so, im not a racist, im just a scientist? blacks and chinks are infact just a diff. speicies and i can keep one in my garden and walk him with my dog? ok... :P
I can give you evolution in one second: FAIL! And there you have it.
Anybody who wants to believe this lie, wants to have a good excuse to not believe in a Creator, God Almighty, but would rather believe in a false theory that is astronomically at odds against truth. In other words, it takes billions/trillions times more faith to believe in evolution than creation.. "Evilution" is not only flat out wrong, but is completely impossible.. Please watch Walter Veith's evolution videos..
@Lulu4Him - I'm sorry to say, but you are simply wrong. Maybe you could try and get educated, read some good biology textbooks? You know, books by... scientists. Not ignorant loonies who have "opinions" about evolution. I have been discussing evolution with creationists over the internet for more than a year. None of them ever brought up anything remotely sounding like an intelligent, educated argument. Will you be the first one to succeed, or will I just laugh my head off like every other time?
Why is there music drowning you out?! Is evolution not interesting enough? Is the music supposed to keep me entertained while the science sneaks in? Well I cant hear the science!
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
is it possible for natural selection to be the only thing that causes evolution? Mutation and genetic drift are a concept that is hard for me to grasp
@joeybonesgnarly i think genetic drift is kinda like say a fish and a bird was to mate and outcomes a dog. lol but over time that dog starts to turn into a horse :P and natural selection is wen animals n certain areas reproduce faster then 1 in another i know im wrong so donr pay no mind lol
@joeybonesgnarly Mutation is a requirement for natural selection to take place; if all parents and offspring are entirely genetically identical (effectively exact clones of each other) then there is no way for natural selection to act on that population.
Evolution by natural selection can occur without genetic drift, but natural selection is not the only mechanism that acts on evolution and consequently using the definition for natural selection to define evolution is not entirely correct.
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
@daogdaog You, my friend, have been listening a lot of creationist propaganda. Of course there is evidence for all of those things, just use google, and stay away from creationist sites because they spread misinformation. You don't even have a simple understanding of how evolution works! It is not fusion of two species into one, it is the very oposite-the formation of two species from one specie, NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The proces is called speciation, google it. KNOWLEDGE OVER SUPERSTITION!
Your absolutely wrong. Natural selection is not a development process, & thus your claim that natural selection makes evolution a non-random process is false. Natural selection has no effect upon the other processes. Natural selection is a selection process, its not a creative process only recreative. For natural selection to be a development process it would have to be a creative process (that is a process which brings something new into existence).
@ThomasWinkworth I meant it forces change. By that i meant in a way forces the species to adapt or be exterminated. But when i thought it over once again i realized i'm wrong, it doesn't force change rather filters out the ones who don't change lol. I sounded stupid but english is not my first language. :)
@Pentagon1311 Oh i see, yeah, i would agree in both situations, if a selective pressure is present amongst an organism that gene pool is most likely going to be lost, i totally agree. Thanks for the comments.
actually, u are wrong..natural selection is a weeding out process. natural selection unconsciously, and indirectly "sculpts" life to survive more efficiently. it removes the bad traits and leaves only the traits that aid in survival, or are neutral. over time, populations will become more and more suited to their environment as inefficient traits are weeded out. this is an inherently non-random process. the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident.
@itzahazylife I believe that your proprosition "the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident" is false.
By "indirectly sculpts" i assume you mean that natural selection works with what it has got rather than spares a gene detrimental to survival which could later be extremely beneficial. If that is the case, if that is what you meant by "indirectly sculpts" then what's your problem with my previous comment?
My previous comment does not contradict yours in any way shape or form.
you're right in the sense that natural selection isn't an inherently creative process. but it does, by weeding out the detrimental traits, refines organisms to be more and more suited to their environment..natural selection is basically like a chisel that chips away at all the bad traits and leaves what's best. natural selection is the main reason why organisms are suited to their environment. does it design life? somewhat, in an indirect fashion.
u said: "I believe that your proprosition "the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident" is false."
i figured what u meant by that is that u believe our traits ARE an accident, and therefore random.
and yes, it selects from the different forms and traits that dna creates. but, i still see natural selection as part of the design process..it takes the raw material dna replication creates, and molds and refines those forms and traits.
@itzahazylife What i meant by that is that i do not believe that humans have a common ancestor.
I wouldn't say Natural Selection designs at all, if anything it's a destructive process. It lacks the ability to look ahead into the future and say "wow, eventhough this trait is not very helpful to this organisms survival in the present, in the future it could be extremely beneficial".
Natural selection just looks at the present, instead of planning ahead, which by definition is design.
u bring up an interesting point..natural selection is a refining process at all times during the present moment. it always selects for traits based on the currently existing environment. we exist right now, because as of now, our traits aid in our survival. but, u are right how it can also be destructive. since it could snuff out traits that WOULD be beneficial in the future, in order to aid in survival according to the environment as it presently exists.
of course it doesn't directly mold and refine. it does so indirectly generation after generation by snuffing out detrimental traits. over time, the beneficial traits become more dominant. i guess i can just say that it doesn't design. i'm turning it into a matter of semantics..i'll just call it a refining process, not a creative process.
but,i disagree when u say it isn't non-random, hence the name natural SELECTION. like for example,it's no accident that animals have certain traits. those traits are there for a reason..because they worked. what works is sometimes based on chance, but most of the time, it's predictable..like,certain animals don't just live in trees because they randomly happened to end up in trees. they end up in trees because the ones not in trees,get attacked and killed. their environment "selects" the traits.
@itzahazylife I didn't say that Natural selection is a random process, i said that Natural Selection has no effect upon the development of an organism therefore Natural Selection does not make evolution a non-random process. I agree with everything you've said, but i would disagree with your statement that "Natural Selection indirectly designs life". I'm not to sure what you mean by that but Natural Selection doesn't design life, it selects from a design using selective pressures.
your point was: what helps as of now will be kept,but what is kept now, may end up being harmful in the future..but, in the big picture,natural selection is never destructive.. it may be for individuals, but a population as a whole, is always being refined, since the weak members are always being weeded out..99% of the population can be destroyed, but as long as 1% survives because of advantageous traits, the population has been refined to be suited to the present environment.
@itzahazylife Natural selection is destructive because it uses selective pressures to select yet has absolutely no control over selective pressure. Yes, Natural Selection is a scuplting process, whereby clay is being removing, but Natural Selection fails to comprehend that the scuplture is being heavily eroded by the constantly changing selective pressures, and so instead of refining a lump of clay into a beautiful sculpture it's simply removing until there's nothing left to select.
natural selection isn't the cause of destruction though..nature itself provides the destruction. natural selection is a process within nature that picks out which traits can aid in surviving the destructiveness OF nature..if everything goes extinct from an asteroid, we can't say that natural selection destroyed everything. the asteroid would have destroyed everything.
it all pertains to the present..natural selection keeps what's good for the present..this will sustain survival into the future, until the environment changes drastically enough..and like u said, sometimes what aided survival before, will cause the opposite in the future..but, sometimes, what aided in survival before, may aid in survival even more after the drastic change occurs..it really isn't inherently destructive or progressive. it merely keeps what works now.
@itzahazylife The survival of a species where selective pressures are changing has to do with whether or not a species has a specific trait which will help it survive in a new or different environment. And because of this the reason a species has survived is not because of natural selection but because of a lack of change in selective pressures. The point to remeber is that those specific traits beneficial for survival do not come from natural selection. And that is why evolution is random.
traits arise via dna/random mutation, yes. and yes, the change of the environment is random. but, which traits are kept and lost (natural selection) is non-random. it's predictable. it follows a pattern.
for eg: say there are rabbits as the prey and wolves as the predator in northern canada. white rabbits, black rabbits, and brown rabbits make up the local rabbit population. it's not random or an accident that over time, white rabbits will start to dominate the population.
there wouldn't be anything left to select because of the asteroid..natural selection would be non existent in such a situation..but, if there was life that survived, it would pass on the genes that allowed it to survive the catastrophe..those genes would then become dominant in the next generations..this would mean that natural selection would have went to work, and would have refined the current population to be suited to the current state of the environment..
@itzahazylife Yes, but it selects the beneficial traits, by destroying other functioning traits, which could be beneficial again within a short period of time.
A animal loses it's ability to breath underwater, then there's a small local flood. A whole species is wiped out. What process is to blame? Natural selection, for destroying the organisms ability to breath underwater, and thus destroying the entire species.
that's true..that's a specific example of how blind beneficial selection for the present, can have detrimental results in the future..but, here's the thing..the only reason the animals in your example existed in the first place, was because of natural selection. they were selected for at some point. the same process that selected for their existence, caused their demise. it's somewhat paradoxical..
now sure, genetic drift has a strong driving force too..some organisms just get lucky, or some unlucky..but, natural selection is inherently non-random. so, evolution can be driven by randomness, or it can be predictable. if the situation in my example was left alone, white rabbits would without a doubt gradually dominate the population. but then again some crazed wolf hunter could randomly kill all the wolves, and for some reason later on, black rabbits end up dominating.
so, evolution in general, is both random AND non random..it has both random and non-random driving forces..but, natural selection on its own, is an inherently non-random selection process.
