BEST SOLUTION: I think the best solution to getting a peer reviewed, online phylogeny - free to all - would be to have the biology departments of a minimum of 10-20 Universities to take a section for which they are responsible. Give them a section on a single site, into which they can log and update. The site itself can be controlled by a few folks who handle the design / layout etc.
It is sad how something so important hasn't been done yet for want of funding. Yet reality TV crap and any nonsense about creationism gets all the money it needs.
How much do you think it would cost for you to make this catalogue of evolutionary phylogeny? Cause if we could get everyone of your subscribers to pitch in an average of $5 a year we could get you $300000 a year.
Hey, are you ever going to make anymore 'foundation falsehoods of creationism' vidoes? Or if you think you have covered them all are you thinking of making a new series?
A couple of days ago, I rewatched the video with Shawn "VenomfangX" on the Magic Sandwich Show where you challenged him on this Phylogeny Challenge regarding cats and how many were brought on the Ark and it was PAINFUL watching him attempting to dodge the question, then pulling a random number out of his rear end.
One of the links on the right is to you on the Atheist Experience talking about not being vitriolic because the faithful may change. This is true, but I doubt VFX can change.
Also there should be a peer review of such a site, application...whatever.
And y'know what... charging just $10 a year for access would keep it going.too. Free membership for those with a phd in a relevant field of biology.
Anyway I say this since I'm also in my spare time a php developer. There are lots of applications on source forge that might kick-start this too or that I'm sure I could modify to do so.
Now like you I haven't got tons of spare time, but its a fantastic idea...Just saying.
erm... no aron there isn't really a publicly accessible tree of phylogeny.
However as you said yourself there should be. With more than you have in your video... maybe each species with a link to its downloadable genetic sequence? To books and articles on the species and to studies of it.
It would also highlight to those setting out on a degree course where there are gaps in our understanding they might find interesting for a thesis.
What if it were a wiki tree? filed in by everyone?
@MumblingMickey I don't want it to be an open wiki, but I do want direct submissions and suggested corrections from the scientific community, from paleontologists, zoologists, embryologists, geneticists, and so on. It must be peer-reviewed.
Could we start a wiki with two 'types' of page? Those that have been reviewed and those that are public contributions. As long as it was obvious from the format and presentation of the content whether you were viewing a public page or peer-reviewed work, we could build the wiki through contributed submissions so that a wiki can be up to date. Peer reviewed entries would not be modifiable by 'public' users so there would be little or no sabotage.
AronRa you are one smart dude. You produce some of the best videos I have ever seen. You were also instrumental in making me realize that what I've always felt subconsciously that religion was a crock of shit was a fact. We are merely animals with large brains evolved but still have a long way to go I think based on the massive amount of stupidity still out there. Thanks for doing your part and educating us.
@bestvalue Funny thing is, humans were first classified by creationist scientists as apes. And here you even deny them that. One must not envision common ancestry to classify living organisms, taxonomy is a very supported scientific field. The tree doesn't provide the facts, the facts provide the tree.
@pat5168 You brought up points and I acknowledged them but you have not shown why the definition for kind I provided was inadequate. In fact, I demonstrated why the definition of 'specie's is imprecise.
The Bible makes an implied definition of 'kind' when it says animals will reproduce after their kind. They must be able to reproduce but it does not matter whether the offspring are also able to reproduce or whether they have the same mating habits. (Able to 'bring forth' = same kind.)
@bestvalue So, tigers and lions, horses, zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, polar and grizzly bears, etc. are all separately created kinds, since they can't interbreed now, nor by your own admittance can they be shown to have ever been able to.
Even if you now move the goal post and say it is possible to prove it, then that would mean the entire animal kingdom is of the same kind. Since the same method to show relatability is constant throughout. This is why your definition is not sound.
@pat5168 "So, tigers and lions, horses, zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, polar and grizzly bears, etc. are all separately created kinds, since they can't interbreed now"
@bestvalue I had thought that saying "interbreeding" would mean "interbreeding fertile offspring' as a given, I won't overestimate you again, so excuse my term.
@pat5168 "saying "interbreeding" would mean "interbreeding fertile offspring' as a given"
Why would it? Mules would be the same kind as horses and donkeys even though mules are sterile. Otherwise, you have species giving rise to another species in one generation - like a cat giving birth to a dog - something that evolutionists say would falsify evolution. (I don't think it would, by the way, although it should.)
@bestvalue A cat's descendents will always belong to a cat's family, it will never become a dog, that would be the ultimate falisifier of Evolution if an animal were to give offspring completely separate from its phylogenetic ancestry. However, I am doubtful for you to comprehend this if you think Evolution means cats giving birth to dogs, its sort of getting cliche.
@pat5168 "A cat's descendents will always belong to a cat's family"
So you don't believe in common ancestry either then? Obviously you believe that modern cats evolved from something that did not belong to the cat family or you don't believe in evolution. Keep studying the evidence and you'll be a creationist before you know it. :^D
@bestvalue "So you don't believe in common ancestry either then?" I don't need to believe in common ancestry, I can prove it.
"Obviously you believe that modern cats evolved from something that did not belong to the cat family or you don't believe in evolution." Indeed they did, but an organism can never evolve outside of its phylogenetic ancestry. We are all a member of Eucharyota as much as we are a member of Hominidae.
@bestvalue "Well go ahead. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you." Once you examine how to categorize life-forms monophyletically (which you have to in an actual phylogeny) then it doesn't matter whether you use morphological, physiological, embryological, or molecular evidence, you're going to have to accept common ancestry. Even creation scientists knew that centuries ago. It was proven genetically a decade ago, and now we have ERVs to prove it.
@pat5168 "Once you examine how to categorize life-forms monophyletically ... you're going to have to accept common ancestry."
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. You categorize organisms in terms of common ancestry and then present it as evidence for common ancestry. AronRa recently stated in an interview that humans are related to apes because humans are classified as apes. Classified by whom? People who believe in evolution.
@bestvalue "Sounds like circular reasoning to me. You categorize organisms in terms of common ancestry and then present it as evidence for common ancestry." .... " Classified by whom? People who believe in evolution."
The first people to set out to classify and categorize animals were creationists. It doesn't matter who does it, unless you believe they have control of all physiological, embryological, or molecular evidence into matching up perfectly. It's inevitable to produce common ancestry.
@bestvalue "AronRa recently stated in an interview that humans are related to apes because humans are classified as apes." Which interview? Does he say that they are because they are classified or because of the reasons for their classifications?
@bestvalue Well you would be right except for the fact that all branches of science can confirm evolution, that's how we get a peer reviewed scientific theory. You take this knowledge for granted...all the modern things that WORK are thanks to science but when science tells you that you are part of the great ape family you get a little butt hurt and deny it. I'd seriously reconsider your position when you take this into account....not a single creationist has ever had a peer reviewed paper.
@Antimidation So much information in your small post that I don't know where to start.
No, all branches of science do not - and cannot - confirm evolution. Peer review is largely a myth. Google "the myth of peer review." All the modern things of science (like technology) were intelligently designed and did not evolve. Science was invented by theists. Creationist do publish in peer-reviewed journals. You'd just say "not real science journals" which commits a logical fallacy.
