The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus...
Around 70 species are found in South America and one in North America. Marsupial fossils have also been found in Europe, Asia, Antarctica and North Africa.possible that certain creatures existed on many lands (as indicated by fossils) but became extinct (eaten?) on all other lands except australia, where they may have had a distinct advantage or faced less fierce predators. as always dawkins misleads people
@lravenhill Marsupials exist today and evolved and adapted in those areas you speak of and some became extinct, precisely the ones that could not compete.in their niche with placental mammals in a much more varied ecosystem than Australia's. They reached Australia last during the breakup of Pangaea and that also helped in terms of competition. As always another ignorant creationist opens his/her mouth.
the best evidence is comparitive anatomy and dna? comparative anatomy proves nothing. and dna is the very thing that has changed many scientists to believe there must have been a creator
@lravenhill Comparative anatomy proves nothing............the light of your ignorance or attempt to mislead is blinding. Example Australopithecus shows the change to bipedal movement as the head moves to a more centered balanced position as well as pelvic changes for standing upright and walking.If all it takes is DNA to change your mind as a scientist then you're not much of a scientist at all.If information comes from god then where did the information to make your god come from? .
Human life is complex, evolution is a fact, but god is the truth! Life and the universe is just too complex for human understanding. Science has no limit, but neither does god. Evolution could be a fact and science will eventually prove that, but there is a creator to all of this just as we are creators for much of everthing on earth. Nothing comes without work!
@Selimagick Evolution IS a fact, as you said yourself, so what need is there for a God? Natural selection plays the role of God, if you will, so where does he fit into this? And if the universe is too complex for human understanding, how did you come to the conclusion that it must be God? Is God the ONLY other answer? Also you said "God is the truth", which God? They can't ALL be true, right?
@AprojectUK Yes, well it is obvious that evolution is a fact. An organism must adapt to its environment, thus natural selection taking place, and ultimately causing evolution to occur in a selection of species. God is ONLY the creator and does not interfere with our lives or what goes on in the whole universe. You may be right, Natural selection may play the role of God, but he is who designed that sequence. There is ONLY one creator (God) everything else is religion. Religion is false.
@Selimagick Why would God design such a sequence? It seems awfully unnecessary, considering he has the power to create the final product - the perfect species. As evolution explains, the need for a creator is non-existent. Before Darwin compiled the evidence and released it, and before modern times dug up more and more evidence to support it, evolution never existed, as far as we were concerned. Now that people finally understand that it does, God has a role in it. Where's the evidence for that?
@AprojectUK The main idea was for evolution and natural selection to eventually create that perfect species, which are human beings. We are the final product! We are here to explore and colonize the universe to try to understand what the creator is capable of creating. You think that everything came to be out of nothingness as the big bang theory states? Do you not understand how vast the universe is? Evidence of evolution is with in our planet, but evidence of God is with in the universe
@Selimagick That's absurd. Evolution has branched out to create millions of species, which are still evolving and always will. If "God's purpose" of an evolutionary process is to eventually create the final/perfect product - humans, why aren't we full of fur to keep warm in the cold conditions, etc? 'Perfect' is only relevant to the environment you live in, so with that logic, sharks and lions, etc, are also perfect species. Also we are not 'perfect, there are hundreds of faults with our bodies.
@AprojectUK Humanity is the final product and in some cases considered to be the perfect species. We are able to adapt to numerous conditions and environments. You cannot put a lion in the Antarctic and expect it to somehow adapt and survive. Yes we may continue to evolve, but that will not change the fact that we are Homo sapiens. We are not full of fur because we have adapted to warmer conditions where fur unnecessary. God did not intend to create perfection, but a way of persistent change.
@Selimagick "God did not intend to create perfection, but a way of persistent change." What is for evidence for this sentence? Or are you simply just assuming that's what God has intended?
@AprojectUK The evidence is evolution and evolution is change! I'll end this argument by simply stating that I am a believer in a creator. Yeah, I believe in evolution, natural selection and every aspect of Biology, but why not also believe in God as well. It wont hurt you or change your way of thinking. I simply believe that there is a reason for why everything exists.
i would love to see the scientific credentials for the idiots here who think evolution doesn't exist... probably just fat guys living in their mom's basement who just got off of work from flipping burgers... or just very religious... but in that case its hard to tell which one is worse
And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.
Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
Then indeed, after that you are to die.
Then indeed you, on the Day of Resurrection, will be resurrected. Quran 23: 12-16
Mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered so there is no mechanism anywhere in nature able to make evolution happen.
@JungleJargon what do you mean by "order"? It's a really weird term, and no biologists ever really talk like that. I don't know what you are trying to say, but i suggest you either clarify it, or use another term.
@Casshyr Mutations never direct the genome. Everything in biology is ordered. If it is not ordered, it is not biology. It is all about ordered functions of common elements that require a very great Maker.
@JungleJargon maybe the first life required some kind of maker, but you can't deny that once this preliminary order has been established, life evolves from there and gain in complexity. Gene duplication itself is already a way for an organism to gain complexity. Where the first gene comes from is an interest question that does not concern evolution. If your argument against evolution is the "complexity of life cannot be derived from non-life", this is more related to abiogenesis than evolution.
@Casshyr actually if you look at simple genetics.....no life has never evolved into more complex....whats more complex a dinosaur the size of a sky scaper...or a poodle....actually according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated....we have never witnessed an entirely new species of animal that evolved...evolution is NOT change over time....its new information resulting in new species....
@FaChin0420 "no life has never evolved into more complex" => a bacteria evolving to gain the capacity for nylon digestion is itself already evidence that novel genetic information can be gained over time by simple random mutations followed by natural selection. This is proof that complexity can increase.
@FaChin0420 "volution is NOT change over time....its new information resulting in new species" => nope. Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
@FaChin0420 "according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated" => first of all, microbiology studies bacteria, virus and small parasites. Zoology studies animals, botany studies plants. And secondly, evolution has a rule which in laymen term can go "if you don't need it, you lose it". So sure, sometimes we do see things get less complex when they shed off the info that no longer contribute to survival
@FaChin0420 "according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated" => CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS. But even to call it less complex is not scientifically accurate. They may lose a function in say one gene, but gain novel functions in other parts of the genome. A plant that undergoes reverse polyploidy doesn't necessary mean less complex. Worms have a bigger genome than us, are they more complex? No.
then how come since the advent of this stupid theory we havent seen one animal grow genetically more complex...how come every "evolutionary "change within species involves loss of dna information and never the addition of genetic information...saying genetics has nothing to do with evolution is like saying math has nothing to do with physics....wow that is the single dumbest thing i have read by an evolutionist..your literally taking out the facts and replacing it with imagination
@FaChin0420 "advent of this stupid theory we havent seen one animal grow genetically more complex" => first define genetic complexity.
"how come every "evolutionary "change within species involves loss of dna information and never the addition of genetic information" => nope, an insertion that leads to gain of function is already an example that doesn't involve loss of DNA information.
@FaChin0420 "saying genetics has nothing to do with evolution is like saying math has nothing to do with physics" => is this comment even still addressed to me? When have I ever said that? Quote me plz.
Chemestry disagrees with you. As long as there is a source of energy then complexity can and will inevitably arise... for more see the works of the nobel ilya prigogine.
I doubt you even understand what information is to begin with let alone conclude (with a logical fallacy) wether gene duplications, gene fusion and fission, random mutations, transposons, gene drift, add information.
@Casshyr There is no mechanism for evolution to ever happen. Mutations, insertions, deletions and such *never* order anything in the genome.
Natural selection will only select what *is* ordered by the preexisting word of the limited genome so there is not even a mechanism able to reorder the genome.
The only remaining possibility for evolution is magic and we already know that objects never do any magic.
@Casshyr There is nothing that is able to build or order a genome.
The genome is only able to reorder and repair itslelf and the limited information that it has. There is no way to add order to the genome or even change the basic order of the genome without harming it.
The preexisting order in the genome is what gives the genome viability and function. The genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order. Order = viability.
@JungleJargon " The genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order." => so what is your point? Are you critiquing abiogenesis or evolution? Evolution doesn't concern how the first gene come about, only about what happens after this first gene is already formed, whether by God or not, doesn't matter.
@JungleJargon ' genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order." => CONTINUE. We have documented examples that show genomes evolving to acquire new function, like digest nylon or new regulatory mechanisms. Even speciation has been observed, see london underground mosquitoes. So genome can indeed get more complex, but yes, u do require a previous genome to work off it. If this is ur critique, u r addressing abiogenesis, NOT evolution.
@JungleJargon the first scientific thing i have read so far ahaha , i agree and thank you for adding some science to this self proclaimed scientific debate hahaha
@JungleJargon I'm just saying how things are. It doesn't matter that you don't find logical that the sky is blue, it is that way, learn to live with it.
evolution is 1 animal becoming a different animal if you get a dog to have sex with another dog and all you get is a dog it's not evolution stupid evolution is 1 animal becoming a whole different animal when did to dogs make a cat then let me know about evolution
@perez85tkd That is YOUR definition, not the ACTUAL definition. You can't just go around making up your own definitions for words. Please stick to generally accepted definitions if you wish to take part in an intelligent discussion...
