But some scientists say that we have the same genes as monkeys? And that the missing chromosome was where one gene fused together or some shit like that
"Christians don't understand evolution" does that include all the Christian M.D.s, O.D.s, and scientists in all fields? I think it's more atheists don't understand most things, at least thats been my experience.
Life forms have offspring with slight random mutations.
These mutations can make them more or less likely to survive in their environment.
The survivors are the ones who have offspring and the process repeats.
Sometimes life forms get isolated in different environments and their gene pools are then able to mutate with different averages to the other isolated life forms.
Eventually they are so different in their DNA that they can no longer breed together, and are destined to evolve independently.
Fact 4 doesnt even make sense. do some research b4 u start listing facts that r complete bs. mutation will never occur at the same site at the same rate on 2 individuals.... u r retarded sir
What kind of idiot believes they came from a monkey. YOU DO!!!!!!!!! If that were true than explain to me why there are still monkeys around. You have no real proof. That is only what you believe. IT IS A THEORY!!!!!!! Its not real. A make believe story to try and say that God is not real... Read Gen.1:1 That is the oldest documentation there is.
That's true, those making the claim do have the burden of proof and as far as evidence goes, we've got tons of it.
Now I take your question to mean show concrete, factual, physical (is there any other kind?) of evidence that shows our familial association with other primates (we ARE PRIMATES).
Fact 1: We share on some level a common environment with all living creatures.
Fact 2: DNA is changed by chemical and radiation exposure, instantly in some cases, over periods of time in others.
Fact 3: We are surrounded by chemicals and radiation. Over time this would produce similarities in our genome.
Fact 4: 2 separate species exposed to the same radiation of the same amplitude will produce the same mutations at the same site at the same rate. That alone shows mutation is not random.
Thanks for providing what you believe are facts, these are merely propositions and not facts.
1. You say we share a common environment, but by this you mean - PLANET EARTH? Environments across our planet vary tremendously so I don't see your point?
2. So what?
3. Why would it?
4. No, they wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but you're just misguided on your "facts". Could you provide some sources for these at all?
And you are correct... not all species incur the same damage when exposed to radiation but some do and those that do a mutation will occur at the same rate and at the same site.
That is correct... Environments across the planet have various variables, this is why when an surface dwelling animals DNA is compared to those at the bottom of the ocean they look as if from completely different worlds. In a sense they are.
3. EVERYTHING is "Chemicals". The word "Chemicals" is therefore meaningless in this context. "Radiation" can cause damage to DNA but not equivalent across all species and frankly your "fact" are just plain crazy wrong.
Take your radiation for example, will Cosmic rays do? They blast holes through DNA like a machine gun. Are you maintaining that we all suffer the same pattern of cell and DNA damage from the "same" blast of radiation? That's just silly.
A huge problem science in general runs into are the findings of other branches of science physiology and biology have differing views on what an environment is, for example. This makes it hard to get a true vote of integrated factual information. Yes everything is chemicals this is why some mutations look random when in fact it is due to an infinite number of environmental conditions.
First - no evolutionist ever said we 'came from a monkey.' Evolution states that we share a common ancestry with Chimps and other primates. How can we know this? Because DNA coding and transitional fossils are undeniable evidence pointing to such a conclusion. Second, "only a theory" is a pathetic cry - you misunderstand how scientists use the word 'theory'. A scientific theory is a set of well-established, evidence-based facts that have been tested, retested, and fit into a paradigm. Moron.
Ha you are awesome! you are like a characature of an anti-evolution proponent. You even made the classic "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" statement. Beautiful. That's it! No one has thought of that before, you just killed evolution right there. Why arent you famous yet!?!?!
Haha no seriously we didn't come from monkeys, they are simply the species that we are most closely related to. If you understood anything about evolution you wouldnt have said that.
What is funny is the title of the video is "The explain evolution challenge", yet the first link mentioned being such a "great example" does not explain evolution, but is skeptical towards ID.
And to think Octamed, that somewhere in your mind, you really believe you are being open and fair.
You can not ask for creationist views and then disqualify them because they come from the authority of the creationists worldview.
Example.
I want to know what feminist think of Sarah Palin, only any views you use that are based on feminism are disqualified, we want to know what feminist think of Sarah Palin only using a masculine worldview.
actually in this case that doesn't apply. Because all I wanted to see is if people who disagree with evolution know what it actually is. Personal opinions don't come into it. It'd be like me refuting jesus but it turns out I think jesus is santa claus, which makes for a totally pointless and frustrating discussion if I refuse to learn about the actual jesus character. You have to establish if people understand the subject before anything else.
Using the words "what you believe" 3:31 asks for personal opinion.
And if you think Jesus is Santa Claus, then yes, you can refute.
You can not ask creationists who may not even believe in it at all to tell what "they believe" evolution is, and for them to not insert their world view.
I took the textbook wiki definition, and as you observed, I am getting hammered in the posts saying it is wrong, which is fine because it is Wiki, and not me, that they are refuting. Evolutionists vs evolution.
But, as i am sure you have observed, you have made it impossible for any creationist definition of evolution to be "worthy".
Example, I ask for a definition of Jesus.
You say a man that supposedly lived about 2000 years ago that Christians believe to be the Messiah and believe salvation comes from the sacrifice of dying on a cross, which he supposedly rose from the dead 3 days later.
And I say, WRONG, he is the Savior of the WORLD!!! You obviously do not know who Jesus is.
I could explain much more about the evolution fraud. Please feel free use and enjoy my YouTube video "Dont you Monkey around" as a mechanism to spread the word of the Evolution fraud. In response to one or two comments here: Franco714: the story of Darwin being (and dying) a Christian is a disproved myth/lie. He lived and died an agnostic. KHayotiK - you're right, it cannot be explained!! Riptidescool - Evolution and biblical creation cannot be mixed together, it HAS to be one or the other!
... evolution says space, matter and energy erupted on its own out of nothing. Science says 'matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed'. Philosophy says 'everything that starts to exist, had to have a cause'. Evolution says animate matter ('life') developed (mechanism unknown) out of inanimate matter. Science established 200 years ago (Pasteur) that life CANNOT come from inanimate matter....
I'm glad to see you're seeking the truth - and there is truth to find! Evolution is an atheist philosophy, which goes against much science and much philosophy/ religion. Taking "evolution" to mean 'The Big-Bang coupled with neo-Darwinian synthesis'....
{{macro - father to son small changes still the same though o.k. }}- {{ slug to rat to cat to dog to monkey to man , -no real evidence , and no proof }}?? best i can explain it . after all the arguing and name calling , this comment is hopefully just that a comment .
Evolution was given to us by a Christian. And he died as a Christian, So says Elizabetth Reid. She was at his deathbed when he accepted Jesus as his Savior.
God created earth, and earth evolved itself. Not in 7000 years. Billions is more of an accurate theory. Only God was a big part of it. The Bible is based on Gods word, but has foulicy, because it was written by human hand. And people back then didn't have the technology to figure it out. Science and God both worked together.
There is no probability, just logic.but no proof, we evoloved from monkeys to the missing link to man. there's still monkey and still man. why did missing link extinct. They never excisted, sorry.
Ok, check out my paper on the evolution of information. Run the evj program (fun!!). Read the page "Experimenting with Evolution: A Guide to Evj". If you understand every detail of that, you will understand evolution at the molecular and mathematical levels.
Evolution is not truth!cmon a fish turning into something else and then keeps going on!thats stupid! and 2 rocks that clashed together doesnt make any sense because where did those 2 rocks come from?did they jsut magically appear?its stupid!evolution is not true! if it is true,make it happen again u stupid scientist
Well this topic is about explaining evolution. So can you explain it? If you can't that's fine but google 'evolution 101' and click the berkley link, it's really good. It'll take probably a week to read it all.
If what you claim is true, that molecules could fashion such things, there must be evidence to support the many problems your claim presents. Where is this evidence? is there evidence of it, or is your claim based upon faith that it can or has occurred, and not actual evidence that it can or has occurred? if there is no observable evidence of such things arising naturally, sin't your statement a faith-based one and not a scientific one?
ffs man. Congratulations. You are my first and only blocked person. Now I understand why you claim to have never been refuted. Because you just repeat over and over the same inaccuracies and when no-one can be bothered responding and/or you get blocked for being annoying you chalk it up as a victory. The fact is you think noahs ark is real and millions of species all descended from one boat load of animals... WITHOUT evolution. Case closed, GO HOME.