@bestvalue Do not presume to tell me what i will say. But I will admit to saying "All branches" was misleading. There are, however these branches that do confirm it -entomology , biology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and cosmology. Science was not invented by theists and it surely wasn't because of their Theist beliefs that any were scientists...science also led the way to better understanding the natural world
@bestvalue The point that I was making was simply that science has proven itself to work and also it runs on the notion that it can make mistakes but expects them, evolution is not a new concept, it's been questioned thousands of times, you see science is open to scrutiny and it gladly invites it. Evolution has been refined over the past 100 years and with each knowledge or discovery made only reinforces it's foundation. The point is...science works and has a system that works. What system....
@bestvalue The belief in god or faith in god has nothing to do with what we are discussing. There are plenty of Theists and theist scientists who accept evolution. Most scientists are Atheists or have a no belief. You can accept evolution and still be faithful to god, it does not diminish your belief.
@MumblingMickey No, that's actually still true. The most recent study I know of ('07) shows that 64% of university professors do not think it can be said there is a God - and that includes the social "sciences," which is like sitting on the scale.
@IoEstasCedonta Well if thats true its changed radically in a few years....
What study was this?... or did they just answer the question as you presented there... because even the Vaticans scientists would answer they didn't think 'it could be said' there was a god...if they were to answer from a perspective of evidence... that would stop them believing there was though....
@bestvalue It's one thing to scream bias or unfairness when you think for some reason that creationist actually need to be heard, but not when they are WRONG every time. It's not a matter of being heard, it's a matter of being honest! There is NOTHING keeping a creationist from trying to get a paper peer reviewed, science likes to be wrong and then fix the answer....reviewing and testing by different parties does not allow bias opinions! If you can prove evolution wrong, go win a Nobel Prize.
@pat5168 Wait . . . I think I just figured out what you mean. Okay, let's for a moment forget about how we prove if they could interbreed in the past because the species definition has the same problem. But if they can interbreed in the present they are definitely the same kind whereas the same cannot be said for species. The classification of species is much more arbitrary and can be influenced by bias.
@bestvalue The species definition doesn't have that problem, since we recognize it's gray areas such as ring species being explained by Evolution. Your claim is that all of those created kinds are completely separate from one another, which simply does not stand. I will illustrate this point if you can move on from your silly projections of faults as if they are my problem.
@pat5168 "move on from your silly projections of faults as if they are my problem"
When did I do that? And why is it so hard to believe that all the animals in, let's say, the cat family are related when you believe that all the cats are related to oak trees as well as to every other living thing?
@bestvalue "let's for a moment forget about how we prove if they could interbreed in the past because the species definition has the same problem." Is when you did that, you projected the problems with defining "kind" towards our definition of species. This is the difference here - Species is a label, a convenience for classifying organisms and holds no value to their relatedness. Kind is a distinction of different groups of life with no relativity to other organisms.
@bestvalue "why is it so hard to believe that all the animals in, let's say, the cat family are related" All of them are related, when did I claim otherwise?
"when you believe that all the cats are related to oak trees as well as to every other living thing?" Please answer the questions in the following comment with a simple yes or no, I need you to start putting these pieces together yourself. No snide remarks, I am past your taunting and will not bicker with you.
@pat5168 I can't answer with a simple yes or no because I don't have all the information. In any of those questions, if they can interbreed they are definitely the same kind and are related. If they cannot they still may be the same kind if they could interbreed in the past. I am not a baraminologist.
Do you not find it absurd that you argue against the relatedness of members of the cat family but would defend the relatedness of them to an oak tree?
@bestvalue "I can't answer with a simple yes or no because I don't have all the information."
Why of course you can, did you not claim your definition of "kind" is a sound one? Is that definition somehow irrelevant to their relatedness or any information you do not know?
"if they can interbreed they are definitely the same kind and are related. ... they still may be the same kind if they could interbreed in the past"
Thank you, so Feloidea is the same kind as Carnivora by your own definition.
@bestvalue "Do you not find it absurd that you argue against the relatedness of members of the cat family but would defend the relatedness of them to an oak tree?"
This puzzles me, because I am arguing for members of Feloidea's relatedness and you are arguing that they have a border which kind is separated by, with most creationists they leave that undistinguished, but with your given definition there isn't one and it actually proposes common ancestry.
@pat5168 How does my definition for "kind" propose common ancestry? And by that I mean common ancestry of ALL life forms, not just SOME. Everyone believes in common ancestry of SOME.
@bestvalue "How does my definition for "kind" propose common ancestry?"
Your definition of kind indicates that an organism's ancestry were once more closely related than they are now. However, you only accept this accuracy to a certain degree. As you acknowledged.
@bestvalue The definition of species is supposed to be imprecise if Evolution is true. If the Created kinds were spontaneously made than the definition should be sound. I showed that your definition in fact is not. For example, you say that if a species who can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring, then they are still the same kind if their ancestors once could. However, you yourself said that it is unverifiable to show that fossils could ever be proven to be fertile.
@bestvalue The definition of species is supposed to be imprecise if Evolution is true. If the Created kinds were spontaneously made than the definition should be sound. I showed that your definition in fact is not. For example, you say that if a species who can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring, then they are still the same kind if their ancestors once could. However, you yourself said that it is unverifiable to show that fossils could ever be proven to be fertile.
Also, polar and grizzly bears and whales and dolphins. Even if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind. The whole speciation thing is a ruse to make you think evolution happens. It doesn't. P.S.: Just discovered that even roosters and geese can produce offspring so, yes, they are the same kind.
@bestvalue And if Species A can interbreed with B, and B can interbreed with C, but C cannot interbreed with A, are they still of the same biblical kind?
@bestvalue So, C never could interbreed with A, so B and C are separate kinds from A and B? That doesn't work unless you claim that it is possible for one thing to be part of two kinds.
« No, because you would have to prove that they could once interbreed »
So you're saying that your claim "if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind", is actually *not* a criterium for determining if two populations belong to the same kind, as you are claiming that we could never know whether they once interbred anyhow. So then what *is* a criterium for determining kind?
@bestvalue Then your own definition falls apart, because you cannot prove that any of those interbreedable species could ever produce fertile offspring. Please admit that your definition falls apart on further scrutiny, because I don't want this to go down the road oh-so-many Creationist arguments have a tendency of doing. With your definition, all species under Felidae are of the same kind as all species under Canoidea. And that goes for all of Carnivora.
@pat5168 "you cannot prove that any of those interbreedable species could ever produce fertile offspring"
Leaving aside the fact that science doesn't PROVE anything in the absolute sense, nor can you prove that certain fossils could not interbreed and thus are different species. Both the definitions of kind and of species fall apart when we are talking about fossils. So what is your point? (cont.)
@bestvalue And that's why I wasn't speaking in an absolute sense. If I cannot prove, according to your claim, that organisms which are now fossils couldn't interbreed, why do you insist that species who only produce infertile offspring such as lions and tigers ever could? Species in a biological term is meant to have gray areas, explained by Evolution. Listen, arguing with a Creationist is an inevitable victory, my goal is to make you realize this.
@bestvalue It depends if you judge an argument by rhetoric or actual evidence. Very well, seeing as you're already lost with your definition beyond rational doubt, I find your playground-level teasing a bit telling.
@pat5168 No one has shown me any such thing. It is the biblical definition of kind so there can be nothing wrong with it just because you don't like it. And you shouldn't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.
@bestvalue Reread MrGralgathor and my comments, the bible gives no definition of "kind" either. Did you just shrug off our points or do you honestly not think we brought them up?
@pat5168 "With your definition, all species under Felidae are of the same kind as all species under Canoidea. And that goes for all of Carnivora."
