This commerical vedio wasn't meant to spark such a debate. Of course, anyone can make such video and call it "proof" of whatever you want to proof. The fact is, the proof is in your mind, think how you want to think and that makes you what you want to be. That simple.
it was uploaded as a joke, there is no debate as to wether evolution is true or not, it's a fact, you will get religious people embarrassed by their doctrine who need evolution not to be true, but there is no debate in biology or science, do you not find it strange that the only Dissenters from evolution are religious people who's religion suggests evolutions isn't true? I have yet to find a NON religious person deny evolution, conversely millions of religious people accept it as fact
@hughjarrse I always get insulted as being a "religious troll" when I debate evolution-believers. I am not religious whatsoever. I am agnostic and I doubt evolution greatly. But of course you're going to say "how?", assuming that any objection to evolution is religious.... in reality, I have seen zero conclusive proofs of evolution. I've seen things that MAY hint towards it, but nothing conclusive. AND I'M AGNOSTIC!!!!
@tpstrat14 You're not doin' yourself any favors by stating you don't believe in evolution and you're not religious!! there's no doubt that evolution is scientific fact, and the only possible reason for countering belief in evolution is a willingly ignorant stance fueled by fundamental religious beliefs, to suggest evolution isn't scientific fact outside the umbrella of theism makes you appear quite ridiculous
@hughjarrse I would appear LESS ridiculous if I said that the reason I don't accept evolution is because the bible says differently? lol... I'm done with you. You clearly don't want to talk science here, only religion...
OK. I get it!!! STOP replying to my comment, please. I was just asking a question because my teacher has been telling us the craziest stuff lately. -sigh-
People who say....."If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?".... are stupid! ....
a Bat was once a Rodent type creature that leaped from plants and trees until they evolved wings and Birds where once lizard type creatures..... so why could'nt we have evolved from an Ape type creature?
@HirizaKyo "If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?"
I'm slightly confised, who has ben telling you we evolved from apes? we share a common ancestor with apes, but apes are just as evolved as us and everything else living on earth, they are perfectly evolved apes and we are perfectly evolved humans
@hughjarrse That doesn't really make any sense. But then again, obviously you don't understand evolution any more than a Christian understands Christianity. Do you know how I know? Because NO ONE understands evolution. Seriously, we think that it is how we came to be, but as far as how it all works, no one has a clue. So my question is WHY DO WE BELIEVE IT!?!?!?!??!
@tpstrat14 "So my question is WHY DO WE BELIEVE IT!?!?!?!??!" for a start human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, proof apes and humans share a common ancestor, studies in mitochondrial DNA prove a distant common ancestor for all mammals, whales have hip bones, snakes have vestigial legs, we have an appendix and sinuses that get blocked because they drain from the top instead of the front as in the four legged animals we evolved from, plus countless other "proofs"
@hughjarrse Human chromosome #2 is human chromosome #2. In your mind, it's the fusion of two ape chromosomes because you accept evolution in the first place. You take the COMPLETELY self-evident fact that chimps are similar to us and point out that science proves that, yes, they are similar. HOW IS THIS PROOF OF EVOLUTION?!?!?! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying "evolution made chimps similar to us" holds as much water as "God made chimps similar to us"
@tpstrat14 No, you really not seeing my point, humans two less pairs of chromosomes than apes, human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the two missing ape chromosomes, this proved by observing telomeres in the centre or #2, telomeres only occur at the ends of chromosomes, proving a fusion of two chromosomes, further research shows the telomere patten shows that not only is this a fusion it just happens to be a fusion of the two missing ape chromosomes, that's extraordinary proof!
@tpstrat14 the appendix proves one of two things, evolution or very bad design! many of the god squad suggest the appendix is part of the immune system but that makes very little sense, 1,500,000 people die every year from peritonitis caused by infected appendix, conversely no one who has ever had their appendix removed has suffered any adverse effects (outside of poor surgery) concerning immunity,
@hughjarrse The appendix was once a very useful, bacteria-harboring organ. When most places weren't so densely populated, the bacteria kept in the appendix was very useful in fighting off diseases like cholera. Now that the world is generally very densely populated, we get these bacteria from each other. It's not evolution of life itself that has made the appendix obsolete, it is the evolution of our own human CULTURE and way of life. You do understand there is a WORLD of difference, don't you?
@tpstra"proposed that the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria" first off these are listed as "possible" uses, the fact that the appendix "houses" bacteria being a reason to suggest "design" is the same a suggesting that old coffee jar in your shed full of nuts, bolts and old screws was designed to hold nuts, bolts and old screws, or the shell a hermit crab lives in was designed for a hermit crab to live in, also you seem to have completely ignored the far larger "Vestigiality" section
@hughjarrse You are denying that the appendix was likely absolutely necessary to human survival when sanitation methods were less sophisticated just 300 years ago! Nowadays no one that gets their appendix taken out lives in unsanitary conditions and that's why they experience no adversity after it is removed. The appendix is no problem to intelligent design. What would you expect our beloved creator to do, manually remove the appendix from the human genome now that we have proper sanitation?
@tpstrat14 "The appendix is no problem to intelligent design" I'm a bit worried that you used the term "intelligent design" it makes you sound a bit like one of the discovery institute kooks, Behe is a clever guy, but either incredibly ignorant of work others are doing in his field, or he's being untruthful. an IDer would not put the urinary tract through the prostate, and "he" would be marked down for skimping on the disks between the vertebrae
@hughjarrse Yes. And wouldn't an all-knowing, all-loving creator made everything able to fly, read each others minds and live forever? Man, you evolutionists really fly off the handle with these "flaws" that you see in life's design. I see no flaws. I see challenges to overcome and live through.
@tpstrat14 "I see no flaws" then you're not looking, you brought up intelligent design, I'm pointing out design flaws that an "intelligent" designer wouldn't make, I pointed out that humans suffer blocked sinuses because our sinuses are in the wrong position to drain, very poor design, evolutions explains this "anomaly"
@hughjarrse OK, let's take a look from a different angle. Intelligent design is still alive and kicking even if evolution is true. Why does a changing universe kill an intelligent designer? The laws of physics themselves are unchanging. THAT indicates design. The laws of chemistry are unchanging. THAT indicates design. So what if life isn't perfectly designed? Clearly the laws of nature itself are....
@tpstrat14 "The laws of physics themselves are unchanging. THAT indicates design"
why does it? the anthropic principle takes care of that! you sound like water molecules talking to each other saying " there must be a designer, what are the chances of this hole in the ground being the perfect shape and size to contain this water?" wouldn't entropy be counter to your design argument?