@perez85tkd Watch this video, which shows the evolution of a fish-like creature into a primate. I want you to show me which step cannot have occurred gradually, and which step we do not have a fossil for: [dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=yVqJ_mQazik
ok well first off dna needs information....a fish first off cannot change its dna and genetic structure for no reason....every single step is a falsehood because the cell needs dna and information to create a structure....and if the information isnt there it cant make it up from environmental conditioning or survival of the fittest....an animal may develope a defence system...but will never change into an entirely different species......that is a fact according to micro biology...
@FaChin0420 1) DNA doesn't "need" information. DNA *is* information. 2) Evolution does not say that fish can change their DNA. They can't. 3) DNA changes all the time. The average human has hundreds of mutations in their DNA, and they are perfectly healthy. 3) Evolution does not say that animals can change into another species? They can't. Populations evolve, and two populations can become different species. That's different.
what we know of the cell and dna is that two fish will never make a dog...and a dog and cat will never make a bird....that is a fact..saying all animals are related or that the cell came about accidentally and there were more than one to account for the literal millions of species of plant and animal and pretty well all organic tissue...is stupid..the problem is the cell...where did it come from? check out "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" and ben stiens " no intelligence allowed...
@FaChin0420 Evolution does not say that a fish can give birth to a dog, or a dog can become a cat, etc. An animal cannot evolve into something completely different. A population of animals can only evolve into something very similar - i.e., wolves into dogs, big fish into little fish, etc. Humans evolved from Homo erectus, a species that looked very human, cooked food, spoke, etc. You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution.
@perez85tkd You could think like that, or you could actually bother to look up evolution in Wikipedia and see if your explanation is anywhere close to right.
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
@daogdaog No evidence that they gradually evolved? Oh except for the evidence right in our bodies, in the fossil record, and the very mechanisms in nature itself?
Mutation =\= crossbreeding.
But a good point, if they are all made individually as separate species and they arent actually related, how is it that you can crossbreed them?
You see, evolution pretty much explains it, and it does have the evidence, right there in your body. Just because you prefer ignorance doesn't means your right.
@Hyeesa evidence in the fossil record? okay, since around 100 million fossils have been unearthed, provide a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually evolved into a giraffe. Since the changes were incremental according to Darwin, there should be thousands of those transistional animals before they transformed into a giraffe. Short necked animals with highly developed long antlers used for protection had to undergo reverse evolution to make those antlers short.
@Hyeesa there is no evidence in our bodies...every lame piece of wanna be evidence evolution seems to think it has..says nothing about where man came from except that according to dna we are more related to dogs and pigs rather than apes....saying becuase they look alike means they came from the same place has nothin g to do with genetic science and is an assumtion
@FaChin0420 "according to dna we are more related to dogs and pigs rather than apes" => nope. Whole genome comparison already shows we share higher conservation among primates compared to dogs, pigs, and even less conservation when looking at teleost.
@Hyeesa secondly every method of dating used is a falsehood because they use base assumtions for there mathematical equations....when is there ever pottassium then some argon came and made a rock..that is dumb....how can they assume a number like at one point there was one element and not the other...a rock isnt formed so simple it starts at a certain degree to be a rock...not one and zero....and actually carbon dating prooves the earth is no older than 60 000 years....
and finally what we find in nature is and fractal geometry is that everything is in perfect order according to smaller models, and everything has specific placement and probable causation, almost making it impossible to say it wasnt engineered or designed ,claiming natural selection then making chaos and accidents seem perfectly structured is kinda ignorant,wouldnt you asume more random structure within nature? and in fact how could fractal geometry even come from natual selection?
@Hyeesa and yeah mutation meaning cross breeding is retarded...what evidence is there in your body that your talking about? do you know anything scientific? or do you just state theory and then insult people...if ya ask me you need to really read up on the cell and where it came from....cause everything you just said made no sense.....there is not one ounce of evidence in your body except to say mankind unlike every other animal stays aware of its actions and applies morality,...
@Hyeesa i love how evolutionists seem to say scientific things...but never actually use science in an arguement hahaha....go ahead and show me your ignorance please...the odds of a cell being manifested accidentally or by some step by step process are about a trillion to the power of a trillion....to one....and since carbon dating actually prooves the earth is not billions of years old or even a million years old..yeah...all we find are evolutionists passing the problem to aliens hahaha
there r no fossils anywhere connecting species to one another and lastly the man who invented chromagnum man is still in jail for fraud...he told the whole world he made it up by combining an ape and a human skeleton.. ,i think besides comming here and trying to sound smart....come back with some actual scientific debating material....here say and wishy washy non scientific comments like what you just said.are proof you know very little of micro biology or genetics...
@FaChin0420 "there r no fossils anywhere connecting species to one another" => fossil evidence will always have holes simply because of the way a fossil is formed. Even if evolution is wrong, fossil record will still be spotty. Having said that, we do have quite a few transitional forms, they are listed in wikipedia along with the primary literature that are not frauds.
@daogdaog What would "evidence that they gradually evolved" look like? What would convince you that one species of animal evolved into another, over the course of 5 million years? What would prove that to you? I'm curious.
@Vincentaneous Ever since Darwin there never was any evidence of fine gradation,incremental or gradual evolution. So, some biologists put forward alternative theory like punctuated equilibrium. So many fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution, so will 5 million years make any difference?
@daogdaog You didn't answer my question. What observation would you consider to be evidence that gradual evolution occurred? You are still talking about the lack of evidence for evolution. I am asking what would you consider to be evidence FOR evolution? Your inability to answer my question shows the lack of scientific thinking on your part.
@Vincentaneous There are never was an evolution in the first place as evidenced by fossils some dated 250 million years ago showing no changes at all. Has bacteria turned into something called other than bacteria? Evolution is incremental changes over long period of time. There is no such a thing. So punctuated equilibrium assumed that changes happened in burst in a series of very short period of time followed by stasis leaving no trace of evidence of incremental changes.
@daogdaog LOL that's what I thought. If you cannot imagine evidence for the opposing view, you are not thinking scientifically. Enjoy your faith-based confused thinking.
@Vincentaneous There is no opposing view. Evolution simply did not exist as shown in the fossil record. For millions of years what other micro-organism bacteria transformed into? Bacteria remained a bacteria. You are one who is confused. Crocs remained crocs, sharks remained sharks, lizards remained lizards and so on. Unless of course you dont believe on your very own eyes. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times to mimic millions of years of evolution yet it remained a fruitfly.
@daogdaog yes, homo erectus and homo habilis and all those creatures are just put there by god so that it looks like evolution happend, walking and flying fish are not evolution, they are just showing that god has a sence of humor, keep your fairytales to your self, evolution is a fact
@LazaCDS You are missing something. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. There never was an evolution. Evolution is just a fairytale.
@daogdaog why do you people go so far to lie to youself when you have thousands of evidence that prove that something is a fact, either you are crazy or just stupid
@LazaCDS There are over 100 million fossils that have been unearthed, yet no series of bones could show any gradual or incremental changes on giraffe neck. This is one of the reasons why there is an alternate theory called punctuated equilibrium to salvage a problematic neo-darwinism. So, where is your thousands of evidence? Do you have fossils of chimp-human common ancestor?
@daogdaog we have genetic evidence for common ancestor, we cant find every fossil, we have fossils that show whales becoming ocean animals allmost step by step , we dont even need fossils, genetic evidence is just as good
@LazaCDS It is stupid to believe in evolutionists stories. Common ancestor will only apply within species. Human common ancestor is a human. A dog common ancestor is a dog. DNA of some species have been cut and spliced millions of times in labs all over the world yet there is not a single new specie that has been produced.
@LazaCDS You been had by evolutionists. Try to watch youtube "goats in a tree" and you will realize that four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe to survive. Had Darwin seen that video he would probably be embarrassed to mention the word evolution....
@daogdaog yes and he would go back to think that we were created by some guy from the sky because it makes more sence :D there is too much evidence man, face it
@daogdaog haha we dont have the exact date ofcourse, look it up on the web its all right there, and human -chimp common ancestor is not even that important in the millions of evidence that we have for evolution,and plus there is no evidence for any other theory, look at the flaws that we have in our body, its all because of gradual addaptation that took billions of years, if you think that god made us 6000 years ago or something insane like that we have nothing more to discuss :)
@LazaCDS Yes, of course you dont have the exact date because there are so many divergence dates widely apart due to many assumptions and speculations. Whenever you dont have any solid evidence it is no longer important to you. Show me some fossils evidence that some four legged short necked animals gradually transformed into a giraffe inch by inch. It must be easy for you because have millions of evidence.
@daogdaog we have fossils of four legged animals turn into aocean animals, watch whale evolution, its almost step by step, and look at the larynx in the girrafes neck, another prooof that that animal evolved and was not created, theory of evolution is stronger every day, if you want do disprove it, go and find a human fossil thats 65 million years old or a rabbit thats 100 million years old and you win, we know thats not gonna happen :)
@LazaCDS Yes whales with vestigial hind legs bones. I wonder why we could not find whale fossils that have some pelvic bones in them that gradually became smaller and smaller until it disappeared
Evolution doesnt disprove god, just the bibles idea of creationism. I think of god as an ochestra playing freestyle, responding to each chord other the other musicians play creating a syphony of earths flow of DNA and probably the whole universe. And those musisians are every organism that ever existed each being an incarnation of the divine being.
