Too funny too too funny. That's a lot of words that mean nothing tell you what I admit I was wrong Sergei Winogradsky didn't create life from chemicals in the 50's that's when he died he did it first in 1887. Now I don't expect everyone to read Science journals everyday but come on we proved magic man in sky no makie makie life and told you how it life came about even showed you over 120 freaking years ago. Oh yeah I'm a mutant you probably didn't know we existed ether.
Let me break it down to you idiots. Take Chiwawa's and Great danes Both look totally different but both originated from mans selective breeding starting from the wolf not millions of years ago but recently. This is a undisputed fact. So we forced the wolves to evolve into every breed of dog we know today and to this day there are new breeds being made. You do know we have been able to create life from basic chemicals sense the 50's?
Nobody disputes your first claim. But selective breeding has an element to it that natural selection lacks, human foresight. Also, many heavily selected dog breeds have much more frail genomes compared to their ancestors, and if you couldn't already tell, dogs are still dogs, no new features are emerging. So, poor example for what you are trying to prove. Also, life has never been produced from basic chemicals, simply read a book on origin of life and you'll see.
You've never demonstrated any fire power. Still waiting after all this time for you to grow a pair and put forth an intellectual argument. But I won't hold my breath troll.
No you didn't. I gave up because you just kept asking irrelevant questions and never made a point. Non-coding RNAs perform functions essential to gene expression. You claimed genes only code for proteins and that the rest of it was parasitic left over gene sequences that are meaningless to the gene expression of the organism. Isn't that pretty much it? So if you have a point of contention, make your point.
Seek help, and I mean that sincerely. If you want to make a point, or refute the points I made, feel free. Until that time, all you are doing is making an ass out of yourself.
While you are calling people "ninny", I'm showing that the true ninny is the one who doesn't have any facts to demonstrate any validity to the superstition.
Your assertions of religious opinion aren't ever going to change the facts, and magical superstition has never turned out to be the answer to ANY question we've asked.
You seem to just be bitter that your political agenda is failing...
Macroevolution is NOT a fact and is actually just speculative NONSENSE that is NOT remotely "scientific" in ANY way. Its UNOBSERVED both in the fossil record and in present observation in nature and lab experiments. If Macroevolution existed then numerous "intermediary" species would exist between vastly different family classifications bridging the gaps between such families as the Feline family, Canine family, Reptile Family, etc.
And as stated before "microevolution" is NOT "evolution at all
The term Microevolution is a deceptive term since it is not "evolution" at all. Its a term used to describe the variations in size/color within a species that occur due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations. As the size of a specie's population increases, the genetic diversity within that population increases which causes the variations seen today. These variations NEVER cause drastic change since they dont have the ability to add large amounts of information to the genome
@lethalsub Eveotards is a youtube that goes by the name buffboynick. Is he a creationist ?YES But not in the sense that you may assume. He is an ALEIN creationist, he believes that aliens are responsible for all the biodiversity on earth, Which may be true to a point, but the problem is just like creation there is absolutely ZERO evidence or his retard position. He believes the most outlandish shit that Ive ever seen and states it as 100% fact. Go to his channel and you'll see bbn comments-click
@jasason10 It took me about a day or so after spotting his name on the comments to realise his true identity, which is quite slow for me, I should have spotted it in a few minutes.
btw How long did it take you to spot this? What I cannot understand is why he acts in exactly the same manner whichever mask he is wearing, as if someone with half a brain cell won't notice.
@lethalsub Well I noticed it right away...See we were getting into it on his BBN Channel about evolution and so on. I think he got frustrated that there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for all the crazy shit that he believes in. All he has is word of mouth, IWetness testimony and some of his little "favorites" videos. And he knows this, so what he does is open up a new channel "EVOtardsareINSANE" To be a little child and bash evolution. He dosent want to post it on his BBN channel because Cont:
Most the People that believe aliens intervened here on earth accept that evolution still happens and that it is the main source for biodiversity here on earth. Whats funny about it is that the so called "scientist on his precious 'Favorites" videos, accept evolution and believe in (seeding) so to speak. I think he is afraid that he will lose his alien "street cred" if he post his ignorance about evolution on his BBN channel. Basically he is a little fucking pussy bitch with no balls, lol haha
@buffboynick You're using the same terms, writing style, paragraph formatting, and sources. You also have the same profession (molecular bollocks, oops, biology). What evidence do you have that I am 4FunPlayin and TheGamanic?
@buffboynick WTF! Dude how old are you? You have been exposed! Time to come out of the closet ! lol You are not fooling anyone. It is soooooooooo fucking obvious it crazy! HAHAAHAHAHAHA. Evotards IS BBN!!! Everyone knows it!!
@evoTARDSareINSANE I cant believe you are still trying to hide that you're not BBN! Are you fucking serious? Anyone with a half a brain can tell that it is the exact same channel with a different stupid ignorant name1)The Lay out is exactly the same 2) The side bar is exactly the same and the way the paragraphs are worded are exactly the same) Your "links" are exactly the same 4) The back ground is in the same layout just with different pictures 4) You troll all your favorites, shall I go on?
@jasason10 cont:" First you have comment pending approval" pussy. Then you delieted my comments on your page and then disabled the comments section all together. I wanted to debate you on your stupid "side bar comments" on your new channel page and you pussed out... Then I simply asked you to apologize to your subs and admit to your viewers that you lied about your new channel. You did not post that?!?! Why?The funny thing is that it's not that big of a deal so why try to hide it? I know why...
@jasason10 Because you do not know what to believe. You believe that there are 50 different races of aliens and that they are meeting with world leaders. Do you believe that there are buff blond hair favbeo humanoid aliens flying around in outer space? Do you believe that there is a civilization living on murcury? Do you believe in shape shifters and the chupacabra? Do you believe in giants? Do you believe that aliens are just fallen angels? Do you believe that its all a cover up? A conspiracy?
@evoTARDSareINSANE HAHA And Im a Disgrace to science. Hey kid you need to stand back and step out of yourself for a second and look at all the outlandish shit that you believe in. I mean really. Really? And yet you dont believe in evolution? You must be really stupid. Or maybe your just looking for attention here on you tube because you were such a tool in high school or in life itself. STOP! Instead of your straw manning retarded arguments against TOE Please prove your hypothesis first. _TARD
Number 1.....nowhere on my channel do I state what I "believe"
The only thing I am 100% certain of is that evolution is a LOAD of pure FAIRYTALE nonsense. There is ZERO evidence of macroevolution or abiogenesis
All "peer-reviewed" data supporting evolution ONLY refers to what evolutionists call "microevolution" (which is simply variations within species due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations). No macroevolution at all.
@BBN Micro a macro evolution are terms that Creatards have made famous. Scientist dont use those terms when referring to evolution. You cant accept Micro evolution without excepting Macro evolution they both work off the same mechanism! THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS TIME SCALE!!! Your "Macroevolution" has been directly observed in the wild as well as in the lab.
Small mutations capable of small change accumulate on consecutive generations lead to big change_FACT
Number 1....the 1st person to coin the term "macroevolution" was an evolutionist__FACT
"The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution."
What evolutionists call "microevolution" isnt evolution at all. Its simply variations in color/size caused by DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations. Those SMALL changes (which arent evolution but diversity among that species) are NOT evolution
Number 2, there are ZERO intermediary species in the fossil record showing macroevolutionary change.
