancer and information theorist."
This is why I say "...almost never..." There are a few exceptions like the lady who calls herself a doctor of Biology, but works at the Creationist "Museum".
It's sad. You started out your video describing evolution just fine, but when you got to the part where you said that "the theory does not go unquestioned" and showed a picture of Kent Hovind, I had to stop.
When you have one of society's most ignorant liars presented as your first "questioner" of evolution, it's like having an idiot question whether the sun is the center of our solar system.
To say that Hovind is religiously motivated is to say that Vince Offer, the guy that sells the Slap Chop and the Sham Wow is financially motivated. Both are equally credible. To quote Hovind in any kind of discussion of this magnitude makes your video (and probably you by extension) look foolish.
I never quoted him. Kent Hovind is an idiot and thats why I brought him up. My point I make is that most creationists DON'T know what they're talking about.
@owchywawa With all due respect, I saw the above comment about Hovind as I started watching your video and reacted before I had a chance to see the entire segment. Maybe in the future I should worry about my own credibility!
my point is that is a perfect example of observable evolution, plasmids would be and adaptation which is a fundamental concept behind evolution.if anything, this definately jumps out to say that evolution shouldnt be looked over.
Hmm... I have 145 de novo mutations per diploid genome by my calculations, presumably roughly equally distributed across 3E9 bp, about 1% of which make proteins (you've included intergenic and enhancer regions, I think).
Most mutations will be silent, some will be wobble bases, and some will be non-structural.
But humans have at least 3 million SNPs, all of which started life as de novo point mutants. How do you marry up the idea of degenerating genomes with polymorphic diversity?
Well... I don't believe I talk about mutations in this video, so did you watch my next video? I provided sources. If you want a source for the 175 mutations:
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156, 297304 (2000).
145 mutations seems to be within the range of estimates I am using. The %5 of DNA includes conserved DNA.
What potential problems do you see with SNPs and polymorphic diversity?
I use Nachman as well, but I recall the number being 145. I'm probably mistaken, or used a different part of the range.
I think you might be too focused on the role of de novo mutation in natural selection. The human genetic diversity is over 3E7 alleles in the current population. How many of those would you estimate are deleterious in any population? Is that reflected in changing allele frequencies or selective sweeps in haplotypes?
Humans are exempted from natural selection now, which (I think) is what Crow et al were talking about. We are now the fitness landscape.
Most SNPs are not deleterious, and are likely never to be fixed in a large interbreeding population. Evolution rarely acts on de novo mutations, it acts on allelic frequency.
I feel I'm not getting the purpose of your videos. Is there a particular point you are trying to make? Natural selection isn't sufficient to account for current diversity?
I agree with your opinion on Crow. There is the idea the medical advancements lead to significant reductions in selective pressures and could be a significant problem only for that reason.
The point is that we have more than 5 mildly deleterious mutations per-person per-generation. The point is also that natural selection does not select against these. The reason you probably do not get the purpose from the video is because I still have one more video to make. All of this was only...continued
continued background information. At first I was not even going to put in the information on the ability of natural selection to prevent deleterious mutations from building up; it just kind of had to be there to explain natural selection. My next video is going to hopefully make everything more clear through simulations. It is not easy information to understand, nor to convey, but hopefully I will find away to make a good case, so as to elevate this discussion on evolution we have on youtube.
I've read that "up to 70% of low-frequency missense alleles are mildly deleterious and are associated with a heterozygous fitness loss in the range 0.0010.003."
Kryukov GV, Pennacchio LA, Sunyaev SR. 2007. Most rare missense alleles are deleterious in humans: implications for complex disease and association studies. Am J Hum Genet 80:727739.