@hughjarrse So physical laws are akin to the random nooks and crannies made when you step in the mud? And the water that fills in the hole is akin to everything existing in the universe? That's problematic because that would mean that physical laws are subjective and you can't really be sure that you exist in reality, which is insane. It makes more sense that we ARE real. The only way to be sure of this is to accept the beautiful truth that our physical laws are not random, but designed.
@tpstrat14 "you can't really be sure that you exist in reality" as Martin Rees pointed out there by definition more virtual universes that actual universes so the chances are we are part of a vitual univers!
the problem in looking for design in everything becomes clear as you learn more, The Giant's Causeway was believed to have a designer until science showed it was a natural formation
@hughjarrse I'm not surprised that someone who was previously trying to prove evolution as fact is now talking about the improbability of our universe being reality. Yea, evolution is pretty nutty stuff.
P.S. Go look up the definition of the word "universe". By definition there is only one universe. If you want to talk about the 11 possible dimensions of THE universe, then OK, but don't talk about there being alternate realities. You come off as, how to put this, schizophrenic.
@tpstrat14 Woah! hold on, I was quoting Rees, I don't believe that. 11 dimensions is M theory, 10 is string, and multiverse has a universe for every possible event, "universe" is just a word, you said you followed no theology, so a pedant could rightly call you an atheist, I'm surprised you're throwing around insults (schizophrenic) you are being totally disingenuous, tell me you have no idea who you think your "intelligent designer" is
@hughjarrse I guess my saying that there is an intelligent designer is synonymous with my argument that 1+1 will always and forever equal 2. That means that the laws of mathematics are fixed. How can they be fixed if nobody fixed them? Now don't get me wrong. I am not narcissistic enough to believe that our creator is human in any way, shape or form. I don't know what our creator is, but 1+1 may not equal 2 in reality without a creator and that means that sanity isn't possible.
@tpstrat14 "How can they be fixed if nobody fixed them?" that is just an argument from personal incredulity, you can't calculate the odds after the event, you can't say "look where we are, what are the chances of being here" you will always be somewhere, the odds are only legitimate if calculated before the event. if the laws of physics prohibited life we wouldn't be talking about anything, we are because they don't
@tpstrat14 "1+1 will always and forever equal 2" you seem to think your designer could have made 1+1=3 if "he" wanted to! that is nothing to do with any set law
@hughjarrse Now we can shift the argument. Is real sanity possible? You and I better believe it and strive for it or that schizophrenia/ psychosis diagnosis might set in and we'll both become Christian or something!
@tpstrat14 "Is real sanity possible? You and I better believe it and strive for it or that schizophrenia/ psychosis diagnosis" These are human concepts and devices to try and understand what is "right" and what we decide is "right" may be wrong in the long term, feckless parents have more offspring on average than conscientious parents, and that is counter productive in evolutionary terms! if you cheat in an exam and consequently get a better job is that wrong, we think so, but is it?
@hughjarrse We should never decide what is right. We should always be looking for it. I think the "ten commandments" or any set of religious moral standards are totally useless. I think we're both on the same page in thinking that morality is a very difficult concept, it's not black and white.
@hughjarrse I can assure you I am not religious. I laugh at creationists that reject evolution on the basis of the bible.They are to be ignored as the unscientific kooks they are. On the other hand, evolution is a paradigm that doesn't have solid proof. No, I don't have another explanation for life on earth, but the argument "If evolution didn't happen, then how did life arise?" is an argument from ignorance, not knowledge, and it should be regarded as foolishness as well..
@tpstrat14 [but the argument "If evolution didn't happen, then how did life arise?" is an argument from ignorance, not knowledge, and it should be regarded as foolishness as well.]
Speaking of argument from ignorance, did you know that evolution DOES NOT address how life arose? It only describes how life diversified. The branch of science dealing with how life arose is called abiogenesis.
You obviously have a very poor understanding of evolution.
@tpstrat14 I tried a search on Loren G. Martin but nothing outside of AIG and other Christian web sites seems available so it's hard to judge his motives
@hughjarrse (appendix cntd) But don't you worry now! Since we've found human functionality in the appendix, it can still be used as proof for evolution, because well, we evolved the appendix in order to survive! The existence of your own consciousness and self-awareness seems to be enough proof for evolutionists. I mean, there really is ZERO conclusive proof of it, but you keep believing....
@HirizaKyo you will find Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs, and the thing that proves beyond a doubt that we share a common ancestor is the fact that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the missing ape chromosomes, which means an ancestor of ours must have had the same chromosomes as modern apes, meaning that ancestor must have been an ancestor of modern apes. and the fact Chimps have a DNA genome 98% identical to humans is also a big clue
@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that... now about the proof of evoloution... we share more dna with apes then we do with niandithouls.. excuse my spelling but yeah thats proof right there that we are part of the ape family witch means we evovled from roughly the same thing as them and christanity belives that because a piece of cloth worn by "jesus" only had 23 chromosomes means he dident have a human dad so what was his dad ?
@tzemz "@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that.."
Not they don't! just thought I'd let you know that, I will always excuse spelling (mine aint great) but you have got a fundamental fact wrong, all apes have 24 pairs, and humans have 23 pairs, in fact Down syndrome is caused by a person having three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two copies, so extra chromosomes are not a good thing
@tzemz "@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that.."
Not they don't! just thought I'd let you know that, I will always excuse spelling (mine aint great) but you have got a fundamental fact wrong, all apes have 24 pairs, and humans have 23 pairs, in fact Down syndrome is caused by a person having three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two copies, so extra chromosomes are not a good thing
@HirizaKyo People who say....."If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?".... are stupid! ....
a Bat was once a Rodent type creature that leaped from plants and trees until they evolved wings and Birds where once lizard type creatures..... so why could'nt we have evolved from an Ape type creature?
@HirizaKyo APE is a classification. Humans, chimps, gorillas and orangatans. are'' Apes''.
Humans and Chimp evolved form an early ape that lived 7-10 million years ago. That ape shared a common ancestory with the animal that evolved into gorillas farther back in time.
Chimps are closer to humans than than they are to Gorillas !
And all apes and monkeys are primates. All Primates are still mammals. All mammals are still cordates. You can't outgrow your ancestory. SAME KIND
Evolution is a framework for explaining observations, not a true theory. It is not testable as it does not make definitive predictions. The one big one is intermediate species, we don't find them, so now we have a theory of rapid bursts of evolution to cover up the missing evidence.
So many of the steps in the process would lead to useless intermediate species, like a flightless reptile with incomplete feather cover. That would have extinction written all over it, but magically a bird appears.