@evoTARDS Dude what are you talking About? Did you copy this word for word from a creationist site? This is complete bullshit and you have know idea what you're talking about and/ or you dont understand what you wrote. Is a teacup chaulwa related to a great dane? That is the same species? Is a great dane related to the wolf? Is that the same species? Is the wolf related to the fox? Is that the same species? Is a fox related to a hyena? Is that the same species and so on. Do dog still stay dogs?
@ClamCrunchy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
@ClamCrunchy Yes it would you can't even get to evolution until you have the first cell. You have been indoctrinated to believe they have nothing to do with each other. You must have the first living thing in order for it to evolve!
@5tonyvvvv Higher education is indoctrination?I'll be sure to drop out of school then, because obviously my professors don't know what they're talking about, and they're ignoring the amazing science that proves evolution is all wrong and God created everything.
Even if the genome sequence in mankind were 99,9% similar to apes the complexity, order, 3D digital code, chemicals and organisms involved make random trial and error evolution impossible. We don't only have DNA for genes (physical features) but also error correcting code, spacers and more.
@gregrutz Evolution of species, i.e. variation within a kind, is not evolution between kinds. Check Kent Hovind et al questioning of magnetic reversals. Your next point is just an empty statement of faith. We have NO IDEA how well radioactive dating works for millions of years, it's all assumptions. C14 levels vary over time so short term dating also has major flaws. The fossil record is not as sequential as mainstream books make it seem, and sedimentary rock layers support the Flood.
Very Nice, I really like the last part. The complexity of DNA mechanisms really is unparalleled. All the repair systems, the actual replication, and even the protein synthesis are soo ingenious... Oh my.. THere is a God.. Praise Jesus :)
@gregrutz SO we grasp a tiny fraction of the magnitude to God's amazing working in us. In other words, the DNA system is soo sophisticated that we can never replicate such a masterpiece. Because we understand a few components of DNA, we wanna assume that it came from some origin cell.And that the cell just somehow became alive. What's worst, is that the cell emerged from a large rock that emerged from the explosion of emptyness. Much love though.I say dis wit no malice. I wanna c u all blessed.
@nottobigdudeguy The markers on DNA could only be there if we evolved. The Code shows who are our closest reletives. No one says a cell came from a rock the came from an explosion. Creationist propaganda.
The nuclear reactions in the center of the sun are complex so I worship the sun god, Ra. Ra is amazing.
@gregrutz That explains why you are so eager to destroy people's faith in the one true God which is Jesus. Jesus will always be God; nothing can change that. I did a few courses in genetics and that statement about markers doesn't make any sense because a marker is a gene. More importantly, suns in the different galaxies collapse just like baal. I'd pray that you change bro because you need to know the truth. This is bigger than the comment post that we make back and forth.
@gregrutz If I was born in the middle east, it would still be the one true God Jesus... Love bro. I don't wanna argue truth. The truth will stand on it's own. If you (or anyone) desire the things of Christ, inbox me and we would talk. Love and peace.
@gregrutz You are not asking that question with genuine sincerity. You are just asking to feul the debate. You see, christianity is based on faith. You are asking me for an hypothesis, someting that I can prove in a lab. But christianity has always been about a relationship with Jesus(Our Heavenly Father). If you were living with your parents for 25 years, I can't be over here (miles away) and ask you if you are sure that your parents are really your parents. More importantly, Jesus is the truth
@nottobigdudeguy Sorry, I was talking about the video and biology, you keep changing the topic to Chriatianity. Sorry if science keeps discovering things that prove the bible wrong.
@nottobigdudeguy ...As an analogy, this would be like a baby left out in the desert without anybody else to depend upon. How would the baby learn to change its own diaper before dying of heat exposure? The answer is that it can't. Neither can the DNA molecule evolve its own repair process before it has evolved sufficiently to mutate the function for even the most rudimentary repair process. Evolution takes millions of years.
@nottobigdudeguy ...DNA would have returned to its constituent molecules long before this time...not in a matter of years or even days, but a matter of hours.
@gregrutz Tell me, if you can, how does the repair process of the DNA molecule come from the very code that had to evolve over tiny increments of change? The DNA molecule is not stable, it needs constant repair, not just daily, but minute by minute. Since this is the case, without the repair process fully in place, the DNA would degrade rapidly...so rapidly that the repair process could never have evolved.......
You guys are so pittiful, you now come up with a creationist support for gentics and dna and genome, you might as well just come up with some kind of excuse for evolution that is where you heading with this.
@gregrutz If you did BIOLOGY you would know that natural selection doesn't acount for evolution, without mutations.... DNA how does it change outside of its predeterimined characteristics...Err, Mutation... lol
Yet mutations are KNOWN to be detrimental...hmm
Calling something "strawman" when you do not have any idea of the concept behind what you are talking about really doesn't cut it. I have just proven you wrong... with supposedly "strawman" arguements...lol
Lol, and somehow you idiots think that what you believe has anything to do whith what is real. It doenst matter if hes a christian or a muslim, or if galileo was an atheist, etc. Reality imposed upon them regardless of their beliefs.
Maybe one of you brilliant Darwinist would like to explain exactly how "natural selection", engineers mechanical systems, that far exceed any thing man has thus far invented! We could then, with super computers, artificially reproduce and speed up that process and create any thing we want or need.
@Leehofooks LOL, The multitude of mech. biological systems are so obvious. I figured your not understanding of what a "mech. sys." is, was less injurious to your I.Q. Mech. Sys. : "a system of elements that interact on mechanical principles " Mech Elements: " a lever, wheel and axle, pulley, inclined plane, wedge and screw. Like an "ear", "heart", "skeleton", etc. etc. etc.
@Howie47 Look, idiot - I know what a mechanical system is. It's funny that it took you this long to list "ear, heart and skeleton" when you claim that there are a "multitude." It's also funny that you think these systems are so incredibly complex and that you're personal incredulity is an argument against their evolution. I recommend Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish."
...but you'll probably just continue to close your eyes and plug your ears and repeat your mantra: "Too complex... Too complex..."
@Leehofooks What was so funny. Didn't I type fast enough. The whole of every biological body on earth is full of mech. sys. Did I Mention complex as an argument? Seems your the one stuck in a rut! So why did you ask me for a biological mech. system in the first place? Did you think I wouldn't know any?
I didn't even mention the flagellum. The most talked about one in the Evo Debate.
where you getting at some thing with actual merit. Or where you just passing gas?
@Howie47 "...that far exceed anything man has invented." Sounds like you're talking about complexity to me. And the bacterial flagellum? Really? You're going to beat that dead horse, after Kenneth Miller humiliated Behe on the witness stand? I'd refer you to Miller's "Only a Theory," but I doubt you're the reading type. In fact, now that I've seen a couple of your videos, I'd be surprised if you could pronounce "flagellum."
@Leehofooks Talk about beating dead horses! The Dover trial proved nothing. And K. Miller is a idiot. No I'm not suggesting complexity. All though it is a legitimate question. I'm pointing out "efficiency", (See my first question.) Biological functions are vastly more efficient then man's inventions. So why can't computers try random changes to systems to make them more efficient? Because it takes intelligent input to reach a desired goal.
@Howie47 (continued) Take a typical day: You probably drive to work, since the automobile (you know - one of man's inventions) moves a lot faster than any animal can run (even the one made in God's image!). You have to breathe constantly, and eat and drink now and then, and at the end of the day you sleep for - no, this can't be right... 8 hours? Hmm... this creature (intelligently designed in God's image) has to spend a third of its life unconscious? Wow. Doesn't sound too efficient to me.