To be honest though, I haven't looked much into it. I do not think any of what I have said is really dependent on allele frequency or selective sweeps.
but your answer is still accident you shouldn't reply my comments okkkkkkkk
TheKevintran8 5 days ago
human race is more complicated than TV, supercomputers.......................
who created TV, Supercomputers.... ?
answer: human race
who created human?
if your answer is accident your knowledge is very bad bad bad bad and i don't want to call you stupid but evolution is very unscientific.
human race can't create new life on another planet (human race have brain, lab....... so smart but they can't create new life on another planet)
nature( doesn't have brain, lab,......)
TheKevintran8 5 days ago
you are wrong Kikolio
TheKevintran8 5 days ago
evolution is just another tool to help man understand nature better
its like saying can openers r wrong... like wtf is that supposed to even mean
kilkolio 5 days ago
Evolution was wrong and unscientific
---Nature IQ is 0
-----television, computer, supercomputers, fan, air-condition, washing-machine............
--who created? The Human race(intelligent)
----Who created The Human Race? but The Human Race is more complicated than it
---The Human race IQ 160-250(scientist and Genius) bt The Human race can't create new life on the earth Why ? Why? Evolutionist
-- Nature Doesn't have Labs to experiment, in the Experiment must have scientists and Genius
TheKevintran8 1 week ago
@TheKevintran8
human race isnt the only complex organism on this planet, there are organisms that can rapidly regenerate lost limbs, reproduce 100 times faster than humans, run far faster than us, possess greater physical strength than we can ever dream of
humans like every other organism is created by accident
kilkolio 5 days ago
@SuperMrAtheist and where do you get your information from?
JTPWALKER 2 weeks ago
Sorry. There is no arguments against evolution. No one.
SuperMrAtheist 3 weeks ago
@barnabi20 doubt that that is why they do it. They probably do it because it contradicts their belief, and both sides think the other one is stupid
MagMag96 1 month ago
God didnt creat Evolution are you a dumbass with evolution there is no need for god. If god created perfect creatures then why is there need to improve them.
13narwhalsFTW 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
PainSurgeon 1 month ago
Evolutionist: evolution is wrong ?
me: of course
Evolutionist: who are you?
me: I am Jehovah or you can also call me yahweh
Evolutionist: where do you come from?
me: i come from The Elohim Planet
Evolutionist: you are a Alien?
me : not really?
you can call me " those who came from the sky"
or you can also call me " the Scientist come from another planet"
TheKevintran8 1 month ago
We all know why they deny evolution. If Adam and Eve weren't the two first humans 6000 years ago then there was no original sin, and if there wasn't original sin there's no need for atonement and Jesus is not necessary.
The National Academy of Science and all it's affiliations might have something to say about this creationist nonsense.
Shame on you.
metalsusa1 1 month ago
Why evolution is real: Catterpillar ---> Butterfly.
Lougikiro 4 months ago
I turned off when he said "I'm not an expert" lol
markod2002 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please don't listen to the sorts of people that create these anti-Science Propoganda, they are so desperate to sway you to what they want you to believe, but they use lies and subdifuge to do this , Hitler did the same with the Jews.
Just find out for yourself , think for yourself , research what you don't know for yourself, do it !, empower you!.Don't leave it to people that are so scared of what they don't understand ...they will hold back mankind, .visit my channel , no conversion required.
IHATEATHEIST2 6 months ago
Why not argue the validity of the theory of electromagnetism then. I mean what better than an uneducated guy discussing something he has no clue about or even if his arguments are valid. Have at it.
spec24 6 months ago
how can people be so goddam stupid
SuperSonicDonk3y 7 months ago
"There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders"
HEY THIS IS SERIOUS!!! we have to do stop ignoring the genetic entropy of our genome!
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Evelution is God's creation! Mans science is Gods science!