@wjestick Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus afarensis Ambulocetus, Archaeopteryx are the obvious transitional fossils, but every living creature is in transition, just look at our own species, we have an appendix that killed millions of people, yet not one person who has had it removed has ever suffered any adverse effects, women synchronize their menstrual cycles if a group is close, a spine that causes compression pain because the disks evolved horizontal and are to thin for vertical use
when you learn how the dynamics in our surroundings work (though physics, mathmatics statistics and hypothesis), you can create a plausable ideology/creationism by explaning "what could be" responsible for what it is we are researching/looking for to answer our questions (where we come from).
@Emblemz evolution is just a word to explain how things change over time, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a device to try to pull together certain facts, evidence shows humans and apes (and everything else) had a common ancestor is to the best of our knowledge using the technology is a fact, vestigial organs/limbs are facts, the theory of evolution tries to unite these facts. I'm sure there are people looking for answers other than evolution, there are non that stand up so far
Science makes us discover all the law of physics, law of inertia, law of gravity, etc.
The universe & the earth does not came by chance or probability. Scientist now argue coz all evidence points to a product of design. Their factor rate came to that conclusion. If by design, question is why? for what purpose? and by whom?
@162Deathnote "are you saying a 57 year old life is not important" not at all, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion! "wow your (you're) retarded" struck me as a rather ridiculous comment for a 57yr old to make, and if you reach the age of 57 and still don't understand how evolution works is very sad indictment on the united states education system.
Evolution is not real! Everything comes from something. So what is the very first cell that was made? Do you really think you know? This is obviously know one raised with the bible by his side!
@dunadain5 You're getting aboigenesis and evolution mixed up, evolution is a scientific fact and you will not find a credible university in the world teaching otherwise,
@majoraswrath132 "Judging from the name, macro would be a whole species changing?" no if you grow 1/8 of an inch a month after 8 months your an inch taller, in 96 months you're a foot taller, the macro is a culmination of the 1/8ths and inches , all domestic dogs are bred from wolves over a few 1,000yrs, if you bred two wolves tomorrow you wouldn't expect a poodle, an Irish setter and a Pyrenean Mountain Dog all in the same litter would you?
@majoraswrath132 Yes Macroevolution would be a whole species basically mutating into something totally new. There really isn't any kind of mechanism to cause this other than random mutation which leaves a lot of holes in the theory.
@brghost23 there's no difference, evolution simply means "change over time" the fact our sinuses drain from the top and causes a lot of pain and discomfort to many people would be very poor design indeed, when you understand that on a four legged animal the sinus then drains from the front, and also the disks between our vertebrae evolved horizontally and are too thin in vertical humans spines compress and cause pain is a give away, unless it's poor design again, prostate/appendix/toenails?
@hughjarrse There is a difference. When I say Microevolution I am referring to Natural Selection which is is the process of a species making minor changes to it's physical characteristics in order to best survive in it's living environment. Macroevolution is a species making massive mutations to form something largely different. Darwin tried to use his work on discovering Natural Selection to form theories on Macro which didn't work that well.
True Darwin may well have found it difficult, but he never had DNA, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus platyops, Darwin had no idea that chickens have genes that sometimes express teeth (talpids). There is a huge raft of evidence that supports evolution that Darwin didn't know about, but that doesn't take away from his wonderful work, You won't find a single credible university in the western world that doesn't teach evolution as fact, I have never known a non religious person doubt it
@hughjarrse By evolution are you referring to Natural Selection? Because by all means I agree. Nobody should ever teach against that it's absolutely true. What is highly controversial and should only be taught as theory is Macroevolution. There isn't solid truthful evidence that proves it in any way.
I am religious by the way. However, I don't let it blind knowledge of science.
@brghost23 Evolution by natural selection is a done deal in the scientific community, variation in traits, differential reproduction, and heredity is observable , If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing, there are only religious reasons to counter it, and religion is what you want it to be, DNA proves we're related to other species
@brghost23 If you're interested in science view of EbyNS you really need to be checking science sites, if you're interested in a religious view of EbyNS check religious sites. Where is all goes wrong is when religious sites try to suggest science backs religions view, it doesn't, AIG, Talkorigins, even the great Kent Hovind will mislead people (Kent is of course a con man) Kent will tell you the entire universe was made in 6 days, 6,000yrs ago, totally ignoring every scientific discipline
@hughjarrse Personally however, I take the book of Genesis metaphorically. 6 days was not actually 6 days our time but it is written like that as in the sense of a story almost. Whoever wrote Genesis was taking the story of creation and writing metaphorically to explain it. For all we know 1 day was billions of years. It leaves so much to wonder.
@cjdragon1988 Don't even try bud. The Bible is the most historically accurate text in the world. It holds true to that test better than any other piece of writing. I don't have to defend the Bible. It stands on it's own.
And again Genesis was a metaphorical account of the creation of the world. Obviously nobody was around to actually witness it. Honestly please think before you make bullshit claims.
@dunadain5 So your asking where the very first cell had to have come from? So your questioning it in a scientific way yet you don't question God in the same way?? When you say something HAD to have made the first cell shouldn't you be asking the same of God? Where did God come from? Oh but of course it's an automatic answer "Oh he's always been there." well You need to ask yourself how it's possible God's always been if you don't think it's possible the universe has always been without god.
@dunadain5 Evolution is a fact. The origin in life can never be known as no one was there to witness it, therefore the thoery of evolution on the origin on life is a thoery, but evolution happening in a actual fact. However, you people always say that life can not come from non-life, what is God then? Who made God and is he life or non-life? Where did he come from? What's more likely, a cell mutated into higher life form or that there's always been a high life form randomly for no reason.
@DeadButBreathing Macroevolution is not fact. And to answer your question God is said by Christian teachings to have simply always been there. The human mind cannot fathom it. We think concretely of beginning and end but... God is beyond our intellectual comprehension level.
It is refutable and confusing. But it's religion it's belief. Macroevolution however, that is something that MUST have evidence to back it. It doesn't.
@brghost23 We could conclude that the universe has always been there as has matter. Evolution is happening all the time, it's the most probable fact of how we developed. If we use the guessing game, I might as well say that a pink flying unicorn is what created us all.
@DeadButBreathing Depends on how you define universe. There is no evidence of anything being here before the Big Bang, any existence of anything before that point in time is purely speculative. Matter has definitely had a beginning. You should study cosmology and the evolution of matter before making such claims. Also, had the universe as in the time-space curvature 'always' been here the laws of the conservation of energy states it would have grown very cold buy now. Nothing has 'always' been.
@Robikus If nothing has always been, then how did we start? Something cannot come from nothing am I right? Yet something exists, therefore nothing has never existed, therefore something must have always been there. Same goes for God, if God exists, then he must have always been there because there is no logical explanation as to why an intelligent being would just appear for no apparent reason.