Can all the species under Felidae, Canoida and Carnivora interbreed? If they can, they are the same kind. Carnivora includes weasels and polar bears so no they are not all the same kind.
@pat5168 No. If their ancestors once could, they are the same kind.
"are you being picky with when your definition is applicable?"
You mean like with species when they changed the definition from animals that can't interbreed to those that can but don't usually because of differences in mating habits? Under the classical definition of species domestic dogs should be the same species as wolves but they aren't. The "kind" definition is more precise and is probably like "family."
The short answer too the phylogeny challenge is this: can the two animals interbreed (regardless of whether their offspring is fertile)? If so, they are the same biblical kind. If not, they are different kinds. This may sound suspiciously like the definition for species but it is not. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Thus, they are the same kind. Same goes for horses, donkeys and zebras. Dogs and wolfs? Check. Pigs and boars? Yup. Camels and llamas? Right again. (cont.)
It is telling how almost all of the organisms portrayed in this video are DRAWINGS of hypothetical organisms, and not pictures of the organisms or even fossils. Artwork != evidence
@badp81 Irrelevant. They have the actual fossils themselves millions of them go pick out a large college, most of them will have a department, or basically warehouse, filled with them like a library. Or go to a community college and start using their computers to search the science publication, journals, and studies made from them. Technically you could be obtuse enough to say that much of his trees were invalid also because they were merely names, stop being lazy then and research yourself.
@badp81 Basically, either your half-baked hypothesis about a 'their just drawings ergo they just making it all up' conspiracy is true, or your full of crap and they are drawing made by artists based on real morphology and species found the fossil record, and then your just an idiot making a big deal out of something you don't really understand or haven't really thought through.
@badp81 The extinct creature we see in the video were drawn with the help of fossils or other means(picture, drawing remains) for those more recently extinct , but plaint of them are still exist today. Beside, fossils, even though they are very powerful evidences, are still not the most powerful evidence. That would be genetic. Moreover none of these evidences were available when Darwin designed the basis of the theory. He discovered it thanks to the physiological and geological evidences alone.
@badp81 Huh? How exactly is it "telling"? Are you implying that the "organisms" portray here are imaginary, creatures made up with no fossils as evidence? I challenge you to show even one "hypothetical organism" that was portrayed to be evidence as being fictitious. Just give us one, you jackass, just one! Talk is cheap.
1ST U LOOK LIKE THE DEVIL HMM?? 2nd where does the duck bill platypus fit, 3rd by that logic we are closely related to bannanas and last question which came 1st proto chicken or egg=atheist true nightmare! Evolution=fish went 2 land=dino rat ape & whale went 2 water=mammal fish but what about polar bears=fail!
ohh, btw, what on EARTH made you think that we are closely related to bananas? I stress (YOUR claim) CLOSELY related!!! Dude! Makes just about as much sense as me asking you : What is the generaly acceptable heartrate of a banana, before determining bananadeath? Or do you want us to explore in to the realm of bananabraindeath?
@MegaGangstaparadise Someone didn't watch the video! Btw the chicken came first from the first chicken egg. It's mother was one minor mutation away from falling into the chicken dinner category. Boom, nightmare solved. And in case you didn't realize it, there are many non-atheists in the many fields of science, and in particular, biology. Not one of the religious biologists have ever submitted a paper for peer review attempting to show evolution to be false. Why is that Mr. Smartypants?
@thybigballs FAIL! how can an egg lay itself? What about Mammals huh HUH! what did mutation create fetus without mother lol show me where in life can a mammal mutated bacteria evolve by itself into a fetus w/o a mothers womb to carry it! SCIENCE smh cuz anything theorize must be true? like knowing composition in deep space by GUESSING=fail. theres a GOD & scientist know it, i swear this nation will now GOD. MY GOD MADE LIFE U FAILED BAD.
@MegaGangstaparadise A chicken egg cannot lay itself. It takes a chicken to do that. A mammal fetus requires a mother. Mammal fetus' don't mutate from bacteria. What does deep space have to do with evolution of life? You made an assertion that God made me. Assertions without proof requires no further rebuttal. Science makes no claims whether god exists or not. The reason it doesn't is because there is no evidence to prove or disprove God. Science relies on verifiable repeatable observations.:-)
@thybigballs a fets cannot lay itself science can't prove it or big bang, science=assuptions with a belife on theories made by mathmatical guesses like space theories and physics. god can hide his face from us he himself says it. science can't explain deep space mysteries much less evolution problems like fetus,origin and such. GRAVITY=INVISABLE BUT REAL WELL GOD=INVISABLE BUT REAL THROUGH HIS FORCE=GRAVITY AND PHYSICS.
@MegaGangstaparadise Yes, a fetus cannot lay itself in the same way a human fetus can't be created outside a womb and from dust. If you think Christians have the "truth" can you tell me why no Christian scientist has EVER submitted a paper for peer-review that overturns any theories? NOT ONE PAPER!!! I double dare you to answer this.
@thybigballs I'll answer you when you answer my question 'how can a fetus/egg come into existance w/o a womb to carry it ? what does it skip the fetus stages by being born an adult already than all of a sudden evolution advantages it to be fetus in womb later on in yrs lol. therefore god exist!
@thybigballs It doesn't necessarily take what we would consider a chicken to lay a chicken egg. But it's hard to draw the lines of where we should stop considering it A and now it is B. But that is exactly what Evolution predicts, and species is a label only for human convenience. However, if there are distinguishable and fundamentally distinct types of animals or "kinds" then we wouldn't have those problems with species both alive and in the fossil record.
@thybigballs No problem, I'm fascinated by this stuff. If you have the time, watch the video I recently favorited on my channel, its well worth it and is very intellectually satisfying. I love cosmology and its similar fields, its really an area of wonderment, but it just doesn't compare to my interest in the life sciences.
@pat5168 So evolution not from point A to B? okay than proto chicken mutated from bacteria than skiped point a became point b and evolution already knew to give it sex organs to become point a although it didn't need point a to reach b. yeah that and species is a label so its and hard to draw the lines...ok so its a jello w/o skip point a then relize it needs point a? right blah blah i smart words, ILL TAKE GOD AS MY ANSWER.
@MegaGangstaparadise Hmm, I usually understand a Creationist's plight when they can't comprehend it, but you seem to be willingly misconstruing it. For whichever reason is beyond me. Your comment is such a mess I can't even tell what you think the fault is.
@pat5168 basically according to your hypothesis the chicken skip point a=egg stage then later adapted point a rather than popping into existance like it did in the 1st place. may god open your eyes, god bless u
@MegaGangstaparadise Read my comment again, I don't know if you think you're replying to a different set of comments or if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because you have either completely lacked the comprehension of my post or are just a dogmatic skimmer attempting to misconstrue my point. Either way, you make no sense.
@pat5168 I can read yours I don't know why you can't read sense in mines? Let me dumb it down:According to you, in Evolution a chicken was 1st. But later it decided to make eggs even though it came to life w/o the need of a egg stage. secoundly why and how can a chicken become self existance by skipping the egg stage being the 1st huh? why did evolution need sex reproduction if chickens can make themselves...impossible God creator is ONLY WAY.
@MegaGangstaparadise Thank you, now I know where you completely misconstrued my point. I said that an animal can be something we would not consider a chicken but it could lay a chicken egg, but the stages would be so gradual that it would be hard to draw the line of where we should start considering it a chicken. Nowhere did I say that a chicken spontaneously generated such as your erroneous claim implies.
