@amayzism No where in evolution does it say babies come from chimps. You creationists are infamous for your straw man arguments. You create an idea that isn't real then tear it to shreds.
Species like horses and zebras have a different amount of chromosomes, like chimps and man, yet they can breed. I'm curious. How come we can't bread with our relatives in the tree of life, but others can?
@aMayzism "How come we can't bread with our relatives in the tree of life"
Because we wouldn't want to.. much like a zebras and a horses. Breeding of different branches of the equine family, which does not occur in the wild, generally results in infertile offspring.
@thejewishagnostic I tend to prefer referencing ring species.. but they don't seem to get that either. Sometimes I think the real question is "what do you think evolution is?" Most of those arguing against it don't have the foggiest clue.
Since you CANNOT use the Scientific Method to support your Macro Evolution LIE, you turn to using ignorant linguistic deceptions. roflmao!
Let just take #13 Vestigal Organs. This is hilarious linguistic deception! They are called Vestigal Organs because people are IGNORANT of their uses AT THIS TIME not because they are useless. Each year we discover the purpose of what were called vestigal organs the previous year.
@parasitesarefunny While I make it a personal policy to not ban people .. the antisemitic remarks will not be permitted: COMMENT REMOVED, and poster blocked.
Maybe you should first LEARN what a SEMITE is before using an ignorant term like "anti-semitic". A Semitic person is one who SPEAKS a Semitic language. A Semite is NOT a race or religion my dear fool. 95% of Semites are Arabic.
Next you are going to tell me GENTILE means non-jew. roflmao! GEN (genetics) + TILE (under cover) = genetics protected. In no way does GENTILE mean non-Jew but quite the opposite.
Ignorance of words perpetuates more ignorance my dear dupe.
Macro Evolution has 2 Religious Denominations within their faith based belief system:
1. Punctuated Macro Evolution
2. Graduated Macro Evolution
Most idiots who are Macro Evolutionists do not even know which one of these 2 denominations they BELIEVE in....such is mass brainwashing done from an early age.
The masses of fools and idiots can be convinced of anything. Mass brain think is hilarious. Like sheep most humans are, scared of being different or leaving the herd.
Epic fail. It's punctuated equilibrium, and gradual change over time. not "Punctuated Macro Evolution and Graduated Macro Evolution" both concept are part of the same scientific theory (don't make me explain that word to you)
Macro Evolution is not scientific and FAILS the Scientific Method since the fools who support Macro Evolution cannot even predict or duplicate the crap they push on others.
Most Macro Evolutionists dont even know what they BELIEVE in; Gradual Macro Evolution or Spontaneous Evolution, the latter being the more recent scientific deception that people just swallow. They are utter fools who dont know what science is or how to even think critically, they just swallow and repeat to get an A+.
"the fools who support Macro Evolution cannot even predict or duplicate the crap they push on others."
You mean they can't show you 10.000 of consecutive generations of dogs in a lab? Could it be because it would take about 30.000 years for those generations to be born, grow up and reproduce. Are you completely dense? And no they can't predict how it would unfold either..you just don't get it do you? Your lack of understanding is almost funny.
Macro Evolutions uses TIME to cover this FAILURE to meet the Scientific Method, just as Religion uses DEATH to cover their FAILURE to meet the Scientific Method.
Macro Evolution (punctuated and gradual theories) + Religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism theories) = Faith Based Theories that FAIL the scientific method.
Only idiots can be convinced through brainwashing to BELIEVE something without scientific proof.
@parasitesarefunny there is no spontaneous evolution, however during times when the population drops low etc due to drastic changes in environmental pressures evolution can accelerate. this is due to a higher frequency of mutation (due to inbreeding), as well as more selective pressure to adapt to the rapidly changing environmental variables. Learn what you're talking about before sounding silly plz.
Hes right he doesnt know about evolution so why is he speaking. hmmmmmmm ?. If you research Crufts and how breeders have inter bred dogs. how they created fucked up creatures with disease. if you research changes to humans that infact any defect! change!? from the norm (evolution) was usually killed at birth or put in a circus. research elephant man, two headed man..... that is evolution. slight changes over time
@13Heathens Funny but I thought your video did a really good job of explaining the process, yet we get comments like that guys, your right he doesn’t know what genetic mutation is
@13Heathens Negroes are the transitional species, not admitting this is what holds us back, you can clearly see ape like features like their nasal area sticking out like an ape, they have many features that only they and apes share but other races like Whites & Asians don't. They are the missing link!
@13Heathens wow so we on evolution now yessssss i love to talk about it, ok no matter how many times a dog reproduce it all ways brings forward something we would call a dog. a DOG GET IT, macro does suppose to mean after lots of generations we get enough small changes to get a new animal, that has not been proven. go take some high school evolution classes. never mind it wont help bad teachers, look what they are teaching. sorry ... i understand macro it doesn't happen at all i have studied it
@13Heathens see you need to understand micro and macro better just the meaning of those words would help. evolutionist are saying they need more time to prove macro, you say its been proven????? what produced something other than its kind or even a small change that wouldn't kill it. and when we get changes its done by scientist in a lab, they are doing a bad job at playing god. they creations all die to fast, plus evolution cant explain the first life big problem. no trasitional fossils!!!
@TheThuggery Small changes over a long period of time, buddy. Not huge changes over a small period of time. You've been listening to Kirk for too long.
the thing that makes me laugh is if you were to say to a creationist "what do small changes lead to?" without mentioning evolution they would say "to big changes" but if you then said "oh so you accept that microevolution leads to macro?" they will say "noooooooooooooo!!!" lol
Sorry, but there is no evidence for evolution of species transitioning into others. No fossil record evidences. No sweet FA. No observational, empirical evidence, NOTHING. Micro biology shows a specific design to cells, which are irreducibly complex. NEVERMIND, the mathematical improbability of non living material all coming together to create first life, which is where you should systematically start on if you're going to try and convince people. sorry, but atheists lose.
@millball "NEVERMIND, the mathematical improbability of non living material all coming together to create first life, which is where you should systematically start" Creationism meets the protocell - Abiogenesis ; watch?v=lAZeRiECgcA
(posted sept 21 2009 - 4 days prior to the posting of this video.)
You may want to research those claims of yours on non creationist sites. It's your lot that tried to convince, while others try to educate others.
@millball improbability imply possibility. just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. given enough time, ever possible outcome will play out. you are thinking in terms of your life, which by comparison is barely even a blip in time.
@MobileThinker The possibilty of it happening is so low that the supposed time of the universe isnt long enough for the chances to happen once... Read dismantling evolution by Ralph Muncaster.
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism" said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation - old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
"The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity -- the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone."
"They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved."
"Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans."
"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."
I fail to see how the concept of very simple lifeforms being created suffer from mathematical improbability when we observe the light from the farthest reaches of the universe being "familiar" matter and energy. That doesn't mean we have a clear understanding just that the lesser parts which are here are also there. It seems to be very likely that The Observable/Our Universe have finite types of lesser parts - finite combinations.
@Carebearbull Explain YOUR mathematical probability Carebear! Since its so apparently obvious that its the way life sparked! I'd care to wager that you havent even read a breakdown of the formation of simple cell and ALL the steps needed to produce it. Evolution has been disproved in the lab. Repent, Trust in Jesus Christ for remission of sins and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into relationship with The Holy Father!
Further on, given the observation that at least over a large span of space there are mostly familiar types of lesser parts, and that the current estimate of stars in the observable universe is 300 sextillion, this relatively not so complex process of Abiogenesis doesn't really deserve the label "mathematical improbable", and that is only taking into account the abiogenesis which we know of.
@Carebearbull Abiogenesis aka 'Life from Non-Life' is the biggest contra-bloody-diction of them all man! I don't think i even need to come up with an example of how stupid that is, but if you would believe that is remotely possible, I'm sorry to tell you; but you're in extreme denial and mock God - the Sovereign creator of ALL - which you dont want to be on the receiving end of His Holy wrath! Woe on to those who dont repent in time!
@millball "Abiogenesis aka 'Life from Non-Life' is the biggest contra-bloody-diction of them all man!" Why? "I don't think i even need to come up with an example of how stupid that is," Please do come with an Example. I'm curious. I find it funny how you speak as if you were God himself, you speak as if you're omniscient. "You shall not make for yourself an idol" Exodus 20:4 Ey, Don't make yourself into an Idol now :P Anyways, You should at least accept Agnostic theism
Have you found yourself biting your tale yet? probably not. You see, assuming that something or a process is "mathematical improbable" because it's complex also presumably should mean that something being the complexities' creator should be even more complex and more "mathematical improbable" unless you can back up your claim and explain the fallacy without serving even another one. Your argument fails in trying to explain an assumed issue by serving the same issue over again.