@DeadButBreathing I'm not good at being diplomatic so sorry if I come off abrasive. The time space curvature we live in was a result of two colliding membranes in a higher dimension. Our time-space is a different frame of reference. Time is variable upon the space-bubble you live in. The expanded universe gives rise to many time-space curvatures each seeing themselves as the universe until such time they realize hyperspace.
1) Look at the incredible complexity of life on this planet (and other things in the universe). The way everything biologically clicks on a macroscopic and microscopic level. You expect me to believe that was all created by an instantaneous explosion of some chemicals in the universe??
2) This "bang" would've been caused by a mixing of chemicals or some sort of elements correct? Where did those elements come from?
@brghost23 Actually it didn't die, no chemicals were involved. It would seem there is a lot about the big bang you don't understand. A lot about complexity and the universe as well. The universe wasn't created in a complicated sense, it was initially very simple. Complexity evolved over billions of years. This process most likely starting by the collision of higher dimensional membranes. You may want to wiki 'big bang theory' to get a better handle on it.
@Robikus I understand the theory perfectly well. In case you haven't noticed there are different versions/interpretations people have made over the year. Yours doesn't involve chemicals. Fine that doesn't help your problem.
Where did the dimensional membranes come from? If you want to obey Science to every degree they couldn't have existed forever. And if they did you are basically taking God and reskinning him as membranes.
@brghost23 I'm very interested in your idea of a big bang using chemicals, please forward the link of where you got this idea from to me. As far as the membranes are concerned, time may not exist in the hyperspace dimension as it does here so the laws of causality may not require membranes to be created, could be they just 'are' without time as we know it. Time is a local phenomena of the time-space curvature. Again, I ask you to please do some research on this to know where of you speak.
@Robikus "Complexity evolved over billions of years."
I forgot to include that the idea of complexity involving violates the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases or stays the same in a process that is uncontrolled. Unless nature was being controlled by something (like mankind who didn't exist), it is not possible for the complexity of biological entities to have increased.
@brghost23 Again you are basing an idea on a misconception. The second law of thermodynamics is dependent on a 'closed' system. Planets where life evolves are not closed systems.
@Robikus Entropy constantly increases in the universe. That's a fundamental element of science taught in high school. The second law of thermodynamics may be to some degree based on closed systems, but entropy is a fact. Things don't become less random unless acted on by living things.
@brghost23 You mean like water vapor NEEDS a living thing to act upon it to turn it into a snowflake with all its intricate crystalline shapes?
The sun/Earth combination is a closed system. OVERALL the system is increasing in entropy, but locally, there are pockets of decreasing entropy.
To use an imperfect analogy, throughout winter, it's generally cold when you look at the season as a whole, but there is sometimes a day here or there which could be considered a warm day.
@sleazybtd Basing on that analogy, is it really plausible for vast numbers of creatures to have their DNA strands rewritten in a way that causes them to change to a far more intricate lifeform continuously over time? Not if "sometimes a day here or there which could be considered a warm day" applies to this (and yes I do realize you said imperfect analogy).
@brghost23 Your argument is a complete non-sequitur. YOUR argument was that the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase, which is true. My analogy was to show that even if the overall trend goes one way, it's still possible to have very localized pockets of the reverse trend. I never claimed that my analogy proves evolution. I was only showing how evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Please try to follow your own argument.
@sleazybtd Sorry if it seems like I strayed from the main topic but I was trying to say that having "very localized pockets of reverse trend" can't really explain such a massive increase in complexity among so many forms of life in nature.
@brghost23 You're right that localized pockets of reversed entropy doesn't explain the diversity or complexity of life. The first law of thermodynamics and gravity doesn't explain it either. But evolution explains it quite well, but only if you take the time to understand it. Most of the people who deny evolution are actually denying a twisted version of evolution which was created by the creationists. So much for religious people being honest.
@sleazybtd I am NOT a creationist. And macroevolution does not explain anything. It isn't even a theory. It is a hypothesis based on guesses and fraud. Even Darwin himself admitted the idea was heavily flawed.
Natural Selection doesn't cause drastic changes to the DNA strands of the species involved. The only explanation left after that is random mutation which obviously doesn't explain the process.
Fact is half of the "scientists" trying to prove evolution are frauds anyway.
@brghost23 You're a creationist. Stop with the obvious lies.
Macroevolution is not a theory. It was made up by creationists. In biology, there's no difference between micro and macro evolution. There is just evolution.
Darwin said that his idea is flawed if we can't find the fossils. Guess what we've found since Darwin's time? Fossils, a whole buttload of them. Not only that, we also found DNA which could have destroyed evolution, but instead, it strengthened it.
@sleazybtd No I am not a clueless idiot who think the world is only 6,000 years old....
And there IS a difference between micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is a proven fact. Not disputed by anyone.
Macroevolution is a hypothesis based on flawed information and a lot of guessing.
And don't criticize my knowledge of the subject. I know a lot more than you think. It is possible to have an argument without calling the other person stupid.
@brghost23 So you're an Old Earth Creationist. Same difference.
Okay, I'll concede one point. Macro and micro evolution are actual scientific terms, but they work the same way, the only difference is scale. How many microevolution changes are needed before it becomes a macroevolution?
The fact that I had to correct you so many times gives me the right to criticize your lack of knowledge on the subject.
@sleazybtd Anything and everything can be turned around to prove evolution. If this is true, then it proves evolution. If it's false, it also proves it (somehow... don't worry, we'll find a way to fit it in). Does NONE of it make you doubt evolution???
@tpstrat14 So far, no creationist argument has been convincing. Creationists use nothing but philosophical arguments, scripture, and outright lies. If they're determined to falsify evolution, they can go into the science field and find real evidence, but they never do. So far, ALL evidence supports evolution. No real evidence contradicts it. Fake evidence from creationists don't count.
By the way, it IS possible to falsify evolution. The most popular argument is to find a pre-Cambrian bunny.
@brghost23 You're right that natural selection doesn't cause drastic changes in the DNA, and random mutation doesn't explain the process. You're right because you got it all bass-ackwards.
Random mutations causes the changes in the DNA. Natural selection is the process which separates the beneficial mutations from the detrimental mutations.
It's obvious that you have no clue about evolution. If you're going to criticize it, at least have a working understanding of it first.
@dunadain5 ok, the first cells were made of amino acids and proteins. you now might debate where they came from. they formed from the atmosphere of the young earth, as well as scientists have proof that meteors had amino acids and proteins, that on impact, formed complex proteins. that is how the first cells were created.
@Gilbertus1986 Woah!! come on matey, you obviously never read the video description box, of course it's a joke, evolution is a scientific fact, but we can still have a bit of fun with the fundies
@hughjarrse How is it a SCIENTIFIC FACT? The only evidence I have been shown has been steeped in assumptions. Assumptions are not scientific, nor are they empirical. Can you please show me some that do not first pre-suppose evolution is true or make assumptions on the nature of evolution?