It's really tough explaining things to creationists. Creationists think entirely in black-and-white terms. There is nothing in between in their world. Either something is a chicken, or else it's a fish. Something not quite but almost like a chicken doesn't exist in their world. It just doesn't register.
Your comment is brimming with unwarranted assumptions. Who claims an egg laid itself? Who claims mammalian fetuses appeared out of thin air?
You'd do well to FIRST familiarize yourself with some of the claims that scientists *actually* make, rather than just ranting without even knowing what you're ranting about.
Genesis 3:14 "...and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Mr. AronRa: The preceding was god's curse upon the snake. Was it, in any way, binding? Do snakes eat dust?
It is possible after all that the trans-formation of structure into character may never be possible and that the common noun may never be able to emerge from the proper noun.-The Order of Things, Michelle Foucault
One google search: Speciation+examples destroys your argument. AronRA has made hundreds of videos explaining this several times over. Just watch them. To get from worm to fish takes quite a bit of time. It takes quite a bit less time to get say: mosquito to slightly different mosquito.
@Mogley52 Dawkins outlines his reasons for not debating creationists in great detail on his own website. You are implying a fear of creationists on Dawkins part, thus distorting his position (surprise!).
I'm sure you've watched a few AronRa, Thunderf00t and Potholer54 videos, so you are well aware of the scientific vacuousness of many of the statements in your article. When are you going to live up to your morals and be honest about it?
AronRa, Your phylogenics says that we are monkeys. In the same way, we could say that we never stop being any of "the things" our ancestors were.
The species our ancestor was, is not what we still are , though, is it ?
"The thing our ancestors were", we assume, be called "a kind of" monkey.
This is where my question goes to: the language being used is becoming more similar to creationist language any "kind" of critter never changing to be not that kind of critter.
Therefore I see both Creationist and you, as using the "it never stops being that basic kind of thing that it is and always was" argument.
So although it's true that many Creationists would even deny that humans are animals ( maybe even while admitting we are mammals )- that's not the point !
I'm intrigued by how close the language works out to be; "kinds" always remaining "kind". Like one is a more warped version.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
@Mogley52 He states the reason is that it's a dead argument. You guys bring nothing to the table to overturn the theory of evolution. You bring a shitload of misconceptions, quote mining and plain ole' deceit. Where are the religious biologists with their peer reviewed papers that disprove evolution? Can you give even one? And I mean actual biologists and actual peer reviewed papers too, and not some yahoo who works at a plastics lab or Pop-Tart factory either.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 You said,"Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving?"+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ever hear of irreducible complexities getting more complex?That stuff is the shizznit. Thats how you are living today.
AronRa Human was the last species appeared on earth, since then till today nothing changed! We didn't see new animals, and human didn't evolve to something else! if you believe monkeys evolved to human, what about other animals? if there is evolution then we don't really need to search about transitional fossil! at least we must witness transitional animals which are evolving since 200 million years and living today but still need more time to become something else! What can u say about that?
You know, Wikipedia sometimes has partial phylogenic 'branches' under specific pages, maybe we could ask them to combine them and then complete the rest of the tree.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t. In your case it seems you are actually quite capable of dazzling with brilliance.
For a creationist to respond to your challenge they would need to have the biological knowledge to understand your questions, their significance, and the ramifications for creationism. No rational person who claims creationist belief has the sophistication to answer or even understand your challenge because the acquisition of the requisite background knowledge in a rational person would itself destroy creationist belief, leaving only irrational respondents to answer your rational challenge.
RIP Davy Jones!! We will always be the monkees!
LucidCatnap 4 hours ago
*Slow clap*
RibakTB 8 hours ago
next time i talk to my dad and something comes up about certain animals or plants being cousins, im gonna say "but you dont believe that"
oneadamtwelve86 22 hours ago
BEST SOLUTION: I think the best solution to getting a peer reviewed, online phylogeny - free to all - would be to have the biology departments of a minimum of 10-20 Universities to take a section for which they are responsible. Give them a section on a single site, into which they can log and update. The site itself can be controlled by a few folks who handle the design / layout etc.
FSMWorshiper 22 hours ago
Lol, I could have sworn you said 'Are all 'lepidosaurs related to crocoducks and plesiosaurs?'
EthanNin0 23 hours ago
It is sad how something so important hasn't been done yet for want of funding. Yet reality TV crap and any nonsense about creationism gets all the money it needs.
colddrake80 1 day ago
How much do you think it would cost for you to make this catalogue of evolutionary phylogeny? Cause if we could get everyone of your subscribers to pitch in an average of $5 a year we could get you $300000 a year.
TrueMetis 1 day ago
If evolution is not real and purposefully falsified, they sure put a lot of damn effort into making it so damn hard to learn it all!
roadkill1001 1 day ago
The tuatara is the last remaining non-squamate lepidosaur.
AronRa 1 day ago 2
@AronRa
They can also be nasty little bastards if they bite.
msaoichan 16 hours ago
What was that thing that looked like a lizard but was labelled as not being one?
scrustle 1 day ago
check out EOL,org The encyclopedia of life.
Soldier957 1 week ago
Hey, are you ever going to make anymore 'foundation falsehoods of creationism' vidoes? Or if you think you have covered them all are you thinking of making a new series?
Erech01 1 month ago
A couple of days ago, I rewatched the video with Shawn "VenomfangX" on the Magic Sandwich Show where you challenged him on this Phylogeny Challenge regarding cats and how many were brought on the Ark and it was PAINFUL watching him attempting to dodge the question, then pulling a random number out of his rear end.
One of the links on the right is to you on the Atheist Experience talking about not being vitriolic because the faithful may change. This is true, but I doubt VFX can change.
gussiejives 1 month ago
Great video AronRa, it's very informative
sij747 1 month ago
Also there should be a peer review of such a site, application...whatever.
And y'know what... charging just $10 a year for access would keep it going.too. Free membership for those with a phd in a relevant field of biology.
Anyway I say this since I'm also in my spare time a php developer. There are lots of applications on source forge that might kick-start this too or that I'm sure I could modify to do so.
Now like you I haven't got tons of spare time, but its a fantastic idea...Just saying.
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
erm... no aron there isn't really a publicly accessible tree of phylogeny.
However as you said yourself there should be. With more than you have in your video... maybe each species with a link to its downloadable genetic sequence? To books and articles on the species and to studies of it.
It would also highlight to those setting out on a degree course where there are gaps in our understanding they might find interesting for a thesis.
What if it were a wiki tree? filed in by everyone?
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
@MumblingMickey I don't want it to be an open wiki, but I do want direct submissions and suggested corrections from the scientific community, from paleontologists, zoologists, embryologists, geneticists, and so on. It must be peer-reviewed.
AronRa 1 month ago 8
@AronRa I can appreciate the issues involved in making such an app open to all...
You'd arrive in one day with unicorns and elves presented firmly in the new clade of 'mystery creatures' or something...
But thats easily sorted in that it can be submitted, but doesn't appear on the site until it achieves some sort of agreed status....
Sorry I'd forgotten a little about this... now you have me off thinking about it again...
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
@AronRa
Could we start a wiki with two 'types' of page? Those that have been reviewed and those that are public contributions. As long as it was obvious from the format and presentation of the content whether you were viewing a public page or peer-reviewed work, we could build the wiki through contributed submissions so that a wiki can be up to date. Peer reviewed entries would not be modifiable by 'public' users so there would be little or no sabotage.