@Carebearbull So, without waffling, your point is; "if the creation is so improbably complex, surely the creator is even more improbable due to God's complexity"? Well, thats a cop-out hogwash of an reply and clearly you're scared to actually find out about my claims. The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything means there IS a Grand Architect! Praise God - Psalm 19.
First off.. wtf does psalm 19 have to do with anything?
Secondly, regarding "The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything.." Approximately 98% of all life forms which have inhabited this planet of ours have gone extinct. This reality neither supports the idea of this grand interconnectedness, or any sort of competent designer.
Find a new argument. That one doesn't work at all.
You don't see interconnectedness in the known universe, the galaxies, the solar system, the earth etc. then you're blinded by your own sheer ignorance. Open your eyes and see that life isn't a product of chance, that morality is absolute; in a universe with no ultimate meaning, there isn't any objectivity - so i can kill you and your family and it would be justified because there isn't any real right and wrong!
@millball I'm not in the mood to play nice. I did read Psalm 19 (1-14 at least) and it wasn't relevant to the topic. Life isn't the product of chance, but it is the product of chemistry. The galaxy is a mostly chaotic place governed by the laws of physics. No there is no ultimate meaning, thus finding a 'meaning' four ourselves is a personal journey and choice.. Sheer ignorance you say? If you think the biblical god is moral then you're beyond ignorant on the topic of scripture.
@13Heathens I do study reformed theology so I do have a pretty sound idea of scripture for only being a christian of 11 months. The big question that puzzles me is how He could let Jesus, who never sinned, take on the sin of many so they could be pardoned and allowed to enter heaven. I suggest you think that out and realise that if you dont humble urself and admit your sinfulness to God and ask him to forgive you your sins through Jesus, your lost to an etnerity in Hell! watch 8 mins of hell
@millball "so i can kill you and your family and it would be justified"
Bullshit. The moral codes of our modern society aren't from the bible, but despite it. Don't even try to pull that God is the ultimate moral authority crap. the god of the bible is one of the most vile immoral fictional characters of antiquity. If you think the god of the bible is moral, you've clearly never actually read that book of yours.
You chose to believe in an all mighty dictator that will have you punished for eternity if you're not a believer. Given your belief I should have the biggest fucking balls in the Universe doing what should be a big ass contradiction defying something which is "all mighty". You should praise me and my balls, but you called me "scared".
"means there IS a Grand Architect!" well, be more specific,
I'm still under the impression that there's an enormous turd residing within your brain.
@Carebearbull The only thing God will be punishing anyone for is their sin [disobedience to his perfect, moral, righteous law. Why would you be worthy of worship, you're only a created being who will fade to dust in under 70 years! The Lord is eternal! Praise His Name Alone! He who has given all good things unto all men and yet they curse His name and drink their iniquity down like water! [job 15:16]
Ask this God of yours why an all mighty being would do something as stupid as making the tube for essential oxygen the same tube as where food is running through!? Did the tube store run out of tubes on day six? List is long, say if your want more.
"The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything.."
Maybe the theoretical physicists will say:
"Of course! There must be a god! it's so obvious now, it is the missing factor that solves all our equations!"
Did you know that we can't even grasp the nature of something as normal as turbulence and gravity? Now this doesn't rule out a god, but a god is surely not logical, fined tuned, personal and obvious as you'd like him to be, as the universe and beyond I.E existence is not. So stfu on the bible quotes, and at least go deist.
@Carebearbull Sir, deism is a joke. There is revelation; the Holy Bible. It has passed through millenia untainted, proclaiming Jesus' coming, birth, minstry,crucifixion for the sinful, ressurection and glorious ascension into Heaven. If you can sit and tell me that reality is 1 big ass accident then you're a deluded fool! Psalm 14 - "The fool says in his heart there is no God". Repent [realise your sin and thank God for Jesus who died for the sinful, and live life pleasing Him who made you.
God created all things for His glory - so that creation would thank Him, Worship Him. Because God is love, He gives life and because He is good, He is to be worshipped. But when mankind wants to do things his own way and disrespect God, thats when God demands justice [which can seem to fallen man unfair] but in actuality is Righteous and perfect, for if it weren't, God shouldn't be given the title. His biggest expression of Love was Jesus on the cross!
Why did god create things for his glory? And why in the way he did? why does he care about glory?
I don't see them 300x10^21 stars thanking god? Why is God love?
Why love? Why love and not something else? Why does God exist? Where did God come from? Or when in infinity did he chose to make the universe? And why at the given point? What was he doing the infinite time before the universe?
You see? You don't make any ends, but unneeded links
@zenithar6666 In a manner of speaking... Changes at the species level are whenever the two forms of "dogs" in this case can no-longer reproduce and bring forth viable offspring. There doesn't even have to be a significant visual difference.
Rest assured that once the changes become too vast in their genetics they can no-longer interbreed. It's variation which leads to speciation .
I think that the problem of Ray Comfort and people like him is that they dont want to study evolution, because they are afraid that they will find out something that contradicts they beliefs. Great video btw.
By your theory, if bacteria (I am not grouping them with viruses because viruses are not necesarily living creatures). Ok, if bacteria are first organisms eons ago, where did dogs come from. I would never call any bacteria a dog. Or an early form of a dog. Or the early form of anything, since they are still here. I am also not an evangelic. How do you explain the absence of evidence in the fossil record: precambrian to cambrian.
Explosion of different forms of creatures that we still have today. Where is that proof? Exponentially crazy odds of symbiotic creatures and plants "evolving" together? None of this makes sense. And I'm not so sure I even believe in Microevolution either except in the case of breeding between species like the liger, breeds of dogs, etc. All of which probably would've NEVER happened if not for the interference of humans.
OH COME ON! You must be joking. You don't think that modern bacteria = ancient bacteria, do you?
Cambrian explosion? Nothing missing, just more oxygen allowing multicellular organisms to flourish (multicellular organisms existed before tha cambrain though).
The cambrian explosion only produced a variety of animals such as trilobites not present today, extinct.
Symbiosis? Look it up, yes, it is easier to evolve by helping each other than to evolve on your own.
To me, Ray Comfort is one of the funniest comedians. Just listenning to him cracks me up. I just think to myself that hes not actually that stupid and VOLA! Sadly, he is that stupid.
How can a land animal slowly change to a animal that can fly?
Flying animals must have hollow and light bones, something that land animals cannot have, Air animals must also have a completely different organ structure ( and no you cant change the organs over time, theres no examples, no examples = imagination = not science )
Some birds soar, like hawks and eagles. Some fly much lower. robins and pigeons. Some just flutter a few feet off the ground, quail, chickens. Some don't fly at all, penguins, ostriches. But they are all birds. They all have the structures you mention.
who said anything about evidence for a divine bieng? not me anyway, im just doing the research and realising that evolutinon is on think ice, i mean its getting comical the leaps of faith taken by evolutinonists, its actually strange that its so widely accepted when its so obviosly flawed,
@zenithar6666 .. What flaws? You seem to be falling for the creationist's BS. That's what happens when you try to research on places that spout unscientific rhetoric.
You cant have transition from something that is on land to something that can fly,
The bones are hollow in a bird,and it Uses its beak , Respiratory system is different,
You can a half and half
And a transitional one cannot exist as it couldnt survive ( It would be the weakest animal in natural selection , couldnt be a master at anything or even survive properly
Many people, including myself, cannot comprehend the amt of TIME these small genetic accumulations have had to make the amount of variation we have in extant species. The fossil record is FAR from complete. Have you ever come across a fossil from 10,000 yrs ago? A million yrs ago? Know where to look? No. Many are not preserved well & there is a certain amount of luck where & when you find them. We see morphological trends in the fossils that have been found and make educated guesses on taxonomy.
plenty of transitionals and old fossils have been found, and there is an indisputable order in the fossil record, ie. no animals before their perscribed time periods are found on different layers; eg. humans have never been found on the same level as dinosaurs
Plenty of fossils have been discovered, but not nearly enough to fill in the holes and questions of our ancestry. Take for instance the newly released discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus... do you believe that this indl is on the human or chimp ancestry or do you think this is the node sample? That is my point. If we did have a complete well preserved fossil record we probably wouldnt have these questions.
and religious freaks (i.e. creationists who think we were created *Poof* by a personified higher energy) wouldnt have anything to really debate without sounding like idiots (which they normally do). : ) Sorry to offend, but I'm tired of being looked down on for studying evolution.
what a load of tripe. pick a 'hole' and i'll provide you with a fossil that fills it.
the holes exist in the minds of creationists
human ancestry is easy as the changes necessary for humans to evolve from their apelike ancestors fit within the bounds of 'micro-evolution' which even the most deluded religious bigots accept. go look up the human evolution wiki page for fossils.