"There are only two ways of living, one is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle. I believe in the latter." --- Albert Einstein
"I used to be a atheist till I thought I was God." --- John Lennon
To be a Atheist, thus claiming absolutely that there is no God. Like Dawkins does, one would have to have absolute ultimate knowledge to make such a claim. Thus, one would be claiming to be God himself.
Dawkins also believes the first cell came from aliens.
@jaqzzzz 1. Actually, I recall seeing a video in which Dawkins states he is open to someone proving with evidence that God exists, but that he hasn't seen any. 2. Please cite a reference for where Darwin believes the first cells came from aliens. That is not how he explains it in "The Greatest Show On Earth" or anything else of his I've read or seen. Unless you mean that his merely suggesting it as one of several possibilities is the same as his believing it, which it's not.
@dpn48312 i have studied these several possiblities and everyone only adds more numbers to an already impossible equation and passes the answer to some other medium where the "unknown "factor can take affect...we all like to ask where god came from then smile as we dont get an answer....yet evolutionary theory holds more "unknown" factors than i.d. ever did....from mysterious dark matter refracting light...to space dust of unknown material...to aliens...to the backs of crystals haha...
@FaChin0420 The things you bring up have nothing to do with evolution. Dark matter, space dust, etc., are all cosmological, whereas the term evolution pertains to biology. I suggest you at least consult Wikipedia, looking up "evolution". Better yet, read Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth". You don't have to agree with him, but if you are going to discuss him, you ought to know first hand what he actually says. Otherwise, who is the one who looks foolish?
@dpn48312 how can you have a theory about life without a proper theory of where life came from? aliens? where did the aliens come from?? we already know its impossible for a cell to be created accidentally...or the odds are like a trillion to the power of a trillion to one...passing it off to other mediums is like saying a trillion times a trillion to the power of a trillion then multiplying that times a trillion...eventually every evolutionist will say they dont know..and be saticfied
@FaChin0420 Every scientist, and every reasoning person, will admit they don't know when they don't know. Science is not *having* all the answers, but rather a process seeking answers, drawing conclusions from solid evidence, subjecting observations to verification and testing. Science is not satisfied to fill in the blanks by jumping to conclusions; you can't just say,"I don't know how it happened, so it must be God did it" and call it science.
@dpn48312 the odds the cell came about indirectly through some long process is like saying if i throw a can of white paint in the air...it will land and create a perfect replica of the mona lisa....if you think evolution happened....then you have to believe without a doubt....eventually if i throw this can of white paint in the air enough times...it will land and create the mona lisa....if you really believe that can happen....your an idiot....
@FaChin0420 "if you think evolution happened....then you have to believe without a doubt" => actually what you are describing here is abiogenesis, not evolution. Questions like how did the first life form come about? Where did the first gene come from? These are topics of abiogenesis, not evolution. Right now, no one is saying abiogenesis is a fact. So right there, sure, we can believe in abiogenesis with some forms of doubt. In fact, that's the beauty of science.
@FaChin0420 "eventually if i throw this can of white paint in the air enough times...it will land and create the mona lisa" => inexact analogy. First life form is proposed to be very simple strings of nucleotides. Self-replicaitng RNA has already been demonstrated to be possible. See PMID: 20554706. This shows that abiogenesis is indeed theoretically possible.
@FaChin0420 Wrong. Absolutely wrong. This is not what the theory of evolution is about. If you want to know what you are talking about, Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" is surely available in your public library, and is a very good introduction to the subject. Or at least look it up on Wikipedia.
@dpn48312 what strikes me is the amount of faith and blind belief an evolutionist has to do, in the end its i dont know where the cell came from i dont know where aliens came from , but it musta been a small slow process ...haha...really?? it musta been? why? why dont men have wings? we lost our tail cause we had no use for it? whales have pelvic bones cause they used to have legs?? hahahahahaha....wow...check out kent hovines " 100 reasons why evolution is stupid"
@FaChin0420 You are confusing the distinction between what scientists *know* from actual evidence, and what they *speculate* might be the answers to the things they don't know yet for certain, when they are asked to speculate or give an opinion of what are likely to be the eventual findings. As for Hovind, he starts with the Bible and then *speculates* how the limited evidence he knows about supports his presuppositions. I have no use for such nonsense. Too bad he fooled you.
@FaChin0420 And what strikes me is, for a person who puts as much energy into TALKING about evolution, how little effort you seem to have actually put into LEARNING what evolution even means. Please do not reply to me unless you have actually at least read the wikipedia article on "evolution" and know at least that much about what you are talking about.
@jaqzzzz Dawkins doesn't "believe" that. He simply acknowledges it as a possibility (which in fact IS a possibility). Please, stop quoting Einstein. He was very clear; He didn't believe in a personal god. And the word "miracle" has a poetic as well as a literal meaning.
@jaqzzzz "God is a concept by which we measure our own pain." -- John Lennon... "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -- Albert Einstein... "Even in the highly unlikely event that [aliens] were responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved." -- Richard Dawkins
I say god definitely does not exist in the same way that 2+2 will never equal 5. Self contradictory entities cannot logically exist. Check out the youtube video " Proofs for God Destroyed by A Philosophical Atheist." Stefan Molyunex runs the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web.
lol dskas is a fucking retard. In fact most of you are. The evidence is there for evolution and there isnt a shred of evidence to support religion other than personel accounts from virgins scared of dying and/or medevil superstition. And at least quantum theory, relativity, etc are trying to explain something. Religion explains absolute sweet fuck all.
Evolution - simple atoms create inorganic matter, inorganic matter creates life, from this to ape to man. Sounds like science fiction. Infact is sounds like fantasy!
Evolution can only be described as a belief system for the simple fact is that we have never or likely to see a new species. Dog's of different types can breed but a new species will never develope. Evolution was only born to oppose the religion of the day. Evolution has developed into an religion and has many followers. Dawkins is a self elected head of his church and his books the propadganda.
@the0fart0machine despite the fact that your claim is wrong and a bit of research will tell you that, even if we never ever see "a new species evolve" even if we never had found one fossil, that doesn't change the fact that we share a common ancestor with all other apes. The proof of this is in our DNA and in all other primates DNA in the form of ERV markers, once again a bit of research on the subject would do you much good laking sparing you the humiliation fo having your ignorance exposed.
@DSkaz89 Tell me why the darwinism prediction that one day it would be proved that certain species would be shown to have common links. DNA analysis has shown that snakes and reptiles have nothing in common. Darwin thought that these 2 species would has something in common. Why was he wrong???
@the0fart0machine "snakes and reptiles have nothing in common" ..... uhhh.... you're drunk? snakes ARE reptiles. It's like saying cats and mammals have nothing in common. Instead of debating about evolution or "darwinism" wathever that is, i suggest you finish primary school.
@the0fart0machine I see no peer reviewed article on the subject on pubmed, care to provide a source for such amaizing fact? Funny how you claim things to be fantasy then say the most amaizing things like snakes not being related to reptiles even tough they ARE reptiles then fail to provide any backing.
Besides i fail to see the point even if by absurd you were right, for example, whales are mammals, they are more closely related to cats than other fishes, i don't see the problem...
@DSkaz89 I see that you mention time and gravity. Stick to evolution, the debate stills goes on about this fantasy. If you want to believe in this belief system I have no argument.
1) i have asked for reference of this claim "dna analysis does not link snakes to reptiles" I want name and surname of the scientists that did said study. I'm calling bullshit on this one till you provide.
2) Science is demonstrable, wether it be time slows down or we share a common ancestor with other apes, they are both unbelievable, they are both DEMONSTRATED. Still waiting for you to explain why we have 98000 matched ERVs in our dna and that of other apes...
@DSkaz89 Look it up yourself. Bullshit to you, the honest truth to others! Not all science can be demostrated! Have a look at DNA of the tomato and human DNA.
I laugh at the proof biologists use to support there theory of evolution....they say that species are so common because they all had a common ancestor....when the proof so clearly shows that they are similar because they have a common creator.....common ...use your head
Nothing of he assets has been observed, documented or measered. He is simply giving us his fanciful fairytales. For a scientist you does believe in faith or fairtyles - he sure dishes them out thick and fast.
Has he or anyone else observed and documented one animal changing into antother kind of animal - the answer is a definite NO!!!
@theot58 Evolution doesn't say that one animal changes into another. It's not the individual that evolves. It's the population that evolves. Look up genetic drift and founder effect.
@theot58 "Dawkins is talking utter rubbish" "Has he or anyone else observed and documented one animal changing into antother kind of animal - the answer is a definite NO!!!" - Oh dear! You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution doesn't work like that!
@glebe9 So you agree that we have not observed one animal changing into a more complex and better animal. Since this is the core assertion of Macro evolution, and since the scientific method demands observation, measurement and repeatability - then you are agreeing with me that Macro evolution is BELIEF it is not real science.
Your inference that I am a poor undeducated person speaking out of ignorance (which i get all the time) is TOTALLY inappropriate.