@Leehofooks What a weird definition you assign to efficient! You seem to think, "Efficient means, practical application toward superior accomplishment"? That's not the definition used here, which should be obvious! Neither does speed have any thing to do with efficiency here! Efficiency here means, "economical use of fuel in relation to the (desired) function preformed." Your not up to this argument!
@Howie47 The first definition of "efficient" in the freedictionary is "Acting directly to produce an effect." How was it obvious that you meant energy efficiency? You're very vague. "Your not up to this argument!" Haha. You should proofread before trying condescend someone. Otherwise, you look like "a idiot."
Please (just so we're on the same page), explain -with some detail - how energy efficient the bacterial flagellum is, and why you think scientists should be able to recreate them.
@Leehofooks I don't need to bother to school you. But encase any one else is being fooled by your ignorance. "Acting directly to produce an effect", means " "energy efficiency"! The more direct the ratio of energy to effect. The less waisted energy. Brings us to your first error about mistaken complexity as my argument. Less complex designs that can solve the same problem are more efficient! Natural invention is more efficient then human ones.
@Howie47 You should do a Google search for "efficient definition." - "(of an action, tool etc) producing (quick and) satisfactory results" - "being effective without wasting time or effort or expense" - "Especially, making good use of time or energy" - "efficiency - skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort"
See? "Efficient" doesn't just refer to energy, or else we wouldn't tack "energy" in front of "efficiency" when that's what we mean.
@Howie47 If a three-year-old hands you a fingerpainting, and you don't know what the image is supposed to be, does that reflect negatively on your intelligence? Of course not. I'm not asking you to "school" me. I'm just asking for more clarity because I don't really know what you're trying to argue. That's your failure, not mine.
But I'm beginning to suspect I'm being Poe'd. ("A idiot?" "Encase?") And I watched a couple of your videos, too. ("Galakapos?") You can't be serious.
@Leehofooks I apologize for being mean spirited. In the words of G. Patton, "I thought if I slapped the boy it might instill a since of dignity back in him self, I now admit I was wrong in my actions, and for that I apologize".
What evolution explains is the development of complexity through Random mutation, random sexual drift and natural selection.
The maping tells how the evolution of our genome developed.
Change our genome to a chimps and notice the minor differense. Actually we have the exact same chromosomes, except our nr 2 which is a fusion of the chimps chromosomes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hi, evolution is not proven by DNA. True, similarity exists between species. The fossile record and irreducible complexity militate against evolution. Also, how do you explain self awareness? If all we are is matter, then how is it that we know we exist?
Sigh.. true creationist ignorance at full display. I doubt you know too much about evolution in reallity to even pospulate such a silly answer. The genetic mapping works in complete collaboration with the pattern of evolution, they support each other fully. A system like DNA was needed for Evolution to be functioning, DNA was a hypothesis required for evolution. DNA was found proving the hypothesis.
The fossil record supports evolution, what are you talking about?
what exactly are you trying to tell me here, i can only take it on authority that they are liek that but really i dont care, waht is it yor are tryign to rpove to me
i kniow that, but what im saying is at the moment all i can do is take it on faiht, just like you take it on faith that mutations and "selection" could produce the startling and mind boggling adaptions present in nature., i mean some of them actually make me laugh they are so amazing!!!
@zenithar6666 DNA proves evolution happened. Evolution is not based on faith, it has been observed. We don't know everthing yet but we know evolution happens.
Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas. Think about that.
by telling me that evolution happnes you are copping out, anyoen who think evolution does not happen has not researched, things change over time, thats evolution, its the mechanimss we simply dont know, far too much faith and unquestioned beleif has been put into natural selection and mutations, there is simply no evidence that they could produce say, the adaptions in the girrafes neck, the leaf insect, the human vocal cords or cochlea, step by step, no observable evidence, just faith,
see the problem is i do understand, and have many evolution books, and i am tired of reading speculation, show me the test to show that random mutations and natural selection(which is a tautology itself) can produce the above features, its pure faith, there is somethign else at work.
@Deadandlivin Sounds like your going off the deep end. Don't loose touch with sanity, "Dadandivid", What in the hell does that name mean? P.S. Vastly different species have the same or close to the same number of chromosomes. Often separated by splitting or fusion. It doesn't mean a carrot and man evolved from each other. Evolution is only in the eye of the beholder!
Irreducible complexity, I'm sorry but why do you feel that an argument from ignorance serve any justification whatsoever?
What this arguments tell is: "I personally dont understand how this system could have developed, so because of my stupidity or lack of imagination god must have done it."
To date there is no system in the human anatomy which is declared as irreducibly complex, all systems can be explained through evolution.
Self awareness is explained through the volume of our brain.
next the evolutionists/atheists will say...This guy is a nobody..but our scientists are good..It's futile arguing with ignorant people..They wouldn't belive in God with all the things created in front of their face..and god sitting in the center of the world in plain view..they would swear they ate some bad fish..Let them alone..they are helpless
next the evolutionists/atheists will say...This guy is a nobody..but our scientists are good..It's futile arguing with ignorant people..They wouldn't belive in God with all the things created in front of their face..and god sitting in the center of the world in plain view..they would swear they ate some bad fish..Let them alone..they are helpless
creationism is not a science... based on the fact that it's rooted in superstitious Bullshit! How arrogant of a primitive cult like christianity to say that they KNOW for a fact that god exists....based on what a collection of books and faith.
I have to be honest here, I usually find both theists and atheists to be completely simple minded.
This constant argument is about as useful as my left and right sides of the brain arguing. "I'm right! and you're wrong!" No, I'm correct, and you are incorrect!"
silly like faith in a all loving space god that will send you too hell ?
I'm sure your brain dead when it comes to reason because you don't even see the hypocrsy in your statement....you would be defending a mr. potato head doll if that's what you where brught up to belive in....
I'm sorry, did you just assume I believe in a 'all loving space God' and or 'mr. potato head doll' without me even suggesting I'm a theist, or did you just throw in a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with anything I said for some other un-implied reason? What the fuck do you think I believe in that has you saying things like this to me?
okay. the only thing this video really proves is that humans have a complicated genome. no one will refute that. evolutionary biologists study WHY. This video's answer (because god did it) is not sufficient. You fail
they don't study WHY, they study how. Why implies there was a reason, while how explains how it could have came about. This may contain some "why" considering natural selection, but the controversy isn't over natural selection also known as survival of the fittest, but arrival of the fittest.
what, even if the complexity of dna did make it less solid of a theory (which it actually stengthens it please stop being stupid and look it up) that doesn't mean its suport of a creator. Even if somehow we found out evolution was totaly untrue to jump from that to say that means god had to do it is totally unscientific and is why your people are not allowed into the scientific community. Because you freely express your ignorence everywhere.
that video did more to prove evolution then denie it. Saying there are mutations that have made us prone to desease is an example of evolution. If you don't know what im talking about im guessing u probably are a creationist or someone else that isn't eductated enough about this. If you are going to rant about how you don't think something is true it is wise to at least maybe pick up one book on the subject and find out some about it insted of showing how much of an ideot u r on the internet!
natural selection does not GIVE reproductive advatages; it SELECTS for them. It would be really nice if you could at least learn the theory before you say it's not true. Mutations are random and can be either bad, good or completely neutral for the organism. Those mutations that help the organism survive and reproduce will have an advantage and be far more likely to be pasted down from one generation to the next.
eeritated, how come we find different animals in different earthlayers? If animals don't evolve we should find the same animals in different layers. But we don't.