I'm glad that you agree with me. I personally think there is plenty of fossil evidence to make our point... its the lack of that many people have the problem with and need for explanation.
I think most people do not take into consideration the vast amount of time that these microevolutionary events have taken. The Earth is about 4.5 BILLION yrs old! It took millions of years for limbs to evolve from fish for instance. New species do not just *poof* show up! It is a slow process that includes mutation, selection, migration, and random events that affect microevolution. These small events accumulate through many many many generations=>macroevolution!
And on the rare occasion that a mutation is actually beneficial to an organism which is extremely rare, you still dont get any NEW information within the code. Losses, rearrangement, or duplication does nothing to add to the code which is exactly what you would need if Darwin's theory should be true.
Not exactly. Random chance (and the scientist still have no idea how this random chance works) does play a role. When you roll the dice trillions of times over a billion years, you can get all kinds of things.
They have no idea because it doesnt work according to the evidence. The only other option for them is to say that it probably just isnt true but since its so ingrained in their heads that it is true they wont admit it. ANY OTHER branch of science would have moved on long ago with such little empirical evidence but this isnt about science, its about opposing worldviews. They make the facts fit the theory instead seeing if the theory fits the facts. Bad science.
most mutations - on a genetic level - are neither beneficial nor detrimental. Most genetic mutations are so insignificant as to not even be observable.
It's not that a dog gives birth to a non-dog. Speciation occurs when enough evolutionary change has occured that a dog, in theory, could not go back and mate with its ancestors 50,000 generations back.
"most mutations - on a genetic level - are neither beneficial nor detrimental. Most genetic mutations are so insignificant as to not even be observable"
I agree which makes it even less probable that could accomplish the outlandish claims of Darwinian evolution. "Observed" mutations are always neutral or a loss of info which doesnt add up with regards to accomplishing anything claimed in our highschool textbooks today.
Hustada, I'll be away for a couple weeks. However I'd be more than happy to talk a bit on the "issue of new information" after I get back from my trip. If you'd kindly send me a PM reminder, I'd me happy to make a video on thje topic after I get back from my trip.
of course mutations introduce new information, dummy. If there is say ...a population where all birds are black, and then a beneficial mutation occurs creating green birds, which are better at hiding in green foliage, now you have more information, i.e. genes coding for a beneficial camoflauge.
The only thing this video proves, is that animals are very complex organisms that have an amazing ability within their genes to adapt to changes within the enviroment, nothing more. Instead of explaining variation and speciation within a species, which all reputable scientists, creationists, evolutionists, and ID theorists believe, why dont you explain the origin of photosynthesis or something like it? Something that seems impossible yet must have happened.
Actually the video doesn't prove the complexity of organisms, or anything else. It merely illustrates - by example - how small changes over time can add up.
I never understand why people feel the need to challenge the content of a video by citing thing that are outside of the scope of what the video is intended to address.
Which is exactly what I addressed. Take the word "complex" out if you want. There is nothing within your example that shows those small changes over time ever lead to anything drastic(new systems,parts) which is what the video is alluding to correct? If you are not alluding to this concept then I would, like I said previously, agree with you. Dogs are always dogs, even after millions of years despite the changes you describe here.
I have issues with theories being labeled as scientific when they are hardly that. Changes due environmental conditions over time does not equal development of complex systems and bodyparts like the nervous system, eye, etc.. Something thats impossible is still impossible regardless of how many generations pass. Thats my point. There are things that literally cant and wont happen in this world. The odds are so astronomical its basically impossible which scientifically makes it unbelievable to me
There are only four letters ATCG. A must always connect with T and C must always connect with G. Changing any of these letters may have an effect on the structure of the thing which are defined by these letters. The effect may be unremarkable or dramatic.
I think your limitations on what is and isn't possible my need some tweaking.
I agree that God could cause evolution, thats not my argument. My argument is that I dont think the evidence points in that direction. If it happens to do that down the road, Ill be the first to admit it and hop on the wagon.
My partner, Red prefers to see God in the mix - giving evolution an occasional nudge. I see that as a reasonable compromise between faith and science.
I may not see it the same way, however I have great respect for those who are able to accept the discoveries of science without taking such discoveries as being an attack on their faith.
Just because the letters change around does not mean that information has been increased at all. Scrambling around the letters does nothing in that regard. Once again, I agree that changes can and do happen just not to the point where a dinosaur could eventually become a bird. When you start down that trail you quickly leave science behind and enter into storytelling with no empirical evidence. Seriously though, Im all ears here.
You're right, it doesn't. The 26 letters of standard English are exactly the same: just because the letters change around does not mean that what is spelled out has more information. However, it is easy to demonstrate that certain sequences of the same letters do have more information than others. Similarly, some sequences of A, C, G and T are codes for proteins which do very specific jobs within a cell, and therefore have an equivalently high "information" content.
You admit changes can happen; will you also admit that when too many animals live in an area, there is competition, and the animals whose differences better fit them to the environment will win out more on the average?
If you do that, you're 95% of the way to evolution, and the rest is ways & means and details.
the problem is that you haven't even a basic understanding of biology, yet you are attempting to dictate to experts in genetics what can, and can't happen. that's like a highschool dropout trying to dictate to an aerospace engineer how to build a jet.
I do have a basic understanding and Im not dictating anything. Im just stating what does happen and that anything beyond that is wishful thinking and speculation. Unless you can show me otherwise.
@ rddaos - In other words - "Because I dont think you are accurate you must obviously have no scientific knowledge on the subject in order to really understand it" I assume thats where you are going. Darwin wasnt a formally trained biologist either, should we throw out his opinion as well? My opinions are based ON actual scientific arguments made by ACTUAL scientists. A rebuttal to the actual argument at hand would be a breath of fresh air for once instead of questioning my knowledge.
Yes, but the DOG if left alone will most likely revert back to some form of the ancestral dog if all the the different "breeds" are allowed to interbreed. Your making the point the here that creationists make all the time. Your not providing ANY mechanism in this video that would allow the dog to eventually become something drastically different as long term(macro) evolution demands. Theres a reason why some, not just creationists, make a distininction between macro and micro.
No, I'm not providing mechanisms. Nor did I claim that as part of my intention.
There's no such thing as "macro" or "micro" evolution, other than the vague classification we've chosen to assign to these arbitrary terms. It's all just evolution.
The video was intended to provide perspective, not the define the many mechanisms which influence the evolution of a group of organisms.
Macro and Micro is used by some but not all scientists. One cant just say there isnt a "macro" or "micro". The terms do have definitions and certainly are used by some. Evolution does happen, animals DO change but to say that these changes lead to new complex organs and body parts is entirely different. So there is a distinction that needs to be made IMO. Small changes over time DO add up but only as far as the genetic makeup will allow.
Yeah, the terms have definitions. Those would be the meanings assigned to the arbitrary terms which I mentioned. As humans we love categorizing things to death. However such classifications need not match up with the reality of that which is classified.
You presume to know the limitations of what genetics may allow? This fascinates me. Please, do tell.
Im not claiming to be a geneticist but I know enough about the topic to tell you that evolution, as in the kind that Darwin postulated requires a mechanism that certainly hasnt been observed or tested. Species can change, even so much as to be called a new species, but the genes within that kind will not create a new system that isnt already encoded in the DNA somewhere. That is, a wolf can never have wings because there is nothing within the genetic code that allows it.
Correct. A wolf will never have wings. That's a different branch on the proverbial tree of life.For that matter if you did find a wolf with wings it would be a great way to falsify evolution.
Many micros make a macro. Do you really have to explain this in the twenty-first century? Why do people get more stupid the more they evolve? I reckon modern culture protects them.
Cripes, couldn't the gun happy minister couldn't have explained that Santa is really St. Nicholas, a Christian saint? The funny thing is that I'm almost (almost) grateful for all these Creationists. Their stupidity causes people to make "Evolution for Dummies" vids like these and their arguments are so absurd it's entertaining.