@Gilbertus1986 "The only evidence I have been shown has been steeped in assumptions" you're confusing assumptions with reasonable expectations, many god squad affiliates try to put faith in the same light as reasonable assumption, you will hear "you have faith that the chair you sit on will take your weight" it's not "faith" it's reasonable expectation based on experience, morphology, taxonomy, vestigial and DNA offer the best answers science can find, there are no credible alternatives
@Gilbertus1986 How come when a geneticist tells your his tests prove a defendant in a court case is a murderer you accept it, yet when the same geneticist tells you with equal certainty that humans and apes share a common ancestor you don't accept it? suddenly a scientist you trust enough to see a man executed you dismiss when he tells you of common ancestry? why is he infallible in one case and totally wrong in the other, it makes no sense, you just don't like it
@itsChristonabike We share 75% of our DNA with worms, and at least 50% with Bananas, similarity in DNA does nothing to prove common decent. Furhtermore you are comparing apples with oranges, hence your point is moot
@Gilbertus1986 "Furhtermore you are comparing apples with oranges, hence your point is moot " no I'm not, I'm saying highly qualified geneticist will tell you they are just as certain in both cases, you choose to believe one and not the other, and losing a redundant part of your body isn't devolution, why would a body waste nutrition, blood and vessels when those resources can be put to other use? blind cave fish are born with non functioning eyes, these can become infected and kill the fish
@Grtus1986 Ask your biology teacher why yawns are infectious why a group of woman synchronize their menstrual cycles, why you find the smell of your hands when you have been holding copper coins is so interesting. ask why all humans start out female, why men have nipples, why the disks between the human vertebrae are too thin and course back problems over 40yrs, similarly why the urinary tract passes through the prostate gland causing problems after 50?, ask whyYOUR sinuses drain from the top?
@Gilbertus1986 Always ask questions, don't be afraid if the answers don't match your expectation or wishes, who knows one day you may discover something that no one else ever has, you may prove the things you want to be right true, just make sure you mind is always inquiring. Take it easy
One last thing if you truely want to know real answers, seek out the experts, you wouldn't believe a science website hosted by scientologists, I wouldn't ask a plummer the meaning of christs words on the cross
@itsChristonabike I KNOW Science I am studying Biotechnology at Uni. I have been learning about evolution in detail this semester, however to my disappointment they were unable to answer a few simple questions about the nature of evolution. ie- Why does evolution defy Mendels First Law?
@Gilbertus1986 " The appendix is used to help house "good" bacteria for the gut. Whilst it is non-essential, it is useful to have" not so useful if it kills you, whoever told you that isn't being straight with you, they're trying to make it fit a bronze age book, the cure for demonic possession used to be the heart of a black ass, now we control epilepsy with tegretol, no surprise then that very few possessions occur these days! don't be scared of knowledge, it keeps us alive
@itsChristonabike My Physiology lectuer said it does. He is an Evolutionist too!
I gave you a site that gives you evidence that I am right, yet you decide to go on a tanget that doesn't make any sense. Is this how you debate, with the silly antics of a child?
@Gilbertus1986 every single one of those questions relate to evolution, it's the same when creationists say "the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution" they no nothing about the other two laws! but their wrong in the first case heat from the sun (entropy disorder) is harnessed by an oak sapling and re-ordered into a mighty oak, just because there is a question unanswered doesn't mean there isn't one, you don't know jesus last words on the cross, does that mean he can't exist?
@itsChristonabike Um no, questions about yawns and copper coins do not have anything to do with evolution, well not in reality. Perhaps in your mind it does.
Also you have it the other way round... The Laws of Thermodynamics disproves the Big Bang theory.
@Gilbertus1986 you need to look deeper yawns are infectious because in past times a pack sleeps at the same time so it doesn't get split up, the smell of copper coins on your hands reminds you copper in blood, synchronized menstruation is the equivalent of being on heat, and it's the 1st law your getting confused with, the 2nd as I stated is erroneously applied to evolution by creationists, but why should that bother you, your not interested in anything that contradicts your holy book
@itsChristonabike Still haven't shown how that has anything to do with evolution at all? Read a book seriously. Also, I am not a creationist, I am agnostic. However I see the logic flaws in evolution and that is why I oppose it. Who has ever said the laws of thermodynamics pertain to evolution? its about energy... not evolution at all, stop throwing mud around and start saying something coherent.
@Gilbertus1986 I never said you were a creationist I woudn't have wasted a second post on you if I thought that, I said creationists illegitimately use the laws of thermodynamics to try to bolster their cause, try listening to Ken Miller, there are 1,000's of logical facts to support evolution, you concentrate on the few science hasn't got answers for yet, just take a look at your own toenails and ask why? ask why every mammal from a mouse to a giraffe has seven neck bones
"your not interested in anything that contradicts your holy book"
Sounds like you are infering I am a creationist.
Furthermore, AGAIN the questions you state have NO relevance on evolution, ie- the belief that all things came from a single ancestor... To answer all your questions I can say they were made that way. Hence the questions have no relevance as they can go either way.
Hold on "lying" is a bit strong, I assumed you were religious because like I said earlier I have never met a non religious person who denied evolution, creationists to me are the fruitloops who believe the universe was made in 6 days 6,000yrs ago that we all cam from Adam & Eve, and every living creature is decended from Noah's Ark. You said you were an agnostic and truth be told I don't believe you, but I'm not going to call you a lair, technically everyone is agnostic, but thats another story
@Gilbertus1986 What is your appendix for? before you answer the appendix kills around 3 million people every year through peritonitis (far more in the past) yet no one who has had it removed has ever suffered any adverse health symptoms (outside of poor surgery) what is the design idea behind this killer appendage? it can't be anything to do with the immune system, because the immune system isn't effected by removal! why are yawns infectious? why women synchronise their menstrual cycle?
@itsChristonabike Vestigial organs do nothing for evolution, (actually it shows De-evolution, as the oragnism is getting less complex). The appendix is used to help house "good" bacteria for the gut. Whilst it is non-essential, it is useful to have, as we were told in physiology class last semester. Or check out this
w w wDOTindependent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277DOT h t m l
There are structures inside cells that are so complex that they had to have been developed top down, not brick by brick up, they did not 'evolve' they were designed top down.
Microbiology shows that Darwinian Evolution is impossible.
AND THAT IS STATING IT MILDLY.
This video is what they now teach in colleges, technology evolves fast and so what was true and popular yesterday is outdated info today. Darwinian Evolution has been owned.