@itzahazylife Natural selection is the only part of evolution which is non-random.
If evolution by definition is the development of an organisms functionality then natural selection is not even part of evolution.
If the defintiion of evolution is the development of an organisms ability to survive in a specific environment, then yes natural selection is part of evolution. But even in such a case as that, natural selection can only eradicate those functions which are harmful, it cannot create.
i say natural selection creates..dna creates the organism, random mutations during dna replication creates variation, and natural selection determines which variations are passed on..the next generations become more and more refined to survive in their environment..which gradually creates more efficient populations..natural selection is directly responsible for the efficiency of populations.
it creates more efficient populations over time by destroying individuals within the population..u have to remember that individuals don't evolve..populations do. so, the evolution of the population is driven by nature snuffing out the unfit individuals..this in essence, creates population efficiency.
@itzahazylife Natural Selection doesn't create, you went on to explain this yourself straight after asserting this proposition. It's disputable as to whether random mutations create new function, but let's assume they do, you said "Natural Selection determines which mutations are passed on", and how does it determine? by completely destroying the gene pool... That isn't creating that's destroying what has just been randomly generated.
chimps and humans both share thousands of different erv's..and each one is in the same exact locations along both chimp and human chromosomes..this overwhelmingly indicates that chimps and humans both inherited these erv's from a common ancestor from which we both branched..if not that, then these viruses happened to randomly infect the exact same portions of both chimp and human chromosomes, thousands of different times..which is staggeringly unlikely.
@itzahazylife Because to first accept that similarites in design are due to having a common ancestory i would first have to accept that there is a undirected process by which parts purposefully arrange themselves. As i've already said Natural selection does not arrange, it removes what has been arranged, neither do Random Mutations, hence "Random".
Why do you believe that the similarities between apes and humans are due to a common ancestory and not due to a common designer?
it doesn't imply a designer, because why would an intelligent designer insert viruses into our dna so we end up passing them on to the next generations?..it obviously wouldn't..viruses don't end up in our dna via a designer, they infect our chromosomes in the natural environment. the fact that we share ERV's with chimps, implies a shared inheritance, not a common design. it implies that we both inherited the ERV's from a single common ancestor.
parts don't purposefully arrange themselves..the building of biological parts is random..the selection of them isn't random. the selection is directly based on survivability. genes that work, are kept, and those that don't, are lost..this is precisely how natural selection may destroy individuals, or several individuals, but, the collective present population, is always in the process of being refined, since whatever works now, is kept.
yes, i said it's a refinement process, not a creative process..but, i take that back. after thinking about it, by refining, it's actually creating..what exactly is it creating?..more refined populations over time. without natural selection, gradual population refinement doesn't happen.
dna replication creates proteins (life)
random mutations during dna replication creates variation.
and natural selection creates more refined populations over time.
also, i remember reading that u don't believe in common ancestry..i'm curious as to why..there's overwhelming evidence for it..endogenous retro viruses essentially prove common ancestry..erv's infect chromosomes. they go dormant and leave their mark in that specific chromosome. the erv is then passed onto the offspring during reproduction..the erv in the offspring would then be in the exact same location along the same chromosome as the parent.. (cont..)
most importantly dna replicates. so,whatever works, survives,and is free to copy itself. as long as it keeps working in the environment, it will slowly dominate the population if uncontested by something else..this is why competition plays such a big role in evolution. every now and then a new gene arises, and if it works, it's passed on..after a very long time, this simple process, will accumulate into complexity even humans can't recreate..that's what billions of years does.
@itzahazylife I know what ERV's are and you know as well as i know that i am not going to debate ERV's, i would rather eat my hat to be quite honest.
If the parts are not purposefully arranged then that mechanism or machine will not function. The parts have to be purposefully arranged. Once they have been purposefully arranged, whether by an undirected process, or by an intended process, the arrangement of parts are either selected or the whole gene pool is removed by selective pressures.
people think that because we create design, and because natures design is so much more complex, that an intelligence even higher than human beings must be responsible for everything we see in nature...but, those people are making a mistake..they aren't factoring in how much tiny, thoughtless steps, can accumulate after billions and billions of years..of course we can't do what nature has done. it had an unfathomable amount of time to do it.
@KingOfTheBeyond23 No, thats backwards. We are going to be MORE different. Thats how new Species start. An animal that cant breath with another animal= A new Species. We are different because thats how life evolved and appapted to survive.
Do a Google search on "complex human evolution" to find out about a theory that combines human evolution and consciousness. Should be somewhere in the top 10.
Rigorously tested for 150 years? Don Exodus has got to be kidding. There is no rigorous test that can be applied to this inferential theory. For those who accept this propaganda as truth, let's have a list of these rigorous tests.
The question is: When did God make hell? Before, during or after? If you think about the question too long it has some disturbing implications for Christianity. God is either a monster, a dickhead or an idiot. Either way I still wouldn't worship Yhwh.
I think I finally understand what most creationists think about biology: they believe there is some "tendency" for all species to remain immutable, with some constraint pulling it back from varying much. When they hear "transitional species", they believe biologists mean that some sort of "bridge species" exist for a short time, undergoing some sort of super fast evolution in order to evolve to the next "fixed point".
It's what I have deduced after wasting my time with countless creationists.
@darkfur35 Of course it is, since its a scientific theory with a crapload of evidence to suport it, it makes a bad fairy tale since it doesent have magic or a protagonist that can do almost anything (the bible anyone?)
@darkfur35 Again, name the example, i can gives you quite a lot of evidence for evolution in just a few minutes such as genetics, comparative anathomy, palenthology, geographical distribution, ring species, observed natural selection, observed speciation and hybridization.
@Sweddude the so called evidence is just the interpretaion of data from a biased mind. They cannot view the evidence objectivly because they believe evolution is a fact. When there is data against evolution they will just reinterpreted it, to fit into the model of evolution.
@darkfur35 No it is not, i have looked, if its so easy to get then go ahead, post some, i can guarantee it has either ben debunked or its just an a bunch of crap about abiogenesis.
"They cannot view the evidence objectivly because they believe evolution is a fact"
you're an idiot..scientists believe evolution is a fact because over time the evidence has built it into a fact. how else do u interpret vestigial organs, observed speciation, transitional fossils, endogenous retro viruses, etc?
@itzahazylife Typical person who believes in the religion of evolution. They love to call people names. oh. there are no vestigial organs. that proves evolution is a false fairy tale.
you're out of your mind..religion of evolution?..so that means the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of disease, are all religions too, right?..there are no vestigial organs?..saying that only proves that u are an idiot..what is your opinion concerning endogenous retro viruses?
@itzahazylife You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is not evolution. Your insults proves a lack of education. Why do you worship darwin>
oh wow, your comments were all serious?..well, ok then..i'll address your comments..are i won't just call u stupid, i'll show u exactly why you're stupid.
"You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is not evolution."
i never said gravity is evolution..hahahahaha. u called evolution a religion. but evolution is merely a scientific theory. like gravity. it isn't a religion. it isn't a faith. it is a theory with loads of evidence behind it.
"there are no vestigial organs. that proves evolution is a false fairy tale."
u can make blind assertions all u want...it doesn't make u right..there ARE vestigial organs..eyes on a mole. wings on flightless birds. tailbone on the human being. the bones that make up the flipper on a dolphin have 5 finger digits. YOU have no idea what u are talking about..u are a fool. and i'm not saying that because i can't debate u. i'm saying it because u are a fool.
the tailbone acts as a muscular anchor where muscles attach. but, that's its secondary function..the tailbone is actually made up of several fused vertebrate. this indicates that once it stopped functioning as the base for a tail, the joints fused together, at which point it then became used as a muscular anchor. vestigial doesn't always mean useless. but, u can go ahead and remove a moles eyes, because i'm sure we can both agree that they're fairly useless.
@itzahazylife Teasing about the tail bone :) As for mole eyes, it has been something that has perplexed me from an evolutionary point of view. The fact that mole eyes are seemingly useless (I'm not convinced), is a point of concern. Why would moles evolve eyes in the first place if they were never needed? And if they were used at one point, that doesn't prove evolution. Also, the tail bone has muscles attached to it that have very necessary functions that ought not be mentioned here ;-)
that's the whole point of something being vestigial. moles, or the common ancestor moles evolved from, must have used the eyes, or the remnant eyes wouldn't be there. it's one of the great examples of a vestigial organ. fully formed eyes have one obvious primary function...sight. even if they do use them for something else, it can be deduced that their primary function has been lost..it really begs the question why god would create fully formed eyes on an animal that can't see.