FoxboyTheWereFox 11 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox I agree with you.
owchywawa 11 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox well, man is wrong.
czechboy3 8 months ago
@czechboy3 are you questioning God's Creation? Is that not a sin in our group, well they are insulting people in this video, that is also a sin, and you supporting it is all so a sin. Stop accusing people and try to make a difference. Was man also wrong when we invented medicine? No. Please do not question the way our God works. Love your neighbor and respect him. I love and respect atheists, they are his children too :)
FoxboyTheWereFox 8 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox I meant man is incorrect. Evolution has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
czechboy3 8 months ago
@czechboy3 So does our bible and our religion, there are religions older than ours that have the same story as us. Please respect you fellow man, to not enforce our religion on others teach the words of thy father but to not make his children turn their back on our God because of peoples hateful speech. A book can not prove its self sir, there is much evedience to disprove our faith, and evidence to prove evolution true.
FoxboyTheWereFox 8 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox Obviously, you've never touched a Bible. Read John first, the the rest of the New Testament, then the Old Testament backs itself up. Evolution does nothing of the sort.
czechboy3 8 months ago
@czechboy3 Prove our book with out it self, you are acting like a fool. Evolution backs it self up many time, but I still remain truth to my faith. If you say our book proves it self then you are a fool. This is why no one takes us seriously. I want you to find this verse for me "And I leave you with two commandments, love your God, and love your neighbor as thy self". Our bible is fool of hatred, racism, sexism, homophobia, and genocide. The love of our God is not that.
FoxboyTheWereFox 8 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox whatever..................we don't agree, and neither is going to convince the other.
czechboy3 8 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox evolution was God's way of making Earth ready for us
THEalfalfa1 6 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 You truly don't understand evolution if you honestly believe that.
soridosuneku 5 months ago
@soridosuneku enlighten me.
THEalfalfa1 5 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 Hi. This isn't the same guy the said that. His name will be ohanatachi or something when he responds to you, in case you get confused.
soridosuneku 5 months ago
@soridosuneku alright, thanks
THEalfalfa1 4 months ago
..By that I mean it's a different person typing.
soridosuneku 5 months ago
@soridosuneku enlighten me, then, what part of evolution did I miss?
THEalfalfa1 5 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 Sorry, this is my account. To say anything is because of "God' is a philosophical claim not a scientific claim. In order for something to be a scientific claim you need measurements or results that back up your theory. It also needs lots of rigorous attempts at falsifying the theory. You're claim of "evolution was God's way of making earth ready for us" is not implied in any measurements or results. No where is there an implied correlation between God and evolution.
ohanatachiable 5 months ago
@ohanatachiable I don't see a problem other than you don't believe in God and the Bible and I do? I may not be a scientist, but I'm simply stating what I believe. To me, science goes to prove God's worth because to a Christian it shows us the beautiful world and universe He has created for us. To believe any of this happened by chance would be too much of a coincidence, in my opinion.
THEalfalfa1 4 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 Fair enough as far as our differences go, You're right. That may be our difference but regardless of whether you FEEL that it's too much of a coincidence in order for it to have happened by chance is not relevant. It still doesn't imply the existence of a "God". Not only that but you should probably look up the history of the Old and New Testament if you're going to believe in a peace of mythology. Not trying to offend but I honestly consider it that.
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
Respond to this video... That's fine that you feel it's a piece of mythology, that is your belief, and I half to respect that. But these days it seems like it's only the atheists standing and saying stuff and getting all the listening to, and I'm trying to stand up for my beliefs. I'm asking you though, however you believe our universe started and all, is it not strange that humans should have any idea of a higher being, should care when somebody dies, or argue about what we are now?
THEalfalfa1 4 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 The reason people are listening to the atheist now is because they tend to, most of the time, point out something worthy of considering. If theist start to bring up better arguments I'm pretty damn sure they will be listened to. Basically, the good arguments rise and the bad arguments fall. I used to think it was strange as well as other things and now not so much. It the universe that is strange all around.
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 Humans are just egocentric. Thinking of anything as anything more than what it is, is wishful thinking. I don't have a problem with people believing in God, at least not a severe problem. I just argue for the sake of arguing. I do have a problem with certain ideologies and cultures though, specifically the Abrahamic Religions in this case.