@theot58 actually it has been observed in about 6000 year we had fruit that was roundish and was green on the outside to wat we call the modern day banana we hav seen the canines evolve into the modern variety of dogs this all happened because our ancestors cultivated many animals and plants to get desirable traits
@theot58 systems go from simplicity to complexity naturally with no need for an intelligent being (unless you consider the sun intelligent), they are called dissipative structures and happen spontaneously when there is aboundance of energy. The chemist Ilya Prigogine won the nobel prize for his work on self-organizing systems.
ok name a system that has gone from simple to complex that involves cellular structure ..i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex.....whether it duplicates or not...that is its job...it didnt make it up on its own...it has a thing called dna...which feeds it information on how to create 3 dimensional structure...and dna cannot get information based on environmental conditioning or survival of the fittest...saying simple to complex is ignoring all of genetic science...
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => it has. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => another example: Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => another example: Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. I can give you more but i think i've made my point.
@FaChin0420 "I don't think anything has ever become more complex"
There is a vast amount of examples to show you are wrong, and they are but a google docs search away. One i expecially like is the experiment with chlorella vulgaris, they took a unicellular vegetal organism and put it togheter with a phagotrope predator unicellular organism. Within a hundred generations the plant became a multicellular organism and retained that characteristic even after the predators were removed.
@theot58 Where is the evidence for the intervention of an intelligent being? You just heard Dawkins explain the molecular genetics, there's no need for intervention.
You're either not looking at the evidence, lying, or too stupid to comprehend it.
The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them, though there are some who leave the fairy-tale of evolution. Anf regarding Cars and videos have nothing to do with what some mordern scientists believe. If I have to believe in evolution just because cars and in video, WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST? see my friend you are just speaking NONESENSE
Do people honestly think that the thousands of scientists today are all wrong? I hope these same people do not use hospitals, drive their cars, are watching these videos, etc. Dawkins is a brilliant man who helps spread knowledge that humans have been gaining for many many years, these are things that I can go see for myself. They make no claim that I can't just go look at so I am having trouble understanding the doubt in ourselves that people seem to have. We are alive people...lets live!!!!!
@Mekiwyn The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them, though there are some who leave the fairy-tale of evolution. Anf regarding Cars and videos have nothing to do with what some mordern scientists believe. If I have to believe in evolution just because cars and in video, WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST? see my friend you are just speaking NONESENSE
@rocha333 u must bea very naive person. electricity is a well proven fact, u have electrons that can be tested and a lot of ways to prove phisically , that electricity exist. On the other hand ur harry potter book alike, w/e u worship, have been written by man, and u dont have any prove whatsoever of ur imaginary friend. thats the big difference my lunatic friend, have u ever went to a real school? or just been brain washed by old ppl afraid of dying making no sense of a big guy on the skys?
@rocha333 no, the point was that science is trusted and accepted when it meets your life-style or beliefs, those that contradict are dismissed. I know that there are many religious scientists to this day that reveal things of the natural world and I accept them. So there are no christian schools, etc.? All universities are atheist instituions? I am not speaking nonsense, you are choosing to hear nonsense.
@rocha333 "The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them". Sigh - so many idiots on here. Universities educate based on factual evidence & to further discover. Indoctrination only comes from religion. Evolution IS fact - the argument is over - the evidence is overwhelming. It's only denied by god-bothering nutjobs like you who simply close their eyes.
@rocha333 "WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST?" Oh well, SILLY ME! Of course I should believe in unsubstantiated superstition because someone in the 17th century did!! How wrong of me!................ Jeeeez you are deluded!
I find it quite telling that the posters below who feebly attempt to contradict evolutionary theory all seem to have great difficulty in stringing together a coherent sentence or to manage to spell even the most basic words correctly. That in itself says a lot about what level of intellect is required in order to ignore the massive mountains of evidence from all scientific disciplines in support of evolution. I guess the ability to put your fingers in your ears and hum does not require much.
@rocha333 Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" or better yet take Biology 101 from any top University, such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, MIT, etc. Oh yeah, you probably couldn't get accepted to a real school, could you?
@rocha333 The evidence for evolution is compelling. It is not only Dawkins and his compatriots but the entire scientific community that accepts the fact of evolution. Dawkins is highly respected in the scientific community, having made a major contribution to our understanding of biology - the "selfish gene" theory. He also made an incredible contribution to sociology, having coined the term "meme" to refer to a unit of culture, arguing that cultural ideas evolve, like organisms. Go to school.
Mordern genuine medicine has nothing to do with the theory (evolution) of one kind of animal becoming another, such as ancient fishes becoming ancient apes.
what is the evidence that morden medicine is based on that?
@rocha333 I feel genuinely sad that you are unable, or unwilling, to acquaint yourself with the overwhelming evidemce for evolution. Would you please read 'The Greatest Show...' by Richard Dawkins, or a similar book, then return to this debate carefully refuting the evidence provided. If you can, you will be the first, and will certainly make a lasting name for yourself in the history of ideas. Will you do that? I look forward to a detailed debate, based on the actual data.
Christians dont deny science, they deny Dawkins theories on evolution which is not science of course. Him being an biologist does not make him right on what he is saying. By using logic and reason one can easily see evolution is fairytale for adults.
Only feeble-minded people would believe their grand-fathers were fishes :)
@kingkong8974 I am quite convinced that you are the dumbass here. There are no evidence that fishes became apes, but you believe such stories as if your mind has been brainwashed with stupidity
@craigMellow I'm not talking about crocoduck and you know it. The theory of fishes evolving into land animals such as ancient apes has been taught by Dawkings and his companians. And Please stop go around as if you exactly what I am saying here.At least try to be honest when defending your evolution beliefs
First go learn what evolution and natural selection is. ever heard of TIKTAALIK ROSEAE??. do a google search and find out. And learn what COMMON ANCESTOR means. What a Genius!
That is essentially what you're asking me, but in a much bigger gap.
like great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, and so on with many more great grandmother.
its through a series of mutations. Your argument is the same as telling someone that their grandma aint their mom.
This has been flagged as spam show
The Theory of evolution as in (How have we got here and how it started?) is exactly what it is (A Religion) . It starts with a prophet (Darwin) and all his followers now look for (evidence) to support his PROFECY. Real science makes a conclusion after the evidence has been establish. These are some of evolutionary gods: Billions year’s ego (long time ego). Big bang. Everything evolves from one cell. Perhaps. One could conclude. would suggest etc....Darwin is a saint Just like Buda, Jesus...
aurelama1 6 days ago
Around 70 species are found in South America and one in North America. Marsupial fossils have also been found in Europe, Asia, Antarctica and North Africa.possible that certain creatures existed on many lands (as indicated by fossils) but became extinct (eaten?) on all other lands except australia, where they may have had a distinct advantage or faced less fierce predators. as always dawkins misleads people
lravenhill 1 week ago
@lravenhill Marsupials exist today and evolved and adapted in those areas you speak of and some became extinct, precisely the ones that could not compete.in their niche with placental mammals in a much more varied ecosystem than Australia's. They reached Australia last during the breakup of Pangaea and that also helped in terms of competition. As always another ignorant creationist opens his/her mouth.
okltsply 1 week ago
the best evidence is comparitive anatomy and dna? comparative anatomy proves nothing. and dna is the very thing that has changed many scientists to believe there must have been a creator
lravenhill 1 week ago
@lravenhill Comparative anatomy proves nothing............the light of your ignorance or attempt to mislead is blinding. Example Australopithecus shows the change to bipedal movement as the head moves to a more centered balanced position as well as pelvic changes for standing upright and walking.If all it takes is DNA to change your mind as a scientist then you're not much of a scientist at all.If information comes from god then where did the information to make your god come from? .
okltsply 1 week ago
Human life is complex, evolution is a fact, but god is the truth! Life and the universe is just too complex for human understanding. Science has no limit, but neither does god. Evolution could be a fact and science will eventually prove that, but there is a creator to all of this just as we are creators for much of everthing on earth. Nothing comes without work!
Selimagick 3 weeks ago
@Selimagick Evolution IS a fact, as you said yourself, so what need is there for a God? Natural selection plays the role of God, if you will, so where does he fit into this? And if the universe is too complex for human understanding, how did you come to the conclusion that it must be God? Is God the ONLY other answer? Also you said "God is the truth", which God? They can't ALL be true, right?
AprojectUK 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from craigMellow
@AprojectUK Yes, well it is obvious that evolution is a fact. An organism must adapt to its environment, thus natural selection taking place, and ultimately causing evolution to occur in a selection of species. God is ONLY the creator and does not interfere with our lives or what goes on in the whole universe. You may be right, Natural selection may play the role of God, but he is who designed that sequence. There is ONLY one creator (God) everything else is religion. Religion is false.
Selimagick 2 weeks ago
@Selimagick Why would God design such a sequence? It seems awfully unnecessary, considering he has the power to create the final product - the perfect species. As evolution explains, the need for a creator is non-existent. Before Darwin compiled the evidence and released it, and before modern times dug up more and more evidence to support it, evolution never existed, as far as we were concerned. Now that people finally understand that it does, God has a role in it. Where's the evidence for that?
AprojectUK 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Selimagick 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AprojectUK The main idea was for evolution and natural selection to eventually create that perfect species, which are human beings. We are the final product! We are here to explore and colonize the universe to try to understand what the creator is capable of creating. You think that everything came to be out of nothingness as the big bang theory states? Do you not understand how vast the universe is? Evidence of evolution is with in our planet, but evidence of God is with in the universe
Selimagick 2 weeks ago
@Selimagick That's absurd. Evolution has branched out to create millions of species, which are still evolving and always will. If "God's purpose" of an evolutionary process is to eventually create the final/perfect product - humans, why aren't we full of fur to keep warm in the cold conditions, etc? 'Perfect' is only relevant to the environment you live in, so with that logic, sharks and lions, etc, are also perfect species. Also we are not 'perfect, there are hundreds of faults with our bodies.