@itzahazylife Moles aren't completely blind but have the ability to recognize light, which indicates (either 1. they never have an ambition to surface . Light itself could tell it that it is too close to surface, or 2. it could tell it that it is night and therefore safe to come to the surface) The argument isn't scientific but philisophical - It depends on the side of an argument you wish to look at something as to how you wish to see it. I'm not convinced anything is vestigial at all.
there are 18 species of golden moles that live in the deserts of south africa. they are completely blind. they have a layer of thick skin covering their eyes. these are fully formed eyes, mind u underneath that skin..does that sound like an intelligent design?..of course not. it's easily explained by evolution. moles don't need eye sight at all living under ground, so they gradually lost their eyes over time.
@itzahazylife Looking at this as objectively as I can, sorry, I just dont' see evolution as viable. It's a stretch to make the assumption in my view.
And I couldn't say with certainty that a mole doesn't need it's eyes (and especially then say "therefore evolution must be true") There are too many large blind spots to evolution that are being assumed in order for this theory to even partially work. And to use mole eyes as a strong argument is really volatile. I'm open to things but not this.
@larry1961 We have enough evidence to conclude Evolution is viable and occurs. There are still holes in the theory but the bigger pictures still shows the process happens.
@dchains I wouldn't exactly call it evidence (no offence), but circumstantial evidence. There are a lot of Phd's out there that started thinking independently who were taught evolution from their youth and are now taking a hard look at this theory from an objective position.
Science is critical of it's own theories and concepts of things that can be "observed" However,when it comes to evolution, which is not observable, it is counted as absolute. This I honestly don't understand.
@larry1961 Science never deals with absolutes yes, when a reasonable conclusion(at that point in time) has been reached and supported through scientific consensus then it still open to objection. But it is treated as an absolute based on such ''circumstantial evidence''. Then again, no one is claiming it as an absolute truth, it is just the most reasonable conclusion that we have at this very moment.
And evolution is observable, like in the creation of certain medical treatments.
@dchains I understand what you are saying....however, if you look through time at debate, evolutionists are adamant that those who question the theory are idiots/stupid/naive/delusional/ and to me, the other side should be celebrated as to keep everyone on their toes to ensure honesty in science. Wouldn't you agree? Instead, if a comment angers an evolutionist in this case, their comments are often given as spam, or they are insulted with some of the most vile and disrespectful language.
@larry1961 I see your point, evolution tends to be pushed as something that doesn't need to be questioned, so if you do, a good chunk of the scientific community would consider that as ignorance. Diversity in opinion is always a good thing, but most scientists go where their research leads them, that's why most are so adamant in pushing what they consider to be true.
If others have an opposition towards an idea or theory, then we must and should listen. So i agree.
@dchains Thanks for your kind response. I just received another response that proves my point. His response is that those who question are not "stupid/naive/delusional, but then goes on to say that they are stupid/naive/delusional :D
One of my concerns of evolution is that of imagination. Looking at a porcupine, or a peacock, exotic love birds, they show incredible imagination...how can non-imagination be so imaginative? And this isn't a "Therefore there must be a God" statement...just "how?
@larry1961 It's not that every person who questions evolution is an idiot/stupid/naive/delusional. It's just that the people who question it don't intend on learning anything about it, and only want to start a problem so they can declare their own idea of everything coming ex-nilo because a magical man wills it. Doing such is what renders a person an idiot/stupid/naive/delusional.
However if the person actually knows about evolution, then there's not really a problem.
@crazyinsane500 Most of the people who comment in favor of evolution do not understand evolution.
There are Phd's in biology who taught evolution that have changed their way of thinking, as well as renown mathematicians (that aren't even theist/deist), because they looked at it independently, instead of through lenses of indoctrination. Good for them! I do not say "therefore there must be a God" I know God because I know him inwardly and not as a conclusion that evolution is false.
@larry1961 Evolution does not disprove the idea of God, which is why biologists and mathematicians can be either theist,deist, or atheist. Really, all it disproves is that fully fleshed animals and fully formed plants came from nothing. Well, evolution and abiogenesis of course.
@crazyinsane500 Can you show (in evolution) let's say a modest number of two thousand transitions in the fossil record between any current species and what they might have been in their earliest phases? For example, a cow becomes a whale - which is a common hypothesis, mathematicians have stated there would be millions of transitional forms, can we find a couple thousand in the fossil record or are there a lot of dots being connected by speculation. I ask because I do not understand evolution.
@larry1961 To be honest and clear, cows did not become whales or vice versa. Instead, they share a common ancestor called Indohyus, after that they split off and formed their own branches of ungulates (basically four footed hoofed creatures) and Aquatic mammals (Whales, porpoises, etc.).
Also, pretty much every creature that has some variation can be called a transitional form. For further information, I recommend a phylogenetic tree from a scientific website, as it would provide the most info
here's a video about endogenous retro viruses..these are viruses that infect chromosomes. these erv's get passed onto all of the subsequent descendants via reproduction. it essentially proves that life evolves according to common ancestry..a type of divergence or split into 2, or several different species, from 1 ancestral species. for example, all great apes and humans, share a single common ancestor from which we all split and diverged.
wings on a flightless bird isn't a vestigial organ?..eyes on a mole?..internal leg and feet bones on whales? or how about inactivated teeth genes in birds from when they were dinosaurs?..and so many times u people go on about how certain vestigial features have uses, when many times whatever the uses are, are SECONDARY functions.
"the so called evidence is just the interpretaion of data from a biased mind"
how else do u interpret thousands of shared endogenous retro viruses between chimps and humans, other than concluding a shared common ancestor?..lemme hear u answer that one.
the evidence is always changing?..nah, actually, it becomes more and more refined. it doesn't just randomly change every year lol..it gets more and more accurate every year..u goof ball.
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
@whitadow I imagine they will evolve further, if you look at the skulls of the people in other areas of the world, they are differently shaped to ours due to there environment, and there skin colour is different due to the sun and melanin levels,
Modern-like fossilized penguins have been found in Cretaceous strata (Scherer & Junker). Does this mean the evolutionary pressure forced them to lose the ability of flight, pretty soon after it had developed in the first place?
@snowflakeFactory God crated Adam first, and created his nipples. Why? I have no idea. Than he created Eve from adam (if he didn't need anything to create Adam, why does he need his rib to create Eve? Is Eve like a sister or daughter of Adam?) When everything was set and ready, massive incest created world population, without genetical inbreeding problems.
@hypercub MASSIVE INCEST, ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT THE EVOLVED HUMAN IN THE BEGINNING DIDN'T DO ANY INCEST? OH I SEE. THEY KNEW GENETIC AT THAT TIME. OR BETTER THEY GOT MORAL,SOCIAL NORMS AND VALUES 50 THOUSAND YEARS AGO.VERY CLEVER YOUR EXPLANATION.SO WE CAME FROM SOME ANIMAL BUT SINCE FIRST THEY WE NEVER TOOK OUR MOTHER OR SISTER OR DAUGHTER AS WIFE,WOW DID I SAY WIFE? LOL.
@JesusRealTV Sure there was incest, there is incest today, and from the moral point of view, I personally don't have any problems with it. If 2 people want to do it, let them do it, even if it is incest, they are not hurting anyone. The problem is genetically; their children a likely to inherit recessive problems, therefore much less chance of survival. You know how pure dog breeds have often fragile health, but when you mix the breeds, you get badass "country" dogs :-)
@afar1 I do not have any religious beliefs. Therefore there is no preaching in my life philosophy. I find preaching very manipulative form of mass control, therefore very dangerous practice, that can be, and is, used to spread crazy ideas that only harm human cultural and cognitive progression.
The only thing I stand for is rational thinking. I don't think we came from rocks! I don't know how we got here, but yes, abiogenesis is the most probable solution to the "big question" to date!
@hypercub Translation: You believe in evillusion by faith and not the existence of any evidence. All one has to do to disprove your religion is look at the fossil record, cosmology, scientific method,mutation,mathematics, and your own weak beliefs and faith in evidence that does not exist.
@afar1 *facepalm* All you have to do to disprove your religion is to look at your nipples. Why do males of mammals have nipples? Well, evolution can answer that :-)! The evidence is all around you, you just don't know how to think rationally, you are to deep under the influence of creationist propaganda. Btw., cosmology has nothing to do with evolution! Genetics (as scientific discipline) doesn't work without evolution! I'm proud of my weak beliefs, that means they can CHANGE WITH NEW EVIDENCE!
@afar1 Interesting, you avoid my questions, and insult me at the same time, yet I did not, nor will, insult you. Insults are not my way of communication, and they don't accomplish anything.
This comment section is not big enough to explain what you asked, so here is a link to get you started:
@hypercub Oh thats fresh parrot a wiki article written by another God-Hater. Wow Im floored...How can anyone dispute an article on Wiki?? Im stunned by the evidence.
So the natural universe was created outside natural law, before the laws of natural physics existed. Hmm, By definition isn't that what supernatural means?
@afar1 Please do dispute this wiki article. I'm listening! Denying evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
Question of the cretion of the universe is not yet resolved, but there are some very interesting theories on the subject. Just because I don't know know something, that doesn't mean I can make shit up and say that is the answer. I'm ok living not knowing, it doesnt' frighten me. But it obviously frightens you, so you have your little stories that make you feel safe.