AjnaKotobide 1 week ago 2
AronRa you are one smart dude. You produce some of the best videos I have ever seen. You were also instrumental in making me realize that what I've always felt subconsciously that religion was a crock of shit was a fact. We are merely animals with large brains evolved but still have a long way to go I think based on the massive amount of stupidity still out there. Thanks for doing your part and educating us.
baxtar2012 1 month ago 8
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 2 months ago
@bestvalue Funny thing is, humans were first classified by creationist scientists as apes. And here you even deny them that. One must not envision common ancestry to classify living organisms, taxonomy is a very supported scientific field. The tree doesn't provide the facts, the facts provide the tree.
pat5168 2 months ago
Take my word for it. Humans cannot interbreed with chimps. They just can't. Proven fact.
GlorifiedTruth 2 months ago
@pat5168 You brought up points and I acknowledged them but you have not shown why the definition for kind I provided was inadequate. In fact, I demonstrated why the definition of 'specie's is imprecise.
The Bible makes an implied definition of 'kind' when it says animals will reproduce after their kind. They must be able to reproduce but it does not matter whether the offspring are also able to reproduce or whether they have the same mating habits. (Able to 'bring forth' = same kind.)
bestvalue 2 months ago
Comment removed
pat5168 2 months ago
@bestvalue So, tigers and lions, horses, zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, polar and grizzly bears, etc. are all separately created kinds, since they can't interbreed now, nor by your own admittance can they be shown to have ever been able to.
Even if you now move the goal post and say it is possible to prove it, then that would mean the entire animal kingdom is of the same kind. Since the same method to show relatability is constant throughout. This is why your definition is not sound.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "So, tigers and lions, horses, zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, polar and grizzly bears, etc. are all separately created kinds, since they can't interbreed now"
Oh but they CAN.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue I had thought that saying "interbreeding" would mean "interbreeding fertile offspring' as a given, I won't overestimate you again, so excuse my term.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "saying "interbreeding" would mean "interbreeding fertile offspring' as a given"
Why would it? Mules would be the same kind as horses and donkeys even though mules are sterile. Otherwise, you have species giving rise to another species in one generation - like a cat giving birth to a dog - something that evolutionists say would falsify evolution. (I don't think it would, by the way, although it should.)
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue A cat's descendents will always belong to a cat's family, it will never become a dog, that would be the ultimate falisifier of Evolution if an animal were to give offspring completely separate from its phylogenetic ancestry. However, I am doubtful for you to comprehend this if you think Evolution means cats giving birth to dogs, its sort of getting cliche.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168 "if you think Evolution means cats giving birth to dogs"
No I don't think that but you apparently believe animals can give birth to different species. (eg. a horse giving birth to a mule)
bestvalue 2 months ago
@pat5168 "A cat's descendents will always belong to a cat's family"
So you don't believe in common ancestry either then? Obviously you believe that modern cats evolved from something that did not belong to the cat family or you don't believe in evolution. Keep studying the evidence and you'll be a creationist before you know it. :^D
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "So you don't believe in common ancestry either then?" I don't need to believe in common ancestry, I can prove it.
"Obviously you believe that modern cats evolved from something that did not belong to the cat family or you don't believe in evolution." Indeed they did, but an organism can never evolve outside of its phylogenetic ancestry. We are all a member of Eucharyota as much as we are a member of Hominidae.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168 "I don't need to believe in common ancestry, I can prove it."
Well go ahead. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
"an organism can never evolve outside of its phylogenetic ancestry"
Sounds like you believe in the "kinds" concept as well - a genetic barrier that cannot be crossed.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "Well go ahead. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you." Once you examine how to categorize life-forms monophyletically (which you have to in an actual phylogeny) then it doesn't matter whether you use morphological, physiological, embryological, or molecular evidence, you're going to have to accept common ancestry. Even creation scientists knew that centuries ago. It was proven genetically a decade ago, and now we have ERVs to prove it.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "Once you examine how to categorize life-forms monophyletically ... you're going to have to accept common ancestry."
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. You categorize organisms in terms of common ancestry and then present it as evidence for common ancestry. AronRa recently stated in an interview that humans are related to apes because humans are classified as apes. Classified by whom? People who believe in evolution.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "Sounds like circular reasoning to me. You categorize organisms in terms of common ancestry and then present it as evidence for common ancestry." .... " Classified by whom? People who believe in evolution."
The first people to set out to classify and categorize animals were creationists. It doesn't matter who does it, unless you believe they have control of all physiological, embryological, or molecular evidence into matching up perfectly. It's inevitable to produce common ancestry.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "AronRa recently stated in an interview that humans are related to apes because humans are classified as apes." Which interview? Does he say that they are because they are classified or because of the reasons for their classifications?
pat5168 2 months ago
@bestvalue Well you would be right except for the fact that all branches of science can confirm evolution, that's how we get a peer reviewed scientific theory. You take this knowledge for granted...all the modern things that WORK are thanks to science but when science tells you that you are part of the great ape family you get a little butt hurt and deny it. I'd seriously reconsider your position when you take this into account....not a single creationist has ever had a peer reviewed paper.
Antimidation 1 month ago
@Antimidation So much information in your small post that I don't know where to start.
No, all branches of science do not - and cannot - confirm evolution. Peer review is largely a myth. Google "the myth of peer review." All the modern things of science (like technology) were intelligently designed and did not evolve. Science was invented by theists. Creationist do publish in peer-reviewed journals. You'd just say "not real science journals" which commits a logical fallacy.
bestvalue 1 month ago
@bestvalue Do not presume to tell me what i will say. But I will admit to saying "All branches" was misleading. There are, however these branches that do confirm it -entomology , biology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and cosmology. Science was not invented by theists and it surely wasn't because of their Theist beliefs that any were scientists...science also led the way to better understanding the natural world
Antimidation 1 month ago
@bestvalue The point that I was making was simply that science has proven itself to work and also it runs on the notion that it can make mistakes but expects them, evolution is not a new concept, it's been questioned thousands of times, you see science is open to scrutiny and it gladly invites it. Evolution has been refined over the past 100 years and with each knowledge or discovery made only reinforces it's foundation. The point is...science works and has a system that works. What system....
Antimidation 1 month ago
@bestvalue would you say is better than science in finding the closest thing to truth and the natural world?
Antimidation 1 month ago
@bestvalue The belief in god or faith in god has nothing to do with what we are discussing. There are plenty of Theists and theist scientists who accept evolution. Most scientists are Atheists or have a no belief. You can accept evolution and still be faithful to god, it does not diminish your belief.
Antimidation 1 month ago
@Antimidation " Most scientists are Atheists or have a no belief. "
I doubt thats now true... last count most were religious. They just didn't apply their religious knowledge to their job...
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
@MumblingMickey No, that's actually still true. The most recent study I know of ('07) shows that 64% of university professors do not think it can be said there is a God - and that includes the social "sciences," which is like sitting on the scale.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta Well if thats true its changed radically in a few years....
What study was this?... or did they just answer the question as you presented there... because even the Vaticans scientists would answer they didn't think 'it could be said' there was a god...if they were to answer from a perspective of evidence... that would stop them believing there was though....
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
@MumblingMickey ". that would stop them believing there was though...."
should read
". that wouldn't stop them believing there was though...."
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IoEstasCedonta ". that would stop them believing there was though...."
should read
". that wouldn't stop them believing there was though...."
MumblingMickey 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "All the modern things of science (like technology) were intelligently designed and did not evolve."