AprojectUK 2 weeks ago
@AprojectUK Humanity is the final product and in some cases considered to be the perfect species. We are able to adapt to numerous conditions and environments. You cannot put a lion in the Antarctic and expect it to somehow adapt and survive. Yes we may continue to evolve, but that will not change the fact that we are Homo sapiens. We are not full of fur because we have adapted to warmer conditions where fur unnecessary. God did not intend to create perfection, but a way of persistent change.
Selimagick 2 weeks ago
@Selimagick "God did not intend to create perfection, but a way of persistent change." What is for evidence for this sentence? Or are you simply just assuming that's what God has intended?
AprojectUK 1 week ago
@AprojectUK The evidence is evolution and evolution is change! I'll end this argument by simply stating that I am a believer in a creator. Yeah, I believe in evolution, natural selection and every aspect of Biology, but why not also believe in God as well. It wont hurt you or change your way of thinking. I simply believe that there is a reason for why everything exists.
Selimagick 1 week ago
@Selimagick Cause you need to prove a god exists with evidence....
spareaxe 1 week ago
In 100 years when less people are complete morons.....Richard Dawkins will be in all the history books for helping to move Darwin's ideas forward
EddieRHS 1 month ago
People who don't believe in evolution STILL EXIST??
dkthg 1 month ago
i would love to see the scientific credentials for the idiots here who think evolution doesn't exist... probably just fat guys living in their mom's basement who just got off of work from flipping burgers... or just very religious... but in that case its hard to tell which one is worse
rkcraigslist51907 1 month ago
And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.
Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
Then indeed, after that you are to die.
Then indeed you, on the Day of Resurrection, will be resurrected. Quran 23: 12-16
malitrueblue1 1 month ago
Mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered so there is no mechanism anywhere in nature able to make evolution happen.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon what do you mean by "order"? It's a really weird term, and no biologists ever really talk like that. I don't know what you are trying to say, but i suggest you either clarify it, or use another term.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Mutations never direct the genome. Everything in biology is ordered. If it is not ordered, it is not biology. It is all about ordered functions of common elements that require a very great Maker.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon maybe the first life required some kind of maker, but you can't deny that once this preliminary order has been established, life evolves from there and gain in complexity. Gene duplication itself is already a way for an organism to gain complexity. Where the first gene comes from is an interest question that does not concern evolution. If your argument against evolution is the "complexity of life cannot be derived from non-life", this is more related to abiogenesis than evolution.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr actually if you look at simple genetics.....no life has never evolved into more complex....whats more complex a dinosaur the size of a sky scaper...or a poodle....actually according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated....we have never witnessed an entirely new species of animal that evolved...evolution is NOT change over time....its new information resulting in new species....
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "no life has never evolved into more complex" => a bacteria evolving to gain the capacity for nylon digestion is itself already evidence that novel genetic information can be gained over time by simple random mutations followed by natural selection. This is proof that complexity can increase.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "we have never witnessed an entirely new species of animal that evolved" => we have. One example is london underground mosquitoes.
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "volution is NOT change over time....its new information resulting in new species" => nope. Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated" => first of all, microbiology studies bacteria, virus and small parasites. Zoology studies animals, botany studies plants. And secondly, evolution has a rule which in laymen term can go "if you don't need it, you lose it". So sure, sometimes we do see things get less complex when they shed off the info that no longer contribute to survival
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "according to microbiology....species of animal and plant have lost information during minor changes in species and have become less complicated" => CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS. But even to call it less complex is not scientifically accurate. They may lose a function in say one gene, but gain novel functions in other parts of the genome. A plant that undergoes reverse polyploidy doesn't necessary mean less complex. Worms have a bigger genome than us, are they more complex? No.
Casshyr 1 month ago
then how come since the advent of this stupid theory we havent seen one animal grow genetically more complex...how come every "evolutionary "change within species involves loss of dna information and never the addition of genetic information...saying genetics has nothing to do with evolution is like saying math has nothing to do with physics....wow that is the single dumbest thing i have read by an evolutionist..your literally taking out the facts and replacing it with imagination
FaChin0420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "advent of this stupid theory we havent seen one animal grow genetically more complex" => first define genetic complexity.
"how come every "evolutionary "change within species involves loss of dna information and never the addition of genetic information" => nope, an insertion that leads to gain of function is already an example that doesn't involve loss of DNA information.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "saying genetics has nothing to do with evolution is like saying math has nothing to do with physics" => is this comment even still addressed to me? When have I ever said that? Quote me plz.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "simple to complex is impossible!"
Chemestry disagrees with you. As long as there is a source of energy then complexity can and will inevitably arise... for more see the works of the nobel ilya prigogine.
I doubt you even understand what information is to begin with let alone conclude (with a logical fallacy) wether gene duplications, gene fusion and fission, random mutations, transposons, gene drift, add information.
DSkaz89 1 month ago
@Casshyr There is no mechanism for evolution to ever happen. Mutations, insertions, deletions and such *never* order anything in the genome.
Natural selection will only select what *is* ordered by the preexisting word of the limited genome so there is not even a mechanism able to reorder the genome.
The only remaining possibility for evolution is magic and we already know that objects never do any magic.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "*never* order anything in the genome" => define this first then. Define what you mean by order a genome.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr There is nothing that is able to build or order a genome.
The genome is only able to reorder and repair itslelf and the limited information that it has. There is no way to add order to the genome or even change the basic order of the genome without harming it.
The preexisting order in the genome is what gives the genome viability and function. The genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order. Order = viability.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon " The genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order." => so what is your point? Are you critiquing abiogenesis or evolution? Evolution doesn't concern how the first gene come about, only about what happens after this first gene is already formed, whether by God or not, doesn't matter.
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon ' genome is only able to maintain the viability and order that it has as it recieved from the preexisting order." => CONTINUE. We have documented examples that show genomes evolving to acquire new function, like digest nylon or new regulatory mechanisms. Even speciation has been observed, see london underground mosquitoes. So genome can indeed get more complex, but yes, u do require a previous genome to work off it. If this is ur critique, u r addressing abiogenesis, NOT evolution.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@JungleJargon the first scientific thing i have read so far ahaha , i agree and thank you for adding some science to this self proclaimed scientific debate hahaha
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 It is very hard to find any logic or reasoning on these boards.
They must be very desperate.
I don't know how so many people can be so wrong about everything.
It must have been the brain washing they all had when they were vulnerable helpless children in school.
Thank God for reason, logic and common sense!
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon "when they were vulnerable helpless children in school."
I guess you really hated sunday school didn't you?? XD
DSkaz89 1 month ago
@DSkaz89 Case in point, you are just saying anything even when it is not even logical.
Giving all of the credit to objects like you do is a baseless belief and its not even logical.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon I'm just saying how things are. It doesn't matter that you don't find logical that the sky is blue, it is that way, learn to live with it.
DSkaz89 1 month ago
@DSkaz89 You failed to prove that objects made you what you are.
That is not how things are.
Objects never do anything without being made to do something.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
What about a creative power ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
Pigeon fancier
Sirstingray 5 months ago
evolution is 1 animal becoming a different animal if you get a dog to have sex with another dog and all you get is a dog it's not evolution stupid evolution is 1 animal becoming a whole different animal when did to dogs make a cat then let me know about evolution
perez85tkd 6 months ago
@perez85tkd i think you are mistaking darwinian evolutioin with pokemon evolution
DSkaz89 5 months ago
@perez85tkd That is YOUR definition, not the ACTUAL definition. You can't just go around making up your own definitions for words. Please stick to generally accepted definitions if you wish to take part in an intelligent discussion...
DrSpooglemon 5 months ago in playlist Favorites - Richard Dawkins
@perez85tkd
Idiot. I like the game of pokemon but no one in heir right mind would mistake real-life evolution for what we see in a video game.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@perez85tkd Watch this video, which shows the evolution of a fish-like creature into a primate. I want you to show me which step cannot have occurred gradually, and which step we do not have a fossil for: [dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=yVqJ_mQazik
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
ok well first off dna needs information....a fish first off cannot change its dna and genetic structure for no reason....every single step is a falsehood because the cell needs dna and information to create a structure....and if the information isnt there it cant make it up from environmental conditioning or survival of the fittest....an animal may develope a defence system...but will never change into an entirely different species......that is a fact according to micro biology...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 1) DNA doesn't "need" information. DNA *is* information. 2) Evolution does not say that fish can change their DNA. They can't. 3) DNA changes all the time. The average human has hundreds of mutations in their DNA, and they are perfectly healthy. 3) Evolution does not say that animals can change into another species? They can't. Populations evolve, and two populations can become different species. That's different.
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
what we know of the cell and dna is that two fish will never make a dog...and a dog and cat will never make a bird....that is a fact..saying all animals are related or that the cell came about accidentally and there were more than one to account for the literal millions of species of plant and animal and pretty well all organic tissue...is stupid..the problem is the cell...where did it come from? check out "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" and ben stiens " no intelligence allowed...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 Evolution does not say that a fish can give birth to a dog, or a dog can become a cat, etc. An animal cannot evolve into something completely different. A population of animals can only evolve into something very similar - i.e., wolves into dogs, big fish into little fish, etc. Humans evolved from Homo erectus, a species that looked very human, cooked food, spoke, etc. You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution.