@hypercub LMAO!!! Wiki!!!! How can we dispute an article written by another evolutionist silly me.Don't you have any faith in the theory of evolution? Get ye to your gold-leafed, leather-bound, "The Origin of Species" by your Lord Darwin, you defiled unbeliever!!!
I am a bit confused. Trustworthyno1 says that Creationsim is accurate, yet also claims the Precambrian explosion was duirng a period that lasted 5 million years. My Bible buddies keep thumping me with the "fact" that everything was created in seven days, less than 7 thousand years ago. You can't have it both ways. It's around six thousand, and the Bible is accurate,or it's more than several million, and the Bible is not accurate.
There is no such thing as evolution. If you believe in a mutation that occured on planet Earth creating everyone on this planet at this moment, well i assume you believe that we are the only people in the Universe.
I don't understand Genetic Drift (actually, I have never heard of it before >_>;;). It sounds exactly the same as Mutation. Could someone explain, please?
@Kittywhiskers1000 You can think of mutations as that which happens on a personal, individual level. Genetic drift is the combined mutations that are passed on to an entire population. Basically a set of genes that are present in one population is replaced with another variant of that gene (variants are called alleles) making the new population and the old population have different alleles.
This is very simplified and possibly erronous since I'm no expert on biology or evolution.
Conviction of the reasonableness of theism and the tenousness of atheism usually in itself does not cause a man to accept practical theism. There seems to be an almost innate suspicion that the recognition of Diety will somehow rob one of freedom. To the scholar , who cherishes intellectual liberty, any thought of abridged freedom is specially dreadful
1 theres a group of bacteria that can only live with temperatures of 100C (the average temp. those cells can live)
2 the temperature slowly goes up, the cells that have a higher resistance to temperature (ones that have the gene that helps them survive higher temp.) live, the ones that don't, die
3 as generations go on the cells that have higher resistance to temperature live, until we have cells that can live in above 100C temperatures
@Checkingokop You should stop asking questions with the presumption that they cant be answered. It´s pretty obvious that´s what you´re doing - you arent interested in answers, or looking for the truth, you just want to disagree and think by asking simplistic questions like that one, which is easily answered, make no mistake about that, can somehow debunk all of evolutionary science...
Now... this video answers your question completely. If it´s answers you want, here you are; /watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
@Korkzor THank you for making me waste 9 minutes of my life and showing something that I didnt already know.
I do not deny that organisms adapt and evolve, BUT you or anyone here, have explained by organisms have the tendencies of survival, why do they NEED to survive, and dont explain it at psychological or subconsious level, because ORGANISMS dont think.
Why is it only organisms have the need to survive while celestial bodies dont have that need?
@Checkingokop Instead of just giving you the answer I think it would be more useful to give you the tools to answer the question - that way, you can answer similar questions yourself.
Remember that evolution rewards those genes that reproduce. Those that reproduce the most succesfully(and the most for that matter), will inevitably have the most offspring.
Sex is obviously a vital part of reproduction.
Given this, why do you think animals might evolve "enjoyment" of sex?
Lions and tigers are on the verge of speciation. While they technically can still produce viable offspring, they NEVER mate in the wild. Which means there is nothing which prevents them from branching further apart until they can't produce viable offspring anymore.
The main problem is, they might not survive long enough as a species until then, provided how aggressively humans change their environment...
If God created the universe how did he do it before he exsisted huh
Oh if adam & eve two white people were the first two people on earth how do we have blacks asians mexicans and so on oh and why aren't we all inbreds huh adam were the only people on earth they fuck eve shoots out some kids those kids fuck each other and so on why aren't we all inbreds i'll tell you why cause God & all that crap about him creating the earth is fucking bullshit
If God created the universe how did he do it before he exsisted huh
Oh if adam & eve two white people were the first two people on earth how do we have blacks asians mexicans and so on oh and why aren't we all inbreds huh adam were the only people on earth they fuck eve shoots out some kids those kids fuck each other and so on why aren't we all inbreds i'll tell you why cause God & all that crap about him creating the earth is fucking bullshit
so if the inability to mate is what defines a different species, then why are tigers, lions, etc, for example, considered diferent species? someone explain?
@SillyLion it's not a species inability to reproduce that is the determining factor, it is weather or not they can produce a viable offspring (one that can reproduce on its own). although lions and tigers CAN mate, their offspring cannot. same with horses and donkeys
@zzzIdividedbyzerozzz that's correct, but ONLY the females. therefore a true liger (or tigon) cannot be created from 2 other true ligers, you need a full blooded lion to do that. hence, non-viable offspring.
Evolution occurs for sure. But it isn't within light years of being powerful enough for inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining biological systems such as the heart/lung/blood/blood vessel/nerve/computer (brain) system. And science should admit that instead of continually overlooking and blinding itself to that fact like your vid does.
IT'S A FACT BITCH!
dkthg 1 week ago
Pithecanthropus erectus & Evolution have one thing in common, WHICH IS FAILURE.
justcallmesolo 3 weeks ago
so, im not a racist, im just a scientist? blacks and chinks are infact just a diff. speicies and i can keep one in my garden and walk him with my dog? ok... :P
clanowar 2 months ago
@clanowar That's retarded.
dmoney69696969 3 weeks ago
@clanowar There not a different species. Your either trolling or are a complete moron.
mancno1 3 weeks ago
I can give you evolution in one second: FAIL! And there you have it.
Anybody who wants to believe this lie, wants to have a good excuse to not believe in a Creator, God Almighty, but would rather believe in a false theory that is astronomically at odds against truth. In other words, it takes billions/trillions times more faith to believe in evolution than creation.. "Evilution" is not only flat out wrong, but is completely impossible.. Please watch Walter Veith's evolution videos..
Lulu4Him 2 months ago
@Lulu4Him - I'm sorry to say, but you are simply wrong. Maybe you could try and get educated, read some good biology textbooks? You know, books by... scientists. Not ignorant loonies who have "opinions" about evolution. I have been discussing evolution with creationists over the internet for more than a year. None of them ever brought up anything remotely sounding like an intelligent, educated argument. Will you be the first one to succeed, or will I just laugh my head off like every other time?
RolandMaurer 2 months ago
Can the music be turned down? It is hard to follow with the background music.
BashirsMomma 3 months ago
how can we really prove evolution if we cant see it happening?
FutureLaugh 3 months ago
@FutureLaugh How can you prove that someone murdered a person without seeing him doing it? Different question, same answer.
Albalrogue 3 months ago
@Albalrogue with evidence of the same murder by the murderer
FutureLaugh 3 months ago
@FutureLaugh So there you it, evidence.
Albalrogue 3 months ago
Why is there music drowning you out?! Is evolution not interesting enough? Is the music supposed to keep me entertained while the science sneaks in? Well I cant hear the science!
ouchlasers 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 4 months ago
is it possible for natural selection to be the only thing that causes evolution? Mutation and genetic drift are a concept that is hard for me to grasp
joeybonesgnarly 5 months ago
@joeybonesgnarly i think genetic drift is kinda like say a fish and a bird was to mate and outcomes a dog. lol but over time that dog starts to turn into a horse :P and natural selection is wen animals n certain areas reproduce faster then 1 in another i know im wrong so donr pay no mind lol
TyeDye07 5 months ago
@joeybonesgnarly Mutation is a requirement for natural selection to take place; if all parents and offspring are entirely genetically identical (effectively exact clones of each other) then there is no way for natural selection to act on that population.
Evolution by natural selection can occur without genetic drift, but natural selection is not the only mechanism that acts on evolution and consequently using the definition for natural selection to define evolution is not entirely correct.
TheMors666 5 months ago
If evolution is correct why are species distinct from each other with no evidence that they gradually evolved to other kind of species. Ever since apes are still apes, crocs are still crocs. Neandertals never interacted with modern man. Mutations are actually genetic defects. If you cross breed horse and donkey you will get a sterile mule. Fossils of lizards 250 million yrs ago indicated that they never evolved at all.
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog You, my friend, have been listening a lot of creationist propaganda. Of course there is evidence for all of those things, just use google, and stay away from creationist sites because they spread misinformation. You don't even have a simple understanding of how evolution works! It is not fusion of two species into one, it is the very oposite-the formation of two species from one specie, NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The proces is called speciation, google it. KNOWLEDGE OVER SUPERSTITION!
hypercub 7 months ago
Your absolutely wrong. Natural selection is not a development process, & thus your claim that natural selection makes evolution a non-random process is false. Natural selection has no effect upon the other processes. Natural selection is a selection process, its not a creative process only recreative. For natural selection to be a development process it would have to be a creative process (that is a process which brings something new into existence).
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth You can say natural selection forces the species to bring something new or be exterminated and extinct.
Pentagon1311 8 months ago
@Pentagon1311 Natural selection doesn't bring anything new, the mutations do that, natural selection is like a filter.