@c1zx Exactly, not to mention it breaks current laws and observations in reality. Furthermore it is lacking in any form of SCIENTIFIC evidence... (Assumptions are not scientific evidence).. What boggles my mind is that there is no actual scientific evidence, yet people still think it is scientific???
There is no 'proof of evolution'. There are just human beings ignoring contradictions to evolution because it doesn't suit their fancy. Evolution is not scientific, it has not addressd the data, it only responds to data that supports it, it never takes on data that doesn't.
@c1zx Very true, the data that opposes evolution is thrown out the window. I am surprised they havent decided to get rid of Mendels Laws since evolution contradict them too :p
@MartinLuther444 "There is ZERO evidence to support darwinism, a true FACT, which is something that does NOT EXIST in DARWINISM" "reason is the devil's harlot," Martin Luther
in other words "beleieve the bullshit" grow up and get an education
@broooziy Lol. Will you admit DNA is a CODE? If DNA is a CODE then it contains INFORMATION, and the only place you get INFORMATION is from INTELLIGENCE... Proof of a creator.... Unless you wish to be ignorant of these FACTS. Furthermore, what are these evidences for evolution? Are they scientific? Or are they based in assumption, (non-scientifc)?
@Gilbertus1986 what are you going on about, my comment stands, there is TONS of EVIDENCE for EVOLUTION, now where did i STATE there wasnt some kind of creator, try ENGAGING your BRAIN before commenting to me
@Gilbertus1986 i told you to engage your brain before you comment which you obviously havent done as you dont even remember sticking your nose in a replying to a comment i made to someone else, and if you cant be bothered to check back because you dont know who your,ve even replied to, do you really think im going to do it for you ((O_O))
Where is all this anger coming from your initial comment was very rude, and not befitting of an actual debate or line of questioning.
I asked you is DNA a code?
I never said anything about evolution, so please don't go off on a tangent and spout of your evo-religious sites illogical loop-holes. I will get to them in a bit, however for now I'd like you to answer my initial question.
IS DNA A CODE? (as such DNA is refered to as the genetic code / DNA code)
@Gilbertus1986 im not here to debate with you or anyone else, i replied to someones comment after they said there was no evidence for evolution and i corrected him, now if youve got nothing better to do than to go round in circles with the same old arguments then good for you, carry on firing out the brain farts
@05swanbe Or perhaps, you are talking to the wrong people. I have talked to quite a few people about evoution, my Biology lectuers included, and it always ends with them being unable to answer a few questions as to the validity of evolution... Or pulling out some assumption based story to attempt to sound smart, assumptions aren't science, FACTS are.
@Gilbertus1986 "assumptions aren't science, FACTS are." Says the man who bases his world view on a magical, invisible sky fairy who, almost by definition, cannot be proved.
Okay then, shoot. What are these questions that your lecturers supposedly couldn't answer?
Of course, it's possible that you are one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and have seen something that everyone else missed, but if I'm honest I'm not expecting much :-)
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't make it unviable. Its a thought I had myself. Read Mendels first law and think about the ancestor bacteria that have ONE chromosome.
Not good enough, just saying natural selection is the same as saying "God did it", and has no science behind it, JUST your FAITH.
why doesn't the fossil record show a slow progression? (actually, there are many transitional forms showing a gradual progression from one species to another)
how do small changes turn into large ones when no benefit is found in the initial stages of development? (no matter how small a change is, it can still be beneficial)
As I said I want YOU to explain it, hence when you are shown to be wrong you can't back out of it
Actually no, there is no smooth progression, showing all, (or most of), the incremental changes. If this took millions of years then there should be Trillions of transitional forms showing EVERY stage.
Why are they benefitial, because YOU say so? I am regarding the transition of major physiological changes, like wings, how are stumps (the beginings of wings) useful?
@Gilbertus1986 1) ?? That's like saying where do the 1's and 0's come from. The bases are Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cystine (oh and Uracil), and are formed from carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. If you mean how are the bases used to store / transcript information, something tells me you didn't read biology at university. If you mean how were they first formed, that is a question about Abiogenesis, not evolution.
@05swanbe You aren't understanding what I am getting at...
How does the molecular machinery "KNOW", that when these 3 bases are together its coding for this particular amino acid and when 3 different bases are together it codes for the protein chain to stop... How was all this information concieved? Information in reality has only ever come from INTELLIGENCE, I think it is stupid to come up with a theory that suggests something that goes against reality.
@Gilbertus1986 I'm beginning to doubt more and more that you read biology at university. *reaches for textbook*. The molecular machinery doesn't KNOW anything. A particular codon will code for a particular amino acid because the tRNA with that anticodon will ONLY pick up that amino acid, and will ONLY bind with that particular codon in the ribosome. The ribosome will stop coding for a polypeptide when a stop codon (UAG) is found on the mRNA, which codes for a stop factor, triggering the release.
Actually Abiogeneisis is the ORIGINS of atheistic evolution, as such you can't have "God-less" evolution without it.... Otherwise you believe in a theory that has no origins..lol.. Which is really silly.
Life has to come from somewhere.... Since there is life today
@Gilbertus1986 Yes, it is true that evolution first required abiogenesis, but you are talking about them as if they are one and the same (again, really a biology degree?). If you wan't to pose a question on abiogenesis, then feel free, but you can't dress it up as something on evolution. Evolution doesn't care HOW life came to be, only how it changed.
@Gilbertus1986 "How do RANDOM mutations make up for the specificity of proteins?" Most mutations either have no effect on the protein (because it still codes for the same amino acid), or adversely affects the organism by changing the protein for the worse. Thus the organism dies and the mutation is lost. Only mutations that improve a protein will actually form a new specific protein that survives to the next generation.
@Gilbertus1986 "Where does NEW genetic INFORMATION come from?". From mutations that involve the ADDITION of one or multiple bases.
"Why doesn't the fossil record show a slow progression from one species to another?" It does. Obviously, there are some gaps, but that's what happens when you are searching thousands of square miles for fossils millions of years old. We are filling in the gaps all the time with new discoveries that fit the predictions.
@Gilbertus1986 "How do small changes "turn into" large ones, when no benefit is found in the initial stages of devel?". That is called Irreducible Complexity, and (despite numerous attempts), no such example has ever been found. The eye, the flagella, the immune system have all been suggested and have all been picked apart and transitional stages shown. Feel free to suggest one.
"Why are these questions shunned in the classroom?" I don't live in America, but as far as I know, they aren't.
.Coming from a 57yr old bloke who believes there is a "magic man" who lives in the sky, that insult holds very little weight, but seriously fella try reading a book (er.. a different book) education is nothing to be scared of, I realise the learning process may be a little "left field" to you be give it a go, you have nothing to lose but your ignorance.