Molecules bind to one another because of their chape. Any given 2 molecules can only bine this way or that. Many only in one way, if at all. Where is the ability withing the shape of a molecule to create part of an algorithm? How can it's shape develop a problem solving equasion that has a purpose, and whos purpose is to seek information in hundreds or thousands of other molecules to which IT DOES NOT BIND, as is the case of polymeraise scanning a strand of DNA for specific nucleotied sequences?
What is then the evidence that molecules are capable of creating algorithms? Where is the evidence to support your claim that molecules can create problem solving equasions? problem solving equasions require the ability to concieve an an result, then seek it. Where is the evidence that molecules have the ability to conciously concieve a desired end result, then seek it?
If we know that algorithms are a product of intelligence, and we find them only in DNA and nowhere else, is it logical to believe that they arose because of molecules bumping into each other were capable of creating something that, aside from DNA, only we are capable of creating? Where is the logic that creates this bridge between the natural world and us?
If we lived in a world where there are no cubes, only other shapes, and we looked at the most complex shape we know of (think DNA), a shape that is alive when all other shapes are not living, and found cubes in it, and the only cubes that existed were the ones in the complex shape and the ones WE had designed ourselves, would it be logical to believe that the cubes were a product of the world in which they do not exist anywhere else except outr imagination?
Abiogenesis contends the characteristics of molecules is what causes (It stopped? No new bacteria popping up? Just once???) them to organize and become more complex. But molecules don't cantain any algorithms. Algorithms are problem solving equasions. They could not have been imparted to DNA by molecules then. Where did these algorithms come from? Algorithms are a product of intelligence. They exist only in DNA and the mind of man! Where did the intelligence that imparted them come from?
Oh sorry. You see, DNA uses algorithms to store and retrieve information from the DNA molecule. But algorithms do not exist anywhere in nature outside the DNA molecule. This means nature could not have imparted algorithms to DNA by evolution. The only place algorithms are known to exist outside the DNA molecule is in the mind of man. Thus, it is empirical evidence of intelligent design, since algorithms are a product of intelligence.
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
saying the same stuff over and over again doesn't make it any more correct. Even if I thought evolution was total bull AND all the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer which I accepted, I still wouldn't accept the bible. It's doesn't make sense and it was written by ordinary MEN. How can you, in the same sentence scrutinise tiny details in evolution and then say the bible counts as evidence? ANYONE could have written the bible. If god was real we wouldn't need faith.
Moving the goal-posts. First it was "no transitional fossils" and now it's "we need *this* specific kind". I think you misunderstand things to such a large extent that your brain ceases functioning.
What evidence is there that the Bible is correct? It contains a series of codes that verify IT'S supernatural origin as well, which verifies that the God in that Bible, the one who stated He is the designer, is actually the one who inspired the Bible! There you have it! DNA has supernatural origin, God has claimed to be the designer, our evidence of that God is verified as supernatural!
Are you really so blinded, that you don't see what you are doing there? Let's see: The bible says that it is supernatural, so that means it must be god. God says that he wrote the bible (in the bible) so the bible must be real.
It's called circular reasoning and it doesn't prove anything.
Now, since we know that DNA has a supernatural origin, we must look for a designer. Do we have evidence that anyone outside of nature created DNA? We surely do! We have the Bible and history, which includes an all-powerful God who told us he is the designer. What evidence is there that this God exists? I cannot begin to name it all.
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are not found anywhere in nature except in the DNA molecule. How do you suppose nature put this amazing ability into DNA if algorithms do not exist in nature? The obvious is that it cannot happen. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
Actually when you think about how we hypothesis the origin of DNA and RNA, algorithms are a result of successful molecular replication, we of course don't have conclusive data on self-catalyzing RNA polymers on early earth, but its a long way from proclaiming GOD DID IT the second a new question arises, if we did that, the sun would still orbit the earth and natural disasters would still be divine punishment. Do I do reject your ad hoc 'proof' that God did anything.
Professional mathematicans, such as Dr. William A. Dembski and others, have demonstrated with mathematics that the statistical odds of evolutionary change taking place by overcoming the loss of information and negativity of genetic change is essentially zero (to the incredible power of). It is one to a number greater than the estimated number of particles of matter in the observed universe.
ht tp : // cayman . globat . c o m / ~trademarksnet . c o m / T / ActiveInfo . p d f
Negative. 70 yrs of millions of experiments with mutation have proven mutation cannot cause permanent morphological change to any form of life. Organisms mutated in a lab revert to their Wild Type in 1 to several generations because of DNA recombination replacing the mutated gene with a backup copy. There has never been a single exception. Not one.
Reverting "back to wild" is evidence of natural selection. It is a non-sequitor to state evidence of natural selection as proof of non-morphological changes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
we haven't stopped. Although we have drastically changed the natural course of our own evolution. But it could be easily said that it's still perfectly natural that we can do that.
We evolve through mutations in our cells. We do this to make use out of our environment and to protect us from dieing out from disease. If we were to stop evolving then we would surely die. It takes mating to start the process. Cheers! From an atheist.
Consider: Why in these seismic images of the interior of the Earth which show the massive bodies of water, did they remove the core area from them? If the imaging provided enough resolution to see what is next to the outer core so well, surely it provided imagery of the oputer core. Yet they removed that part from the images. Could it be that they do not want the public to know that the outer core also contains massuive amounts of water and is not molten as they have claimed? Think about it.
Volcanos: God split the Earth's crust (Mid-Atlantif Rift) and this caused the breakup of "Pangea". The continents slid apart, ginding untold tonnage of stone, creating tremendous heat, melting the stone and creating pockets of molten material beneath the lithosphere.
See, the evos have been claiming this for a century:
w w w . seismo . unr . edu / ftp / pub / louie / class / 100 / interior . h t m l
But today we know the Earth's mantles are cool, in fact, the earth is filled with massive oceans (from which the Noachian Flood came) inside BOTH mantles!:
ht tp : // news-info . wustl . edu / news / page / normal / 8222 . h t m l
So you see, evo science is pseiudoscience! The Earth was never molten! God created it from cold stone!
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
Every cell has 2 membranes and a layer of cholesterol between them. Thousands of sodium pumpsare in the cell wall, and they pass through both membranes and the layer of cholesterol. These sodium pumps defy evolution, because evolution cannot explain their creation any more than it can any part of anything living.
"Nice try, animal cells (found in humans) don't have a cell wall, they simply have a cell membrane. Plant cells (found in plants) have a cell wall and then a cell membrane. "
Wrong. Human cells are two walls with a layer of cholesterol between them.
listen there has to be a god look at the big picture, you have matter in space, what created that matter? you say the earth was made by matter that was pulled together by gravity right? well what created gravity, what created the force of it, look at every element in space like for example say you have a gas, its made by molecules and atoms well wat created them look at the big picture what created space?? did it just appear
what do u mean i cant just say i dont know. ive tested my faith trust me i have, its good to question and see the other side of the story. but ive had faith in god and have prevailed
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
Nice try, animal cells (found in humans) don't have a cell wall, they simply have a cell membrane. Plant cells (found in plants) have a cell wall and then a cell membrane.
"Cell MEMBRANES have a single bilayer, not two layers."
Encyclopedia Britanica 2008:
"All cell walls contain two layers, the middle lamella and the primary cell wall, and many cells produce an additional layer, called the secondary wall."
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
Cell MEMBRANES have a single bilayer, not two layers.
What makes you think 70% of a persons energy is being spent on maintaining the activity of sodium-potassium pumps?
Unfortunately, I have not studied the exact mechanism of how the Na+/K+ ATPase arose, but I would posit that it arose through the same mechanism as all other structures: through natural selection.
Evolutionists still create haozes with fossils! Such as Per Ahlberg's reconstruction of Icthyostega, and Jennifer Clack's falicious reconstruction a couple of years before in 2002.
All lies. Packaged to brainwash you, claimed evidence of evolution, all to decieve.
Isn't that just sick,that people calling themselves scientists lie so much to the public to promote something they call science?
If evolution were true and were supported by science, why do so many evolutionist scientists lie today about the evidence?
Why do evolutionists have a long history of fabricating hoaxes if evolution were true, right up to the present, such as Per Ahlberg's reconstruction of Icthyostega?
Why the need for such dishonetsy to the world if evolution were true? In light of so much dishonesty, how much of what you think is evidence of evolution is just another lie? Do you really know? You don't.