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Yes i know that, that's why i said it forces change.
Pentagon1311 8 months ago
@Pentagon1311 It changes? what do you mean by that?
Sorry i'm just interested.
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth I meant it forces change. By that i meant in a way forces the species to adapt or be exterminated. But when i thought it over once again i realized i'm wrong, it doesn't force change rather filters out the ones who don't change lol. I sounded stupid but english is not my first language. :)
Pentagon1311 8 months ago
@Pentagon1311 Oh i see, yeah, i would agree in both situations, if a selective pressure is present amongst an organism that gene pool is most likely going to be lost, i totally agree. Thanks for the comments.
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
actually, u are wrong..natural selection is a weeding out process. natural selection unconsciously, and indirectly "sculpts" life to survive more efficiently. it removes the bad traits and leaves only the traits that aid in survival, or are neutral. over time, populations will become more and more suited to their environment as inefficient traits are weeded out. this is an inherently non-random process. the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife I believe that your proprosition "the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident" is false.
By "indirectly sculpts" i assume you mean that natural selection works with what it has got rather than spares a gene detrimental to survival which could later be extremely beneficial. If that is the case, if that is what you meant by "indirectly sculpts" then what's your problem with my previous comment?
My previous comment does not contradict yours in any way shape or form.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
you're right in the sense that natural selection isn't an inherently creative process. but it does, by weeding out the detrimental traits, refines organisms to be more and more suited to their environment..natural selection is basically like a chisel that chips away at all the bad traits and leaves what's best. natural selection is the main reason why organisms are suited to their environment. does it design life? somewhat, in an indirect fashion.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
u said: "I believe that your proprosition "the fact that we possess the traits we do, is NOT an accident" is false."
i figured what u meant by that is that u believe our traits ARE an accident, and therefore random.
and yes, it selects from the different forms and traits that dna creates. but, i still see natural selection as part of the design process..it takes the raw material dna replication creates, and molds and refines those forms and traits.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife What i meant by that is that i do not believe that humans have a common ancestor.
I wouldn't say Natural Selection designs at all, if anything it's a destructive process. It lacks the ability to look ahead into the future and say "wow, eventhough this trait is not very helpful to this organisms survival in the present, in the future it could be extremely beneficial".
Natural selection just looks at the present, instead of planning ahead, which by definition is design.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
u bring up an interesting point..natural selection is a refining process at all times during the present moment. it always selects for traits based on the currently existing environment. we exist right now, because as of now, our traits aid in our survival. but, u are right how it can also be destructive. since it could snuff out traits that WOULD be beneficial in the future, in order to aid in survival according to the environment as it presently exists.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
of course it doesn't directly mold and refine. it does so indirectly generation after generation by snuffing out detrimental traits. over time, the beneficial traits become more dominant. i guess i can just say that it doesn't design. i'm turning it into a matter of semantics..i'll just call it a refining process, not a creative process.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
but,i disagree when u say it isn't non-random, hence the name natural SELECTION. like for example,it's no accident that animals have certain traits. those traits are there for a reason..because they worked. what works is sometimes based on chance, but most of the time, it's predictable..like,certain animals don't just live in trees because they randomly happened to end up in trees. they end up in trees because the ones not in trees,get attacked and killed. their environment "selects" the traits.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife I didn't say that Natural selection is a random process, i said that Natural Selection has no effect upon the development of an organism therefore Natural Selection does not make evolution a non-random process. I agree with everything you've said, but i would disagree with your statement that "Natural Selection indirectly designs life". I'm not to sure what you mean by that but Natural Selection doesn't design life, it selects from a design using selective pressures.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
your point was: what helps as of now will be kept,but what is kept now, may end up being harmful in the future..but, in the big picture,natural selection is never destructive.. it may be for individuals, but a population as a whole, is always being refined, since the weak members are always being weeded out..99% of the population can be destroyed, but as long as 1% survives because of advantageous traits, the population has been refined to be suited to the present environment.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Natural selection is destructive because it uses selective pressures to select yet has absolutely no control over selective pressure. Yes, Natural Selection is a scuplting process, whereby clay is being removing, but Natural Selection fails to comprehend that the scuplture is being heavily eroded by the constantly changing selective pressures, and so instead of refining a lump of clay into a beautiful sculpture it's simply removing until there's nothing left to select.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
natural selection isn't the cause of destruction though..nature itself provides the destruction. natural selection is a process within nature that picks out which traits can aid in surviving the destructiveness OF nature..if everything goes extinct from an asteroid, we can't say that natural selection destroyed everything. the asteroid would have destroyed everything.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
it all pertains to the present..natural selection keeps what's good for the present..this will sustain survival into the future, until the environment changes drastically enough..and like u said, sometimes what aided survival before, will cause the opposite in the future..but, sometimes, what aided in survival before, may aid in survival even more after the drastic change occurs..it really isn't inherently destructive or progressive. it merely keeps what works now.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife The survival of a species where selective pressures are changing has to do with whether or not a species has a specific trait which will help it survive in a new or different environment. And because of this the reason a species has survived is not because of natural selection but because of a lack of change in selective pressures. The point to remeber is that those specific traits beneficial for survival do not come from natural selection. And that is why evolution is random.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
traits arise via dna/random mutation, yes. and yes, the change of the environment is random. but, which traits are kept and lost (natural selection) is non-random. it's predictable. it follows a pattern.
for eg: say there are rabbits as the prey and wolves as the predator in northern canada. white rabbits, black rabbits, and brown rabbits make up the local rabbit population. it's not random or an accident that over time, white rabbits will start to dominate the population.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
there wouldn't be anything left to select because of the asteroid..natural selection would be non existent in such a situation..but, if there was life that survived, it would pass on the genes that allowed it to survive the catastrophe..those genes would then become dominant in the next generations..this would mean that natural selection would have went to work, and would have refined the current population to be suited to the current state of the environment..
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Yes, but it selects the beneficial traits, by destroying other functioning traits, which could be beneficial again within a short period of time.
A animal loses it's ability to breath underwater, then there's a small local flood. A whole species is wiped out. What process is to blame? Natural selection, for destroying the organisms ability to breath underwater, and thus destroying the entire species.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
that's true..that's a specific example of how blind beneficial selection for the present, can have detrimental results in the future..but, here's the thing..the only reason the animals in your example existed in the first place, was because of natural selection. they were selected for at some point. the same process that selected for their existence, caused their demise. it's somewhat paradoxical..
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
now sure, genetic drift has a strong driving force too..some organisms just get lucky, or some unlucky..but, natural selection is inherently non-random. so, evolution can be driven by randomness, or it can be predictable. if the situation in my example was left alone, white rabbits would without a doubt gradually dominate the population. but then again some crazed wolf hunter could randomly kill all the wolves, and for some reason later on, black rabbits end up dominating.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
so, evolution in general, is both random AND non random..it has both random and non-random driving forces..but, natural selection on its own, is an inherently non-random selection process.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Natural selection is the only part of evolution which is non-random.
If evolution by definition is the development of an organisms functionality then natural selection is not even part of evolution.
If the defintiion of evolution is the development of an organisms ability to survive in a specific environment, then yes natural selection is part of evolution. But even in such a case as that, natural selection can only eradicate those functions which are harmful, it cannot create.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
i say natural selection creates..dna creates the organism, random mutations during dna replication creates variation, and natural selection determines which variations are passed on..the next generations become more and more refined to survive in their environment..which gradually creates more efficient populations..natural selection is directly responsible for the efficiency of populations.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
it creates more efficient populations over time by destroying individuals within the population..u have to remember that individuals don't evolve..populations do. so, the evolution of the population is driven by nature snuffing out the unfit individuals..this in essence, creates population efficiency.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Natural Selection doesn't create, you went on to explain this yourself straight after asserting this proposition. It's disputable as to whether random mutations create new function, but let's assume they do, you said "Natural Selection determines which mutations are passed on", and how does it determine? by completely destroying the gene pool... That isn't creating that's destroying what has just been randomly generated.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
chimps and humans both share thousands of different erv's..and each one is in the same exact locations along both chimp and human chromosomes..this overwhelmingly indicates that chimps and humans both inherited these erv's from a common ancestor from which we both branched..if not that, then these viruses happened to randomly infect the exact same portions of both chimp and human chromosomes, thousands of different times..which is staggeringly unlikely.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Because to first accept that similarites in design are due to having a common ancestory i would first have to accept that there is a undirected process by which parts purposefully arrange themselves. As i've already said Natural selection does not arrange, it removes what has been arranged, neither do Random Mutations, hence "Random".
Why do you believe that the similarities between apes and humans are due to a common ancestory and not due to a common designer?