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 I'm sincerely enjoying the level of politeness you've maintained throughout the conversation.
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
@ohanatachiable Thank you. Seems like we're all just trying to get our voices out there these days, aren't we?
THEalfalfa1 4 months ago
@THEalfalfa1 haha. yeah.
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox where in the bible did it say that?
motster33 4 months ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox Learn how to spell, it even says the word EVOLUTION in the title, by the looks of things you are another brain washed child!
StoreyNUFC 1 month ago
@StoreyNUFC the brain washed one here is you. I have learned a lot from high school and college, science out weighs the bible, I would rather put my fate in humanity then a God who cares more about his ego, then his own children.
FoxboyTheWereFox 1 month ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox There is more in science to prove evolution, "god" is something we cant see hear or touch? right and im the brain washed one!
StoreyNUFC 1 month ago
@StoreyNUFC I think we are in the same page here bud. I believe in evolution. :P
FoxboyTheWereFox 1 month ago
@FoxboyTheWereFox So you first comment was slightly misleading? i thought you were one of those people that thought god made it how it is and never changes. EVOLUTION!
StoreyNUFC 1 month ago
haha, dont you guys just love how christianity is slowly fading away? ^^
MagMag96 11 months ago
@MagMag96 Theists out number atheists 10 to 1 and you say Christianity is fading? Wow...
owchywawa 11 months ago
@owchywawa well...
if you compare the amount of atheist now and the last generation, you'll see that it there are way more atheists now than before. Like the countries in Scandinavia are some of the most atheist parts of the world, but for only 70 years ago, there were almost no atheists here. Therefor, christianity is slowly fading away, but that is a good thing though ;)
MagMag96 11 months ago
@MagMag96 It's not a good thing!!!!!!! Oh, am I glad I'm able to hold my tongue....er......keyboard..
czechboy3 8 months ago
@owchywawa it used to be 100 to 1, and Im pretty sure before that 1000 to one. And you say it isn't fading? Wow...
HJJOPA 11 months ago
@owchywawa
Yes, but he specifically said "Christianity." Worldwide, Christianity has about 33% market share, whereas "Non-religious" has about a 16% share. So yes, fading away.
mtszabo 10 months ago
@owchywawa Assuming that those numbers are correct (Theists outnumber atheists more than that, at least in the states, but whatever), then 100 years ago, theists outnumbered atheists 100 to 1.
You're saying that christianity isn't fading away? Wow...
Squiglypig 10 months ago
@owchywawa Christianity IS slowly fading away. The number of atheists in America has grown from roughly 10 to 20% in the past decade. In other countries such as England, Australia, and Germany the numbers are closing in on 50% atheist. Atheism is slowly taking over as Christianity dies. Other countries laugh at the fact that American politicians still say "God bless America".
JAB63096 6 months ago
@owchywawa Do you think it's always been like this? Wow...
Xen8 6 months ago
@owchywawa
used to be 100 to 1. Used to be 1000 to 1. Used to be NOBODY dared claim to be an atheist.
It's fading
chronDiggity 6 months ago
@owchywawa Look at global statistics, all im sayin.
Shugarbeen 6 months ago
@owchywawa Sorry but if something is bigger then something else that doesn't mean it isn't getting smaller!
hylandsjgcn 6 months ago
Comment removed
soridosuneku 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owchywawa Being a theist and being a Christian are two different things. One usually implies the other, specifically being "christian" implies also being a theist (usually), but being a theist doesn't necessarily imply being a "christian".
soridosuneku 5 months ago
@owchywawa Actually the two fastest growing "religious sects" are "no religious affiliation" and "Islam".
ohanatachiable 4 months ago
@owchywawa Fading? Yes. Faded? no. Can you not tell the difference?