One thing you should add to your explanation of evolution: That speciation generally happens on Islands. (To borrow from Richard Dawkins) "Island" in this sense doesn't have to mean a land mass surrounded by water, but any area with a physical boundry. A lake is a "island" for the fish in the lake. An oasis in a desert is an "Island" for a lizard. These "Islands" give species the ability to diversify from their ancestral species by limiting the flow of genes between the two groups.
I actually was reading about that a couple days before I made the video.
Interesting stuff, but the (approximately) 5 minute (non-scientific) explanation was focused on providing a very crude understanding on a conceptual basis.. for those that just don't understand the science.
Oh 13Heathens, someone asked me a question the other day that is along the same line.. What do you make of mules from an evolutionary perspective? (For anyone who's unfamiliar, they're Horse/Donkey hybrids whose offspring are most often sterile). Are they a transitional form of some kind of reverse evolution?
There is no such thing as "reverse evolution", the apparent examples of Kent Hovind et al notwithstanding. There is no ultimate goal to evolution (ie., some pinnacle of evolutionary perfection). There is only adaptation to the environment or failure to do so.
I'm aware of this, reverse evolution was a poor choice of words. The more I think about it, it's obvious that the mule is a product of two species with a very recent common ancestor who haven't reached the point where they won't breed with each other anymore. It more proves 13H's point than anything, I think my brain just exploded when asked that, i overanalyzed. Thank you both for the thorough correcting.
Horses and donkeys are diverging. They can no longer produce fertile offspring so they are genetically isolated from each other. The fact that they can hybridise to produce infertile offspring shows they are descended from a common ancestor.
Mules are not "transitional forms" nor "reverse evolution".
Yeah the more I think about it the more I realize what a stupid question that was. I think when that person asked me, my brain exploded. I have a tendency to over-analyze when fired up. It does just prove the species divergence argument a little more.
YOU MADE A BIG MISTAKE 13Heathens ! ! ! You said there will come a point when a species will no longer recognize another and won't want to mate with it. This is where your whole theory falls apart ! I have seen a dog hump peoples legs, trees, pillows and even cats! Man you have no clue! LOL
kent hovind,ray comfort and kirk cameron know exactly what there doing.sewing disinformation is what they do for a living.they are liers cheats and scam artists,and they are completely aware of there own lies.but the adverage youtube creationist is just a misinformed drone.spouting the same debunked arguments over and over.If they went so stupid and sad it would be adorable.
One can imagine the kind of cognitive dissonance they have to handle on a daily basis. "Yes, I said there can be no macro-evolution, and the way the 13H explains it does kind of make sense... But the Bible says NO, so I can't allow myself to believe that. I have to declare my senses out of order. Also, remember that this stuff brings in the bacon... and I'd have to start an intellectual life all over. Yeah, I can do this - God give me the strength."
I am wondering how it is that Comfort feels he has cornered the market on common sense if he believes that the universe is only a few thousand years old. (Things that make you go....hmmmm)
....even us common squirrels have more sense than that...it seems.
@amayzism No where in evolution does it say babies come from chimps. You creationists are infamous for your straw man arguments. You create an idea that isn't real then tear it to shreds.
kyekire 1 day ago
Domestic dogs are a different spiecies than wolves, doesn't that prove inter spiecies evolution?
kyekire 3 weeks ago
Domestic dogs are to wolves as people are to chimps
kyekire 3 weeks ago
@kyekire
Actually we can breed wolves, dogs, and foxes to create different breeds of dogs. Can we make babies with chimps?
aMayzism 1 day ago
@aMayzism
naturally... not by stem cell research.
aMayzism 1 day ago
@aMayzism
So I guess instead of dogs he should have said the canine.
aMayzism 1 day ago
@aMayzism canine is proper nomenclature. "dog" is more general/subjective.
13Heathens 1 day ago
@13Heathens
Species like horses and zebras have a different amount of chromosomes, like chimps and man, yet they can breed. I'm curious. How come we can't bread with our relatives in the tree of life, but others can?
aMayzism 1 day ago
@aMayzism "How come we can't bread with our relatives in the tree of life"
Because we wouldn't want to.. much like a zebras and a horses. Breeding of different branches of the equine family, which does not occur in the wild, generally results in infertile offspring.
13Heathens 1 day ago
@13Heathens
I am pretty sure men have tried it with the birth of aids. Has there been any offspring reported?
aMayzism 1 day ago
@aMayzism "I am pretty sure men have tried it with the birth of aids."
That would be from someone eating a money, not fucking it.
13Heathens 1 day ago
@thejewishagnostic LOL Shockofgod's web site? I don't waste time on him and his ilk. They're painfully ignorant.
And yeah, I love the data on Ring species. One of the best verified predictions of evolution I've seen so far.
13Heathens 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic I tend to prefer referencing ring species.. but they don't seem to get that either. Sometimes I think the real question is "what do you think evolution is?" Most of those arguing against it don't have the foggiest clue.
13Heathens 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic
Since you CANNOT use the Scientific Method to support your Macro Evolution LIE, you turn to using ignorant linguistic deceptions. roflmao!
Let just take #13 Vestigal Organs. This is hilarious linguistic deception! They are called Vestigal Organs because people are IGNORANT of their uses AT THIS TIME not because they are useless. Each year we discover the purpose of what were called vestigal organs the previous year.
The rest of your LIES are similar
MCAGCC1 1 month ago
@parasitesarefunny While I make it a personal policy to not ban people .. the antisemitic remarks will not be permitted: COMMENT REMOVED, and poster blocked.
13Heathens 2 months ago
@13Heathens
Maybe you should first LEARN what a SEMITE is before using an ignorant term like "anti-semitic". A Semitic person is one who SPEAKS a Semitic language. A Semite is NOT a race or religion my dear fool. 95% of Semites are Arabic.
Next you are going to tell me GENTILE means non-jew. roflmao! GEN (genetics) + TILE (under cover) = genetics protected. In no way does GENTILE mean non-Jew but quite the opposite.
Ignorance of words perpetuates more ignorance my dear dupe.
MCAGCC1 1 month ago
@MCAGCC1 ... where the f'k do you get his crap?
13Heathens 1 month ago
@13Heathens *his=this
13Heathens 1 month ago
Macro Evolution has 2 Religious Denominations within their faith based belief system:
1. Punctuated Macro Evolution
2. Graduated Macro Evolution
Most idiots who are Macro Evolutionists do not even know which one of these 2 denominations they BELIEVE in....such is mass brainwashing done from an early age.
The masses of fools and idiots can be convinced of anything. Mass brain think is hilarious. Like sheep most humans are, scared of being different or leaving the herd.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
@parasitesarefunny "Macro Evolution has 2 Religious Denominations"
Epic fail. It's punctuated equilibrium, and gradual change over time. not "Punctuated Macro Evolution and Graduated Macro Evolution" both concept are part of the same scientific theory (don't make me explain that word to you)
13Heathens 2 months ago
Macro Evolution is not scientific and FAILS the Scientific Method since the fools who support Macro Evolution cannot even predict or duplicate the crap they push on others.
Most Macro Evolutionists dont even know what they BELIEVE in; Gradual Macro Evolution or Spontaneous Evolution, the latter being the more recent scientific deception that people just swallow. They are utter fools who dont know what science is or how to even think critically, they just swallow and repeat to get an A+.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
@parasitesarefunny
"the fools who support Macro Evolution cannot even predict or duplicate the crap they push on others."
You mean they can't show you 10.000 of consecutive generations of dogs in a lab? Could it be because it would take about 30.000 years for those generations to be born, grow up and reproduce. Are you completely dense? And no they can't predict how it would unfold either..you just don't get it do you? Your lack of understanding is almost funny.
OddityDK 2 months ago
@OddityDK
Macro-evolution FAILS the Scientific Method.
Macro Evolutions uses TIME to cover this FAILURE to meet the Scientific Method, just as Religion uses DEATH to cover their FAILURE to meet the Scientific Method.
Macro Evolution (punctuated and gradual theories) + Religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism theories) = Faith Based Theories that FAIL the scientific method.
Only idiots can be convinced through brainwashing to BELIEVE something without scientific proof.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
Comment removed
OddityDK 2 months ago
@parasitesarefunny there is no spontaneous evolution, however during times when the population drops low etc due to drastic changes in environmental pressures evolution can accelerate. this is due to a higher frequency of mutation (due to inbreeding), as well as more selective pressure to adapt to the rapidly changing environmental variables. Learn what you're talking about before sounding silly plz.