I can almost see the little wheels in your head as you think, "You know what. He's right! That's not evolutionary change. It's not evidence of evolution! Hmmm."
"There are stacks and stacks of evidence helping to prove evolution to be true."
There is not one shred of evidence for evolution>? All fields of science point to Special Creation, even the conditions of our solar system, which defy all evolutionist theiories to explain them.
getting a christian to explain evolution is like getting your dog to do your math homework its FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
HOWEVER!!! you have scientist who pray to god in hopes of a break through soo to me both of these seems like vey interesting and off set scenarios dont you agree???
All of the observed mutations which effect the homebox genes produce weakness, deformity, and death, but never anything new, or permanent. The deformities dissapear after 1 to several generations because of a process called DNA Recombination. We have observed in labs billions of mutations effecting morphology over the last 70 yrs, and all have been negative. Doesn't that make you wonder how mutation can be a mechanism for evolution?
It should destroy it. Science destroys evolutionism.
"Evolution is true because of the evidence that supports it"
What evidence? There's no evidence of organims morphologically becoming new kinds of organisms.
"The fact is that it's very unlikely that there is a creator entity because the idea itself is highly illogical."
You have it backwards. That's why one of the world's prominant philosophers (Frey) converted to theism recently. He could not excape the fact that hpilodophy proved to him there had to be a creator.
Evolution is true because of the evidence that supports it, not the people that endorse it. Darwin gave a very clear explanation for how evolution could be proven wrong, and it hasn't happened for 150 years. The fact is that it's very unlikely that there is a creator entity because the idea itself is highly illogical.
LOL wait a minute ... Religion is supposed to be proving God true ... and Evolution is assumed true unless its proven untrue? LOL.. nahhh! ROFL.. nothing wrong with THAT logic! hahahahaha
if you say so jo ... Ive seen stacks of it that has been proven faked or just false. But you go on believing whatever you want. Its not my woe to bear.
Why the continual, consistent fraudulence and deception and outrageous departure into falicy of these models when these evolutionist scientists themselves know that these extinct apes are not chaped like this according to the fossil evidence? Why do evolutionist scientists lie knowingly? Do you believe in evolution because you have swallowed such a long history of lies?
If evolution were true, why do evolutionists create for all the museums of the world models of Australeopitheces which have an ape-like face, a human like body, and completely human feet, when we know the Auastraliopithices had ape feet with an opposed Great Toe?
Both are maggots, nothing more. This isn't morphological change, thus not evolutionary change. Biochemical adaptation has no power to give creatures new morphological features or change existing ones!
"Every organism that has its genome sequenced is another nail in the coffin of creationism."
All genetic knowledge points to special creation.
"The fact of evolution does not disprove the existence of a deity."
The diety has stated He created it. Science supports His word on that.
"Evolution is the observed change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms."
That's one definition of evolution, not the one in the dictionary though. This is a flase definition based upon Natural Selection, which repeats those genetic changes within a population. But NS does not create anytrhing. It only spreads what exists. Natural selection selects. It is not a mechanism for evolution. Understand now about elleles not being evidence of evolution? Good.
Wrong. That definition is a minimal definition lifted from Yale University, if I recall correctly. What appears in some dictionary is beside the point. The definition says nothing about natural selection because it is about the fact of evolution, not about theories that evolution happens through natural selection or any other process. Your confusion of the two is typical. Do you also confuse gravity with a theory of gravity?
People argue about that. I once though superfrozen ice because the Bible states the sky is strong (was) "like a molten looking glass". However, I've come to believe the canopy was a water-heavy cloud cover which would have bathed the Earth is soft but fairly intense light. We know clouds filter UV light - a canopy would have filtered out all UV light, protecting us from mutations. What mutations did occur would have been repeaird by recombination.
The date of 4,400 BC for the flood cannot be correct also because known histrorical cultures flourished at that time, such as in Egypt and Babylonia. Using the corrected timeline, the Noachian Flood probably occured 8-10,000 yrs ago.
"Why does everyone say the flood occured just around 4400 years ago and you say it was 8-10k years?"
This is because most YEC's create a timeline for the Earth using the birth of the patriarchs given in the Bible. This is erroneous because a prince becomes king not when he dies, but when the precious ruler dies. Adjusting the timeline to correctly reflect this, we get a timeline of approximately 11,200 or so yrs.
Natural Selectionmakes existing features more prominant in a population. Right? NA does not create change. The change must already be present before NS can spread it in a population. NS therefore is not a mechanism for evolutionary change. Something else must make the change that NS spreads. NS does not cause evolution. It is not a mechanism for evolutionary change.
So how many transitional forms would exist between fish and tetrapods, just those demonstrating transition of the spine alone? Well, it would be milllions x millions. And we cannot find even one. Do you still believe in evolution? Do you still believe mutation can cause evolution?
I think you can see that the number would be millions x millions. Don't forget that most mutations in embryonic fish are deleterous and result in death before birth (perhaps 90%), and that we are assuming positive effects of mutation could overcome the negative:
Now imagine how many generations of this species of fish would live and die before an entire fin became longer or aquired 2 new bones. Then how many before it aquired a larger scapula. We are talking about millions of years of sich living and dying. So, now think about how manytransitional forms would exist between the morphological change of basal stumps into capitulum to help fish become amphibian tetrapods.
With a GERMLINE mutation rate of only 1.7 per generation in humans, and one of far, far less than 1 per generation for fish, how many generations of fish would live and die before mutations caused detectable morphological change, say, the increase in length of s single bone in a fish's fin, or a reduction of the fish species roofing bones by 1.
Studies show that positive effects of mutation cannot overcome the negative effect of mutations, regardless of the number of them or time alloted. But let's imagine it sdoulc happen.
The mutation rate per generation in organisms is very low. In fish, even lower because water filters UV light. Most mutations are deleterous, meaning they remove nucleotides and thus cause damage that result in death more than weakness or no visible effects. Now, consider how these deadly mutations must overcome the negative effect of death and weakness and accrue into the supposed morphological change over time.
"your saying fossils are common, but how common is either of these fossils?"
Had evolution from fish to amphibians taken place, how many generations of creature would you suppose it would take to go from, say, Panderichthys to Ichthyostega? Don't you think this would represent millions of creatures? How man features and how much change do you think a single mutation could cause?
Oooo! It's so transitional! Look at that transitional fin! Ooooo. I feel so evolutional suddenly. I think I'll eat some fish food and crawl around a while. Get in touch with my inner fish! You don't suppose this video is 300 million years old do you? What do you think?
So, you have not been able to provide a single fossil that demonstrates this transition of the spine and ribs from fish to amphibian tetrapods. That makes my point: it never happened. Scientists know of no such fossil, and the ones they claim are transitional cannot be transitional becauee the spine shows no transition whatsoever. NONE.
What i meant to post was: The Noachian Flood probably occured about 8-10,000 yrs ago. Prior to it, mutations did not effect organsisms. They did not occure due to solar radiation, which is the leading cause of mutations. This is because the Earth once had a canopy that surrounded it. This canopy colapsed and now the Earth is heavily bombarded with solar radiation. This has caused all life forms to devolve )get smaller and wreaker) which the fossil reocrd verifies, as does the loss of O2.
"and that you know how many changes in the genome has to occur for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod."
We know the effects mutations have upon the morphology of creatures. It's not pretty, and the effects dissapear in between 1 and several generations. The DNA error correction process knonw as recombination removes mutations to the homebox (HOX) genes of all living things. Mutated organisms revert to their Wild Type. Life refuses to morph. It will not nor can it happen.
"Your talking like the fossilrecord is entirely complete"
No, it's simply void of anything that could be considered transitional, and that's because transition has not occurred. Did you not see the scientist lying through huis teeth? Do you believe he's the only one? Would you chance to believe they all do? it's true. They do.
Even Kenneth Miller, who claims far too few would be required, will not give an estimate, but has said 50,000 is too many. The mutation rate in living creatures and observed effects of mutation prove the number, though mutations do not cause new morphological features or permanent morphological change, would require many trillions upon trillions of years to do what evolutionists claim.
"How do you know that there has to be an intermediate between these?"
Because fish have basal stumps and tetrapods (four limbed creatures, including amphibiaqns) have capitulum. Also, fish, with the exception of sharks, have hockey-puck shaped vertabrae, whereas tetrapods have ashtray-shaped (dish-shaped) vertabrae. The differences are very great. If fish gave rise to amphibians, as evolutionists contend, the number of transitions between them would be innumerable.