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
it doesn't imply a designer, because why would an intelligent designer insert viruses into our dna so we end up passing them on to the next generations?..it obviously wouldn't..viruses don't end up in our dna via a designer, they infect our chromosomes in the natural environment. the fact that we share ERV's with chimps, implies a shared inheritance, not a common design. it implies that we both inherited the ERV's from a single common ancestor.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
/watch?v=nIsWZCSMSSs&feature=related
this explains it very well.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
parts don't purposefully arrange themselves..the building of biological parts is random..the selection of them isn't random. the selection is directly based on survivability. genes that work, are kept, and those that don't, are lost..this is precisely how natural selection may destroy individuals, or several individuals, but, the collective present population, is always in the process of being refined, since whatever works now, is kept.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
yes, i said it's a refinement process, not a creative process..but, i take that back. after thinking about it, by refining, it's actually creating..what exactly is it creating?..more refined populations over time. without natural selection, gradual population refinement doesn't happen.
dna replication creates proteins (life)
random mutations during dna replication creates variation.
and natural selection creates more refined populations over time.
that's evolution.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
also, i remember reading that u don't believe in common ancestry..i'm curious as to why..there's overwhelming evidence for it..endogenous retro viruses essentially prove common ancestry..erv's infect chromosomes. they go dormant and leave their mark in that specific chromosome. the erv is then passed onto the offspring during reproduction..the erv in the offspring would then be in the exact same location along the same chromosome as the parent.. (cont..)
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth
most importantly dna replicates. so,whatever works, survives,and is free to copy itself. as long as it keeps working in the environment, it will slowly dominate the population if uncontested by something else..this is why competition plays such a big role in evolution. every now and then a new gene arises, and if it works, it's passed on..after a very long time, this simple process, will accumulate into complexity even humans can't recreate..that's what billions of years does.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife I know what ERV's are and you know as well as i know that i am not going to debate ERV's, i would rather eat my hat to be quite honest.
If the parts are not purposefully arranged then that mechanism or machine will not function. The parts have to be purposefully arranged. Once they have been purposefully arranged, whether by an undirected process, or by an intended process, the arrangement of parts are either selected or the whole gene pool is removed by selective pressures.
ThomasWinkworth 6 months ago
people think that because we create design, and because natures design is so much more complex, that an intelligence even higher than human beings must be responsible for everything we see in nature...but, those people are making a mistake..they aren't factoring in how much tiny, thoughtless steps, can accumulate after billions and billions of years..of course we can't do what nature has done. it had an unfathomable amount of time to do it.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
If we all came from the same thing, then how are we so different? If theory is true then at one point we are all gonna be the same?
KingOfTheBeyond23 8 months ago
@KingOfTheBeyond23 No, thats backwards. We are going to be MORE different. Thats how new Species start. An animal that cant breath with another animal= A new Species. We are different because thats how life evolved and appapted to survive.
gulbirk 8 months ago
Evolution is supported by loads of FACT and evidence. Religion is supported by the bible which has more holes than my fishnets.
kylioneXsushi 9 months ago
Do a Google search on "complex human evolution" to find out about a theory that combines human evolution and consciousness. Should be somewhere in the top 10.
TheAccurate1 9 months ago
Rigorously tested for 150 years? Don Exodus has got to be kidding. There is no rigorous test that can be applied to this inferential theory. For those who accept this propaganda as truth, let's have a list of these rigorous tests.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
if there are no vestigial organs... then what about the appendix?
Trmpah 9 months ago
The question is: When did God make hell? Before, during or after? If you think about the question too long it has some disturbing implications for Christianity. God is either a monster, a dickhead or an idiot. Either way I still wouldn't worship Yhwh.
ejenglin 10 months ago
Snakes can't talk.
OldSchoolSkill 10 months ago
@OldSchoolSkill I guess you havnt ever seen The Jungle Book.
Ko252 10 months ago
I think I finally understand what most creationists think about biology: they believe there is some "tendency" for all species to remain immutable, with some constraint pulling it back from varying much. When they hear "transitional species", they believe biologists mean that some sort of "bridge species" exist for a short time, undergoing some sort of super fast evolution in order to evolve to the next "fixed point".
It's what I have deduced after wasting my time with countless creationists.
JennyFarlopez 10 months ago
Evolution is a bad fairy tale.
darkfur35 11 months ago
@darkfur35 Of course it is, since its a scientific theory with a crapload of evidence to suport it, it makes a bad fairy tale since it doesent have magic or a protagonist that can do almost anything (the bible anyone?)
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude The so called evidence is always changing. Evolution is full of magic ideas and make believe.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35 No its not.
The only way that the evidence is changing is that more evidence is turning up.
In what way is the evidence changing? can you name it?
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude Yes it is. They get one bit of data and then jump to will conclusions.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35 Again, name the example, i can gives you quite a lot of evidence for evolution in just a few minutes such as genetics, comparative anathomy, palenthology, geographical distribution, ring species, observed natural selection, observed speciation and hybridization.
Just one bit of data you say?
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude the so called evidence is just the interpretaion of data from a biased mind. They cannot view the evidence objectivly because they believe evolution is a fact. When there is data against evolution they will just reinterpreted it, to fit into the model of evolution.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35 Going with the conspiracy theory then huh?
You still havent layed forth any evidence against evolution or any evidence that the data is biased.
Dont make a claim you cant back up, but you clearly cant do that.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude Conspiracy theory? weird. The evidence against evolution is all over the place. Look it up yourself.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35 No it is not, i have looked, if its so easy to get then go ahead, post some, i can guarantee it has either ben debunked or its just an a bunch of crap about abiogenesis.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@darkfur35
"They cannot view the evidence objectivly because they believe evolution is a fact"
you're an idiot..scientists believe evolution is a fact because over time the evidence has built it into a fact. how else do u interpret vestigial organs, observed speciation, transitional fossils, endogenous retro viruses, etc?
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife Typical person who believes in the religion of evolution. They love to call people names. oh. there are no vestigial organs. that proves evolution is a false fairy tale.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35
you're out of your mind..religion of evolution?..so that means the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of disease, are all religions too, right?..there are no vestigial organs?..saying that only proves that u are an idiot..what is your opinion concerning endogenous retro viruses?
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is not evolution. Your insults proves a lack of education. Why do you worship darwin>
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35
oh man..u are doing this shit on purpose just to piss people off, aren't u?..u can't be that inept.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife more insults, typical evolutionist. They lack data to support evolution so the insult people.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35
oh wow, your comments were all serious?..well, ok then..i'll address your comments..are i won't just call u stupid, i'll show u exactly why you're stupid.
"You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is not evolution."
i never said gravity is evolution..hahahahaha. u called evolution a religion. but evolution is merely a scientific theory. like gravity. it isn't a religion. it isn't a faith. it is a theory with loads of evidence behind it.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife There is loads of evidence against evolution. Your name calling proves you have zero evidence for evolution.
darkfur35 10 months ago
@darkfur35
"there are no vestigial organs. that proves evolution is a false fairy tale."
u can make blind assertions all u want...it doesn't make u right..there ARE vestigial organs..eyes on a mole. wings on flightless birds. tailbone on the human being. the bones that make up the flipper on a dolphin have 5 finger digits. YOU have no idea what u are talking about..u are a fool. and i'm not saying that because i can't debate u. i'm saying it because u are a fool.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife If The tailbone is vestigial, I'll pay to have yours removed! :-D
larry1961 6 months ago
@larry1961
the tailbone acts as a muscular anchor where muscles attach. but, that's its secondary function..the tailbone is actually made up of several fused vertebrate. this indicates that once it stopped functioning as the base for a tail, the joints fused together, at which point it then became used as a muscular anchor. vestigial doesn't always mean useless. but, u can go ahead and remove a moles eyes, because i'm sure we can both agree that they're fairly useless.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Teasing about the tail bone :) As for mole eyes, it has been something that has perplexed me from an evolutionary point of view. The fact that mole eyes are seemingly useless (I'm not convinced), is a point of concern. Why would moles evolve eyes in the first place if they were never needed? And if they were used at one point, that doesn't prove evolution. Also, the tail bone has muscles attached to it that have very necessary functions that ought not be mentioned here ;-)
larry1961 6 months ago
@larry1961
that's the whole point of something being vestigial. moles, or the common ancestor moles evolved from, must have used the eyes, or the remnant eyes wouldn't be there. it's one of the great examples of a vestigial organ. fully formed eyes have one obvious primary function...sight. even if they do use them for something else, it can be deduced that their primary function has been lost..it really begs the question why god would create fully formed eyes on an animal that can't see.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Moles aren't completely blind but have the ability to recognize light, which indicates (either 1. they never have an ambition to surface . Light itself could tell it that it is too close to surface, or 2. it could tell it that it is night and therefore safe to come to the surface) The argument isn't scientific but philisophical - It depends on the side of an argument you wish to look at something as to how you wish to see it. I'm not convinced anything is vestigial at all.
larry1961 6 months ago
@larry1961
there are 18 species of golden moles that live in the deserts of south africa. they are completely blind. they have a layer of thick skin covering their eyes. these are fully formed eyes, mind u underneath that skin..does that sound like an intelligent design?..of course not. it's easily explained by evolution. moles don't need eye sight at all living under ground, so they gradually lost their eyes over time.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Looking at this as objectively as I can, sorry, I just dont' see evolution as viable. It's a stretch to make the assumption in my view.