13Heathens 2 months ago
Ray Comfort talking about common sense.... oh the irony.
Strictlypointless 2 months ago
Thank you SO much for this video! I mean really, it is just reassuring to know that not everyone out there is a complete idiot!
Strictlypointless 2 months ago
Humans are all the same species just sub species or breeds like different ducks or fish.
Whitevoice14 3 months ago
God created all then adaptation happened.
glendaweil 9 months ago
The title is right. Evolution is for dummies....... trolling. lol
biblelover777 9 months ago
Hes right he doesnt know about evolution so why is he speaking. hmmmmmmm ?. If you research Crufts and how breeders have inter bred dogs. how they created fucked up creatures with disease. if you research changes to humans that infact any defect! change!? from the norm (evolution) was usually killed at birth or put in a circus. research elephant man, two headed man..... that is evolution. slight changes over time
TheThuggery 9 months ago
@TheThuggery ... you really don't have a clue what a genetic mutation is, do ya?
13Heathens 9 months ago
@13Heathens Funny but I thought your video did a really good job of explaining the process, yet we get comments like that guys, your right he doesn’t know what genetic mutation is
foiran 7 months ago
@13Heathens Negroes are the transitional species, not admitting this is what holds us back, you can clearly see ape like features like their nasal area sticking out like an ape, they have many features that only they and apes share but other races like Whites & Asians don't. They are the missing link!
Whitevoice14 3 months ago
@13Heathens wow so we on evolution now yessssss i love to talk about it, ok no matter how many times a dog reproduce it all ways brings forward something we would call a dog. a DOG GET IT, macro does suppose to mean after lots of generations we get enough small changes to get a new animal, that has not been proven. go take some high school evolution classes. never mind it wont help bad teachers, look what they are teaching. sorry ... i understand macro it doesn't happen at all i have studied it
jonathancooper1988 3 months ago
@jonathancooper1988 "no matter how many times a dog reproduce it all ways brings forward something we would call a dog. a DOG GET IT"
... Did you not listen to\understand what was said in the video?
13Heathens 3 months ago
@13Heathens see you need to understand micro and macro better just the meaning of those words would help. evolutionist are saying they need more time to prove macro, you say its been proven????? what produced something other than its kind or even a small change that wouldn't kill it. and when we get changes its done by scientist in a lab, they are doing a bad job at playing god. they creations all die to fast, plus evolution cant explain the first life big problem. no trasitional fossils!!!
jonathancooper1988 3 months ago
@jonathancooper1988 "evolution cant explain the first life"
That's Abiogenesis, not evolution, which I've already explained; watch?v=lAZeRiECgcA
13Heathens 3 months ago
@TheThuggery Small changes over a long period of time, buddy. Not huge changes over a small period of time. You've been listening to Kirk for too long.
esspears 9 months ago
Did that first dog ever find a mate? Must have, we have dogs.
Banana Man is so stupid. Watch Dogs don't make non-dogs
gregrutz 11 months ago
umm...so it is okay to kill people you disagree with? is that the whole point of the crazy preacher shooting santa?
MobileThinker 1 year ago
someone should tell ray that a blind dog could find a female in heat quicker than he can blink
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
3:40 LMAO HOLY FUCKING SHIT HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
the thing that makes me laugh is if you were to say to a creationist "what do small changes lead to?" without mentioning evolution they would say "to big changes" but if you then said "oh so you accept that microevolution leads to macro?" they will say "noooooooooooooo!!!" lol
bigmanoooo1 1 year ago
Sorry, but there is no evidence for evolution of species transitioning into others. No fossil record evidences. No sweet FA. No observational, empirical evidence, NOTHING. Micro biology shows a specific design to cells, which are irreducibly complex. NEVERMIND, the mathematical improbability of non living material all coming together to create first life, which is where you should systematically start on if you're going to try and convince people. sorry, but atheists lose.
millball 1 year ago
@millball "NEVERMIND, the mathematical improbability of non living material all coming together to create first life, which is where you should systematically start" Creationism meets the protocell - Abiogenesis ; watch?v=lAZeRiECgcA
(posted sept 21 2009 - 4 days prior to the posting of this video.)
You may want to research those claims of yours on non creationist sites. It's your lot that tried to convince, while others try to educate others.
13Heathens 1 year ago
@millball "there is no evidence for evolution of species transitioning into others"
Wow...Really? No evidence?
What outdated websites have you been looking at?
Maybe next time you get a cold you can pray it away.
The little critters that cause cold symptoms evolve rapidly due to their rapid reproductive rate.
Your body becomes immune to the cold every time you catch it.
The only way you catch it again is due to it evolving.
And that's just a small example.
corthew 1 year ago
@millball improbability imply possibility. just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. given enough time, ever possible outcome will play out. you are thinking in terms of your life, which by comparison is barely even a blip in time.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker The possibilty of it happening is so low that the supposed time of the universe isnt long enough for the chances to happen once... Read dismantling evolution by Ralph Muncaster.
millball 10 months ago
@millball
Irreducible c. explained
1/3
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism" said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation - old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
2/3
"The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity -- the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone."
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
2.5/3 (:P)
"They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved."
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
3/3
"Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans."
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
one more quote from the same article:P
"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
1/2
Explain your "mathematical improbability" please
I fail to see how the concept of very simple lifeforms being created suffer from mathematical improbability when we observe the light from the farthest reaches of the universe being "familiar" matter and energy. That doesn't mean we have a clear understanding just that the lesser parts which are here are also there. It seems to be very likely that The Observable/Our Universe have finite types of lesser parts - finite combinations.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull Explain YOUR mathematical probability Carebear! Since its so apparently obvious that its the way life sparked! I'd care to wager that you havent even read a breakdown of the formation of simple cell and ALL the steps needed to produce it. Evolution has been disproved in the lab. Repent, Trust in Jesus Christ for remission of sins and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into relationship with The Holy Father!
millball 10 months ago
@millball
2/2
That being "created by an abiogenesis".
Further on, given the observation that at least over a large span of space there are mostly familiar types of lesser parts, and that the current estimate of stars in the observable universe is 300 sextillion, this relatively not so complex process of Abiogenesis doesn't really deserve the label "mathematical improbable", and that is only taking into account the abiogenesis which we know of.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull Abiogenesis aka 'Life from Non-Life' is the biggest contra-bloody-diction of them all man! I don't think i even need to come up with an example of how stupid that is, but if you would believe that is remotely possible, I'm sorry to tell you; but you're in extreme denial and mock God - the Sovereign creator of ALL - which you dont want to be on the receiving end of His Holy wrath! Woe on to those who dont repent in time!
millball 10 months ago
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
Have you found yourself biting your tale yet? probably not. You see, assuming that something or a process is "mathematical improbable" because it's complex also presumably should mean that something being the complexities' creator should be even more complex and more "mathematical improbable" unless you can back up your claim and explain the fallacy without serving even another one. Your argument fails in trying to explain an assumed issue by serving the same issue over again.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull So, without waffling, your point is; "if the creation is so improbably complex, surely the creator is even more improbable due to God's complexity"? Well, thats a cop-out hogwash of an reply and clearly you're scared to actually find out about my claims. The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything means there IS a Grand Architect! Praise God - Psalm 19.
millball 10 months ago
@millball
First off.. wtf does psalm 19 have to do with anything?
Secondly, regarding "The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything.." Approximately 98% of all life forms which have inhabited this planet of ours have gone extinct. This reality neither supports the idea of this grand interconnectedness, or any sort of competent designer.
Find a new argument. That one doesn't work at all.
13Heathens 10 months ago
@13Heathens Read it and find out Heathen..
You don't see interconnectedness in the known universe, the galaxies, the solar system, the earth etc. then you're blinded by your own sheer ignorance. Open your eyes and see that life isn't a product of chance, that morality is absolute; in a universe with no ultimate meaning, there isn't any objectivity - so i can kill you and your family and it would be justified because there isn't any real right and wrong!
millball 10 months ago
@millball I'm not in the mood to play nice. I did read Psalm 19 (1-14 at least) and it wasn't relevant to the topic. Life isn't the product of chance, but it is the product of chemistry. The galaxy is a mostly chaotic place governed by the laws of physics. No there is no ultimate meaning, thus finding a 'meaning' four ourselves is a personal journey and choice.. Sheer ignorance you say? If you think the biblical god is moral then you're beyond ignorant on the topic of scripture.