Ironic you say that considering evolutionary algorithms have been used for the past several decades throughout the field of engineering.\
"Creationist do publish in peer-reviewed journals. You'd just say "not real science journals" which commits a logical fallacy."
No they don't and which fallacy is that?
ProteusO1 1 month ago
@bestvalue It's one thing to scream bias or unfairness when you think for some reason that creationist actually need to be heard, but not when they are WRONG every time. It's not a matter of being heard, it's a matter of being honest! There is NOTHING keeping a creationist from trying to get a paper peer reviewed, science likes to be wrong and then fix the answer....reviewing and testing by different parties does not allow bias opinions! If you can prove evolution wrong, go win a Nobel Prize.
Antimidation 1 month ago
@pat5168 Wait . . . I think I just figured out what you mean. Okay, let's for a moment forget about how we prove if they could interbreed in the past because the species definition has the same problem. But if they can interbreed in the present they are definitely the same kind whereas the same cannot be said for species. The classification of species is much more arbitrary and can be influenced by bias.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue The species definition doesn't have that problem, since we recognize it's gray areas such as ring species being explained by Evolution. Your claim is that all of those created kinds are completely separate from one another, which simply does not stand. I will illustrate this point if you can move on from your silly projections of faults as if they are my problem.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "move on from your silly projections of faults as if they are my problem"
When did I do that? And why is it so hard to believe that all the animals in, let's say, the cat family are related when you believe that all the cats are related to oak trees as well as to every other living thing?
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "let's for a moment forget about how we prove if they could interbreed in the past because the species definition has the same problem." Is when you did that, you projected the problems with defining "kind" towards our definition of species. This is the difference here - Species is a label, a convenience for classifying organisms and holds no value to their relatedness. Kind is a distinction of different groups of life with no relativity to other organisms.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "Species is a label, a convenience for classifying organisms and holds no value to their relatedness"
Of course it does. Why are you say "species" has nothing to do with their relatedness?
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "why is it so hard to believe that all the animals in, let's say, the cat family are related" All of them are related, when did I claim otherwise?
"when you believe that all the cats are related to oak trees as well as to every other living thing?" Please answer the questions in the following comment with a simple yes or no, I need you to start putting these pieces together yourself. No snide remarks, I am past your taunting and will not bicker with you.
pat5168 2 months ago
@bestvalue Answer the following with a simple "Yes." or "No."
Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
Are all panthers related to felines, scimitar cats and all other felids?
Are felids related to civets, bearcats, and other viverrids?
Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order, Carnivora?
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 I can't answer with a simple yes or no because I don't have all the information. In any of those questions, if they can interbreed they are definitely the same kind and are related. If they cannot they still may be the same kind if they could interbreed in the past. I am not a baraminologist.
Do you not find it absurd that you argue against the relatedness of members of the cat family but would defend the relatedness of them to an oak tree?
bestvalue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "I can't answer with a simple yes or no because I don't have all the information."
Why of course you can, did you not claim your definition of "kind" is a sound one? Is that definition somehow irrelevant to their relatedness or any information you do not know?
"if they can interbreed they are definitely the same kind and are related. ... they still may be the same kind if they could interbreed in the past"
Thank you, so Feloidea is the same kind as Carnivora by your own definition.
pat5168 2 months ago
@bestvalue "Do you not find it absurd that you argue against the relatedness of members of the cat family but would defend the relatedness of them to an oak tree?"
This puzzles me, because I am arguing for members of Feloidea's relatedness and you are arguing that they have a border which kind is separated by, with most creationists they leave that undistinguished, but with your given definition there isn't one and it actually proposes common ancestry.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 How does my definition for "kind" propose common ancestry? And by that I mean common ancestry of ALL life forms, not just SOME. Everyone believes in common ancestry of SOME.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue "How does my definition for "kind" propose common ancestry?"
Your definition of kind indicates that an organism's ancestry were once more closely related than they are now. However, you only accept this accuracy to a certain degree. As you acknowledged.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 By the way, I'm not the one who's flagging your posts as spam. I don't know who's doing that but I wish they would stop.
bestvalue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue The definition of species is supposed to be imprecise if Evolution is true. If the Created kinds were spontaneously made than the definition should be sound. I showed that your definition in fact is not. For example, you say that if a species who can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring, then they are still the same kind if their ancestors once could. However, you yourself said that it is unverifiable to show that fossils could ever be proven to be fertile.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue The definition of species is supposed to be imprecise if Evolution is true. If the Created kinds were spontaneously made than the definition should be sound. I showed that your definition in fact is not. For example, you say that if a species who can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring, then they are still the same kind if their ancestors once could. However, you yourself said that it is unverifiable to show that fossils could ever be proven to be fertile.
pat5168 2 months ago
Also, polar and grizzly bears and whales and dolphins. Even if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind. The whole speciation thing is a ruse to make you think evolution happens. It doesn't. P.S.: Just discovered that even roosters and geese can produce offspring so, yes, they are the same kind.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue And if Species A can interbreed with B, and B can interbreed with C, but C cannot interbreed with A, are they still of the same biblical kind?
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 If A and C could previously interbreed they are the same kind - even if they can't now. If they never could, they are not the same kind.
bestvalue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
« If A and C could previously interbreed they are the same kind - even if they can't now. If they never could, they are not the same kind. »
And what if A and C have never been able to interbreed, but A and B, and B and C have?
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@bestvalue So, C never could interbreed with A, so B and C are separate kinds from A and B? That doesn't work unless you claim that it is possible for one thing to be part of two kinds.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
« Even if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind »
Wait, but then any objection against major taxa arising from a common ancestor you might have disappears, and all life simply becomes the same 'kind'.
Great, we're done! Bye now, kid!
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@MrGralgrathor No, because you would have to prove that they could once interbreed - not possible with fossils.
bestvalue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
« No, because you would have to prove that they could once interbreed »
So you're saying that your claim "if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind", is actually *not* a criterium for determining if two populations belong to the same kind, as you are claiming that we could never know whether they once interbred anyhow. So then what *is* a criterium for determining kind?
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor "if they once could interbreed but no longer can, they are the same biblical kind." ....
.... "you would have to prove that they could once interbreed - not possible with fossils."
Shits an giggles man, shits and giggles.
pat5168 2 months ago
@bestvalue Then your own definition falls apart, because you cannot prove that any of those interbreedable species could ever produce fertile offspring. Please admit that your definition falls apart on further scrutiny, because I don't want this to go down the road oh-so-many Creationist arguments have a tendency of doing. With your definition, all species under Felidae are of the same kind as all species under Canoidea. And that goes for all of Carnivora.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "you cannot prove that any of those interbreedable species could ever produce fertile offspring"
Leaving aside the fact that science doesn't PROVE anything in the absolute sense, nor can you prove that certain fossils could not interbreed and thus are different species. Both the definitions of kind and of species fall apart when we are talking about fossils. So what is your point? (cont.)