How many archeopteryx fossils can I find there or how many fully figured T-rex? Or are they just small seashells and little trilobites or something?
Your talking like the fossilrecord is entirely complete and that you know how many changes in the genome has to occur for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod.
And I hope you don't keep ignoring my questions 'sporty' ;)
Millions of fossils of fish and of amphibians exist. Many millions. Are you going to tell me that this transition happened to only e fish and became only 1 amphibian? Surely you see the absurdity of this. Please watch my video "The Absurdity ot Transitional Forms" before responding. You need to understand this matter first.
You state that there are no transition between some fish charakteristics and some amphibian charakteristics.
"between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods"
How do you know that there has to be an intermediate between these? How do you know that it would take more that 1 change in the genome for the change between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods.
"But how do you know there had to be intermediates between these bodyplans?"
Evolutionists contend it! Are you unaware of this? it is according to evolutionists the most important transition al all! Please look up Pandericthys, Eusthenopeteron, Tuktaalik, and Icthyostega. Then answer my question please.
"And you probably know I can't show you one.
Such a fossil is not available (yet)."
Ahhh. There is it. The excuse that erosion has washed them away or they have not been found.
"Good question, BUT does it have to have a vast amount of intermediates?"
I'm asking for one. Only one.
"How many differences between these different bodyparts are there in the genome?"
How can this transition occur in the genome if it is not present in fossil form? Had evolution occured, countless examples would exist. Show me one! Just one!
"How can this transition occur in the genome if it is not present in fossil form? Had evolution occured, countless examples would exist. Show me one! Just one!"
But how do you know there had to be intermediates between these bodyplans?
How did you got your own definition of "transistional" anyway? It is such a strikt definition that by far any fossil could qualify as one because you don't know how many changes in the genome it took for the number of morphological changes between the organisms.
Where you sayd that creating fossils is not a rare thing en then list a few places where you can find many fossils. But how many Archeopteryxfossils can I find there? How many fullformed fossilised T-rex? No conclude the answer: I don't even know how many changes in the genome it takes for the fish to amphibian transition considered spine and ribs, maybe you can, but when not and without having fossils of every species you can't conclude a definitive conclusion out of it.
I don't know how many differences. Do you? I have seen you asking these questions but a sudden morphological change can only be negated when such a change cannot occur in a few generations. I don't know if you have a link about that but if so it will negate the possibility that a few changes could account for a new skeletonstructure. Also we keep finding new transitions every year, I have watched your video about transitional fossils
But some scientists say that we have the same genes as monkeys? And that the missing chromosome was where one gene fused together or some shit like that
peepo9000 1 month ago
"Christians don't understand evolution" does that include all the Christian M.D.s, O.D.s, and scientists in all fields? I think it's more atheists don't understand most things, at least thats been my experience.
daddyg321 1 year ago
Life forms have offspring with slight random mutations.
These mutations can make them more or less likely to survive in their environment.
The survivors are the ones who have offspring and the process repeats.
Sometimes life forms get isolated in different environments and their gene pools are then able to mutate with different averages to the other isolated life forms.
Eventually they are so different in their DNA that they can no longer breed together, and are destined to evolve independently.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Exactly 500 characters :-)
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT ITS JESUS
NakedCreep 2 years ago
Fact 4 doesnt even make sense. do some research b4 u start listing facts that r complete bs. mutation will never occur at the same site at the same rate on 2 individuals.... u r retarded sir
BostonRob617 2 years ago
Which is unproven!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
Semantics.
Other unproven theories: Gravitation, Electricity, Geo-centricity, Germs, Atoms...
deconverts 2 years ago
Evolution by definition is the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via natural selection and random mutation.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
What kind of idiot believes they came from a monkey. YOU DO!!!!!!!!! If that were true than explain to me why there are still monkeys around. You have no real proof. That is only what you believe. IT IS A THEORY!!!!!!! Its not real. A make believe story to try and say that God is not real... Read Gen.1:1 That is the oldest documentation there is.
victa19 2 years ago
1) We didn't come from monkeys
2) Monkeys are still around because we didn't come from them
3) A theory in science means an explaination for a set of facts. Not the common language 'educated guess' meaning.
4) Genesis isn't the oldest document there is
Check out the berkley links in the description and you'll understand some of the points in more detail
Octamed 2 years ago 2
"1) We didn't come from monkeys"
Define "monkey"
If you mean we didn't come from "modern chimpanzees" or "modern bonobos" or "modern great apes", then you are right.
But we share a near common ancestor and sufficient common properties with all of the above, which does make us "monkeys".
deconverts 2 years ago
Please site any source that offers factual, concrete, physical evidence showing we have any kind of an ancestral commonality with any primate.
You Sir have the burden of proof!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
That's true, those making the claim do have the burden of proof and as far as evidence goes, we've got tons of it.
Now I take your question to mean show concrete, factual, physical (is there any other kind?) of evidence that shows our familial association with other primates (we ARE PRIMATES).
cont.
deconverts 2 years ago
Let's go with Chimpanzees, since they are our closest ancestor.
/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk (4 minutes)
The initial formation of our chromosome number two has been positively identified.. take a look.
deconverts 2 years ago
Suppose our commonality is not in ancestry but in environment? This theory is supported by the facts as well.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by this, please could you be a little more specific?
deconverts 2 years ago
Fact 1: We share on some level a common environment with all living creatures.
Fact 2: DNA is changed by chemical and radiation exposure, instantly in some cases, over periods of time in others.
Fact 3: We are surrounded by chemicals and radiation. Over time this would produce similarities in our genome.
Fact 4: 2 separate species exposed to the same radiation of the same amplitude will produce the same mutations at the same site at the same rate. That alone shows mutation is not random.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
VindicatedVigilante,
Thanks for providing what you believe are facts, these are merely propositions and not facts.
1. You say we share a common environment, but by this you mean - PLANET EARTH? Environments across our planet vary tremendously so I don't see your point?
2. So what?
3. Why would it?
4. No, they wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but you're just misguided on your "facts". Could you provide some sources for these at all?
deconverts 2 years ago
And you are correct... not all species incur the same damage when exposed to radiation but some do and those that do a mutation will occur at the same rate and at the same site.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
"Thanks for providing what you"
That is correct... Environments across the planet have various variables, this is why when an surface dwelling animals DNA is compared to those at the bottom of the ocean they look as if from completely different worlds. In a sense they are.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
Further:
3. EVERYTHING is "Chemicals". The word "Chemicals" is therefore meaningless in this context. "Radiation" can cause damage to DNA but not equivalent across all species and frankly your "fact" are just plain crazy wrong.
Take your radiation for example, will Cosmic rays do? They blast holes through DNA like a machine gun. Are you maintaining that we all suffer the same pattern of cell and DNA damage from the "same" blast of radiation? That's just silly.
deconverts 2 years ago
Do research all of the listed are facts!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
A huge problem science in general runs into are the findings of other branches of science physiology and biology have differing views on what an environment is, for example. This makes it hard to get a true vote of integrated factual information. Yes everything is chemicals this is why some mutations look random when in fact it is due to an infinite number of environmental conditions.
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
@deconverts "EVERYTHING is 'Chemicals'"
Jesus Christ I want to punch this guy in the face.
NakedCreep 2 years ago
@NakedCreep
?
deconverts 2 years ago
@deconverts
Why do people use the "@NakedCreep" thing only at my comments?
It does it automatically.
NakedCreep 2 years ago
First - no evolutionist ever said we 'came from a monkey.' Evolution states that we share a common ancestry with Chimps and other primates. How can we know this? Because DNA coding and transitional fossils are undeniable evidence pointing to such a conclusion. Second, "only a theory" is a pathetic cry - you misunderstand how scientists use the word 'theory'. A scientific theory is a set of well-established, evidence-based facts that have been tested, retested, and fit into a paradigm. Moron.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Ha you are awesome! you are like a characature of an anti-evolution proponent. You even made the classic "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" statement. Beautiful. That's it! No one has thought of that before, you just killed evolution right there. Why arent you famous yet!?!?!
Haha no seriously we didn't come from monkeys, they are simply the species that we are most closely related to. If you understood anything about evolution you wouldnt have said that.
MrBangor 2 years ago
You need to read a book!!!!! Not the Bible...
TheEVILutionist 2 years ago
Victa 19
Oh - My - God.