13Heathens 10 months ago
@13Heathens I do study reformed theology so I do have a pretty sound idea of scripture for only being a christian of 11 months. The big question that puzzles me is how He could let Jesus, who never sinned, take on the sin of many so they could be pardoned and allowed to enter heaven. I suggest you think that out and realise that if you dont humble urself and admit your sinfulness to God and ask him to forgive you your sins through Jesus, your lost to an etnerity in Hell! watch 8 mins of hell
millball 10 months ago
@millball "so i can kill you and your family and it would be justified"
Bullshit. The moral codes of our modern society aren't from the bible, but despite it. Don't even try to pull that God is the ultimate moral authority crap. the god of the bible is one of the most vile immoral fictional characters of antiquity. If you think the god of the bible is moral, you've clearly never actually read that book of yours.
13Heathens 10 months ago
@millball
You chose to believe in an all mighty dictator that will have you punished for eternity if you're not a believer. Given your belief I should have the biggest fucking balls in the Universe doing what should be a big ass contradiction defying something which is "all mighty". You should praise me and my balls, but you called me "scared".
"means there IS a Grand Architect!" well, be more specific,
I'm still under the impression that there's an enormous turd residing within your brain.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull The only thing God will be punishing anyone for is their sin [disobedience to his perfect, moral, righteous law. Why would you be worthy of worship, you're only a created being who will fade to dust in under 70 years! The Lord is eternal! Praise His Name Alone! He who has given all good things unto all men and yet they curse His name and drink their iniquity down like water! [job 15:16]
millball 10 months ago
Ask this God of yours why an all mighty being would do something as stupid as making the tube for essential oxygen the same tube as where food is running through!? Did the tube store run out of tubes on day six? List is long, say if your want more.
"The complexity, sheer design and interconnectedness of everything.."
Maybe the theoretical physicists will say:
"Of course! There must be a god! it's so obvious now, it is the missing factor that solves all our equations!"
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
Wiki List of Unsolved Problems in Physics, ENJOY!
Did you know that we can't even grasp the nature of something as normal as turbulence and gravity? Now this doesn't rule out a god, but a god is surely not logical, fined tuned, personal and obvious as you'd like him to be, as the universe and beyond I.E existence is not. So stfu on the bible quotes, and at least go deist.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull Sir, deism is a joke. There is revelation; the Holy Bible. It has passed through millenia untainted, proclaiming Jesus' coming, birth, minstry,crucifixion for the sinful, ressurection and glorious ascension into Heaven. If you can sit and tell me that reality is 1 big ass accident then you're a deluded fool! Psalm 14 - "The fool says in his heart there is no God". Repent [realise your sin and thank God for Jesus who died for the sinful, and live life pleasing Him who made you.
millball 10 months ago
@millball
Well there is also Homer's Odyssey and Illiad covering Greek Mythology, which pre dates the Christian bible by centuries.
And "Untainted", well that's wrong, you should know that, especially if you're of a division of protestantism.
I fail to see how a book "untainted" for millennia can be anything else than bad for your side of the argument.
We're talking bronze age! Are you not aware of the immense progress that has been made in the understanding of nature? dude!? 2000 years!
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@millball
"reality is 1 big ass accident then you're a deluded "
Well this alone is an argument for Deism.
Chr. = Personal God, fairytale.
So let's look at the opposite, meaning/purpose. Could you please define this?
How does inserting God into the picture give any more meaning?
You are just enlarging the "issue".
Why does a God have a purpose to make anything?
A God's decision to make an action is ultimately meaningless.
What is the meaning of a god? It's the same questions all over again.
Carebearbull 10 months ago
@Carebearbull WELL, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED!
God created all things for His glory - so that creation would thank Him, Worship Him. Because God is love, He gives life and because He is good, He is to be worshipped. But when mankind wants to do things his own way and disrespect God, thats when God demands justice [which can seem to fallen man unfair] but in actuality is Righteous and perfect, for if it weren't, God shouldn't be given the title. His biggest expression of Love was Jesus on the cross!
millball 10 months ago
@millball
haha:P I expected an answer like that.
Why did god create things for his glory? And why in the way he did? why does he care about glory?
I don't see them 300x10^21 stars thanking god? Why is God love?
Why love? Why love and not something else? Why does God exist? Where did God come from? Or when in infinity did he chose to make the universe? And why at the given point? What was he doing the infinite time before the universe?
You see? You don't make any ends, but unneeded links
Carebearbull 10 months ago
wowwy wooh ah
sl0j0 1 year ago
Good video! I'll assume the rest are good to and subscribe!
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid You may be assuming too much lol! I've been neglecting my channel for a while now.
13Heathens 1 year ago
The whole "micro" and "macro" evolution distinction pisses me off beyond belief. It is the most moronic thing you could POSSIBLY say.
Eastmanarium 1 year ago
Well, let's not forget "just a theory", this gets the cake. "Micro and macro" is the runner-up.
justforflag2 1 year ago
how is that,he has just shown us here that a dog remains a dog, it doesnt change to another species, just a variation!
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 In a manner of speaking... Changes at the species level are whenever the two forms of "dogs" in this case can no-longer reproduce and bring forth viable offspring. There doesn't even have to be a significant visual difference.
Rest assured that once the changes become too vast in their genetics they can no-longer interbreed. It's variation which leads to speciation .
13Heathens 1 year ago
I think that the problem of Ray Comfort and people like him is that they dont want to study evolution, because they are afraid that they will find out something that contradicts they beliefs. Great video btw.
SCAREDBANANA 1 year ago
Wow... Killing Santa with a gun is real Christ-like.
jrblack83 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By your theory, if bacteria (I am not grouping them with viruses because viruses are not necesarily living creatures). Ok, if bacteria are first organisms eons ago, where did dogs come from. I would never call any bacteria a dog. Or an early form of a dog. Or the early form of anything, since they are still here. I am also not an evangelic. How do you explain the absence of evidence in the fossil record: precambrian to cambrian.
calicatt2000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Explosion of different forms of creatures that we still have today. Where is that proof? Exponentially crazy odds of symbiotic creatures and plants "evolving" together? None of this makes sense. And I'm not so sure I even believe in Microevolution either except in the case of breeding between species like the liger, breeds of dogs, etc. All of which probably would've NEVER happened if not for the interference of humans.
calicatt2000 2 years ago
OH COME ON! You must be joking. You don't think that modern bacteria = ancient bacteria, do you?
Cambrian explosion? Nothing missing, just more oxygen allowing multicellular organisms to flourish (multicellular organisms existed before tha cambrain though).
The cambrian explosion only produced a variety of animals such as trilobites not present today, extinct.
Symbiosis? Look it up, yes, it is easier to evolve by helping each other than to evolve on your own.
Macroevolution? Culex Molestus.
justforflag2 1 year ago
I find creatioists only use the term micro and micro. It's just EVOLUTION
questionsamson 2 years ago
dont be silly, there is a big distinction between the two
zenithar6666 1 year ago
To me, Ray Comfort is one of the funniest comedians. Just listenning to him cracks me up. I just think to myself that hes not actually that stupid and VOLA! Sadly, he is that stupid.
donkeyfieldmouse 2 years ago
Impossible,
How can a land animal slowly change to a animal that can fly?
Flying animals must have hollow and light bones, something that land animals cannot have, Air animals must also have a completely different organ structure ( and no you cant change the organs over time, theres no examples, no examples = imagination = not science )
MazzarX 2 years ago
Start with this video watch?v=ipule-onYpU
That's part one of 4 of a series posted by djarm67. If you'd like I can get you a link to a BBC documentary which references the evolution of lungs.
There are hundreds of examples of organ development. Seriously.. do some research.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Some birds soar, like hawks and eagles. Some fly much lower. robins and pigeons. Some just flutter a few feet off the ground, quail, chickens. Some don't fly at all, penguins, ostriches. But they are all birds. They all have the structures you mention.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Bats don't have hollow bones, and they fly. Ostriches have hollow bones, and they don't fly.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
yes and both work perfectly for there purpose, this means nothing
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 How do dense bones work perfectly for flying and hollow bones work perfectly for being on the ground?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
hmmm, ever seen a bat fly, ever seen an Ostrche run, yeah exactly, both get by just fine,
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 "Get by just fine" is evidence for divine creation by an all-powerful designer? Is God just lazy, or what?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
who said anything about evidence for a divine bieng? not me anyway, im just doing the research and realising that evolutinon is on think ice, i mean its getting comical the leaps of faith taken by evolutinonists, its actually strange that its so widely accepted when its so obviosly flawed,
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 .. What flaws? You seem to be falling for the creationist's BS. That's what happens when you try to research on places that spout unscientific rhetoric.