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
@perez85tkd Wow you are reaaaaaaally stupid .LOL
RichtoffenRoach 4 months ago in playlist Cretionism vs Evolution
@RichtoffenRoach reading that arguement, im pretty sure I lost a few IQ points. Good work on the 'debate', more like just stating facts
moviedude120796 4 months ago
@perez85tkd You could think like that, or you could actually bother to look up evolution in Wikipedia and see if your explanation is anywhere close to right.
dpn48312 1 month ago
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog No evidence that they gradually evolved? Oh except for the evidence right in our bodies, in the fossil record, and the very mechanisms in nature itself?
Mutation =\= crossbreeding.
But a good point, if they are all made individually as separate species and they arent actually related, how is it that you can crossbreed them?
You see, evolution pretty much explains it, and it does have the evidence, right there in your body. Just because you prefer ignorance doesn't means your right.
Hyeesa 5 months ago
@Hyeesa evidence in the fossil record? okay, since around 100 million fossils have been unearthed, provide a list of four legged animals with short necks that gradually evolved into a giraffe. Since the changes were incremental according to Darwin, there should be thousands of those transistional animals before they transformed into a giraffe. Short necked animals with highly developed long antlers used for protection had to undergo reverse evolution to make those antlers short.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@Hyeesa there is no evidence in our bodies...every lame piece of wanna be evidence evolution seems to think it has..says nothing about where man came from except that according to dna we are more related to dogs and pigs rather than apes....saying becuase they look alike means they came from the same place has nothin g to do with genetic science and is an assumtion
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "according to dna we are more related to dogs and pigs rather than apes" => nope. Whole genome comparison already shows we share higher conservation among primates compared to dogs, pigs, and even less conservation when looking at teleost.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Hyeesa secondly every method of dating used is a falsehood because they use base assumtions for there mathematical equations....when is there ever pottassium then some argon came and made a rock..that is dumb....how can they assume a number like at one point there was one element and not the other...a rock isnt formed so simple it starts at a certain degree to be a rock...not one and zero....and actually carbon dating prooves the earth is no older than 60 000 years....
FaChin0420 1 month ago
and finally what we find in nature is and fractal geometry is that everything is in perfect order according to smaller models, and everything has specific placement and probable causation, almost making it impossible to say it wasnt engineered or designed ,claiming natural selection then making chaos and accidents seem perfectly structured is kinda ignorant,wouldnt you asume more random structure within nature? and in fact how could fractal geometry even come from natual selection?
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@Hyeesa and yeah mutation meaning cross breeding is retarded...what evidence is there in your body that your talking about? do you know anything scientific? or do you just state theory and then insult people...if ya ask me you need to really read up on the cell and where it came from....cause everything you just said made no sense.....there is not one ounce of evidence in your body except to say mankind unlike every other animal stays aware of its actions and applies morality,...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@Hyeesa i love how evolutionists seem to say scientific things...but never actually use science in an arguement hahaha....go ahead and show me your ignorance please...the odds of a cell being manifested accidentally or by some step by step process are about a trillion to the power of a trillion....to one....and since carbon dating actually prooves the earth is not billions of years old or even a million years old..yeah...all we find are evolutionists passing the problem to aliens hahaha
FaChin0420 1 month ago
there r no fossils anywhere connecting species to one another and lastly the man who invented chromagnum man is still in jail for fraud...he told the whole world he made it up by combining an ape and a human skeleton.. ,i think besides comming here and trying to sound smart....come back with some actual scientific debating material....here say and wishy washy non scientific comments like what you just said.are proof you know very little of micro biology or genetics...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "there r no fossils anywhere connecting species to one another" => fossil evidence will always have holes simply because of the way a fossil is formed. Even if evolution is wrong, fossil record will still be spotty. Having said that, we do have quite a few transitional forms, they are listed in wikipedia along with the primary literature that are not frauds.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@daogdaog What would "evidence that they gradually evolved" look like? What would convince you that one species of animal evolved into another, over the course of 5 million years? What would prove that to you? I'm curious.
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
@Vincentaneous Ever since Darwin there never was any evidence of fine gradation,incremental or gradual evolution. So, some biologists put forward alternative theory like punctuated equilibrium. So many fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution, so will 5 million years make any difference?
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog You didn't answer my question. What observation would you consider to be evidence that gradual evolution occurred? You are still talking about the lack of evidence for evolution. I am asking what would you consider to be evidence FOR evolution? Your inability to answer my question shows the lack of scientific thinking on your part.
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
@Vincentaneous There are never was an evolution in the first place as evidenced by fossils some dated 250 million years ago showing no changes at all. Has bacteria turned into something called other than bacteria? Evolution is incremental changes over long period of time. There is no such a thing. So punctuated equilibrium assumed that changes happened in burst in a series of very short period of time followed by stasis leaving no trace of evidence of incremental changes.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog LOL that's what I thought. If you cannot imagine evidence for the opposing view, you are not thinking scientifically. Enjoy your faith-based confused thinking.
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
@Vincentaneous There is no opposing view. Evolution simply did not exist as shown in the fossil record. For millions of years what other micro-organism bacteria transformed into? Bacteria remained a bacteria. You are one who is confused. Crocs remained crocs, sharks remained sharks, lizards remained lizards and so on. Unless of course you dont believe on your very own eyes. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times to mimic millions of years of evolution yet it remained a fruitfly.
daogdaog 1 month ago
@daogdaog yes, homo erectus and homo habilis and all those creatures are just put there by god so that it looks like evolution happend, walking and flying fish are not evolution, they are just showing that god has a sence of humor, keep your fairytales to your self, evolution is a fact
LazaCDS 1 month ago
@LazaCDS You are missing something. A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. There never was an evolution. Evolution is just a fairytale.
daogdaog 4 weeks ago
@daogdaog why do you people go so far to lie to youself when you have thousands of evidence that prove that something is a fact, either you are crazy or just stupid
LazaCDS 4 weeks ago
@LazaCDS There are over 100 million fossils that have been unearthed, yet no series of bones could show any gradual or incremental changes on giraffe neck. This is one of the reasons why there is an alternate theory called punctuated equilibrium to salvage a problematic neo-darwinism. So, where is your thousands of evidence? Do you have fossils of chimp-human common ancestor?
daogdaog 4 weeks ago
@daogdaog we have genetic evidence for common ancestor, we cant find every fossil, we have fossils that show whales becoming ocean animals allmost step by step , we dont even need fossils, genetic evidence is just as good
LazaCDS 3 weeks ago
@LazaCDS It is stupid to believe in evolutionists stories. Common ancestor will only apply within species. Human common ancestor is a human. A dog common ancestor is a dog. DNA of some species have been cut and spliced millions of times in labs all over the world yet there is not a single new specie that has been produced.
daogdaog 3 weeks ago
@daogdaog keep telling yourself that ;)
LazaCDS 3 weeks ago
@LazaCDS You been had by evolutionists. Try to watch youtube "goats in a tree" and you will realize that four legged short necked animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe to survive. Had Darwin seen that video he would probably be embarrassed to mention the word evolution....
daogdaog 3 weeks ago
@daogdaog yes and he would go back to think that we were created by some guy from the sky because it makes more sence :D there is too much evidence man, face it
LazaCDS 3 weeks ago
@LazaCDS So, show me just one tangible evidence of a chimp-human common ancestor. What it is called and the exact divergence date.
daogdaog 3 weeks ago
@daogdaog haha we dont have the exact date ofcourse, look it up on the web its all right there, and human -chimp common ancestor is not even that important in the millions of evidence that we have for evolution,and plus there is no evidence for any other theory, look at the flaws that we have in our body, its all because of gradual addaptation that took billions of years, if you think that god made us 6000 years ago or something insane like that we have nothing more to discuss :)
LazaCDS 3 weeks ago
@LazaCDS Yes, of course you dont have the exact date because there are so many divergence dates widely apart due to many assumptions and speculations. Whenever you dont have any solid evidence it is no longer important to you. Show me some fossils evidence that some four legged short necked animals gradually transformed into a giraffe inch by inch. It must be easy for you because have millions of evidence.
daogdaog 3 weeks ago
@daogdaog we have fossils of four legged animals turn into aocean animals, watch whale evolution, its almost step by step, and look at the larynx in the girrafes neck, another prooof that that animal evolved and was not created, theory of evolution is stronger every day, if you want do disprove it, go and find a human fossil thats 65 million years old or a rabbit thats 100 million years old and you win, we know thats not gonna happen :)
LazaCDS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LazaCDS Yes whales with vestigial hind legs bones. I wonder why we could not find whale fossils that have some pelvic bones in them that gradually became smaller and smaller until it disappeared
daogdaog 2 weeks ago
Evolution doesnt disprove god, just the bibles idea of creationism. I think of god as an ochestra playing freestyle, responding to each chord other the other musicians play creating a syphony of earths flow of DNA and probably the whole universe. And those musisians are every organism that ever existed each being an incarnation of the divine being.