1992jamo 4 months ago
@owchywawa and of those 10 'theists' about 2 are christian, 2 are muslim, 1 is sikh, 0.5 is jewish, 1 is hindu, 0.1 is buddhist and the other 3.4 are agnostic. Learn the bloody difference between them. Of course that information doesnt include the less serious religions. Did you know that in the most recent results more people claimed to be 'jedi' than christian in over 37 different countries.
btbtbtgunzer 4 months ago
@owchywawa Creationism is indeed fading, and in that sense, so is a core fundamental part of Christianity.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@owchywawa Compared to Atheists yes but a world wide view shows that Christians are dying out.
SuperMrAtheist 3 weeks ago
@MagMag96 has long as i am alive it wont fade away i love my Lord Almighty God and Jesus Christ.
lAmOmega 7 months ago
@lAmOmega You should yourself be able to see that your last comment kinda reminds a bit of brainwashing..
MagMag96 7 months ago
@MagMag96 no im not brained wash i just think outside physical elements like mind and body but spiritual feeling of what i know an many others what is right.
lAmOmega 7 months ago
Comment removed
Barnabi20 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagMag96 Don't you love how so many people (christian and atheist) are so insecure about their own beliefs that they have to bag on other people's beliefs ^_^
Barnabi20 1 month ago
Good job adding evidence for the insulting and arrogant atheist theory.
TheyAreHere2 1 year ago
Speaking as someone who is currently studying evolution, I have to say that this whole series is rubbish. Don't think for a second that this about actual science, because it's not. I suggest that the author looks up ANY evolutionary theory that is LESS than FIFTY YEARS OLD if he really is so "unsure" about evolution.
Twick78 1 year ago
@Twick78 Did you watch the series? Because... I kind of used evolutionary theory less than fifty years old.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I will give a full responce when I have the time (Exams- arghh) Meanwhile, I'm confused. Are the first few videos supposed to be detailing the latest genetic evidence? All I see are problems with the theory that were solved decades ago, and a report so young that scientists haven't had chance to support or rebut the claims yet.
For instance, have you looked up Modern synthysis? It's a theory that states that random mutations are vital for evolution, because it leads to variation.
Twick78 1 year ago
@Twick78 That's fine. I have examines to study for as well. The first two are just to present to present some background information to the third.
If I remember correctly, I quoted a few of the Modern synthysis's founders. For example, “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.” - Theodosius Dobzhansky
owchywawa 1 year ago
@Twick78 An you know, this post is really unhelpful. My purpose was to get answers to the creationist's objections. Saying this is wrong and you just have to trust me because I am studying evolution just strikes me as BS.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Continued... and BTW, I was just stating my opinion, nothing more. These exams have me riled I guess, but I will be back...
Twick78 1 year ago
Lets ignore the facts for a minute. Which one do you "wish" to be right? ;)
wildreams 1 year ago
@wildreams I don't really care actually. Either way it doesn't effect christianity if that's what your suggesting. I suppose that if creationism was correct though, I would have a big laugh at Thunderf00t at the like. lol
owchywawa 1 year ago
It is much easier to accept the Theory of Evolution than the idea that the tribal god of a bunch of dumb-ass Middle Eastern cultists created the Universe.
formless777 1 year ago
This is a good idea and an excellent intro. but the collective ego of the YouTube community will reject it like a bad organ transplant!
WolfSyndrome 1 year ago
Also, something to consider: WHY the HELL would you name this video "Why Evolution is Wrong" when you admit yourself that you're ignorant on the subject and that you don't know the validity of the arguments made against it? Why not call it: "Counter-arguments to Evolution" or "Why Evolution could be wrong" or something of that nature? You're playing a Creationist tactic by directly lying before you even started the video.
Kairusan 1 year ago
I'm not ignorant on the subject and I call it "Why Evolution is Wrong" because I am presenting the reasons creationist think evolution is wrong.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Then you admit being ignorant (or possibly being ignorant) on other things that may be related. You say "Although I don't consider myself a Creationist or especially well educated..." That implies ignorance or possible ignorance. It's humble, which I like, but the title should be equally humble.