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue And that's why I wasn't speaking in an absolute sense. If I cannot prove, according to your claim, that organisms which are now fossils couldn't interbreed, why do you insist that species who only produce infertile offspring such as lions and tigers ever could? Species in a biological term is meant to have gray areas, explained by Evolution. Listen, arguing with a Creationist is an inevitable victory, my goal is to make you realize this.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 "arguing with a Creationist is an inevitable victory, my goal is to make you realize this"
If you're going to win an argument against a creationist, you'd be the first evolutionist to do it. I'd like to see that. :^D
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue It depends if you judge an argument by rhetoric or actual evidence. Very well, seeing as you're already lost with your definition beyond rational doubt, I find your playground-level teasing a bit telling.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 My definition is sound. I hope you'll never accuse creationists of not providing an adequate definition of "kind" because I just have.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue Two people have now shown you why it is not. Now you are lying.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 No one has shown me any such thing. It is the biblical definition of kind so there can be nothing wrong with it just because you don't like it. And you shouldn't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue Reread MrGralgathor and my comments, the bible gives no definition of "kind" either. Did you just shrug off our points or do you honestly not think we brought them up?
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168 "With your definition, all species under Felidae are of the same kind as all species under Canoidea. And that goes for all of Carnivora."
Can all the species under Felidae, Canoida and Carnivora interbreed? If they can, they are the same kind. Carnivora includes weasels and polar bears so no they are not all the same kind.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue Yes, but there ancestors once could, or are you being picky with when your definition is applicable?
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168 No. If their ancestors once could, they are the same kind.
"are you being picky with when your definition is applicable?"
You mean like with species when they changed the definition from animals that can't interbreed to those that can but don't usually because of differences in mating habits? Under the classical definition of species domestic dogs should be the same species as wolves but they aren't. The "kind" definition is more precise and is probably like "family."
bestvalue 2 months ago
The short answer too the phylogeny challenge is this: can the two animals interbreed (regardless of whether their offspring is fertile)? If so, they are the same biblical kind. If not, they are different kinds. This may sound suspiciously like the definition for species but it is not. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Thus, they are the same kind. Same goes for horses, donkeys and zebras. Dogs and wolfs? Check. Pigs and boars? Yup. Camels and llamas? Right again. (cont.)
bestvalue 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
« can the two animals interbreed »
Hey, boy, how exactly does that work out for ring species in which the ring is open?
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
cool vid,
got my geek on
RippdUb 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
It is telling how almost all of the organisms portrayed in this video are DRAWINGS of hypothetical organisms, and not pictures of the organisms or even fossils. Artwork != evidence
badp81 3 months ago
@badp81 Irrelevant. They have the actual fossils themselves millions of them go pick out a large college, most of them will have a department, or basically warehouse, filled with them like a library. Or go to a community college and start using their computers to search the science publication, journals, and studies made from them. Technically you could be obtuse enough to say that much of his trees were invalid also because they were merely names, stop being lazy then and research yourself.
YesMaybeNope 3 months ago
@badp81 Basically, either your half-baked hypothesis about a 'their just drawings ergo they just making it all up' conspiracy is true, or your full of crap and they are drawing made by artists based on real morphology and species found the fossil record, and then your just an idiot making a big deal out of something you don't really understand or haven't really thought through.
YesMaybeNope 3 months ago
@badp81 The extinct creature we see in the video were drawn with the help of fossils or other means(picture, drawing remains) for those more recently extinct , but plaint of them are still exist today. Beside, fossils, even though they are very powerful evidences, are still not the most powerful evidence. That would be genetic. Moreover none of these evidences were available when Darwin designed the basis of the theory. He discovered it thanks to the physiological and geological evidences alone.
Tamizushi 3 months ago
@badp81 Huh? How exactly is it "telling"? Are you implying that the "organisms" portray here are imaginary, creatures made up with no fossils as evidence? I challenge you to show even one "hypothetical organism" that was portrayed to be evidence as being fictitious. Just give us one, you jackass, just one! Talk is cheap.
thybigballs 2 months ago
hmmm, i bet it's around 14 fanaticaly religious bigots and 13 justin bieber fans disliking this video
tdjdk 3 months ago
1ST U LOOK LIKE THE DEVIL HMM?? 2nd where does the duck bill platypus fit, 3rd by that logic we are closely related to bannanas and last question which came 1st proto chicken or egg=atheist true nightmare! Evolution=fish went 2 land=dino rat ape & whale went 2 water=mammal fish but what about polar bears=fail!
MegaGangstaparadise 3 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise
ohh, btw, what on EARTH made you think that we are closely related to bananas? I stress (YOUR claim) CLOSELY related!!! Dude! Makes just about as much sense as me asking you : What is the generaly acceptable heartrate of a banana, before determining bananadeath? Or do you want us to explore in to the realm of bananabraindeath?
tdjdk 3 months ago
@tdjdk LOL...banana death.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Someone didn't watch the video! Btw the chicken came first from the first chicken egg. It's mother was one minor mutation away from falling into the chicken dinner category. Boom, nightmare solved. And in case you didn't realize it, there are many non-atheists in the many fields of science, and in particular, biology. Not one of the religious biologists have ever submitted a paper for peer review attempting to show evolution to be false. Why is that Mr. Smartypants?
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs FAIL! how can an egg lay itself? What about Mammals huh HUH! what did mutation create fetus without mother lol show me where in life can a mammal mutated bacteria evolve by itself into a fetus w/o a mothers womb to carry it! SCIENCE smh cuz anything theorize must be true? like knowing composition in deep space by GUESSING=fail. theres a GOD & scientist know it, i swear this nation will now GOD. MY GOD MADE LIFE U FAILED BAD.
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise A chicken egg cannot lay itself. It takes a chicken to do that. A mammal fetus requires a mother. Mammal fetus' don't mutate from bacteria. What does deep space have to do with evolution of life? You made an assertion that God made me. Assertions without proof requires no further rebuttal. Science makes no claims whether god exists or not. The reason it doesn't is because there is no evidence to prove or disprove God. Science relies on verifiable repeatable observations.:-)
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs a fets cannot lay itself science can't prove it or big bang, science=assuptions with a belife on theories made by mathmatical guesses like space theories and physics. god can hide his face from us he himself says it. science can't explain deep space mysteries much less evolution problems like fetus,origin and such. GRAVITY=INVISABLE BUT REAL WELL GOD=INVISABLE BUT REAL THROUGH HIS FORCE=GRAVITY AND PHYSICS.
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Yes, a fetus cannot lay itself in the same way a human fetus can't be created outside a womb and from dust. If you think Christians have the "truth" can you tell me why no Christian scientist has EVER submitted a paper for peer-review that overturns any theories? NOT ONE PAPER!!! I double dare you to answer this.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs I'll answer you when you answer my question 'how can a fetus/egg come into existance w/o a womb to carry it ? what does it skip the fetus stages by being born an adult already than all of a sudden evolution advantages it to be fetus in womb later on in yrs lol. therefore god exist!
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise See the post from pat5168 to me. And a lack of understanding does not=God.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs It doesn't necessarily take what we would consider a chicken to lay a chicken egg. But it's hard to draw the lines of where we should stop considering it A and now it is B. But that is exactly what Evolution predicts, and species is a label only for human convenience. However, if there are distinguishable and fundamentally distinct types of animals or "kinds" then we wouldn't have those problems with species both alive and in the fossil record.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 Thanks for the reply. To simplify things for MegaGangster, and because I'm lazy, I will borrow it.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs No problem, I'm fascinated by this stuff. If you have the time, watch the video I recently favorited on my channel, its well worth it and is very intellectually satisfying. I love cosmology and its similar fields, its really an area of wonderment, but it just doesn't compare to my interest in the life sciences.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 So evolution not from point A to B? okay than proto chicken mutated from bacteria than skiped point a became point b and evolution already knew to give it sex organs to become point a although it didn't need point a to reach b. yeah that and species is a label so its and hard to draw the lines...ok so its a jello w/o skip point a then relize it needs point a? right blah blah i smart words, ILL TAKE GOD AS MY ANSWER.