And I couldn't say with certainty that a mole doesn't need it's eyes (and especially then say "therefore evolution must be true") There are too many large blind spots to evolution that are being assumed in order for this theory to even partially work. And to use mole eyes as a strong argument is really volatile. I'm open to things but not this.
larry1961 6 months ago
@larry1961 We have enough evidence to conclude Evolution is viable and occurs. There are still holes in the theory but the bigger pictures still shows the process happens.
dchains 5 months ago
@dchains I wouldn't exactly call it evidence (no offence), but circumstantial evidence. There are a lot of Phd's out there that started thinking independently who were taught evolution from their youth and are now taking a hard look at this theory from an objective position.
Science is critical of it's own theories and concepts of things that can be "observed" However,when it comes to evolution, which is not observable, it is counted as absolute. This I honestly don't understand.
larry1961 5 months ago
@larry1961 Science never deals with absolutes yes, when a reasonable conclusion(at that point in time) has been reached and supported through scientific consensus then it still open to objection. But it is treated as an absolute based on such ''circumstantial evidence''. Then again, no one is claiming it as an absolute truth, it is just the most reasonable conclusion that we have at this very moment.
And evolution is observable, like in the creation of certain medical treatments.
dchains 5 months ago
@dchains I understand what you are saying....however, if you look through time at debate, evolutionists are adamant that those who question the theory are idiots/stupid/naive/delusional/ and to me, the other side should be celebrated as to keep everyone on their toes to ensure honesty in science. Wouldn't you agree? Instead, if a comment angers an evolutionist in this case, their comments are often given as spam, or they are insulted with some of the most vile and disrespectful language.
larry1961 5 months ago
@larry1961 I see your point, evolution tends to be pushed as something that doesn't need to be questioned, so if you do, a good chunk of the scientific community would consider that as ignorance. Diversity in opinion is always a good thing, but most scientists go where their research leads them, that's why most are so adamant in pushing what they consider to be true.
If others have an opposition towards an idea or theory, then we must and should listen. So i agree.
dchains 5 months ago
@dchains Thanks for your kind response. I just received another response that proves my point. His response is that those who question are not "stupid/naive/delusional, but then goes on to say that they are stupid/naive/delusional :D
One of my concerns of evolution is that of imagination. Looking at a porcupine, or a peacock, exotic love birds, they show incredible imagination...how can non-imagination be so imaginative? And this isn't a "Therefore there must be a God" statement...just "how?
larry1961 5 months ago
@larry1961 It's not that every person who questions evolution is an idiot/stupid/naive/delusional. It's just that the people who question it don't intend on learning anything about it, and only want to start a problem so they can declare their own idea of everything coming ex-nilo because a magical man wills it. Doing such is what renders a person an idiot/stupid/naive/delusional.
However if the person actually knows about evolution, then there's not really a problem.
crazyinsane500 5 months ago
@crazyinsane500 Most of the people who comment in favor of evolution do not understand evolution.
There are Phd's in biology who taught evolution that have changed their way of thinking, as well as renown mathematicians (that aren't even theist/deist), because they looked at it independently, instead of through lenses of indoctrination. Good for them! I do not say "therefore there must be a God" I know God because I know him inwardly and not as a conclusion that evolution is false.
larry1961 5 months ago
@larry1961 Evolution does not disprove the idea of God, which is why biologists and mathematicians can be either theist,deist, or atheist. Really, all it disproves is that fully fleshed animals and fully formed plants came from nothing. Well, evolution and abiogenesis of course.
crazyinsane500 5 months ago
@crazyinsane500 Can you show (in evolution) let's say a modest number of two thousand transitions in the fossil record between any current species and what they might have been in their earliest phases? For example, a cow becomes a whale - which is a common hypothesis, mathematicians have stated there would be millions of transitional forms, can we find a couple thousand in the fossil record or are there a lot of dots being connected by speculation. I ask because I do not understand evolution.
larry1961 5 months ago
@larry1961 To be honest and clear, cows did not become whales or vice versa. Instead, they share a common ancestor called Indohyus, after that they split off and formed their own branches of ungulates (basically four footed hoofed creatures) and Aquatic mammals (Whales, porpoises, etc.).
Also, pretty much every creature that has some variation can be called a transitional form. For further information, I recommend a phylogenetic tree from a scientific website, as it would provide the most info
crazyinsane500 5 months ago
@larry1961
here's a video about endogenous retro viruses..these are viruses that infect chromosomes. these erv's get passed onto all of the subsequent descendants via reproduction. it essentially proves that life evolves according to common ancestry..a type of divergence or split into 2, or several different species, from 1 ancestral species. for example, all great apes and humans, share a single common ancestor from which we all split and diverged.
/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA&feature=related
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@darkfur35
wings on a flightless bird isn't a vestigial organ?..eyes on a mole?..internal leg and feet bones on whales? or how about inactivated teeth genes in birds from when they were dinosaurs?..and so many times u people go on about how certain vestigial features have uses, when many times whatever the uses are, are SECONDARY functions.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife sounds like a fairy tale
darkfur35 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkfur35
"the so called evidence is just the interpretaion of data from a biased mind"
how else do u interpret thousands of shared endogenous retro viruses between chimps and humans, other than concluding a shared common ancestor?..lemme hear u answer that one.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@darkfur35
the evidence is always changing?..nah, actually, it becomes more and more refined. it doesn't just randomly change every year lol..it gets more and more accurate every year..u goof ball.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
achilles197474 11 months ago
God evolved to monkey
redgeKagaoan 11 months ago
Evolution is true.
NerfZoo 11 months ago
@NerfZoo So what are we going to evolve to next?
whitadow 11 months ago
@whitadow We probably won't, as we have hospitals and protection, and don't need extra features to survive anymore.
NerfZoo 11 months ago
@NerfZoo Not all cultures in the world do.
whitadow 11 months ago
@whitadow Good point,
NerfZoo 11 months ago
@whitadow I imagine they will evolve further, if you look at the skulls of the people in other areas of the world, they are differently shaped to ours due to there environment, and there skin colour is different due to the sun and melanin levels,
NerfZoo 11 months ago
@NerfZoo I agree.
whitadow 11 months ago
The Dare Island Enigma is a novel concerning an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Modern-like fossilized penguins have been found in Cretaceous strata (Scherer & Junker). Does this mean the evolutionary pressure forced them to lose the ability of flight, pretty soon after it had developed in the first place?
TheDarkPan 1 year ago
Christains- GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE WHO GAVE BIRTH TO ALL OF US
Atheists- so your all rednecks marrying your cousins?
snowflakeFactory 1 year ago
@snowflakeFactory God crated Adam first, and created his nipples. Why? I have no idea. Than he created Eve from adam (if he didn't need anything to create Adam, why does he need his rib to create Eve? Is Eve like a sister or daughter of Adam?) When everything was set and ready, massive incest created world population, without genetical inbreeding problems.
And here we are today. LOL
hypercub 11 months ago 22
@hypercub MASSIVE INCEST, ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT THE EVOLVED HUMAN IN THE BEGINNING DIDN'T DO ANY INCEST? OH I SEE. THEY KNEW GENETIC AT THAT TIME. OR BETTER THEY GOT MORAL,SOCIAL NORMS AND VALUES 50 THOUSAND YEARS AGO.VERY CLEVER YOUR EXPLANATION.SO WE CAME FROM SOME ANIMAL BUT SINCE FIRST THEY WE NEVER TOOK OUR MOTHER OR SISTER OR DAUGHTER AS WIFE,WOW DID I SAY WIFE? LOL.
JesusRealTV 9 months ago
@JesusRealTV Sure there was incest, there is incest today, and from the moral point of view, I personally don't have any problems with it. If 2 people want to do it, let them do it, even if it is incest, they are not hurting anyone. The problem is genetically; their children a likely to inherit recessive problems, therefore much less chance of survival. You know how pure dog breeds have often fragile health, but when you mix the breeds, you get badass "country" dogs :-)
hypercub 9 months ago
Comment removed
afar1 7 months ago
@hypercub And your religion preaches that we come from rocks...now whos the idiot LOL!
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 I do not have any religious beliefs. Therefore there is no preaching in my life philosophy. I find preaching very manipulative form of mass control, therefore very dangerous practice, that can be, and is, used to spread crazy ideas that only harm human cultural and cognitive progression.