Shavenhamster 8 months ago
"There are only two ways of living, one is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle. I believe in the latter." --- Albert Einstein
"I used to be a atheist till I thought I was God." --- John Lennon
To be a Atheist, thus claiming absolutely that there is no God. Like Dawkins does, one would have to have absolute ultimate knowledge to make such a claim. Thus, one would be claiming to be God himself.
Dawkins also believes the first cell came from aliens.
jaqzzzz 9 months ago
@jaqzzzz 1. Actually, I recall seeing a video in which Dawkins states he is open to someone proving with evidence that God exists, but that he hasn't seen any. 2. Please cite a reference for where Darwin believes the first cells came from aliens. That is not how he explains it in "The Greatest Show On Earth" or anything else of his I've read or seen. Unless you mean that his merely suggesting it as one of several possibilities is the same as his believing it, which it's not.
dpn48312 9 months ago 3
@dpn48312 i have studied these several possiblities and everyone only adds more numbers to an already impossible equation and passes the answer to some other medium where the "unknown "factor can take affect...we all like to ask where god came from then smile as we dont get an answer....yet evolutionary theory holds more "unknown" factors than i.d. ever did....from mysterious dark matter refracting light...to space dust of unknown material...to aliens...to the backs of crystals haha...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 The things you bring up have nothing to do with evolution. Dark matter, space dust, etc., are all cosmological, whereas the term evolution pertains to biology. I suggest you at least consult Wikipedia, looking up "evolution". Better yet, read Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth". You don't have to agree with him, but if you are going to discuss him, you ought to know first hand what he actually says. Otherwise, who is the one who looks foolish?
dpn48312 1 month ago
@dpn48312 how can you have a theory about life without a proper theory of where life came from? aliens? where did the aliens come from?? we already know its impossible for a cell to be created accidentally...or the odds are like a trillion to the power of a trillion to one...passing it off to other mediums is like saying a trillion times a trillion to the power of a trillion then multiplying that times a trillion...eventually every evolutionist will say they dont know..and be saticfied
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 Every scientist, and every reasoning person, will admit they don't know when they don't know. Science is not *having* all the answers, but rather a process seeking answers, drawing conclusions from solid evidence, subjecting observations to verification and testing. Science is not satisfied to fill in the blanks by jumping to conclusions; you can't just say,"I don't know how it happened, so it must be God did it" and call it science.
dpn48312 1 month ago
@dpn48312 the odds the cell came about indirectly through some long process is like saying if i throw a can of white paint in the air...it will land and create a perfect replica of the mona lisa....if you think evolution happened....then you have to believe without a doubt....eventually if i throw this can of white paint in the air enough times...it will land and create the mona lisa....if you really believe that can happen....your an idiot....
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "if you think evolution happened....then you have to believe without a doubt" => actually what you are describing here is abiogenesis, not evolution. Questions like how did the first life form come about? Where did the first gene come from? These are topics of abiogenesis, not evolution. Right now, no one is saying abiogenesis is a fact. So right there, sure, we can believe in abiogenesis with some forms of doubt. In fact, that's the beauty of science.
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "eventually if i throw this can of white paint in the air enough times...it will land and create the mona lisa" => inexact analogy. First life form is proposed to be very simple strings of nucleotides. Self-replicaitng RNA has already been demonstrated to be possible. See PMID: 20554706. This shows that abiogenesis is indeed theoretically possible.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 Wrong. Absolutely wrong. This is not what the theory of evolution is about. If you want to know what you are talking about, Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" is surely available in your public library, and is a very good introduction to the subject. Or at least look it up on Wikipedia.
dpn48312 1 month ago
@dpn48312 what strikes me is the amount of faith and blind belief an evolutionist has to do, in the end its i dont know where the cell came from i dont know where aliens came from , but it musta been a small slow process ...haha...really?? it musta been? why? why dont men have wings? we lost our tail cause we had no use for it? whales have pelvic bones cause they used to have legs?? hahahahahaha....wow...check out kent hovines " 100 reasons why evolution is stupid"
FaChin0420 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 You are confusing the distinction between what scientists *know* from actual evidence, and what they *speculate* might be the answers to the things they don't know yet for certain, when they are asked to speculate or give an opinion of what are likely to be the eventual findings. As for Hovind, he starts with the Bible and then *speculates* how the limited evidence he knows about supports his presuppositions. I have no use for such nonsense. Too bad he fooled you.
dpn48312 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 And what strikes me is, for a person who puts as much energy into TALKING about evolution, how little effort you seem to have actually put into LEARNING what evolution even means. Please do not reply to me unless you have actually at least read the wikipedia article on "evolution" and know at least that much about what you are talking about.
dpn48312 1 month ago
@jaqzzzz Dawkins doesn't "believe" that. He simply acknowledges it as a possibility (which in fact IS a possibility). Please, stop quoting Einstein. He was very clear; He didn't believe in a personal god. And the word "miracle" has a poetic as well as a literal meaning.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@jaqzzzz "God is a concept by which we measure our own pain." -- John Lennon... "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -- Albert Einstein... "Even in the highly unlikely event that [aliens] were responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved." -- Richard Dawkins
Vincentaneous 1 month ago
I say god definitely does not exist in the same way that 2+2 will never equal 5. Self contradictory entities cannot logically exist. Check out the youtube video " Proofs for God Destroyed by A Philosophical Atheist." Stefan Molyunex runs the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web.
dopejoel 10 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
My father was an horticultualist and thought Darwin was a joke and made no sense none what ever.
buzzbuerling 11 months ago
oops! i meant fart machine is a retard not dskaz. dskaz is spot on.
TheSh1tstorm 1 year ago
lol dskas is a fucking retard. In fact most of you are. The evidence is there for evolution and there isnt a shred of evidence to support religion other than personel accounts from virgins scared of dying and/or medevil superstition. And at least quantum theory, relativity, etc are trying to explain something. Religion explains absolute sweet fuck all.
TheSh1tstorm 1 year ago
This is interesting....search: the dawn of intelligence by kerry craig walker
superwhuffo1 1 year ago
Evolution - simple atoms create inorganic matter, inorganic matter creates life, from this to ape to man. Sounds like science fiction. Infact is sounds like fantasy!
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine "it sounds like fantasy"
-Time slows down with speed, gravity bends space and time. Fantasy? Theory of relativity.
-Matter can be in multiple places at the same time and in every instant. Fantasy? Quantum theory.
-Everything in the world is made of more than 99.99% of nothing. Fantasy? Atomic theory.
It doesnt matter what it sounds to you, only liars care about what they say sounds like, we have evidence and proof, you have lies and smoke.
DSkaz89 1 year ago
Evolution can only be described as a belief system for the simple fact is that we have never or likely to see a new species. Dog's of different types can breed but a new species will never develope. Evolution was only born to oppose the religion of the day. Evolution has developed into an religion and has many followers. Dawkins is a self elected head of his church and his books the propadganda.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine despite the fact that your claim is wrong and a bit of research will tell you that, even if we never ever see "a new species evolve" even if we never had found one fossil, that doesn't change the fact that we share a common ancestor with all other apes. The proof of this is in our DNA and in all other primates DNA in the form of ERV markers, once again a bit of research on the subject would do you much good laking sparing you the humiliation fo having your ignorance exposed.
DSkaz89 1 year ago
@DSkaz89 Tell me why the darwinism prediction that one day it would be proved that certain species would be shown to have common links. DNA analysis has shown that snakes and reptiles have nothing in common. Darwin thought that these 2 species would has something in common. Why was he wrong???
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine "snakes and reptiles have nothing in common" ..... uhhh.... you're drunk? snakes ARE reptiles. It's like saying cats and mammals have nothing in common. Instead of debating about evolution or "darwinism" wathever that is, i suggest you finish primary school.
DSkaz89 1 year ago
@DSkaz89 DNA analysis does not link snakes and reptiles, have a read up on it!
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine I see no peer reviewed article on the subject on pubmed, care to provide a source for such amaizing fact? Funny how you claim things to be fantasy then say the most amaizing things like snakes not being related to reptiles even tough they ARE reptiles then fail to provide any backing.
Besides i fail to see the point even if by absurd you were right, for example, whales are mammals, they are more closely related to cats than other fishes, i don't see the problem...
DSkaz89 1 year ago
@DSkaz89 I see that you mention time and gravity. Stick to evolution, the debate stills goes on about this fantasy. If you want to believe in this belief system I have no argument.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine
1) i have asked for reference of this claim "dna analysis does not link snakes to reptiles" I want name and surname of the scientists that did said study. I'm calling bullshit on this one till you provide.
2) Science is demonstrable, wether it be time slows down or we share a common ancestor with other apes, they are both unbelievable, they are both DEMONSTRATED. Still waiting for you to explain why we have 98000 matched ERVs in our dna and that of other apes...
DSkaz89 1 year ago
@DSkaz89 Look it up yourself. Bullshit to you, the honest truth to others! Not all science can be demostrated! Have a look at DNA of the tomato and human DNA.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine your stupidity makes me lol no offense seriously but maybe you should be more open minded
JKTProductionzIncNCo 11 months ago
@JKTProductionzIncNCo I am open minded, Dawkins of the world are very closed minded. Don't be one of them.,
the0fart0machine 11 months ago
@the0fart0machine "I am open minded" AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
BTW still waiting for you to explain why we have over 98000 matched ERVs with other primates....
DSkaz89 11 months ago
@the0fart0machine I'm liking this comment because it's funny.