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Hmm, I usually understand a Creationist's plight when they can't comprehend it, but you seem to be willingly misconstruing it. For whichever reason is beyond me. Your comment is such a mess I can't even tell what you think the fault is.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 basically according to your hypothesis the chicken skip point a=egg stage then later adapted point a rather than popping into existance like it did in the 1st place. may god open your eyes, god bless u
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Read my comment again, I don't know if you think you're replying to a different set of comments or if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because you have either completely lacked the comprehension of my post or are just a dogmatic skimmer attempting to misconstrue my point. Either way, you make no sense.
pat5168 2 months ago
@pat5168 I can read yours I don't know why you can't read sense in mines? Let me dumb it down:According to you, in Evolution a chicken was 1st. But later it decided to make eggs even though it came to life w/o the need of a egg stage. secoundly why and how can a chicken become self existance by skipping the egg stage being the 1st huh? why did evolution need sex reproduction if chickens can make themselves...impossible God creator is ONLY WAY.
MegaGangstaparadise 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise Thank you, now I know where you completely misconstrued my point. I said that an animal can be something we would not consider a chicken but it could lay a chicken egg, but the stages would be so gradual that it would be hard to draw the line of where we should start considering it a chicken. Nowhere did I say that a chicken spontaneously generated such as your erroneous claim implies.
pat5168 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat5168
It's really tough explaining things to creationists. Creationists think entirely in black-and-white terms. There is nothing in between in their world. Either something is a chicken, or else it's a fish. Something not quite but almost like a chicken doesn't exist in their world. It just doesn't register.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaGangstaparadise
Thinking is not your strong suit, is it?
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaGangstaparadise
« basically according to your hypothesis the chicken skip point a=egg »
Nah. Eggs existed long before chickens evolved.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
@MegaGangstaparadise God isn't an answer. It answers nothing.
slashingraven 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« how can an egg lay itself? »
Your comment is brimming with unwarranted assumptions. Who claims an egg laid itself? Who claims mammalian fetuses appeared out of thin air?
You'd do well to FIRST familiarize yourself with some of the claims that scientists *actually* make, rather than just ranting without even knowing what you're ranting about.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
Thumbs up for thieving monkey mayhem....
320iguy 3 months ago
braingasm! this just blows my mind. Thank you sir.
latinxl416 3 months ago 2
win, pure win.
viicISrotcib 4 months ago
@pointyhead1 -- you are correct and that is exactly the point, I think: if you keep tracing up the cladogram then we are all just one "kind."
thediggyk 4 months ago
Genesis 3:14 "...and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Mr. AronRa: The preceding was god's curse upon the snake. Was it, in any way, binding? Do snakes eat dust?
fdasherv 4 months ago
Ugh! That video of Charlton Heston kissing Michelle Bachmann was really a turn off.
comingatchu 4 months ago
PANGOLINS?! GAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAAAAAAY!!!!
PracticeMakesAwesome 4 months ago
Amazing!
skardam 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great presentation! I'd give AronRa cash for whatever project he embarks on!
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Comment removed
ninanotturna 5 months ago
Epic win!! Thanks for this video!!
skepticlogician 5 months ago
i just thought of an epic comeback to nobodies ever seen species x give birth to a species y:
nobody's ever observed a mother give birth to a grandchild.
epic right?
viking977 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@viking977 ...heh heh... nice!
AcmeEvil 5 months ago
It is possible after all that the trans-formation of structure into character may never be possible and that the common noun may never be able to emerge from the proper noun.-The Order of Things, Michelle Foucault
wintereis57 5 months ago
@ChristfollowerMs
One google search: Speciation+examples destroys your argument. AronRA has made hundreds of videos explaining this several times over. Just watch them. To get from worm to fish takes quite a bit of time. It takes quite a bit less time to get say: mosquito to slightly different mosquito.
Mostlyharmless1985 5 months ago
Is it me or Rahonavis looks like Articuno? I guess there is such a thing as too much pokemon.
LZeroK 5 months ago
@LZeroK I thought it as well =P
ThatArcticFoxGuy 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
This video brilliantly illustrates the reason I rage on people that tell me 'God did it'.
bharper2011 6 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa 3
@Mogley52 Dawkins outlines his reasons for not debating creationists in great detail on his own website. You are implying a fear of creationists on Dawkins part, thus distorting his position (surprise!).
I'm sure you've watched a few AronRa, Thunderf00t and Potholer54 videos, so you are well aware of the scientific vacuousness of many of the statements in your article. When are you going to live up to your morals and be honest about it?
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
Excellent video, AronRa!
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
MrLocMohamed 6 months ago
AronRa, Your phylogenics says that we are monkeys. In the same way, we could say that we never stop being any of "the things" our ancestors were.
The species our ancestor was, is not what we still are , though, is it ?
"The thing our ancestors were", we assume, be called "a kind of" monkey.
This is where my question goes to: the language being used is becoming more similar to creationist language any "kind" of critter never changing to be not that kind of critter.
pointyhead1 6 months ago
AronRa,
Therefore I see both Creationist and you, as using the "it never stops being that basic kind of thing that it is and always was" argument.
So although it's true that many Creationists would even deny that humans are animals ( maybe even while admitting we are mammals )- that's not the point !
I'm intrigued by how close the language works out to be; "kinds" always remaining "kind". Like one is a more warped version.
pointyhead1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 He states the reason is that it's a dead argument. You guys bring nothing to the table to overturn the theory of evolution. You bring a shitload of misconceptions, quote mining and plain ole' deceit. Where are the religious biologists with their peer reviewed papers that disprove evolution? Can you give even one? And I mean actual biologists and actual peer reviewed papers too, and not some yahoo who works at a plastics lab or Pop-Tart factory either.
thybigballs 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA." Read Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 You said,"Besides, species couldn't have survived with vital tissues, organs, biological systems still evolving?"+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ever hear of irreducible complexities getting more complex?That stuff is the shizznit. Thats how you are living today.
thybigballs 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AronRa Human was the last species appeared on earth, since then till today nothing changed! We didn't see new animals, and human didn't evolve to something else! if you believe monkeys evolved to human, what about other animals? if there is evolution then we don't really need to search about transitional fossil! at least we must witness transitional animals which are evolving since 200 million years and living today but still need more time to become something else! What can u say about that?
ChristfollowerMs 6 months ago
You know, Wikipedia sometimes has partial phylogenic 'branches' under specific pages, maybe we could ask them to combine them and then complete the rest of the tree.
EthanNin0 6 months ago
Awesome, but elephant shrews are Afrotherians
1990PatMorrison 7 months ago
Ever thought about writing a book?
davidkbarcus 7 months ago
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t. In your case it seems you are actually quite capable of dazzling with brilliance.
VentureFree 7 months ago
Overwhelmingly good!
Rioarri 7 months ago
For a creationist to respond to your challenge they would need to have the biological knowledge to understand your questions, their significance, and the ramifications for creationism. No rational person who claims creationist belief has the sophistication to answer or even understand your challenge because the acquisition of the requisite background knowledge in a rational person would itself destroy creationist belief, leaving only irrational respondents to answer your rational challenge.
emaildoctor 7 months ago 2
@emaildoctor Nice. It's the evidence-o-phile version of the anthropic principle.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@emaildoctor Most excellently put ;)
Tyrfingr 7 months ago