13Heathens 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 Right. You're completely being objective (wink*). But what flaws are you talking about?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Awesome, all you talked about is micro evolution,
Congratz you failed.
You cant have transition from something that is on land to something that can fly,
The bones are hollow in a bird,and it Uses its beak , Respiratory system is different,
You can a half and half
And a transitional one cannot exist as it couldnt survive ( It would be the weakest animal in natural selection , couldnt be a master at anything or even survive properly
MazzarX 2 years ago
LOL ray
totallyboreded71 2 years ago
Many people, including myself, cannot comprehend the amt of TIME these small genetic accumulations have had to make the amount of variation we have in extant species. The fossil record is FAR from complete. Have you ever come across a fossil from 10,000 yrs ago? A million yrs ago? Know where to look? No. Many are not preserved well & there is a certain amount of luck where & when you find them. We see morphological trends in the fossils that have been found and make educated guesses on taxonomy.
KateMH10 2 years ago
plenty of transitionals and old fossils have been found, and there is an indisputable order in the fossil record, ie. no animals before their perscribed time periods are found on different layers; eg. humans have never been found on the same level as dinosaurs
types10000 2 years ago
Plenty of fossils have been discovered, but not nearly enough to fill in the holes and questions of our ancestry. Take for instance the newly released discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus... do you believe that this indl is on the human or chimp ancestry or do you think this is the node sample? That is my point. If we did have a complete well preserved fossil record we probably wouldnt have these questions.
KateMH10 2 years ago
and religious freaks (i.e. creationists who think we were created *Poof* by a personified higher energy) wouldnt have anything to really debate without sounding like idiots (which they normally do). : ) Sorry to offend, but I'm tired of being looked down on for studying evolution.
KateMH10 2 years ago
what a load of tripe. pick a 'hole' and i'll provide you with a fossil that fills it.
the holes exist in the minds of creationists
human ancestry is easy as the changes necessary for humans to evolve from their apelike ancestors fit within the bounds of 'micro-evolution' which even the most deluded religious bigots accept. go look up the human evolution wiki page for fossils.
types10000 2 years ago
I'm glad that you agree with me. I personally think there is plenty of fossil evidence to make our point... its the lack of that many people have the problem with and need for explanation.
KateMH10 2 years ago
I think most people do not take into consideration the vast amount of time that these microevolutionary events have taken. The Earth is about 4.5 BILLION yrs old! It took millions of years for limbs to evolve from fish for instance. New species do not just *poof* show up! It is a slow process that includes mutation, selection, migration, and random events that affect microevolution. These small events accumulate through many many many generations=>macroevolution!
KateMH10 2 years ago
And on the rare occasion that a mutation is actually beneficial to an organism which is extremely rare, you still dont get any NEW information within the code. Losses, rearrangement, or duplication does nothing to add to the code which is exactly what you would need if Darwin's theory should be true.
Hustada 2 years ago
Not exactly. Random chance (and the scientist still have no idea how this random chance works) does play a role. When you roll the dice trillions of times over a billion years, you can get all kinds of things.
Cambreath 2 years ago
They have no idea because it doesnt work according to the evidence. The only other option for them is to say that it probably just isnt true but since its so ingrained in their heads that it is true they wont admit it. ANY OTHER branch of science would have moved on long ago with such little empirical evidence but this isnt about science, its about opposing worldviews. They make the facts fit the theory instead seeing if the theory fits the facts. Bad science.
Hustada 2 years ago
most mutations - on a genetic level - are neither beneficial nor detrimental. Most genetic mutations are so insignificant as to not even be observable.
13Heathens 2 years ago
It's not that a dog gives birth to a non-dog. Speciation occurs when enough evolutionary change has occured that a dog, in theory, could not go back and mate with its ancestors 50,000 generations back.
rddaos 2 years ago
"most mutations - on a genetic level - are neither beneficial nor detrimental. Most genetic mutations are so insignificant as to not even be observable"
I agree which makes it even less probable that could accomplish the outlandish claims of Darwinian evolution. "Observed" mutations are always neutral or a loss of info which doesnt add up with regards to accomplishing anything claimed in our highschool textbooks today.
Hustada 2 years ago
Hustada, I'll be away for a couple weeks. However I'd be more than happy to talk a bit on the "issue of new information" after I get back from my trip. If you'd kindly send me a PM reminder, I'd me happy to make a video on thje topic after I get back from my trip.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Have a safe and happy vacation.
mfors704 2 years ago
just because you get new info does not mean it will benefit, infact, we now it wont in almost all cases
zenithar6666 1 year ago
of course mutations introduce new information, dummy. If there is say ...a population where all birds are black, and then a beneficial mutation occurs creating green birds, which are better at hiding in green foliage, now you have more information, i.e. genes coding for a beneficial camoflauge.
rddaos 2 years ago
The only thing this video proves, is that animals are very complex organisms that have an amazing ability within their genes to adapt to changes within the enviroment, nothing more. Instead of explaining variation and speciation within a species, which all reputable scientists, creationists, evolutionists, and ID theorists believe, why dont you explain the origin of photosynthesis or something like it? Something that seems impossible yet must have happened.
Hustada 2 years ago
Actually the video doesn't prove the complexity of organisms, or anything else. It merely illustrates - by example - how small changes over time can add up.
I never understand why people feel the need to challenge the content of a video by citing thing that are outside of the scope of what the video is intended to address.
13Heathens 2 years ago
"how small changes over time can add up"
Which is exactly what I addressed. Take the word "complex" out if you want. There is nothing within your example that shows those small changes over time ever lead to anything drastic(new systems,parts) which is what the video is alluding to correct? If you are not alluding to this concept then I would, like I said previously, agree with you. Dogs are always dogs, even after millions of years despite the changes you describe here.
Hustada 2 years ago
For the sake of this video, I was explaining things from a more philosophical vantage point as apposed to a scientific stand point.
So, should I take your replies to indicate that you don't have a problem with evolution until systems/parts evolve?
(BTW such changes, being over 10's of thousands of generations wouldn't be in the least bit drastic.)
13Heathens 2 years ago
I have issues with theories being labeled as scientific when they are hardly that. Changes due environmental conditions over time does not equal development of complex systems and bodyparts like the nervous system, eye, etc.. Something thats impossible is still impossible regardless of how many generations pass. Thats my point. There are things that literally cant and wont happen in this world. The odds are so astronomical its basically impossible which scientifically makes it unbelievable to me
Hustada 2 years ago
There are only four letters ATCG. A must always connect with T and C must always connect with G. Changing any of these letters may have an effect on the structure of the thing which are defined by these letters. The effect may be unremarkable or dramatic.
I think your limitations on what is and isn't possible my need some tweaking.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Red: "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." —Matthew 19:26
... even evolution.
13Heathens 2 years ago
I agree that God could cause evolution, thats not my argument. My argument is that I dont think the evidence points in that direction. If it happens to do that down the road, Ill be the first to admit it and hop on the wagon.
Hustada 2 years ago
My partner, Red prefers to see God in the mix - giving evolution an occasional nudge. I see that as a reasonable compromise between faith and science.
I may not see it the same way, however I have great respect for those who are able to accept the discoveries of science without taking such discoveries as being an attack on their faith.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Agreed. Ill try to remember to PM you. Have nice trip.
Hustada 2 years ago
Just because the letters change around does not mean that information has been increased at all. Scrambling around the letters does nothing in that regard. Once again, I agree that changes can and do happen just not to the point where a dinosaur could eventually become a bird. When you start down that trail you quickly leave science behind and enter into storytelling with no empirical evidence. Seriously though, Im all ears here.
Hustada 2 years ago
You're right, it doesn't. The 26 letters of standard English are exactly the same: just because the letters change around does not mean that what is spelled out has more information. However, it is easy to demonstrate that certain sequences of the same letters do have more information than others. Similarly, some sequences of A, C, G and T are codes for proteins which do very specific jobs within a cell, and therefore have an equivalently high "information" content.
...
puncheex 1 year ago
...
You admit changes can happen; will you also admit that when too many animals live in an area, there is competition, and the animals whose differences better fit them to the environment will win out more on the average?