The only thing I stand for is rational thinking. I don't think we came from rocks! I don't know how we got here, but yes, abiogenesis is the most probable solution to the "big question" to date!
hypercub 7 months ago
@hypercub Translation: You believe in evillusion by faith and not the existence of any evidence. All one has to do to disprove your religion is look at the fossil record, cosmology, scientific method,mutation,mathematics, and your own weak beliefs and faith in evidence that does not exist.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 *facepalm* All you have to do to disprove your religion is to look at your nipples. Why do males of mammals have nipples? Well, evolution can answer that :-)! The evidence is all around you, you just don't know how to think rationally, you are to deep under the influence of creationist propaganda. Btw., cosmology has nothing to do with evolution! Genetics (as scientific discipline) doesn't work without evolution! I'm proud of my weak beliefs, that means they can CHANGE WITH NEW EVIDENCE!
hypercub 7 months ago
@hypercub You really are full of crap, aren't you? (Typical evolutionist.)Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me. Describe to me all
of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from
a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive
creature was better adapted than the last.
If you can't do that -- then you're full of crap.Evolution and evolutionists are absolute, total frauds.
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 Interesting, you avoid my questions, and insult me at the same time, yet I did not, nor will, insult you. Insults are not my way of communication, and they don't accomplish anything.
This comment section is not big enough to explain what you asked, so here is a link to get you started:
ht tp: // en.wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Evolution_of_cetaceans
All those creatures are fossils, and are connected to whales becuse of their anatomy! No other group of animals ever discovered has such anatomy.
hypercub 7 months ago
@hypercub Oh thats fresh parrot a wiki article written by another God-Hater. Wow Im floored...How can anyone dispute an article on Wiki?? Im stunned by the evidence.
So the natural universe was created outside natural law, before the laws of natural physics existed. Hmm, By definition isn't that what supernatural means?
afar1 7 months ago
@afar1 Please do dispute this wiki article. I'm listening! Denying evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
Question of the cretion of the universe is not yet resolved, but there are some very interesting theories on the subject. Just because I don't know know something, that doesn't mean I can make shit up and say that is the answer. I'm ok living not knowing, it doesnt' frighten me. But it obviously frightens you, so you have your little stories that make you feel safe.
hypercub 7 months ago
@hypercub LMAO!!! Wiki!!!! How can we dispute an article written by another evolutionist silly me.Don't you have any faith in the theory of evolution? Get ye to your gold-leafed, leather-bound, "The Origin of Species" by your Lord Darwin, you defiled unbeliever!!!
afar1 7 months ago
I am a bit confused. Trustworthyno1 says that Creationsim is accurate, yet also claims the Precambrian explosion was duirng a period that lasted 5 million years. My Bible buddies keep thumping me with the "fact" that everything was created in seven days, less than 7 thousand years ago. You can't have it both ways. It's around six thousand, and the Bible is accurate,or it's more than several million, and the Bible is not accurate.
BanjoMikeGregory 1 year ago
There is no such thing as evolution. If you believe in a mutation that occured on planet Earth creating everyone on this planet at this moment, well i assume you believe that we are the only people in the Universe.
Murderboxer 1 year ago
evolution is a bad joke.
darkfur35 1 year ago
@darkfur35 Yes agreed
Murderboxer 1 year ago
@darkfur35 Your education is a bad joke.
hypercub 11 months ago
I don't understand Genetic Drift (actually, I have never heard of it before >_>;;). It sounds exactly the same as Mutation. Could someone explain, please?
Kittywhiskers1000 1 year ago
@Kittywhiskers1000 You can think of mutations as that which happens on a personal, individual level. Genetic drift is the combined mutations that are passed on to an entire population. Basically a set of genes that are present in one population is replaced with another variant of that gene (variants are called alleles) making the new population and the old population have different alleles.
This is very simplified and possibly erronous since I'm no expert on biology or evolution.
HerrKnitler 1 year ago
Conviction of the reasonableness of theism and the tenousness of atheism usually in itself does not cause a man to accept practical theism. There seems to be an almost innate suspicion that the recognition of Diety will somehow rob one of freedom. To the scholar , who cherishes intellectual liberty, any thought of abridged freedom is specially dreadful
. –George Herbert Blount
trustworthyno1 1 year ago
hey evolution dummies, explain please why does this "evolution" make organisms adapt to environment and increase survivability?
Checkingokop 1 year ago
Example:
1 theres a group of bacteria that can only live with temperatures of 100C (the average temp. those cells can live)
2 the temperature slowly goes up, the cells that have a higher resistance to temperature (ones that have the gene that helps them survive higher temp.) live, the ones that don't, die
3 as generations go on the cells that have higher resistance to temperature live, until we have cells that can live in above 100C temperatures
xGothimox 1 year ago
@Checkingokop You should stop asking questions with the presumption that they cant be answered. It´s pretty obvious that´s what you´re doing - you arent interested in answers, or looking for the truth, you just want to disagree and think by asking simplistic questions like that one, which is easily answered, make no mistake about that, can somehow debunk all of evolutionary science...
Now... this video answers your question completely. If it´s answers you want, here you are; /watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor THank you for making me waste 9 minutes of my life and showing something that I didnt already know.
I do not deny that organisms adapt and evolve, BUT you or anyone here, have explained by organisms have the tendencies of survival, why do they NEED to survive, and dont explain it at psychological or subconsious level, because ORGANISMS dont think.
Why is it only organisms have the need to survive while celestial bodies dont have that need?
Checkingokop 1 year ago
@Korkzor and i dont expect you or anyone else here to give me sensible answer because your "education" hasnt covered it.
Checkingokop 1 year ago
@Checkingokop Actually that is an even more simple answer - why do animals want to survive?
Because those that didnt "want" to survive, didnt, and as such didnt have offspring.
Just like those animals that find predators sweet and cudly got eaten while those that were scared and ran away survived to have more offspring.
The life that survives have more offspring - and it´s pretty obvious that the ones with a stronger desire to live and survive - do..
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor ok, so why do animals/mammals enjoy sex?
Checkingokop 1 year ago
@Checkingokop Instead of just giving you the answer I think it would be more useful to give you the tools to answer the question - that way, you can answer similar questions yourself.
Remember that evolution rewards those genes that reproduce. Those that reproduce the most succesfully(and the most for that matter), will inevitably have the most offspring.
Sex is obviously a vital part of reproduction.
Given this, why do you think animals might evolve "enjoyment" of sex?
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Checkingokop
mutation causes diversity, selective pressure (predators, the environment, etc.) culls the weaker specimens.
pyr666 10 months ago
Thanks. One comment is that, to me at least, the music makes it rather hard to concentrate.
AntonLustig 1 year ago
Lions and tigers are on the verge of speciation. While they technically can still produce viable offspring, they NEVER mate in the wild. Which means there is nothing which prevents them from branching further apart until they can't produce viable offspring anymore.
The main problem is, they might not survive long enough as a species until then, provided how aggressively humans change their environment...
MaurogDark 1 year ago
long live the greatest mind Charles Darwin
godsfuckingbullshit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ur a retard if you believe in god
If God created the universe how did he do it before he exsisted huh
Oh if adam & eve two white people were the first two people on earth how do we have blacks asians mexicans and so on oh and why aren't we all inbreds huh adam were the only people on earth they fuck eve shoots out some kids those kids fuck each other and so on why aren't we all inbreds i'll tell you why cause God & all that crap about him creating the earth is fucking bullshit
godsfuckingbullshit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ur a retard if you believe in god
If God created the universe how did he do it before he exsisted huh
Oh if adam & eve two white people were the first two people on earth how do we have blacks asians mexicans and so on oh and why aren't we all inbreds huh adam were the only people on earth they fuck eve shoots out some kids those kids fuck each other and so on why aren't we all inbreds i'll tell you why cause God & all that crap about him creating the earth is fucking bullshit
godsfuckingbullshit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
holidays with a Latino women rockmycity.info
gdtajja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
best chance for you Latino women need to meet you rockmycity.info
gayyuddfg 1 year ago
so if the inability to mate is what defines a different species, then why are tigers, lions, etc, for example, considered diferent species? someone explain?
SillyLion 1 year ago
@SillyLion it's not a species inability to reproduce that is the determining factor, it is weather or not they can produce a viable offspring (one that can reproduce on its own). although lions and tigers CAN mate, their offspring cannot. same with horses and donkeys
SpltInfinity 1 year ago
@SpltInfinity The female ligers and tigons are capable of reproduction.
zzzIdividedbyzerozzz 1 year ago
@zzzIdividedbyzerozzz that's correct, but ONLY the females. therefore a true liger (or tigon) cannot be created from 2 other true ligers, you need a full blooded lion to do that. hence, non-viable offspring.
SpltInfinity 1 year ago
Evolution occurs for sure. But it isn't within light years of being powerful enough for inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining biological systems such as the heart/lung/blood/blood vessel/nerve/computer (brain) system. And science should admit that instead of continually overlooking and blinding itself to that fact like your vid does.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Well, not quite.
livescience(dot)com/animals/090902-heart-evolution(dot)html
pandasthumb(dot)org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5(dot)html
jstor(dot)org/stable/2808504?seq=1
springerlink(dot)com/content/t125078h5p201442/
ngm(dot)nationalgeographic(dot)com/2006/11/evolution/zimmer-text/1
Science doesn't seem to be overlooking much here.
QueenSlartibartfast 1 year ago