The scientific evidence shows life requires an architect...information has to have an intellect....once life exists, selection is not acceptable as a mechanism for macro changes because it can't write new code, and all observable evidence shows it never happened.....naturalism is a fairy tale.
Now lets forget about writing the first life for a moment, only after that first life is here can natural selection begin to work, so what does selection do??...it can preserve a trait (already written information) or a mutation (spelling error)...it can't write a new body plan....this is why a fruit fly will always be just a fruit fly and a dog will always be just a dog...macro evolution requires new code to be written, and selection can't, hasn't, and won't ever do that.
If the enviroment changes then so does the "bodyplan". That explains why whales have similar bone structure to land mammals and are not like fish. They are animals that went back to the water.
If a fruit fly can't change we should have no problems finding a fruit fly in the fossil record. Or a girafe or a cat or a horse or a lion or a etc. But we don't. Why is that?
That does not explain why somethings are similar, no more than it explains how a fork is similar to a spoon....similarity is just as evident of design as desxcent....Whales have always been whale type creatures....
and a lion is a cat, we do see horses and Giraffes, but they aren't what a paleontologist is looking for so they are discarded
Too funny too too funny. That's a lot of words that mean nothing tell you what I admit I was wrong Sergei Winogradsky didn't create life from chemicals in the 50's that's when he died he did it first in 1887. Now I don't expect everyone to read Science journals everyday but come on we proved magic man in sky no makie makie life and told you how it life came about even showed you over 120 freaking years ago. Oh yeah I'm a mutant you probably didn't know we existed ether.
darkenlight22 3 months ago
Nonsense.
scudder99 3 months ago
Let me break it down to you idiots. Take Chiwawa's and Great danes Both look totally different but both originated from mans selective breeding starting from the wolf not millions of years ago but recently. This is a undisputed fact. So we forced the wolves to evolve into every breed of dog we know today and to this day there are new breeds being made. You do know we have been able to create life from basic chemicals sense the 50's?
darkenlight22 4 months ago
@darkenlight22
Nobody disputes your first claim. But selective breeding has an element to it that natural selection lacks, human foresight. Also, many heavily selected dog breeds have much more frail genomes compared to their ancestors, and if you couldn't already tell, dogs are still dogs, no new features are emerging. So, poor example for what you are trying to prove. Also, life has never been produced from basic chemicals, simply read a book on origin of life and you'll see.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Abiogenesis isn't evolutuion--you can't seem to get that fact through your religious bias.
And you can't seem to define "new features" to any worthwhile degree....
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
The points I made were simple and easy to grasp. When your intellect reaches a 3rd grade level, come back and try again.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Name calling--the subject of so many of your whines, and yet your only skill.
When it comes to facts, you always run away from my superior firepower.
This is why your YEC never finds purchase in the real world....
Pauvre suddsy..
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
You've never demonstrated any fire power. Still waiting after all this time for you to grow a pair and put forth an intellectual argument. But I won't hold my breath troll.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I certainly shut you up on the subject of non-coding RNAs.
But then again, how hard was that going to be--you assert superstition in place of fact.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
No you didn't. I gave up because you just kept asking irrelevant questions and never made a point. Non-coding RNAs perform functions essential to gene expression. You claimed genes only code for proteins and that the rest of it was parasitic left over gene sequences that are meaningless to the gene expression of the organism. Isn't that pretty much it? So if you have a point of contention, make your point.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"I gave up..."
You sure did. But what you never were able to do is provide any evidence for the supernatural.
You would have learned so much had you answered those questions.
But you recognized that the conclusion that you were being inevitably led to were 180 degrees from superstition....
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
Seek help, and I mean that sincerely. If you want to make a point, or refute the points I made, feel free. Until that time, all you are doing is making an ass out of yourself.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I am refuting your points.
While you are calling people "ninny", I'm showing that the true ninny is the one who doesn't have any facts to demonstrate any validity to the superstition.
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Study the science you hate so much.
I mean that sincerely.
Your assertions of religious opinion aren't ever going to change the facts, and magical superstition has never turned out to be the answer to ANY question we've asked.
You seem to just be bitter that your political agenda is failing...
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Funny, I've refuted just about every assertion you've ever made.
That is pretty easy--you don't use facts in your arguments.....
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision You're the one that needs help, creatard. circusOFprecision owned you, but you're simply too damned stupid to know it.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 3 months ago
Macroevolution is NOT a fact and is actually just speculative NONSENSE that is NOT remotely "scientific" in ANY way. Its UNOBSERVED both in the fossil record and in present observation in nature and lab experiments. If Macroevolution existed then numerous "intermediary" species would exist between vastly different family classifications bridging the gaps between such families as the Feline family, Canine family, Reptile Family, etc.
And as stated before "microevolution" is NOT "evolution at all
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE If you are a molecular biologist, why do you rely on the fossil record so much for evidence?
lethalsub 5 months ago
The term Microevolution is a deceptive term since it is not "evolution" at all. Its a term used to describe the variations in size/color within a species that occur due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations. As the size of a specie's population increases, the genetic diversity within that population increases which causes the variations seen today. These variations NEVER cause drastic change since they dont have the ability to add large amounts of information to the genome
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
Lethalsub = TheGamanic = 4Funlayin
Its obvious due to how all 3 conveniently "troll" me at the same time and all conveniently are into gaming. Lethalsub is a gaming term.
All accounts are the same 19 year old KID.
buffboynick 5 months ago
and stating the NUMEROUS FLAWS in evolution is rather easy......
Out of all the theories on the origin of all bio-diversity here.....
Evolution is the LEAST plausible.
If I had to pick between ev-LIE-ution and aliens......I'd go with aliens (which I also dont believe, but it makes more sense then evolution)
By the way......Lethalsub is also 4FunPlaying (same person)
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I'll ask again.
What evidence do you have that I am 4FunPlayin and TheGamanic?
lethalsub 5 months ago
More proof the THEORY of evolution is GARBAGE
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE More evidence evoTARDSareINSANE is a creationist.
lethalsub 5 months ago
@lethalsub Eveotards is a youtube that goes by the name buffboynick. Is he a creationist ?YES But not in the sense that you may assume. He is an ALEIN creationist, he believes that aliens are responsible for all the biodiversity on earth, Which may be true to a point, but the problem is just like creation there is absolutely ZERO evidence or his retard position. He believes the most outlandish shit that Ive ever seen and states it as 100% fact. Go to his channel and you'll see bbn comments-click
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10 there's evidence of alien creationism! 100% fact is ridiculous....there's mountains of circumstantial evidence
tomcornhole 5 months ago
@jasason10 It took me about a day or so after spotting his name on the comments to realise his true identity, which is quite slow for me, I should have spotted it in a few minutes.
btw How long did it take you to spot this? What I cannot understand is why he acts in exactly the same manner whichever mask he is wearing, as if someone with half a brain cell won't notice.
lethalsub 5 months ago 2
@lethalsub Well I noticed it right away...See we were getting into it on his BBN Channel about evolution and so on. I think he got frustrated that there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for all the crazy shit that he believes in. All he has is word of mouth, IWetness testimony and some of his little "favorites" videos. And he knows this, so what he does is open up a new channel "EVOtardsareINSANE" To be a little child and bash evolution. He dosent want to post it on his BBN channel because Cont:
jasason10 5 months ago
Most the People that believe aliens intervened here on earth accept that evolution still happens and that it is the main source for biodiversity here on earth. Whats funny about it is that the so called "scientist on his precious 'Favorites" videos, accept evolution and believe in (seeding) so to speak. I think he is afraid that he will lose his alien "street cred" if he post his ignorance about evolution on his BBN channel. Basically he is a little fucking pussy bitch with no balls, lol haha
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10 You should hear his theory of gravitation...*&?+£@!