Outlaw the Fraternal Order of Police!
TheWorldFarOff 2 months ago
This commerical vedio wasn't meant to spark such a debate. Of course, anyone can make such video and call it "proof" of whatever you want to proof. The fact is, the proof is in your mind, think how you want to think and that makes you what you want to be. That simple.
Axmedkoole 3 months ago
it was uploaded as a joke, there is no debate as to wether evolution is true or not, it's a fact, you will get religious people embarrassed by their doctrine who need evolution not to be true, but there is no debate in biology or science, do you not find it strange that the only Dissenters from evolution are religious people who's religion suggests evolutions isn't true? I have yet to find a NON religious person deny evolution, conversely millions of religious people accept it as fact
hughjarrse 3 months ago
@hughjarrse I always get insulted as being a "religious troll" when I debate evolution-believers. I am not religious whatsoever. I am agnostic and I doubt evolution greatly. But of course you're going to say "how?", assuming that any objection to evolution is religious.... in reality, I have seen zero conclusive proofs of evolution. I've seen things that MAY hint towards it, but nothing conclusive. AND I'M AGNOSTIC!!!!
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 You're not doin' yourself any favors by stating you don't believe in evolution and you're not religious!! there's no doubt that evolution is scientific fact, and the only possible reason for countering belief in evolution is a willingly ignorant stance fueled by fundamental religious beliefs, to suggest evolution isn't scientific fact outside the umbrella of theism makes you appear quite ridiculous
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse I would appear LESS ridiculous if I said that the reason I don't accept evolution is because the bible says differently? lol... I'm done with you. You clearly don't want to talk science here, only religion...
tpstrat14 2 months ago
OK. I get it!!! STOP replying to my comment, please. I was just asking a question because my teacher has been telling us the craziest stuff lately. -sigh-
HirizaKyo 4 months ago
People who say....."If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?".... are stupid! ....
a Bat was once a Rodent type creature that leaped from plants and trees until they evolved wings and Birds where once lizard type creatures..... so why could'nt we have evolved from an Ape type creature?
paranoidpfanclub 5 months ago
If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here? That is why we have to be of something else..... right?
HirizaKyo 5 months ago
@HirizaKyo "If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?"
I'm slightly confised, who has ben telling you we evolved from apes? we share a common ancestor with apes, but apes are just as evolved as us and everything else living on earth, they are perfectly evolved apes and we are perfectly evolved humans
hughjarrse 5 months ago 3
@hughjarrse My teachers told me. That's what I thought!!! But nooo... they say I'm wrong. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ^-^
HirizaKyo 5 months ago
@hughjarrse That doesn't really make any sense. But then again, obviously you don't understand evolution any more than a Christian understands Christianity. Do you know how I know? Because NO ONE understands evolution. Seriously, we think that it is how we came to be, but as far as how it all works, no one has a clue. So my question is WHY DO WE BELIEVE IT!?!?!?!??!
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "So my question is WHY DO WE BELIEVE IT!?!?!?!??!" for a start human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, proof apes and humans share a common ancestor, studies in mitochondrial DNA prove a distant common ancestor for all mammals, whales have hip bones, snakes have vestigial legs, we have an appendix and sinuses that get blocked because they drain from the top instead of the front as in the four legged animals we evolved from, plus countless other "proofs"
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse Human chromosome #2 is human chromosome #2. In your mind, it's the fusion of two ape chromosomes because you accept evolution in the first place. You take the COMPLETELY self-evident fact that chimps are similar to us and point out that science proves that, yes, they are similar. HOW IS THIS PROOF OF EVOLUTION?!?!?! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying "evolution made chimps similar to us" holds as much water as "God made chimps similar to us"
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 No, you really not seeing my point, humans two less pairs of chromosomes than apes, human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the two missing ape chromosomes, this proved by observing telomeres in the centre or #2, telomeres only occur at the ends of chromosomes, proving a fusion of two chromosomes, further research shows the telomere patten shows that not only is this a fusion it just happens to be a fusion of the two missing ape chromosomes, that's extraordinary proof!
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 the appendix proves one of two things, evolution or very bad design! many of the god squad suggest the appendix is part of the immune system but that makes very little sense, 1,500,000 people die every year from peritonitis caused by infected appendix, conversely no one who has ever had their appendix removed has suffered any adverse effects (outside of poor surgery) concerning immunity,
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse The appendix was once a very useful, bacteria-harboring organ. When most places weren't so densely populated, the bacteria kept in the appendix was very useful in fighting off diseases like cholera. Now that the world is generally very densely populated, we get these bacteria from each other. It's not evolution of life itself that has made the appendix obsolete, it is the evolution of our own human CULTURE and way of life. You do understand there is a WORLD of difference, don't you?
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "The appendix was once a very useful, bacteria-harboring organ" football is about to start, can you give me your source
hughjarrse 2 months ago
Comment removed
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstra"proposed that the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria" first off these are listed as "possible" uses, the fact that the appendix "houses" bacteria being a reason to suggest "design" is the same a suggesting that old coffee jar in your shed full of nuts, bolts and old screws was designed to hold nuts, bolts and old screws, or the shell a hermit crab lives in was designed for a hermit crab to live in, also you seem to have completely ignored the far larger "Vestigiality" section
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse You are denying that the appendix was likely absolutely necessary to human survival when sanitation methods were less sophisticated just 300 years ago! Nowadays no one that gets their appendix taken out lives in unsanitary conditions and that's why they experience no adversity after it is removed. The appendix is no problem to intelligent design. What would you expect our beloved creator to do, manually remove the appendix from the human genome now that we have proper sanitation?
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "The appendix is no problem to intelligent design" I'm a bit worried that you used the term "intelligent design" it makes you sound a bit like one of the discovery institute kooks, Behe is a clever guy, but either incredibly ignorant of work others are doing in his field, or he's being untruthful. an IDer would not put the urinary tract through the prostate, and "he" would be marked down for skimping on the disks between the vertebrae
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse Yes. And wouldn't an all-knowing, all-loving creator made everything able to fly, read each others minds and live forever? Man, you evolutionists really fly off the handle with these "flaws" that you see in life's design. I see no flaws. I see challenges to overcome and live through.
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "I see no flaws" then you're not looking, you brought up intelligent design, I'm pointing out design flaws that an "intelligent" designer wouldn't make, I pointed out that humans suffer blocked sinuses because our sinuses are in the wrong position to drain, very poor design, evolutions explains this "anomaly"
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse OK, let's take a look from a different angle. Intelligent design is still alive and kicking even if evolution is true. Why does a changing universe kill an intelligent designer? The laws of physics themselves are unchanging. THAT indicates design. The laws of chemistry are unchanging. THAT indicates design. So what if life isn't perfectly designed? Clearly the laws of nature itself are....