If you do that, you're 95% of the way to evolution, and the rest is ways & means and details.
puncheex 1 year ago
the problem is that you haven't even a basic understanding of biology, yet you are attempting to dictate to experts in genetics what can, and can't happen. that's like a highschool dropout trying to dictate to an aerospace engineer how to build a jet.
rddaos 2 years ago
I do have a basic understanding and Im not dictating anything. Im just stating what does happen and that anything beyond that is wishful thinking and speculation. Unless you can show me otherwise.
Hustada 2 years ago
Hustada,
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you aren't a scientist, and have no formal training in any technical field, yes?
rddaos 2 years ago
@ rddaos - In other words - "Because I dont think you are accurate you must obviously have no scientific knowledge on the subject in order to really understand it" I assume thats where you are going. Darwin wasnt a formally trained biologist either, should we throw out his opinion as well? My opinions are based ON actual scientific arguments made by ACTUAL scientists. A rebuttal to the actual argument at hand would be a breath of fresh air for once instead of questioning my knowledge.
Hustada 2 years ago
Yes, but the DOG if left alone will most likely revert back to some form of the ancestral dog if all the the different "breeds" are allowed to interbreed. Your making the point the here that creationists make all the time. Your not providing ANY mechanism in this video that would allow the dog to eventually become something drastically different as long term(macro) evolution demands. Theres a reason why some, not just creationists, make a distininction between macro and micro.
Hustada 2 years ago
No, I'm not providing mechanisms. Nor did I claim that as part of my intention.
There's no such thing as "macro" or "micro" evolution, other than the vague classification we've chosen to assign to these arbitrary terms. It's all just evolution.
The video was intended to provide perspective, not the define the many mechanisms which influence the evolution of a group of organisms.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Macro and Micro is used by some but not all scientists. One cant just say there isnt a "macro" or "micro". The terms do have definitions and certainly are used by some. Evolution does happen, animals DO change but to say that these changes lead to new complex organs and body parts is entirely different. So there is a distinction that needs to be made IMO. Small changes over time DO add up but only as far as the genetic makeup will allow.
Hustada 2 years ago
Yeah, the terms have definitions. Those would be the meanings assigned to the arbitrary terms which I mentioned. As humans we love categorizing things to death. However such classifications need not match up with the reality of that which is classified.
You presume to know the limitations of what genetics may allow? This fascinates me. Please, do tell.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Im not claiming to be a geneticist but I know enough about the topic to tell you that evolution, as in the kind that Darwin postulated requires a mechanism that certainly hasnt been observed or tested. Species can change, even so much as to be called a new species, but the genes within that kind will not create a new system that isnt already encoded in the DNA somewhere. That is, a wolf can never have wings because there is nothing within the genetic code that allows it.
Hustada 2 years ago
Correct. A wolf will never have wings. That's a different branch on the proverbial tree of life.For that matter if you did find a wolf with wings it would be a great way to falsify evolution.
13Heathens 2 years ago
Many micros make a macro. Do you really have to explain this in the twenty-first century? Why do people get more stupid the more they evolve? I reckon modern culture protects them.
The sequence from 06.10 is brilliant.
auchraw 2 years ago
I've said it before. You combine his with Morgan Freeman, Leonard Nemoy, and James Earl Jones, you can take over the planet, lol.
Thanks for the vid, 13H
mavis13 2 years ago
Cripes, couldn't the gun happy minister couldn't have explained that Santa is really St. Nicholas, a Christian saint? The funny thing is that I'm almost (almost) grateful for all these Creationists. Their stupidity causes people to make "Evolution for Dummies" vids like these and their arguments are so absurd it's entertaining.
selenite1 2 years ago
Ahh, but this is probably his reasoning:
Santa -> Satna -> Satan
It's EVOLUTION! Kill it! :p
energeticallybored 2 years ago
One thing you should add to your explanation of evolution: That speciation generally happens on Islands. (To borrow from Richard Dawkins) "Island" in this sense doesn't have to mean a land mass surrounded by water, but any area with a physical boundry. A lake is a "island" for the fish in the lake. An oasis in a desert is an "Island" for a lizard. These "Islands" give species the ability to diversify from their ancestral species by limiting the flow of genes between the two groups.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
I actually was reading about that a couple days before I made the video.
Interesting stuff, but the (approximately) 5 minute (non-scientific) explanation was focused on providing a very crude understanding on a conceptual basis.. for those that just don't understand the science.
13Heathens 2 years ago
What did that ass do to santa? I need him to be alive for when I have kids.
Jacobsenacc 2 years ago
That's one bad ass squirrel.
spikebarnett 2 years ago
Oh 13Heathens, someone asked me a question the other day that is along the same line.. What do you make of mules from an evolutionary perspective? (For anyone who's unfamiliar, they're Horse/Donkey hybrids whose offspring are most often sterile). Are they a transitional form of some kind of reverse evolution?
LadyK8E 2 years ago
They're an evolutionary dead end.
13Heathens 2 years ago
There is no such thing as "reverse evolution", the apparent examples of Kent Hovind et al notwithstanding. There is no ultimate goal to evolution (ie., some pinnacle of evolutionary perfection). There is only adaptation to the environment or failure to do so.
FractalHelix777 2 years ago
I'm aware of this, reverse evolution was a poor choice of words. The more I think about it, it's obvious that the mule is a product of two species with a very recent common ancestor who haven't reached the point where they won't breed with each other anymore. It more proves 13H's point than anything, I think my brain just exploded when asked that, i overanalyzed. Thank you both for the thorough correcting.
LadyK8E 2 years ago
Horses and donkeys are diverging. They can no longer produce fertile offspring so they are genetically isolated from each other. The fact that they can hybridise to produce infertile offspring shows they are descended from a common ancestor.
Mules are not "transitional forms" nor "reverse evolution".
pknvdw 2 years ago
Yeah the more I think about it the more I realize what a stupid question that was. I think when that person asked me, my brain exploded. I have a tendency to over-analyze when fired up. It does just prove the species divergence argument a little more.
LadyK8E 2 years ago
YOU MADE A BIG MISTAKE 13Heathens ! ! ! You said there will come a point when a species will no longer recognize another and won't want to mate with it. This is where your whole theory falls apart ! I have seen a dog hump peoples legs, trees, pillows and even cats! Man you have no clue! LOL
RadioPaul1 2 years ago
The behavior your referencing is an attempt to assert dominance what the animal see as it's pack environment. It's not about sex or reproduction.
I got your joke, but still felt the need to point out the flaw in the "humping" argument ;)
13Heathens 2 years ago
Comment removed
LadyK8E 2 years ago
watch?v=cdbRcxVYWSY
Fact #1
Just thought I'd mention this. He's not really hung up on it or anything.
aarlin81 2 years ago
Oh yeah, I forgot all about that, thanks.
13Heathens 2 years ago
GAWED! My heart wants to kick peoples ass everytime i hear stupidity. @_@ my eyes! the stupidity it burns!
Nades129 2 years ago
kent hovind,ray comfort and kirk cameron know exactly what there doing.sewing disinformation is what they do for a living.they are liers cheats and scam artists,and they are completely aware of there own lies.but the adverage youtube creationist is just a misinformed drone.spouting the same debunked arguments over and over.If they went so stupid and sad it would be adorable.
GorbixElite01 2 years ago
One can imagine the kind of cognitive dissonance they have to handle on a daily basis. "Yes, I said there can be no macro-evolution, and the way the 13H explains it does kind of make sense... But the Bible says NO, so I can't allow myself to believe that. I have to declare my senses out of order. Also, remember that this stuff brings in the bacon... and I'd have to start an intellectual life all over. Yeah, I can do this - God give me the strength."
What a way to live.
puncheex 1 year ago
I love how Comfort explains evolution as the male dog evolving first and then needing a female dog. Why is it that the male comes first?
ChrisTheTruckDriver 2 years ago
Or why is it that someone is developed without any eyes and then has to wait for eyes to evolve?
truvelocity 2 years ago
Evolution makes perfect sense. I can't understand why uneducated and unqualified people keep trying to poison the minds of the uninformed.
truvelocity 2 years ago
to keep people as uninformed as they themselves are. and of course, to keep the money flowing.
Khayd4126 2 years ago
I guess it all comes down to the money.
truvelocity 2 years ago
I am wondering how it is that Comfort feels he has cornered the market on common sense if he believes that the universe is only a few thousand years old. (Things that make you go....hmmmm)
....even us common squirrels have more sense than that...it seems.
squirrly001 2 years ago