^*g*^
lethalsub 5 months ago 2
@jasason10
I clearly stated in past comments that I dont "believe" in aliens as my friend does.
I think what people think are aliens are possibly something else.
Also, why are you so paranoid? Get a grip KID
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@jasason10 = is a paranoid evoTROLL that thinks everyone that disagrees with him and his ape-man RELIGION is the same person
hahahaha!!!
BBN endorses Directed Panspermia and Intervention Theory
I am an OLD EARTH Creationist. I think that what people "believe" are aliens are in fact fallen angels/demons and NOT actual extraterrestrials.
BBN totally disagrees with that.
Me and him do agree that your little magical mutation RELIGION is total garbage though.
You're a DISGRACE to real science.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
I thought you were joking when you said that evoTROLL was claiming I was you, but I just read his stupidity for myself LOL.
Its amazing. Evolutionists are truly mentally ILL.
BTW, you're wrong on exogenesis and exogenic engineering. It actually makes MORE SENSE than both creationism and evolution.
But you're right on evolution, its total BULLSHIT
buffboynick 5 months ago
@buffboynick You're using the same terms, writing style, paragraph formatting, and sources. You also have the same profession (molecular bollocks, oops, biology). What evidence do you have that I am 4FunPlayin and TheGamanic?
lethalsub 5 months ago 2
@buffboynick WTF! Dude how old are you? You have been exposed! Time to come out of the closet ! lol You are not fooling anyone. It is soooooooooo fucking obvious it crazy! HAHAAHAHAHAHA. Evotards IS BBN!!! Everyone knows it!!
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10
Kid you couldnt "expose" your own nutsac let alone some non existent "conspiracy" that I have multiple accounts.
What BBN believes goes directly against creationism. You're a wacked out LOON
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I cant believe you are still trying to hide that you're not BBN! Are you fucking serious? Anyone with a half a brain can tell that it is the exact same channel with a different stupid ignorant name1)The Lay out is exactly the same 2) The side bar is exactly the same and the way the paragraphs are worded are exactly the same) Your "links" are exactly the same 4) The back ground is in the same layout just with different pictures 4) You troll all your favorites, shall I go on?
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10 cont:" First you have comment pending approval" pussy. Then you delieted my comments on your page and then disabled the comments section all together. I wanted to debate you on your stupid "side bar comments" on your new channel page and you pussed out... Then I simply asked you to apologize to your subs and admit to your viewers that you lied about your new channel. You did not post that?!?! Why?The funny thing is that it's not that big of a deal so why try to hide it? I know why...
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10 Because you do not know what to believe. You believe that there are 50 different races of aliens and that they are meeting with world leaders. Do you believe that there are buff blond hair favbeo humanoid aliens flying around in outer space? Do you believe that there is a civilization living on murcury? Do you believe in shape shifters and the chupacabra? Do you believe in giants? Do you believe that aliens are just fallen angels? Do you believe that its all a cover up? A conspiracy?
jasason10 5 months ago 2
@jasason10 = insane
BBN = separate person with separate beliefs
Me = only agree with him on what a FALLACY evolution is
Case Closed. Take your wild "conspiracy" theories and hit the bricks, haha!!!!
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@jasason10 = evoTROLL
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@jasason10
Being "paranoid" that I am another person doesnt help your case evo-BOY
Maybe all people on here that dont believe in the MYTH of evolution are "me" haha
Dude, seek help
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE HAHA And Im a Disgrace to science. Hey kid you need to stand back and step out of yourself for a second and look at all the outlandish shit that you believe in. I mean really. Really? And yet you dont believe in evolution? You must be really stupid. Or maybe your just looking for attention here on you tube because you were such a tool in high school or in life itself. STOP! Instead of your straw manning retarded arguments against TOE Please prove your hypothesis first. _TARD
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10
Number 1.....nowhere on my channel do I state what I "believe"
The only thing I am 100% certain of is that evolution is a LOAD of pure FAIRYTALE nonsense. There is ZERO evidence of macroevolution or abiogenesis
All "peer-reviewed" data supporting evolution ONLY refers to what evolutionists call "microevolution" (which is simply variations within species due to DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations). No macroevolution at all.
Uh oh, you got oh....oh.....OWNED ;)
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@jasason10
A recent MSNBC Poll stated that only 39% of the USA population "believes" in the fairytale of evolution.
You can look that up for yourself.
No one believes it because no "macroevolution" is occurring ANYWHERE on Earth.
No mutations capable of such drastic transitions have been observed.
Evolution = no evidence
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE
Wow, are those 2 evoTARDS still trolling?
hahaha, epic ownage man!!
buffboynick 5 months ago
@BBN Micro a macro evolution are terms that Creatards have made famous. Scientist dont use those terms when referring to evolution. You cant accept Micro evolution without excepting Macro evolution they both work off the same mechanism! THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS TIME SCALE!!! Your "Macroevolution" has been directly observed in the wild as well as in the lab.
Small mutations capable of small change accumulate on consecutive generations lead to big change_FACT
Why is that so hard for you?
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10
WRONG......
Number 1....the 1st person to coin the term "macroevolution" was an evolutionist__FACT
"The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution."
Direct Quote ^
Owned again evoTARD.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@jasason10
What evolutionists call "microevolution" isnt evolution at all. Its simply variations in color/size caused by DNA recombination in reproduction and neutral mutations. Those SMALL changes (which arent evolution but diversity among that species) are NOT evolution
Number 2, there are ZERO intermediary species in the fossil record showing macroevolutionary change.
Horses stay horses, Crabs stay crabs, plants stay plants, dogs stay dogs
There are no changes in "family" classification
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDS Dude what are you talking About? Did you copy this word for word from a creationist site? This is complete bullshit and you have know idea what you're talking about and/ or you dont understand what you wrote. Is a teacup chaulwa related to a great dane? That is the same species? Is a great dane related to the wolf? Is that the same species? Is the wolf related to the fox? Is that the same species? Is a fox related to a hyena? Is that the same species and so on. Do dog still stay dogs?
jasason10 5 months ago
@jasason10
I like how you're so STUPID that you didnt even know that the term "macroevolution" was coined by an EVOLUTIONIST__FACT
It took me 2 seconds to find that on Google.
Oh, you got BURNED ;)
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
DNA is now the best proof evolution happens.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz You are correct. ERVs, psuedogenes, cytochrome C, and much else, point to evolution.
ClamCrunchy 7 months ago
@ClamCrunchy WRONG!!! It Proves DNA is DESIGNED!!!! Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@ClamCrunchy Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Well, maybe, but that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Even if true, it wouldn't change the fact that evolution happened.
ClamCrunchy 5 months ago
@ClamCrunchy Yes it would you can't even get to evolution until you have the first cell. You have been indoctrinated to believe they have nothing to do with each other. You must have the first living thing in order for it to evolve!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Higher education is indoctrination?I'll be sure to drop out of school then, because obviously my professors don't know what they're talking about, and they're ignoring the amazing science that proves evolution is all wrong and God created everything.
ClamCrunchy 5 months ago
DNA is now the best evidence FOR Evolution. Sorry guys.
gregrutz 11 months ago
Jesus Christ is the tree of life!
joroma77 11 months ago
Even if the genome sequence in mankind were 99,9% similar to apes the complexity, order, 3D digital code, chemicals and organisms involved make random trial and error evolution impossible. We don't only have DNA for genes (physical features) but also error correcting code, spacers and more.
joroma77 11 months ago
@joroma77 ''sedimentary rock layers support the Flood'' No, it prove there was no flood.