Kairusan 1 year ago
@owchywawa Also, kudos on the quick response. I didn't expect any response, to be honest. I expected at least a few days...not a few minutes.
Kairusan 1 year ago
@owchywawa Well I'm sure you're ignorant on something since scientist who specialize in it admit ignorance on various things such as where DNA/Protein synthesis originated, but I get what you're trying to say.
"...because I am presenting the reasons creationist think evolution is wrong."
Then why not call it "Why Creationists Say Evolution is Wrong." or something to that effect? Do you see what I'm saying? I know I'm being persistently critical, but the point is the false connotation.
Kairusan 1 year ago
I don't really see the name at a big deal. Maybe I should have named it that, but it's a little too late now. :P
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Lol. Yeah, it's too late now. The big deal to me is that it's a blatant lie. Evolution has overwhelming support from various fields, as you mention in the video. The theory has survived over 150 years without ONE fact to disprove it and has improved our society by far.
Even if we were to assume that it was only slightly (say 30%) plausible, it would be unfair to say it's "wrong". It's like making the titles: "Why Atomic Theory is Wrong" or "Why [insert Political Party] is wrong"
Kairusan 1 year ago
@owchywawa do you beleive evolution
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 I'm one of those fence sitters people always talk about, but don't actually believe exist.
owchywawa 1 year ago
WHAT THE HELL? What is the purpose of posting Creationist arguments when you don't know their validity (which, by the way, is extremely questionable since they're almost NEVER educated in the field of Biology) and personally don't necessarily agree with them?
I recommend you watch the series "Why do People Laugh at Creationists?" by thunderf00t before you post your videos. You will very likely see everything you're planning on publishing as possible discredits from Creationists disproven.
Kairusan 1 year ago
I'm posting them because I want someone to rebut them. I've seem thunderf00t's videos and he hasn't come close.
"which, by the way, is extremely questionable since they're almost NEVER educated in the field of Biology"
The first creationists I quote is a plant geneticists. The second is a biophysicist who has done research with cancer and information theorist.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa "I'm posting them because I want someone to rebut them. I've seem thunderf00t's videos and he hasn't come close."
I see. Well I'll definitely watch them and see what I think.
"The first creationists I quote is a plant geneticists. The second is a biophysicist who has done research with cancer and information theorist."
This is why I say "...almost never..." There are a few exceptions like the lady who calls herself a doctor of Biology, but works at the Creationist "Museum".
Kairusan 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kairusan 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kairusan 1 year ago
It's sad. You started out your video describing evolution just fine, but when you got to the part where you said that "the theory does not go unquestioned" and showed a picture of Kent Hovind, I had to stop.
When you have one of society's most ignorant liars presented as your first "questioner" of evolution, it's like having an idiot question whether the sun is the center of our solar system.
Your credibility just dissolved to nothing.
OccamKant 2 years ago
Lol if you looked further you would have heard me say that Hovind is religiously motivated.
owchywawa 2 years ago
To say that Hovind is religiously motivated is to say that Vince Offer, the guy that sells the Slap Chop and the Sham Wow is financially motivated. Both are equally credible. To quote Hovind in any kind of discussion of this magnitude makes your video (and probably you by extension) look foolish.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
I never quoted him. Kent Hovind is an idiot and thats why I brought him up. My point I make is that most creationists DON'T know what they're talking about.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa With all due respect, I saw the above comment about Hovind as I started watching your video and reacted before I had a chance to see the entire segment. Maybe in the future I should worry about my own credibility!