1 ) Humans and apes both share a common ancestor, that's why different species of apes are still around.
2) Watch this :
watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg&feature=channel_page
Thanks.
Knr911 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please site any source that offers factual, concrete, physical evidence showing we have any kind of an ancestral commonality with any primate.
You Sir have the burden of proof!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
What is funny is the title of the video is "The explain evolution challenge", yet the first link mentioned being such a "great example" does not explain evolution, but is skeptical towards ID.
And to think Octamed, that somewhere in your mind, you really believe you are being open and fair.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
If I'd have gotten any videos from christians that made a decent attempt I'd have happily linked to them
Octamed 2 years ago
You can not ask for creationist views and then disqualify them because they come from the authority of the creationists worldview.
Example.
I want to know what feminist think of Sarah Palin, only any views you use that are based on feminism are disqualified, we want to know what feminist think of Sarah Palin only using a masculine worldview.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
actually in this case that doesn't apply. Because all I wanted to see is if people who disagree with evolution know what it actually is. Personal opinions don't come into it. It'd be like me refuting jesus but it turns out I think jesus is santa claus, which makes for a totally pointless and frustrating discussion if I refuse to learn about the actual jesus character. You have to establish if people understand the subject before anything else.
Octamed 2 years ago
Using the words "what you believe" 3:31 asks for personal opinion.
And if you think Jesus is Santa Claus, then yes, you can refute.
You can not ask creationists who may not even believe in it at all to tell what "they believe" evolution is, and for them to not insert their world view.
I took the textbook wiki definition, and as you observed, I am getting hammered in the posts saying it is wrong, which is fine because it is Wiki, and not me, that they are refuting. Evolutionists vs evolution.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
But, as i am sure you have observed, you have made it impossible for any creationist definition of evolution to be "worthy".
Example, I ask for a definition of Jesus.
You say a man that supposedly lived about 2000 years ago that Christians believe to be the Messiah and believe salvation comes from the sacrifice of dying on a cross, which he supposedly rose from the dead 3 days later.
And I say, WRONG, he is the Savior of the WORLD!!! You obviously do not know who Jesus is.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
I could explain much more about the evolution fraud. Please feel free use and enjoy my YouTube video "Dont you Monkey around" as a mechanism to spread the word of the Evolution fraud. In response to one or two comments here: Franco714: the story of Darwin being (and dying) a Christian is a disproved myth/lie. He lived and died an agnostic. KHayotiK - you're right, it cannot be explained!! Riptidescool - Evolution and biblical creation cannot be mixed together, it HAS to be one or the other!
dontyoumonkeyaround 2 years ago
... evolution says space, matter and energy erupted on its own out of nothing. Science says 'matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed'. Philosophy says 'everything that starts to exist, had to have a cause'. Evolution says animate matter ('life') developed (mechanism unknown) out of inanimate matter. Science established 200 years ago (Pasteur) that life CANNOT come from inanimate matter....
dontyoumonkeyaround 2 years ago
I'm glad to see you're seeking the truth - and there is truth to find! Evolution is an atheist philosophy, which goes against much science and much philosophy/ religion. Taking "evolution" to mean 'The Big-Bang coupled with neo-Darwinian synthesis'....
dontyoumonkeyaround 2 years ago
{{macro - father to son small changes still the same though o.k. }}- {{ slug to rat to cat to dog to monkey to man , -no real evidence , and no proof }}?? best i can explain it . after all the arguing and name calling , this comment is hopefully just that a comment .
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
you should also learn about the theory of evolution before arguing for it
DispleasingPopo 2 years ago
Evolution was given to us by a Christian. And he died as a Christian, So says Elizabetth Reid. She was at his deathbed when he accepted Jesus as his Savior.
frankco714 2 years ago
Explain spontaneous creation. =/
KhayotiK 2 years ago
Explain an eternal god =/
same difference.
DIRTYshizno347 2 years ago
he looks like frank galgher of shameless
spitfirescotty 2 years ago
God created earth, and earth evolved itself. Not in 7000 years. Billions is more of an accurate theory. Only God was a big part of it. The Bible is based on Gods word, but has foulicy, because it was written by human hand. And people back then didn't have the technology to figure it out. Science and God both worked together.
Riptidescool 2 years ago
I just posted my understanding of evolution. I'm neither pro nor con on evolution.
I just recognize the probability that its more correct than incorrect.
corthew 2 years ago
There is no probability, just logic.but no proof, we evoloved from monkeys to the missing link to man. there's still monkey and still man. why did missing link extinct. They never excisted, sorry.
frankco714 2 years ago
Ok, check out my paper on the evolution of information. Run the evj program (fun!!). Read the page "Experimenting with Evolution: A Guide to Evj". If you understand every detail of that, you will understand evolution at the molecular and mathematical levels.
tomdschneider 2 years ago
Don't generalize all Christians buddy.
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
OctaMED? .. You wouldn't have by any chance got your user name from the Amiga program? .. If so, real nice!! :)
blade004 3 years ago
You don't know what Jesus actually looked like. Besides, even if you looked like Jesus, that doesn't mean you are practically Jesus.
Christus94 3 years ago
Jesus, and all the jews in thoose days had short, well, mostly curly hair. Like what most jews have. Long hair was just another misinterpretation.
frankco714 2 years ago
how do you know what people's hair looked like in "those days?" and also what do you mean by "those days?"
DispleasingPopo 2 years ago
Can't say I know a lick about evolution. But so what? One doesn't need to know anything about evolution to know that religion is bunch of b.s.
charlesfloyb 3 years ago
Religion is bogus. God isn't.
MonstersNightmare 2 years ago
u look like that guy from stephen king's It movie. Bu-Bu-Bu-BIlly BOy~
MannyKunV 3 years ago
species addapting to changing surcomstances is my (very short ) view on evolution? Please correct me where/if I'm wrong.
peace
sometimesido99 3 years ago
Evolution is not truth!cmon a fish turning into something else and then keeps going on!thats stupid! and 2 rocks that clashed together doesnt make any sense because where did those 2 rocks come from?did they jsut magically appear?its stupid!evolution is not true! if it is true,make it happen again u stupid scientist
fishypast 3 years ago
Well this topic is about explaining evolution. So can you explain it? If you can't that's fine but google 'evolution 101' and click the berkley link, it's really good. It'll take probably a week to read it all.
Octamed 3 years ago
actually yes, jesus made the rocks magically appear
mushy85 3 years ago
i dont get it?
fishypast 3 years ago
Jesus works magic you faggot! OMG
mushy85 3 years ago
wow u whiny fucking bitch...(mushy)
fishypast 3 years ago
If what you claim is true, that molecules could fashion such things, there must be evidence to support the many problems your claim presents. Where is this evidence? is there evidence of it, or is your claim based upon faith that it can or has occurred, and not actual evidence that it can or has occurred? if there is no observable evidence of such things arising naturally, sin't your statement a faith-based one and not a scientific one?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
ffs man. Congratulations. You are my first and only blocked person. Now I understand why you claim to have never been refuted. Because you just repeat over and over the same inaccuracies and when no-one can be bothered responding and/or you get blocked for being annoying you chalk it up as a victory. The fact is you think noahs ark is real and millions of species all descended from one boat load of animals... WITHOUT evolution. Case closed, GO HOME.
Octamed 3 years ago
Molecules bind to one another because of their chape. Any given 2 molecules can only bine this way or that. Many only in one way, if at all. Where is the ability withing the shape of a molecule to create part of an algorithm? How can it's shape develop a problem solving equasion that has a purpose, and whos purpose is to seek information in hundreds or thousands of other molecules to which IT DOES NOT BIND, as is the case of polymeraise scanning a strand of DNA for specific nucleotied sequences?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
What is then the evidence that molecules are capable of creating algorithms? Where is the evidence to support your claim that molecules can create problem solving equasions? problem solving equasions require the ability to concieve an an result, then seek it. Where is the evidence that molecules have the ability to conciously concieve a desired end result, then seek it?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If we know that algorithms are a product of intelligence, and we find them only in DNA and nowhere else, is it logical to believe that they arose because of molecules bumping into each other were capable of creating something that, aside from DNA, only we are capable of creating? Where is the logic that creates this bridge between the natural world and us?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If we lived in a world where there are no cubes, only other shapes, and we looked at the most complex shape we know of (think DNA), a shape that is alive when all other shapes are not living, and found cubes in it, and the only cubes that existed were the ones in the complex shape and the ones WE had designed ourselves, would it be logical to believe that the cubes were a product of the world in which they do not exist anywhere else except outr imagination?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Abiogenesis contends the characteristics of molecules is what causes (It stopped? No new bacteria popping up? Just once???) them to organize and become more complex. But molecules don't cantain any algorithms. Algorithms are problem solving equasions. They could not have been imparted to DNA by molecules then. Where did these algorithms come from? Algorithms are a product of intelligence. They exist only in DNA and the mind of man! Where did the intelligence that imparted them come from?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Oh sorry. You see, DNA uses algorithms to store and retrieve information from the DNA molecule. But algorithms do not exist anywhere in nature outside the DNA molecule. This means nature could not have imparted algorithms to DNA by evolution. The only place algorithms are known to exist outside the DNA molecule is in the mind of man. Thus, it is empirical evidence of intelligent design, since algorithms are a product of intelligence.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Did you say you found an algorithm in nature outside the DNA of organisms?