1. Not all sedimentary rock is water born, some are wind blown sand or ash.
2. Floods don't make distinct layers.
3. Floods don't make different kinds of rocks.
4. there is no flood mud layer with all the dead bodies, floods don't sort fossils.
5. You can't get rid of 29,029 feet of water.
gregrutz 11 months ago
so are pig lol
lasboor2006 1 year ago
DNA proves evolution. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The Big Bang Theory HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION OF SPECIES
The decay of the magnetic field IT FLIPS, USED TO PROVE PLATE TECTONICS
Irreducible complexity NOTHING IS IRREDUCIBLE OR TOO COMPLEX
Radioactive dating of rocks IT WORKS QUITE WELL, SO DOES CARBON 14 DATING
The fossil record IS WHAT EVOLUTION EXPLAINS, CREATIONIST DENY THEM
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Evolution of species, i.e. variation within a kind, is not evolution between kinds. Check Kent Hovind et al questioning of magnetic reversals. Your next point is just an empty statement of faith. We have NO IDEA how well radioactive dating works for millions of years, it's all assumptions. C14 levels vary over time so short term dating also has major flaws. The fossil record is not as sequential as mainstream books make it seem, and sedimentary rock layers support the Flood.
joroma77 11 months ago
@joroma77 1. Evolution is Origin of species. There are no 'kinds'. Humans are still Apes.
2. Kent Hovind is in jail for fraud, I don't think I will trust him.
3. Kent thinks he can prove every scientist in the world wrong, he is a dumb school teacher.
4.You have no idea how dating methods work, scientists understand it very well. No assumptions.
5.C14 works very well for thing less than 60,000 years old.
6. The fossil record is all sequential, no bunny fossils in the Cambrian Period.
gregrutz 11 months ago
Very Nice, I really like the last part. The complexity of DNA mechanisms really is unparalleled. All the repair systems, the actual replication, and even the protein synthesis are soo ingenious... Oh my.. THere is a God.. Praise Jesus :)
nottobigdudeguy 1 year ago
@nottobigdudeguy DNA is the best evidence for Evolution. It's tree of life is the same as Darwin's tree of life.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz SO we grasp a tiny fraction of the magnitude to God's amazing working in us. In other words, the DNA system is soo sophisticated that we can never replicate such a masterpiece. Because we understand a few components of DNA, we wanna assume that it came from some origin cell.And that the cell just somehow became alive. What's worst, is that the cell emerged from a large rock that emerged from the explosion of emptyness. Much love though.I say dis wit no malice. I wanna c u all blessed.
nottobigdudeguy 11 months ago
@nottobigdudeguy The markers on DNA could only be there if we evolved. The Code shows who are our closest reletives. No one says a cell came from a rock the came from an explosion. Creationist propaganda.
The nuclear reactions in the center of the sun are complex so I worship the sun god, Ra. Ra is amazing.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz That explains why you are so eager to destroy people's faith in the one true God which is Jesus. Jesus will always be God; nothing can change that. I did a few courses in genetics and that statement about markers doesn't make any sense because a marker is a gene. More importantly, suns in the different galaxies collapse just like baal. I'd pray that you change bro because you need to know the truth. This is bigger than the comment post that we make back and forth.
nottobigdudeguy 11 months ago
@nottobigdudeguy If you were born in the middle east it would be the one true God, Allah. Why?
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz If I was born in the middle east, it would still be the one true God Jesus... Love bro. I don't wanna argue truth. The truth will stand on it's own. If you (or anyone) desire the things of Christ, inbox me and we would talk. Love and peace.
nottobigdudeguy 10 months ago
@nottobigdudeguy The people in the middle east are muslim and don't believe jesus was god.
And why do you think you know the truth.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz You are not asking that question with genuine sincerity. You are just asking to feul the debate. You see, christianity is based on faith. You are asking me for an hypothesis, someting that I can prove in a lab. But christianity has always been about a relationship with Jesus(Our Heavenly Father). If you were living with your parents for 25 years, I can't be over here (miles away) and ask you if you are sure that your parents are really your parents. More importantly, Jesus is the truth
nottobigdudeguy 10 months ago
@nottobigdudeguy Sorry, I was talking about the video and biology, you keep changing the topic to Chriatianity. Sorry if science keeps discovering things that prove the bible wrong.
gregrutz 10 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nottobigdudeguy ...As an analogy, this would be like a baby left out in the desert without anybody else to depend upon. How would the baby learn to change its own diaper before dying of heat exposure? The answer is that it can't. Neither can the DNA molecule evolve its own repair process before it has evolved sufficiently to mutate the function for even the most rudimentary repair process. Evolution takes millions of years.
Challagar 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nottobigdudeguy ...DNA would have returned to its constituent molecules long before this time...not in a matter of years or even days, but a matter of hours.
Challagar 11 months ago
@gregrutz Tell me, if you can, how does the repair process of the DNA molecule come from the very code that had to evolve over tiny increments of change? The DNA molecule is not stable, it needs constant repair, not just daily, but minute by minute. Since this is the case, without the repair process fully in place, the DNA would degrade rapidly...so rapidly that the repair process could never have evolved.......
Challagar 11 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
Comment removed
Challagar 11 months ago
My brother and sisters, none look alike, it would seem easier to pick up differences in common groups. I wonder about the data collection method.
Gregarious3 1 year ago
Pure Tripe
christoph2005 1 year ago
You guys are so pittiful, you now come up with a creationist support for gentics and dna and genome, you might as well just come up with some kind of excuse for evolution that is where you heading with this.
coulette4u 1 year ago
@coulette4u No your pittiful. Go follow your religion of evolution...LITTLE SHEEP!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
DNA Proves evolution happened ! LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
No DNA proves the absolute complexity of life. That life was designed by intelligence, NOT blind random chance.. LISTEN to 10.25
They say that mutations cause defective genes and thus evolutions via random mutations is BS..
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 strawman argument.
Evolution does not happen 'via random mutations'
Try Natural Selection
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz If you did BIOLOGY you would know that natural selection doesn't acount for evolution, without mutations.... DNA how does it change outside of its predeterimined characteristics...Err, Mutation... lol
Yet mutations are KNOWN to be detrimental...hmm
Calling something "strawman" when you do not have any idea of the concept behind what you are talking about really doesn't cut it. I have just proven you wrong... with supposedly "strawman" arguements...lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 WRONG. Evolution has been accepted for 150 years, ever since Darwin dicovered Natural Selection, which works fine.
And he proved evolution happened without even knowing about DNA or mutations, because he proved the variation is already there.
What has more mutations, a big wolf or a little wolf?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Natural selection still requires random mutations bro... Much love
nottobigdudeguy 11 months ago
@Gilbertus1986 ID lost in court because it was proven to be religion = bible story
gregrutz 1 year ago
Lol, and somehow you idiots think that what you believe has anything to do whith what is real. It doenst matter if hes a christian or a muslim, or if galileo was an atheist, etc. Reality imposed upon them regardless of their beliefs.
Vildasnaga 1 year ago
Maybe one of you brilliant Darwinist would like to explain exactly how "natural selection", engineers mechanical systems, that far exceed any thing man has thus far invented! We could then, with super computers, artificially reproduce and speed up that process and create any thing we want or need.