FallinSheep 11 months ago
FACT: mr Darwin became a Born-Again Christian before he died, hallelujah!!
62Elvis 1 year ago
@62Elvis Why does that matter? He wasn't going around saying that God doesn't exist; he was simply stating his theory of evolution.
TheDarkSide599 1 year ago
I laugh at the proof biologists use to support there theory of evolution....they say that species are so common because they all had a common ancestor....when the proof so clearly shows that they are similar because they have a common creator.....common ...use your head
MultiAstrophysics 1 year ago
Dawkins is talking utter rubbish.
Nothing of he assets has been observed, documented or measered. He is simply giving us his fanciful fairytales. For a scientist you does believe in faith or fairtyles - he sure dishes them out thick and fast.
Has he or anyone else observed and documented one animal changing into antother kind of animal - the answer is a definite NO!!!
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Evolution doesn't say that one animal changes into another. It's not the individual that evolves. It's the population that evolves. Look up genetic drift and founder effect.
jityr2 1 year ago
@theot58 "Dawkins is talking utter rubbish" "Has he or anyone else observed and documented one animal changing into antother kind of animal - the answer is a definite NO!!!" - Oh dear! You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution doesn't work like that!
glebe9 1 year ago
@glebe9 So you agree that we have not observed one animal changing into a more complex and better animal. Since this is the core assertion of Macro evolution, and since the scientific method demands observation, measurement and repeatability - then you are agreeing with me that Macro evolution is BELIEF it is not real science.
Your inference that I am a poor undeducated person speaking out of ignorance (which i get all the time) is TOTALLY inappropriate.
Please consider
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 To run a marathon, you have to get there over time - you don't just 'arrive'
glebe9 1 year ago
@theot58 actually it has been observed in about 6000 year we had fruit that was roundish and was green on the outside to wat we call the modern day banana we hav seen the canines evolve into the modern variety of dogs this all happened because our ancestors cultivated many animals and plants to get desirable traits
JKTProductionzIncNCo 11 months ago
@JKTProductionzIncNCo
What conclusions do you draw from these assertions?
Does this substantiate Macro Evolutions assertiong that system go from simplicity to complexity WITHOUT the intervention of an intelligent being?
I DONT THINK SO
theot58 11 months ago
@theot58 systems go from simplicity to complexity naturally with no need for an intelligent being (unless you consider the sun intelligent), they are called dissipative structures and happen spontaneously when there is aboundance of energy. The chemist Ilya Prigogine won the nobel prize for his work on self-organizing systems.
so... "I DONT THINK SO" think again.
DSkaz89 11 months ago 7
ok name a system that has gone from simple to complex that involves cellular structure ..i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex.....whether it duplicates or not...that is its job...it didnt make it up on its own...it has a thing called dna...which feeds it information on how to create 3 dimensional structure...and dna cannot get information based on environmental conditioning or survival of the fittest...saying simple to complex is ignoring all of genetic science...
FaChin0420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => it has. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => another example: Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaChin0420 "i dont think the cell has ever gotten more complex" => another example: Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. I can give you more but i think i've made my point.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@FaChin0420 "I don't think anything has ever become more complex"
There is a vast amount of examples to show you are wrong, and they are but a google docs search away. One i expecially like is the experiment with chlorella vulgaris, they took a unicellular vegetal organism and put it togheter with a phagotrope predator unicellular organism. Within a hundred generations the plant became a multicellular organism and retained that characteristic even after the predators were removed.
DSkaz89 1 month ago
@theot58 Where is the evidence for the intervention of an intelligent being? You just heard Dawkins explain the molecular genetics, there's no need for intervention.
You're either not looking at the evidence, lying, or too stupid to comprehend it.
comanchio1976 11 months ago
nice video
bjcc420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them, though there are some who leave the fairy-tale of evolution. Anf regarding Cars and videos have nothing to do with what some mordern scientists believe. If I have to believe in evolution just because cars and in video, WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST? see my friend you are just speaking NONESENSE
rocha333 1 year ago
Do people honestly think that the thousands of scientists today are all wrong? I hope these same people do not use hospitals, drive their cars, are watching these videos, etc. Dawkins is a brilliant man who helps spread knowledge that humans have been gaining for many many years, these are things that I can go see for myself. They make no claim that I can't just go look at so I am having trouble understanding the doubt in ourselves that people seem to have. We are alive people...lets live!!!!!
Mekiwyn 1 year ago
@Mekiwyn
Some don't watch TV or use hospitals, s you're right on that.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@Mekiwyn The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them, though there are some who leave the fairy-tale of evolution. Anf regarding Cars and videos have nothing to do with what some mordern scientists believe. If I have to believe in evolution just because cars and in video, WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST? see my friend you are just speaking NONESENSE
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333 u must bea very naive person. electricity is a well proven fact, u have electrons that can be tested and a lot of ways to prove phisically , that electricity exist. On the other hand ur harry potter book alike, w/e u worship, have been written by man, and u dont have any prove whatsoever of ur imaginary friend. thats the big difference my lunatic friend, have u ever went to a real school? or just been brain washed by old ppl afraid of dying making no sense of a big guy on the skys?
nikur 1 year ago
@rocha333 no, the point was that science is trusted and accepted when it meets your life-style or beliefs, those that contradict are dismissed. I know that there are many religious scientists to this day that reveal things of the natural world and I accept them. So there are no christian schools, etc.? All universities are atheist instituions? I am not speaking nonsense, you are choosing to hear nonsense.
Mekiwyn 1 year ago
@rocha333 "The thousands of scientists only learn what their atheistic universities teach them". Sigh - so many idiots on here. Universities educate based on factual evidence & to further discover. Indoctrination only comes from religion. Evolution IS fact - the argument is over - the evidence is overwhelming. It's only denied by god-bothering nutjobs like you who simply close their eyes.
glebe9 1 year ago
@rocha333 "WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD" FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE DISCOVERER OF ELETRICITY WAS A GOD-BELIEVING SCIENTIST?" Oh well, SILLY ME! Of course I should believe in unsubstantiated superstition because someone in the 17th century did!! How wrong of me!................ Jeeeez you are deluded!
glebe9 1 year ago
I find it quite telling that the posters below who feebly attempt to contradict evolutionary theory all seem to have great difficulty in stringing together a coherent sentence or to manage to spell even the most basic words correctly. That in itself says a lot about what level of intellect is required in order to ignore the massive mountains of evidence from all scientific disciplines in support of evolution. I guess the ability to put your fingers in your ears and hum does not require much.
threeholerhauler 1 year ago
@rocha333 Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" or better yet take Biology 101 from any top University, such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, MIT, etc. Oh yeah, you probably couldn't get accepted to a real school, could you?
Veradonir 1 year ago
@rocha333 The evidence for evolution is compelling. It is not only Dawkins and his compatriots but the entire scientific community that accepts the fact of evolution. Dawkins is highly respected in the scientific community, having made a major contribution to our understanding of biology - the "selfish gene" theory. He also made an incredible contribution to sociology, having coined the term "meme" to refer to a unit of culture, arguing that cultural ideas evolve, like organisms. Go to school.
Veradonir 1 year ago
rocha, read the books, and do try to at least spell his name correctly. Everything else you say is erroneous.
purbrookian 1 year ago
Mordern genuine medicine has nothing to do with the theory (evolution) of one kind of animal becoming another, such as ancient fishes becoming ancient apes.
what is the evidence that morden medicine is based on that?
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333 I feel genuinely sad that you are unable, or unwilling, to acquaint yourself with the overwhelming evidemce for evolution. Would you please read 'The Greatest Show...' by Richard Dawkins, or a similar book, then return to this debate carefully refuting the evidence provided. If you can, you will be the first, and will certainly make a lasting name for yourself in the history of ideas. Will you do that? I look forward to a detailed debate, based on the actual data.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
Christians dont deny science, they deny Dawkins theories on evolution which is not science of course. Him being an biologist does not make him right on what he is saying. By using logic and reason one can easily see evolution is fairytale for adults.
Only feeble-minded people would believe their grand-fathers were fishes :)
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333 Do you believe mutations exist?
If you do and you dont believe in evolution then you are a dumbass.
Evolution is a long series of mutations that manage to survive and pass down through generations.
kingkong8974 1 year ago
@kingkong8974 I am quite convinced that you are the dumbass here. There are no evidence that fishes became apes, but you believe such stories as if your mind has been brainwashed with stupidity
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333
Havent you heard about CROCODUCK?
Fishes becoming Apes eh? Have you ever gone to school mate?? fishes becoming apes is a good line for a comedy script.. LOL
craigMellow 1 year ago
@craigMellow I'm not talking about crocoduck and you know it. The theory of fishes evolving into land animals such as ancient apes has been taught by Dawkings and his companians. And Please stop go around as if you exactly what I am saying here.At least try to be honest when defending your evolution beliefs
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333
First go learn what evolution and natural selection is. ever heard of TIKTAALIK ROSEAE??. do a google search and find out. And learn what COMMON ANCESTOR means. What a Genius!
craigMellow 1 year ago
@rocha333 Did your grandmother give birth to you?
That is essentially what you're asking me, but in a much bigger gap.
like great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, and so on with many more great grandmother.
its through a series of mutations. Your argument is the same as telling someone that their grandma aint their mom.
kingkong8974 1 year ago