Oh, I must have misread you. Sorry. Hey, I have an idea. Go Google "DNA computing" and see what you get. Cool stuff.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Did you say you found an algorithm in nature outside the DNA of organisms?"
restate that, I don't understand what you mean
Octamed 3 years ago
Evolutionists contend that fish evolved into tetrapods. If evolution were true why are there no examples of transition between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods? Where's your evolution? Not one of the imagined transitional forms claimed by evolutionist "scientists" demonstrates this. If evolution were true, there should be countless examples. But none exist. Why is that?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
saying the same stuff over and over again doesn't make it any more correct. Even if I thought evolution was total bull AND all the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer which I accepted, I still wouldn't accept the bible. It's doesn't make sense and it was written by ordinary MEN. How can you, in the same sentence scrutinise tiny details in evolution and then say the bible counts as evidence? ANYONE could have written the bible. If god was real we wouldn't need faith.
Octamed 3 years ago
Moving the goal-posts. First it was "no transitional fossils" and now it's "we need *this* specific kind". I think you misunderstand things to such a large extent that your brain ceases functioning.
NwZ2 3 years ago
What evidence is there that the Bible is correct? It contains a series of codes that verify IT'S supernatural origin as well, which verifies that the God in that Bible, the one who stated He is the designer, is actually the one who inspired the Bible! There you have it! DNA has supernatural origin, God has claimed to be the designer, our evidence of that God is verified as supernatural!
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"There you have it!"
...how about coming down and saying hello?
Octamed 3 years ago
There you have it???
Are you really so blinded, that you don't see what you are doing there? Let's see: The bible says that it is supernatural, so that means it must be god. God says that he wrote the bible (in the bible) so the bible must be real.
It's called circular reasoning and it doesn't prove anything.
truelazerlight 3 years ago
Now, since we know that DNA has a supernatural origin, we must look for a designer. Do we have evidence that anyone outside of nature created DNA? We surely do! We have the Bible and history, which includes an all-powerful God who told us he is the designer. What evidence is there that this God exists? I cannot begin to name it all.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
DNA's supporting systems use algorithms to store information. This is empirical evidence of supernatural design because algorythms are not found anywhere in nature except in the DNA molecule. How do you suppose nature put this amazing ability into DNA if algorithms do not exist in nature? The obvious is that it cannot happen. Therefore, "evolution" could not be the origin of DNA. This is proof, empirical evidence, that DNA has a SUPERnatural origin.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Actually when you think about how we hypothesis the origin of DNA and RNA, algorithms are a result of successful molecular replication, we of course don't have conclusive data on self-catalyzing RNA polymers on early earth, but its a long way from proclaiming GOD DID IT the second a new question arises, if we did that, the sun would still orbit the earth and natural disasters would still be divine punishment. Do I do reject your ad hoc 'proof' that God did anything.
scienceminded 3 years ago 2
Professional mathematicans, such as Dr. William A. Dembski and others, have demonstrated with mathematics that the statistical odds of evolutionary change taking place by overcoming the loss of information and negativity of genetic change is essentially zero (to the incredible power of). It is one to a number greater than the estimated number of particles of matter in the observed universe.
ht tp : // cayman . globat . c o m / ~trademarksnet . c o m / T / ActiveInfo . p d f
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"We evolve through mutations in our cells"
Negative. 70 yrs of millions of experiments with mutation have proven mutation cannot cause permanent morphological change to any form of life. Organisms mutated in a lab revert to their Wild Type in 1 to several generations because of DNA recombination replacing the mutated gene with a backup copy. There has never been a single exception. Not one.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Reverting "back to wild" is evidence of natural selection. It is a non-sequitor to state evidence of natural selection as proof of non-morphological changes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
NwZ2 3 years ago
so why did we stop evolving?
joric70 3 years ago
we haven't stopped. Although we have drastically changed the natural course of our own evolution. But it could be easily said that it's still perfectly natural that we can do that.
Octamed 3 years ago
dude that looking like jesus thing is awesome XD
flyerdude02 3 years ago
We evolve through mutations in our cells. We do this to make use out of our environment and to protect us from dieing out from disease. If we were to stop evolving then we would surely die. It takes mating to start the process. Cheers! From an atheist.
kittiest34 3 years ago
Consider: Why in these seismic images of the interior of the Earth which show the massive bodies of water, did they remove the core area from them? If the imaging provided enough resolution to see what is next to the outer core so well, surely it provided imagery of the oputer core. Yet they removed that part from the images. Could it be that they do not want the public to know that the outer core also contains massuive amounts of water and is not molten as they have claimed? Think about it.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Volcanos: God split the Earth's crust (Mid-Atlantif Rift) and this caused the breakup of "Pangea". The continents slid apart, ginding untold tonnage of stone, creating tremendous heat, melting the stone and creating pockets of molten material beneath the lithosphere.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If the Earth's outer core barrier were 4,000 degrees like evos claim, there couldn't be an Arctic Ocean's
worth of water wrapped around the edge of the outer core:
ht tp : / / news . nationalgeographic . com / news / 2007 / 02 / 070227-ocean-asia . h t m l
Water doesn't sink to a place that's 4,000 degrees. It becomes steam. Obviously, the outer core is not
4,000 deg. at it's edge like the evos have been telling us in geology classes for the last 150 yrs.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 3
See, the evos have been claiming this for a century:
w w w . seismo . unr . edu / ftp / pub / louie / class / 100 / interior . h t m l
But today we know the Earth's mantles are cool, in fact, the earth is filled with massive oceans (from which the Noachian Flood came) inside BOTH mantles!:
ht tp : // news-info . wustl . edu / news / page / normal / 8222 . h t m l
So you see, evo science is pseiudoscience! The Earth was never molten! God created it from cold stone!
NephilimFree 3 years ago 4
wow, you're stupid! congrats!
thetruthone 3 years ago
explain volcanos
falotnek 3 years ago
lol "Noachian" i wonder if that words in the dictionary?
garylssk 3 years ago
Here's what I posted:
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"enh!! wrong. They're not cell walls."
Every cell has 2 membranes and a layer of cholesterol between them. Thousands of sodium pumpsare in the cell wall, and they pass through both membranes and the layer of cholesterol. These sodium pumps defy evolution, because evolution cannot explain their creation any more than it can any part of anything living.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"THERE IS NO GOD! "
No matter how much your deny it or how loud you scream it, you'll still bow your knees before your creator in the end. Every one of us will.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Nice try, animal cells (found in humans) don't have a cell wall, they simply have a cell membrane. Plant cells (found in plants) have a cell wall and then a cell membrane. "
Wrong. Human cells are two walls with a layer of cholesterol between them.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
enh!! wrong. They're not cell walls.
Lenquo 3 years ago
listen there has to be a god look at the big picture, you have matter in space, what created that matter? you say the earth was made by matter that was pulled together by gravity right? well what created gravity, what created the force of it, look at every element in space like for example say you have a gas, its made by molecules and atoms well wat created them look at the big picture what created space?? did it just appear
killintoyz4life 3 years ago
THERE IS NO GOD!
nightrider2032 3 years ago
wow wat a stupid reply is that all you got?
killintoyz4life 3 years ago
yeh that's an interesting point but we don't know I don't think anybody can find out until we die
drinkyourtea 3 years ago
so can't you just say you don't know? Filling in a gap in your knowledge with some random ideas doesn't make it right. No one knows. Not one person.