Howie47 2 years ago
@Howie47 What "mechanical systems" are you talking about?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks You really don't know what a mechanical system is? Go figure.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 I obviously wasn't asking you what a mechanical system was, you moron. I was asking for some examples.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks LOL, The multitude of mech. biological systems are so obvious. I figured your not understanding of what a "mech. sys." is, was less injurious to your I.Q. Mech. Sys. : "a system of elements that interact on mechanical principles " Mech Elements: " a lever, wheel and axle, pulley, inclined plane, wedge and screw. Like an "ear", "heart", "skeleton", etc. etc. etc.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Look, idiot - I know what a mechanical system is. It's funny that it took you this long to list "ear, heart and skeleton" when you claim that there are a "multitude." It's also funny that you think these systems are so incredibly complex and that you're personal incredulity is an argument against their evolution. I recommend Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish."
...but you'll probably just continue to close your eyes and plug your ears and repeat your mantra: "Too complex... Too complex..."
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks What was so funny. Didn't I type fast enough. The whole of every biological body on earth is full of mech. sys. Did I Mention complex as an argument? Seems your the one stuck in a rut! So why did you ask me for a biological mech. system in the first place? Did you think I wouldn't know any?
I didn't even mention the flagellum. The most talked about one in the Evo Debate.
where you getting at some thing with actual merit. Or where you just passing gas?
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 "...that far exceed anything man has invented." Sounds like you're talking about complexity to me. And the bacterial flagellum? Really? You're going to beat that dead horse, after Kenneth Miller humiliated Behe on the witness stand? I'd refer you to Miller's "Only a Theory," but I doubt you're the reading type. In fact, now that I've seen a couple of your videos, I'd be surprised if you could pronounce "flagellum."
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Talk about beating dead horses! The Dover trial proved nothing. And K. Miller is a idiot. No I'm not suggesting complexity. All though it is a legitimate question. I'm pointing out "efficiency", (See my first question.) Biological functions are vastly more efficient then man's inventions. So why can't computers try random changes to systems to make them more efficient? Because it takes intelligent input to reach a desired goal.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 The Dover trial proved nothing? You should take that up with Judge Jones, who concluded that ID is "not science."
"K. Miller is a [sic] idiot" Hahaha. That's funny. So is your assertion that biological functions are "vastly more efficient than man's inventions."
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Howie47 (continued) Take a typical day: You probably drive to work, since the automobile (you know - one of man's inventions) moves a lot faster than any animal can run (even the one made in God's image!). You have to breathe constantly, and eat and drink now and then, and at the end of the day you sleep for - no, this can't be right... 8 hours? Hmm... this creature (intelligently designed in God's image) has to spend a third of its life unconscious? Wow. Doesn't sound too efficient to me.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks What a weird definition you assign to efficient! You seem to think, "Efficient means, practical application toward superior accomplishment"? That's not the definition used here, which should be obvious! Neither does speed have any thing to do with efficiency here! Efficiency here means, "economical use of fuel in relation to the (desired) function preformed." Your not up to this argument!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 The first definition of "efficient" in the freedictionary is "Acting directly to produce an effect." How was it obvious that you meant energy efficiency? You're very vague. "Your not up to this argument!" Haha. You should proofread before trying condescend someone. Otherwise, you look like "a idiot."
Please (just so we're on the same page), explain -with some detail - how energy efficient the bacterial flagellum is, and why you think scientists should be able to recreate them.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks I don't need to bother to school you. But encase any one else is being fooled by your ignorance. "Acting directly to produce an effect", means " "energy efficiency"! The more direct the ratio of energy to effect. The less waisted energy. Brings us to your first error about mistaken complexity as my argument. Less complex designs that can solve the same problem are more efficient! Natural invention is more efficient then human ones.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 You should do a Google search for "efficient definition." - "(of an action, tool etc) producing (quick and) satisfactory results" - "being effective without wasting time or effort or expense" - "Especially, making good use of time or energy" - "efficiency - skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort"
See? "Efficient" doesn't just refer to energy, or else we wouldn't tack "energy" in front of "efficiency" when that's what we mean.
You know, "encase" (haha!) you didn't know.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Howie47 If a three-year-old hands you a fingerpainting, and you don't know what the image is supposed to be, does that reflect negatively on your intelligence? Of course not. I'm not asking you to "school" me. I'm just asking for more clarity because I don't really know what you're trying to argue. That's your failure, not mine.
But I'm beginning to suspect I'm being Poe'd. ("A idiot?" "Encase?") And I watched a couple of your videos, too. ("Galakapos?") You can't be serious.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks I apologize for being mean spirited. In the words of G. Patton, "I thought if I slapped the boy it might instill a since of dignity back in him self, I now admit I was wrong in my actions, and for that I apologize".
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 What a nice little tidbit of red herring. Is that what you do when your argument fails to make any sense?
Leehofooks 1 year ago
It's funny how the Genome proves evolution.
What evolution explains is the development of complexity through Random mutation, random sexual drift and natural selection.
The maping tells how the evolution of our genome developed.
Change our genome to a chimps and notice the minor differense. Actually we have the exact same chromosomes, except our nr 2 which is a fusion of the chimps chromosomes.
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hi, evolution is not proven by DNA. True, similarity exists between species. The fossile record and irreducible complexity militate against evolution. Also, how do you explain self awareness? If all we are is matter, then how is it that we know we exist?
bonajab 2 years ago
Sigh.. true creationist ignorance at full display. I doubt you know too much about evolution in reallity to even pospulate such a silly answer. The genetic mapping works in complete collaboration with the pattern of evolution, they support each other fully. A system like DNA was needed for Evolution to be functioning, DNA was a hypothesis required for evolution. DNA was found proving the hypothesis.
The fossil record supports evolution, what are you talking about?
Deadandlivin 2 years ago 2
@Deadandlivin WTF? They are scientists dude.. How can they be ignorant? They are the ones getting the evidence...
Who are you?... Just a guy on the internet.... Perhaps you are ignorant...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
No, if they were real scientists, they would accept evolution,
99.98% do.
gregrutz 1 year ago
define evolution
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils.
No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.
No dating method used
Read 'Origin of Species'
gregrutz 1 year ago
what exactly are you trying to tell me here, i can only take it on authority that they are liek that but really i dont care, waht is it yor are tryign to rpove to me
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 NO, you could go look yourself.
gregrutz 1 year ago
i kniow that, but what im saying is at the moment all i can do is take it on faiht, just like you take it on faith that mutations and "selection" could produce the startling and mind boggling adaptions present in nature., i mean some of them actually make me laugh they are so amazing!!!
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 DNA proves evolution happened. Evolution is not based on faith, it has been observed. We don't know everthing yet but we know evolution happens.
Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas. Think about that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
by telling me that evolution happnes you are copping out, anyoen who think evolution does not happen has not researched, things change over time, thats evolution, its the mechanimss we simply dont know, far too much faith and unquestioned beleif has been put into natural selection and mutations, there is simply no evidence that they could produce say, the adaptions in the girrafes neck, the leaf insect, the human vocal cords or cochlea, step by step, no observable evidence, just faith,
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 So do you have a better theory to show how evolution happens?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 ''all i can do is take it on faiht'' Try reading a Biology book if you don't understand.
gregrutz 1 year ago
see the problem is i do understand, and have many evolution books, and i am tired of reading speculation, show me the test to show that random mutations and natural selection(which is a tautology itself) can produce the above features, its pure faith, there is somethign else at work.