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
one simple question. how did penicillin stop being effective against chlamydia?
mcwaffles2003 2 years ago
@mcwaffles2003 Either through plasmids or evolution. Although it would be interesting to learn which one, I don't thank it really matters.
owchywawa 2 years ago
my point is that is a perfect example of observable evolution, plasmids would be and adaptation which is a fundamental concept behind evolution.if anything, this definately jumps out to say that evolution shouldnt be looked over.
mcwaffles2003 2 years ago
I'm not just looking over it. I'm examining it as closely as I can.
owchywawa 2 years ago
Kent, first winner of the Golden Crocoduck Aware.
Kurt, Crocoduck Boy himself.
Ray, second winner of the Crocoduck Award.
I hope you don't get your science from these clowns.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz I was saying I do not like them.
owchywawa 2 years ago
@owchywawa
But you are doing the same thing they do.
''Mutations are the driving force...........
and then prove it wrong. Strawman !
gregrutz 2 years ago
science be damned!
xNickTheBrickx 2 years ago
@xNickTheBrickx It is comments like these which make me want to enable thumbs down :P
owchywawa 2 years ago
Hmm... I have 145 de novo mutations per diploid genome by my calculations, presumably roughly equally distributed across 3E9 bp, about 1% of which make proteins (you've included intergenic and enhancer regions, I think).
Most mutations will be silent, some will be wobble bases, and some will be non-structural.
But humans have at least 3 million SNPs, all of which started life as de novo point mutants. How do you marry up the idea of degenerating genomes with polymorphic diversity?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Well... I don't believe I talk about mutations in this video, so did you watch my next video? I provided sources. If you want a source for the 175 mutations:
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156, 297304 (2000).
145 mutations seems to be within the range of estimates I am using. The %5 of DNA includes conserved DNA.
What potential problems do you see with SNPs and polymorphic diversity?
owchywawa 2 years ago
I posted this on the wrong video, sorry.
I use Nachman as well, but I recall the number being 145. I'm probably mistaken, or used a different part of the range.
I think you might be too focused on the role of de novo mutation in natural selection. The human genetic diversity is over 3E7 alleles in the current population. How many of those would you estimate are deleterious in any population? Is that reflected in changing allele frequencies or selective sweeps in haplotypes?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Humans are exempted from natural selection now, which (I think) is what Crow et al were talking about. We are now the fitness landscape.
Most SNPs are not deleterious, and are likely never to be fixed in a large interbreeding population. Evolution rarely acts on de novo mutations, it acts on allelic frequency.
I feel I'm not getting the purpose of your videos. Is there a particular point you are trying to make? Natural selection isn't sufficient to account for current diversity?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
I agree with your opinion on Crow. There is the idea the medical advancements lead to significant reductions in selective pressures and could be a significant problem only for that reason.
The point is that we have more than 5 mildly deleterious mutations per-person per-generation. The point is also that natural selection does not select against these. The reason you probably do not get the purpose from the video is because I still have one more video to make. All of this was only...continued
owchywawa 2 years ago
continued background information. At first I was not even going to put in the information on the ability of natural selection to prevent deleterious mutations from building up; it just kind of had to be there to explain natural selection. My next video is going to hopefully make everything more clear through simulations. It is not easy information to understand, nor to convey, but hopefully I will find away to make a good case, so as to elevate this discussion on evolution we have on youtube.
owchywawa 2 years ago
Sorry if that wasn't clear, it's getting kind of late.
owchywawa 2 years ago
I've read that "up to 70% of low-frequency missense alleles are mildly deleterious and are associated with a heterozygous fitness loss in the range 0.0010.003."
Kryukov GV, Pennacchio LA, Sunyaev SR. 2007. Most rare missense alleles are deleterious in humans: implications for complex disease and association studies. Am J Hum Genet 80:727739.
To be honest though, I haven't looked much into it. I do not think any of what I have said is really dependent on allele frequency or selective sweeps.
owchywawa 2 years ago
continued.. I would think Allele frequencies and selective sweeps would make the problem worse.
owchywawa 2 years ago
Hey look, another religious sheep.
ponchato 2 years ago
Bah?
owchywawa 2 years ago