Octamed 3 years ago
what do u mean i cant just say i dont know. ive tested my faith trust me i have, its good to question and see the other side of the story. but ive had faith in god and have prevailed
killintoyz4life 3 years ago
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Nice try, animal cells (found in humans) don't have a cell wall, they simply have a cell membrane. Plant cells (found in plants) have a cell wall and then a cell membrane.
Xzilhery 3 years ago
"I would posit that it arose through the same mechanism as all other structures: through natural selection."
Natural Selection selects from existing traits. It creates nothing. It is not a mechanism for evolutionary change.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Eukaryotes do not have cell walls."
I didn't mention eukaryotes.
"Cell MEMBRANES have a single bilayer, not two layers."
Encyclopedia Britanica 2008:
"All cell walls contain two layers, the middle lamella and the primary cell wall, and many cells produce an additional layer, called the secondary wall."
NephilimFree 3 years ago
It is a fact: brains of Omericans didn't evolve as much as brains of Europeans. Their brains are stayed on the level of monkeys.
What do you people (and I mean people, not Omericans) think about this?
OmericanKrevedko 3 years ago
Human cell walls are made of 2 layers. Each cell contains sodium-potassium pumps in their cell walls which bridge these 2 layers. These pumps are so tiny, every cell contains at least 1 million of them. Some cells have millions. At total rest, 70% of a person's energy is spent operating these pumps. Please tell us how random genetic mutation could create such sub-microscopic pumps.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
Eukaryotes do not have cell walls.
Cell MEMBRANES have a single bilayer, not two layers.
What makes you think 70% of a persons energy is being spent on maintaining the activity of sodium-potassium pumps?
Unfortunately, I have not studied the exact mechanism of how the Na+/K+ ATPase arose, but I would posit that it arose through the same mechanism as all other structures: through natural selection.
1emart1 3 years ago
Evolutionists still create haozes with fossils! Such as Per Ahlberg's reconstruction of Icthyostega, and Jennifer Clack's falicious reconstruction a couple of years before in 2002.
All lies. Packaged to brainwash you, claimed evidence of evolution, all to decieve.
Isn't that just sick,that people calling themselves scientists lie so much to the public to promote something they call science?
It's shameful. They should be in jail.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If evolution were true and were supported by science, why do so many evolutionist scientists lie today about the evidence?
Why do evolutionists have a long history of fabricating hoaxes if evolution were true, right up to the present, such as Per Ahlberg's reconstruction of Icthyostega?
Why the need for such dishonetsy to the world if evolution were true? In light of so much dishonesty, how much of what you think is evidence of evolution is just another lie? Do you really know? You don't.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
I can almost see the little wheels in your head as you think, "You know what. He's right! That's not evolutionary change. It's not evidence of evolution! Hmmm."
NephilimFree 3 years ago 2
"What about the family with hyper dense bones?"
What about them? They gained nothing new. People already have the same bones. Denser than usual bones is not evidenceo of human evolutionary change!
"Or the community that's inbred a resistance to heart disease?"
How does resistance cause an organism to morphologically transform into a new kind of creature? It imparts nothing to the morphology of the creature!
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"There are stacks and stacks of evidence helping to prove evolution to be true."
There is not one shred of evidence for evolution>? All fields of science point to Special Creation, even the conditions of our solar system, which defy all evolutionist theiories to explain them.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
getting a christian to explain evolution is like getting your dog to do your math homework its FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
HOWEVER!!! you have scientist who pray to god in hopes of a break through soo to me both of these seems like vey interesting and off set scenarios dont you agree???
sonyan1191 3 years ago
All of the observed mutations which effect the homebox genes produce weakness, deformity, and death, but never anything new, or permanent. The deformities dissapear after 1 to several generations because of a process called DNA Recombination. We have observed in labs billions of mutations effecting morphology over the last 70 yrs, and all have been negative. Doesn't that make you wonder how mutation can be a mechanism for evolution?
It should destroy it. Science destroys evolutionism.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
What about the family with hyper dense bones? Or the community that's inbred a resistance to heart disease?
sroHex 3 years ago
"Evolution is true because of the evidence that supports it"
What evidence? There's no evidence of organims morphologically becoming new kinds of organisms.
"The fact is that it's very unlikely that there is a creator entity because the idea itself is highly illogical."
You have it backwards. That's why one of the world's prominant philosophers (Frey) converted to theism recently. He could not excape the fact that hpilodophy proved to him there had to be a creator.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If evlution were true, why do evolutionist scientists knowlingly lie to the public?
Preston Cloud, former member of the Academy of Sciences, prominant paleontologist:
ht tp : // home . comcast . net / ~internationalhero / lies2 . w m v
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Evolution is true because of the evidence that supports it, not the people that endorse it. Darwin gave a very clear explanation for how evolution could be proven wrong, and it hasn't happened for 150 years. The fact is that it's very unlikely that there is a creator entity because the idea itself is highly illogical.
federalD 3 years ago
LOL wait a minute ... Religion is supposed to be proving God true ... and Evolution is assumed true unless its proven untrue? LOL.. nahhh! ROFL.. nothing wrong with THAT logic! hahahahaha
loveualatte 3 years ago
It's not just that it hasn't been proven untrue. There are stacks and stacks of evidence helping to prove evolution to be true.
josificus22 3 years ago
if you say so jo ... Ive seen stacks of it that has been proven faked or just false. But you go on believing whatever you want. Its not my woe to bear.
loveualatte 3 years ago 2
Why the continual, consistent fraudulence and deception and outrageous departure into falicy of these models when these evolutionist scientists themselves know that these extinct apes are not chaped like this according to the fossil evidence? Why do evolutionist scientists lie knowingly? Do you believe in evolution because you have swallowed such a long history of lies?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
If evolution were true, why do evolutionists create for all the museums of the world models of Australeopitheces which have an ape-like face, a human like body, and completely human feet, when we know the Auastraliopithices had ape feet with an opposed Great Toe?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Both are maggots, nothing more. This isn't morphological change, thus not evolutionary change. Biochemical adaptation has no power to give creatures new morphological features or change existing ones!
"Every organism that has its genome sequenced is another nail in the coffin of creationism."
All genetic knowledge points to special creation.
"The fact of evolution does not disprove the existence of a deity."
The diety has stated He created it. Science supports His word on that.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Evolution is the observed change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms."
That's one definition of evolution, not the one in the dictionary though. This is a flase definition based upon Natural Selection, which repeats those genetic changes within a population. But NS does not create anytrhing. It only spreads what exists. Natural selection selects. It is not a mechanism for evolution. Understand now about elleles not being evidence of evolution? Good.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Actually, I don't understand. You're going to have to run that across me one more time.
proudjester 3 years ago
Wrong. That definition is a minimal definition lifted from Yale University, if I recall correctly. What appears in some dictionary is beside the point. The definition says nothing about natural selection because it is about the fact of evolution, not about theories that evolution happens through natural selection or any other process. Your confusion of the two is typical. Do you also confuse gravity with a theory of gravity?
Palifiox 3 years ago
"What was that Canopy made of?"
People argue about that. I once though superfrozen ice because the Bible states the sky is strong (was) "like a molten looking glass". However, I've come to believe the canopy was a water-heavy cloud cover which would have bathed the Earth is soft but fairly intense light. We know clouds filter UV light - a canopy would have filtered out all UV light, protecting us from mutations. What mutations did occur would have been repeaird by recombination.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
The date of 4,400 BC for the flood cannot be correct also because known histrorical cultures flourished at that time, such as in Egypt and Babylonia. Using the corrected timeline, the Noachian Flood probably occured 8-10,000 yrs ago.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Why does everyone say the flood occured just around 4400 years ago and you say it was 8-10k years?"