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@Deadandlivin Sounds like your going off the deep end. Don't loose touch with sanity, "Dadandivid", What in the hell does that name mean? P.S. Vastly different species have the same or close to the same number of chromosomes. Often separated by splitting or fusion. It doesn't mean a carrot and man evolved from each other. Evolution is only in the eye of the beholder!
Howie47 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity, I'm sorry but why do you feel that an argument from ignorance serve any justification whatsoever?
What this arguments tell is: "I personally dont understand how this system could have developed, so because of my stupidity or lack of imagination god must have done it."
To date there is no system in the human anatomy which is declared as irreducibly complex, all systems can be explained through evolution.
Self awareness is explained through the volume of our brain.
Deadandlivin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
next the evolutionists/atheists will say...This guy is a nobody..but our scientists are good..It's futile arguing with ignorant people..They wouldn't belive in God with all the things created in front of their face..and god sitting in the center of the world in plain view..they would swear they ate some bad fish..Let them alone..they are helpless
Hisson82 2 years ago
next the evolutionists/atheists will say...This guy is a nobody..but our scientists are good..It's futile arguing with ignorant people..They wouldn't belive in God with all the things created in front of their face..and god sitting in the center of the world in plain view..they would swear they ate some bad fish..Let them alone..they are helpless
Hisson82 2 years ago
It must being killing faith haters* to see how awsome Collins is doing.
* Not all atheists are faith haters and a small amount of faith haters aren't atheists.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
If you mean losing in the sense that the guy in a distant last place in a race says "I'm losing them" then yes
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
creationism is not a science... based on the fact that it's rooted in superstitious Bullshit! How arrogant of a primitive cult like christianity to say that they KNOW for a fact that god exists....based on what a collection of books and faith.
logical0evolution 2 years ago
creationists believe in talking serpents and a jealous space god...FACT is far from their reality.
logical0evolution 2 years ago
Comment removed
sek3009 2 years ago
Comment removed
datzfast 2 years ago
get real....
logical0evolution 2 years ago
ah fuck i used this bullshit as a source in my science assignment without watching it. what a load of shit. ah well
liquidfacial 2 years ago
fail? yes fail
staledoughnuts1 2 years ago
I have to be honest here, I usually find both theists and atheists to be completely simple minded.
This constant argument is about as useful as my left and right sides of the brain arguing. "I'm right! and you're wrong!" No, I'm correct, and you are incorrect!"
Silly humans.
VegetoStevieD 2 years ago 2
silly like faith in a all loving space god that will send you too hell ?
I'm sure your brain dead when it comes to reason because you don't even see the hypocrsy in your statement....you would be defending a mr. potato head doll if that's what you where brught up to belive in....
logical0evolution 2 years ago
stop hating the god you say is not real thats bat shit crazy. you need therapy
you have created this in your own mind
go get help
datzfast 2 years ago
I'm sorry, did you just assume I believe in a 'all loving space God' and or 'mr. potato head doll' without me even suggesting I'm a theist, or did you just throw in a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with anything I said for some other un-implied reason? What the fuck do you think I believe in that has you saying things like this to me?
VegetoStevieD 2 years ago
i laugh in god's even if he did exist! Evolution works on its own by overlapping genes.
airrocker001 3 years ago
fail.
PsiShade 2 years ago
okay. the only thing this video really proves is that humans have a complicated genome. no one will refute that. evolutionary biologists study WHY. This video's answer (because god did it) is not sufficient. You fail
LovesBoyswithBoys 3 years ago
they don't study WHY, they study how. Why implies there was a reason, while how explains how it could have came about. This may contain some "why" considering natural selection, but the controversy isn't over natural selection also known as survival of the fittest, but arrival of the fittest.
RogaJam 2 years ago
But true, this only shows the complexity of the genome, nothing more.
RogaJam 2 years ago
claiming that genetics doesnt support evolution is tantamount to ignorance, denial or mental illness
TheProf1988 3 years ago
evolution refers to a change in allele frequency over generations. It is a process, and as such a fact. This is not a complicated concept.
scienceguy22 3 years ago
Why do people debate this issuse so much, lets just wait for a couple of million years and see what happens.
(out of interest which god are you claiming created the genome Zeus or Neptune?)
renegade172 3 years ago
This made no sense.
Your using the evidences for evolution from a christian scientist who accepts evolution to prove a literal interpretation of the bible.
Very confusing.
BkNy02 3 years ago
what, even if the complexity of dna did make it less solid of a theory (which it actually stengthens it please stop being stupid and look it up) that doesn't mean its suport of a creator. Even if somehow we found out evolution was totaly untrue to jump from that to say that means god had to do it is totally unscientific and is why your people are not allowed into the scientific community. Because you freely express your ignorence everywhere.
IllegalAlien1 3 years ago
that video did more to prove evolution then denie it. Saying there are mutations that have made us prone to desease is an example of evolution. If you don't know what im talking about im guessing u probably are a creationist or someone else that isn't eductated enough about this. If you are going to rant about how you don't think something is true it is wise to at least maybe pick up one book on the subject and find out some about it insted of showing how much of an ideot u r on the internet!
IllegalAlien1 3 years ago
I thought evolution was survival by natural selections which give reproductive advantage?
so to you evolution is mutations for disease?
amazing we are here then eh?
sojoyful 3 years ago
natural selection does not GIVE reproductive advatages; it SELECTS for them. It would be really nice if you could at least learn the theory before you say it's not true. Mutations are random and can be either bad, good or completely neutral for the organism. Those mutations that help the organism survive and reproduce will have an advantage and be far more likely to be pasted down from one generation to the next.
LovesBoyswithBoys 3 years ago
so god is responsible for even evolution and ...everything that science can throw at it.
but i think its true that "a theory that explains everything in effect explains nothing".
or
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. (H. L. Mencken)
mlagueux 3 years ago
Good, until i heard the word God.
DJLorenzen 3 years ago
eeritated, how come we find different animals in different earthlayers? If animals don't evolve we should find the same animals in different layers. But we don't.
tomaselvis 3 years ago
The scientific evidence shows life requires an architect...information has to have an intellect....once life exists, selection is not acceptable as a mechanism for macro changes because it can't write new code, and all observable evidence shows it never happened.....naturalism is a fairy tale.
eeritated 3 years ago
What is your definition of information?
tomaselvis 3 years ago
Now lets forget about writing the first life for a moment, only after that first life is here can natural selection begin to work, so what does selection do??...it can preserve a trait (already written information) or a mutation (spelling error)...it can't write a new body plan....this is why a fruit fly will always be just a fruit fly and a dog will always be just a dog...macro evolution requires new code to be written, and selection can't, hasn't, and won't ever do that.
eeritated 3 years ago
If the enviroment changes then so does the "bodyplan". That explains why whales have similar bone structure to land mammals and are not like fish. They are animals that went back to the water.
If a fruit fly can't change we should have no problems finding a fruit fly in the fossil record. Or a girafe or a cat or a horse or a lion or a etc. But we don't. Why is that?
tomaselvis 3 years ago
That does not explain why somethings are similar, no more than it explains how a fork is similar to a spoon....similarity is just as evident of design as desxcent....Whales have always been whale type creatures....
and a lion is a cat, we do see horses and Giraffes, but they aren't what a paleontologist is looking for so they are discarded
eeritated 3 years ago
But whales have the same bonestructure as land mammals. How is that? How come they aren't like other fish?
tomaselvis 3 years ago
But whales have the same bonestructure as land mammals. How is that? How come they aren't like other fish?
tomaselvis 3 years ago