This is because most YEC's create a timeline for the Earth using the birth of the patriarchs given in the Bible. This is erroneous because a prince becomes king not when he dies, but when the precious ruler dies. Adjusting the timeline to correctly reflect this, we get a timeline of approximately 11,200 or so yrs.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"well... natural selection is a mechanism for it"
Natural Selectionmakes existing features more prominant in a population. Right? NA does not create change. The change must already be present before NS can spread it in a population. NS therefore is not a mechanism for evolutionary change. Something else must make the change that NS spreads. NS does not cause evolution. It is not a mechanism for evolutionary change.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
So how many transitional forms would exist between fish and tetrapods, just those demonstrating transition of the spine alone? Well, it would be milllions x millions. And we cannot find even one. Do you still believe in evolution? Do you still believe mutation can cause evolution?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
I think you can see that the number would be millions x millions. Don't forget that most mutations in embryonic fish are deleterous and result in death before birth (perhaps 90%), and that we are assuming positive effects of mutation could overcome the negative:
w w w . jstor . o r g / pss / 3838028
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Now imagine how many generations of this species of fish would live and die before an entire fin became longer or aquired 2 new bones. Then how many before it aquired a larger scapula. We are talking about millions of years of sich living and dying. So, now think about how manytransitional forms would exist between the morphological change of basal stumps into capitulum to help fish become amphibian tetrapods.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
With a GERMLINE mutation rate of only 1.7 per generation in humans, and one of far, far less than 1 per generation for fish, how many generations of fish would live and die before mutations caused detectable morphological change, say, the increase in length of s single bone in a fish's fin, or a reduction of the fish species roofing bones by 1.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Studies show that positive effects of mutation cannot overcome the negative effect of mutations, regardless of the number of them or time alloted. But let's imagine it sdoulc happen.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
The mutation rate per generation in organisms is very low. In fish, even lower because water filters UV light. Most mutations are deleterous, meaning they remove nucleotides and thus cause damage that result in death more than weakness or no visible effects. Now, consider how these deadly mutations must overcome the negative effect of death and weakness and accrue into the supposed morphological change over time.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"your saying fossils are common, but how common is either of these fossils?"
Had evolution from fish to amphibians taken place, how many generations of creature would you suppose it would take to go from, say, Panderichthys to Ichthyostega? Don't you think this would represent millions of creatures? How man features and how much change do you think a single mutation could cause?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"The Noachian Flood probably occured about 8-10,000 yrs ago"
Why does everyone say the flood occured just around 4400 years ago and you say it was 8-10k years?
"This is because the Earth once had a canopy that surrounded it. This canopy colapsed and now the Earth is heavily bombarded with solar radiation."
What was that Canopy made of?
"That makes my point: it never happened."
Let's say it didn't happen, do you have answers to my questions?
Terrencje 3 years ago
"There are no fossils that indicate either of these, or any other creature, is transitional."
I didn't stated that, your saying fossils are common, but how common is either of these fossils?
"Both are living fossils: unchanged since the creation. Trilobites still exist. So do arthropods."
So? What do I find at the places you described to be full of fossils? T-rexes of simple marine ones?
Terrencje 3 years ago
Oooo! It's so transitional! Look at that transitional fin! Ooooo. I feel so evolutional suddenly. I think I'll eat some fish food and crawl around a while. Get in touch with my inner fish! You don't suppose this video is 300 million years old do you? What do you think?
youtube . c o m / watch?v=1YQamEvYQ7o
NephilimFree 3 years ago
please go away
Octamed 3 years ago
So, you have not been able to provide a single fossil that demonstrates this transition of the spine and ribs from fish to amphibian tetrapods. That makes my point: it never happened. Scientists know of no such fossil, and the ones they claim are transitional cannot be transitional becauee the spine shows no transition whatsoever. NONE.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
What i meant to post was: The Noachian Flood probably occured about 8-10,000 yrs ago. Prior to it, mutations did not effect organsisms. They did not occure due to solar radiation, which is the leading cause of mutations. This is because the Earth once had a canopy that surrounded it. This canopy colapsed and now the Earth is heavily bombarded with solar radiation. This has caused all life forms to devolve )get smaller and wreaker) which the fossil reocrd verifies, as does the loss of O2.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"and that you know how many changes in the genome has to occur for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod."
We know the effects mutations have upon the morphology of creatures. It's not pretty, and the effects dissapear in between 1 and several generations. The DNA error correction process knonw as recombination removes mutations to the homebox (HOX) genes of all living things. Mutated organisms revert to their Wild Type. Life refuses to morph. It will not nor can it happen.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Your talking like the fossilrecord is entirely complete"
No, it's simply void of anything that could be considered transitional, and that's because transition has not occurred. Did you not see the scientist lying through huis teeth? Do you believe he's the only one? Would you chance to believe they all do? it's true. They do.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"How many archeopteryx fossils can I find there or how many fully figured T-rex?"
There are no fossils that indicate either of these, or any other creature, is transitional.
"Or are they just small seashells and little trilobites or something?"
Both are living fossils: unchanged since the creation. Trilobites still exist. So do arthropods.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
probably occured about 8-10,000 yrs ago.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Even Kenneth Miller, who claims far too few would be required, will not give an estimate, but has said 50,000 is too many. The mutation rate in living creatures and observed effects of mutation prove the number, though mutations do not cause new morphological features or permanent morphological change, would require many trillions upon trillions of years to do what evolutionists claim.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"How do you know that it would take more that 1 change in the genome for the change between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods."
No evolutionist scientist supports the idea that gross anatomical changes could happen with a single genetic change.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"How do you know that there has to be an intermediate between these?"
Because fish have basal stumps and tetrapods (four limbed creatures, including amphibiaqns) have capitulum. Also, fish, with the exception of sharks, have hockey-puck shaped vertabrae, whereas tetrapods have ashtray-shaped (dish-shaped) vertabrae. The differences are very great. If fish gave rise to amphibians, as evolutionists contend, the number of transitions between them would be innumerable.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
I have watched your video as I told you:
How many archeopteryx fossils can I find there or how many fully figured T-rex? Or are they just small seashells and little trilobites or something?
Your talking like the fossilrecord is entirely complete and that you know how many changes in the genome has to occur for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod.
And I hope you don't keep ignoring my questions 'sporty' ;)
Terrencje 3 years ago
Millions of fossils of fish and of amphibians exist. Many millions. Are you going to tell me that this transition happened to only e fish and became only 1 amphibian? Surely you see the absurdity of this. Please watch my video "The Absurdity ot Transitional Forms" before responding. You need to understand this matter first.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
You state that there are no transition between some fish charakteristics and some amphibian charakteristics.
"between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods"
How do you know that there has to be an intermediate between these? How do you know that it would take more that 1 change in the genome for the change between the basal stumps of fish and the capitulum of tetrapods.
Terrencje 3 years ago
"But how do you know there had to be intermediates between these bodyplans?"
Evolutionists contend it! Are you unaware of this? it is according to evolutionists the most important transition al all! Please look up Pandericthys, Eusthenopeteron, Tuktaalik, and Icthyostega. Then answer my question please.
"And you probably know I can't show you one.
Such a fossil is not available (yet)."
Ahhh. There is it. The excuse that erosion has washed them away or they have not been found.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"Good question, BUT does it have to have a vast amount of intermediates?"
I'm asking for one. Only one.
"How many differences between these different bodyparts are there in the genome?"
How can this transition occur in the genome if it is not present in fossil form? Had evolution occured, countless examples would exist. Show me one! Just one!
NephilimFree 3 years ago
"How can this transition occur in the genome if it is not present in fossil form? Had evolution occured, countless examples would exist. Show me one! Just one!"
But how do you know there had to be intermediates between these bodyplans?
And you probably know I can't show you one.
Such a fossil is not available (yet).
Terrencje 3 years ago
So...when are you going to answer my questions?
Can't ask them in channels or videocommentreplies of creationists because of "pending approval" or "user has blocked messages" (sounds familiar?)
Terrencje 3 years ago
I have another question.
In the beginning all animals were herbivors.
What mechanism directed some of the herbivors to be carnivorous? How did that change their way of eating, how did it change the digestion mechanisms?
And why only the lions and hyenas and such (the ones that look ferosious) and not Bunnys or elephants?
Terrencje 3 years ago
How did you got your own definition of "transistional" anyway? It is such a strikt definition that by far any fossil could qualify as one because you don't know how many changes in the genome it took for the number of morphological changes between the organisms.
Terrencje 3 years ago
Where you sayd that creating fossils is not a rare thing en then list a few places where you can find many fossils. But how many Archeopteryxfossils can I find there? How many fullformed fossilised T-rex? No conclude the answer: I don't even know how many changes in the genome it takes for the fish to amphibian transition considered spine and ribs, maybe you can, but when not and without having fossils of every species you can't conclude a definitive conclusion out of it.
Terrencje 3 years ago
I don't know how many differences. Do you? I have seen you asking these questions but a sudden morphological change can only be negated when such a change cannot occur in a few generations. I don't know if you have a link about that but if so it will negate the possibility that a few changes could account for a new skeletonstructure. Also we keep finding new transitions every year, I have watched your video about transitional fossils
Terrencje 3 years ago