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "The laws of physics themselves are unchanging. THAT indicates design"
why does it? the anthropic principle takes care of that! you sound like water molecules talking to each other saying " there must be a designer, what are the chances of this hole in the ground being the perfect shape and size to contain this water?" wouldn't entropy be counter to your design argument?
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse So physical laws are akin to the random nooks and crannies made when you step in the mud? And the water that fills in the hole is akin to everything existing in the universe? That's problematic because that would mean that physical laws are subjective and you can't really be sure that you exist in reality, which is insane. It makes more sense that we ARE real. The only way to be sure of this is to accept the beautiful truth that our physical laws are not random, but designed.
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 "you can't really be sure that you exist in reality" as Martin Rees pointed out there by definition more virtual universes that actual universes so the chances are we are part of a vitual univers!
the problem in looking for design in everything becomes clear as you learn more, The Giant's Causeway was believed to have a designer until science showed it was a natural formation
hughjarrse 1 month ago
@hughjarrse I'm not surprised that someone who was previously trying to prove evolution as fact is now talking about the improbability of our universe being reality. Yea, evolution is pretty nutty stuff.
P.S. Go look up the definition of the word "universe". By definition there is only one universe. If you want to talk about the 11 possible dimensions of THE universe, then OK, but don't talk about there being alternate realities. You come off as, how to put this, schizophrenic.
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 Woah! hold on, I was quoting Rees, I don't believe that. 11 dimensions is M theory, 10 is string, and multiverse has a universe for every possible event, "universe" is just a word, you said you followed no theology, so a pedant could rightly call you an atheist, I'm surprised you're throwing around insults (schizophrenic) you are being totally disingenuous, tell me you have no idea who you think your "intelligent designer" is
hughjarrse 1 month ago
Comment removed
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@hughjarrse I guess my saying that there is an intelligent designer is synonymous with my argument that 1+1 will always and forever equal 2. That means that the laws of mathematics are fixed. How can they be fixed if nobody fixed them? Now don't get me wrong. I am not narcissistic enough to believe that our creator is human in any way, shape or form. I don't know what our creator is, but 1+1 may not equal 2 in reality without a creator and that means that sanity isn't possible.
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 "How can they be fixed if nobody fixed them?" that is just an argument from personal incredulity, you can't calculate the odds after the event, you can't say "look where we are, what are the chances of being here" you will always be somewhere, the odds are only legitimate if calculated before the event. if the laws of physics prohibited life we wouldn't be talking about anything, we are because they don't
hughjarrse 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 "1+1 will always and forever equal 2" you seem to think your designer could have made 1+1=3 if "he" wanted to! that is nothing to do with any set law
hughjarrse 1 month ago
@hughjarrse Now we can shift the argument. Is real sanity possible? You and I better believe it and strive for it or that schizophrenia/ psychosis diagnosis might set in and we'll both become Christian or something!
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 "Is real sanity possible? You and I better believe it and strive for it or that schizophrenia/ psychosis diagnosis" These are human concepts and devices to try and understand what is "right" and what we decide is "right" may be wrong in the long term, feckless parents have more offspring on average than conscientious parents, and that is counter productive in evolutionary terms! if you cheat in an exam and consequently get a better job is that wrong, we think so, but is it?
hughjarrse 1 month ago
@hughjarrse We should never decide what is right. We should always be looking for it. I think the "ten commandments" or any set of religious moral standards are totally useless. I think we're both on the same page in thinking that morality is a very difficult concept, it's not black and white.
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@hughjarrse I can assure you I am not religious. I laugh at creationists that reject evolution on the basis of the bible.They are to be ignored as the unscientific kooks they are. On the other hand, evolution is a paradigm that doesn't have solid proof. No, I don't have another explanation for life on earth, but the argument "If evolution didn't happen, then how did life arise?" is an argument from ignorance, not knowledge, and it should be regarded as foolishness as well..
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 [but the argument "If evolution didn't happen, then how did life arise?" is an argument from ignorance, not knowledge, and it should be regarded as foolishness as well.]
Speaking of argument from ignorance, did you know that evolution DOES NOT address how life arose? It only describes how life diversified. The branch of science dealing with how life arose is called abiogenesis.
You obviously have a very poor understanding of evolution.
sleazybtd 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 I tried a search on Loren G. Martin but nothing outside of AIG and other Christian web sites seems available so it's hard to judge his motives
hughjarrse 2 months ago
@hughjarrse (appendix cntd) But don't you worry now! Since we've found human functionality in the appendix, it can still be used as proof for evolution, because well, we evolved the appendix in order to survive! The existence of your own consciousness and self-awareness seems to be enough proof for evolutionists. I mean, there really is ZERO conclusive proof of it, but you keep believing....
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@HirizaKyo you will find Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs, and the thing that proves beyond a doubt that we share a common ancestor is the fact that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of the missing ape chromosomes, which means an ancestor of ours must have had the same chromosomes as modern apes, meaning that ancestor must have been an ancestor of modern apes. and the fact Chimps have a DNA genome 98% identical to humans is also a big clue
hughjarrse 5 months ago
@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that... now about the proof of evoloution... we share more dna with apes then we do with niandithouls.. excuse my spelling but yeah thats proof right there that we are part of the ape family witch means we evovled from roughly the same thing as them and christanity belives that because a piece of cloth worn by "jesus" only had 23 chromosomes means he dident have a human dad so what was his dad ?
tzemz 4 months ago
@tzemz "@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that.."
Not they don't! just thought I'd let you know that, I will always excuse spelling (mine aint great) but you have got a fundamental fact wrong, all apes have 24 pairs, and humans have 23 pairs, in fact Down syndrome is caused by a person having three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two copies, so extra chromosomes are not a good thing
hughjarrse 4 months ago
@tzemz "@hughjarrse actually apes have 28 pairs of chromosomes and we have 24 just thought id let you know that.."
Not they don't! just thought I'd let you know that, I will always excuse spelling (mine aint great) but you have got a fundamental fact wrong, all apes have 24 pairs, and humans have 23 pairs, in fact Down syndrome is caused by a person having three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two copies, so extra chromosomes are not a good thing
hughjarrse 4 months ago
@HirizaKyo People who say....."If we evolved from apes... then how come they are still here?".... are stupid! ....
a Bat was once a Rodent type creature that leaped from plants and trees until they evolved wings and Birds where once lizard type creatures..... so why could'nt we have evolved from an Ape type creature?
paranoidpfanclub 5 months ago
@HirizaKyo APE is a classification. Humans, chimps, gorillas and orangatans. are'' Apes''.
Humans and Chimp evolved form an early ape that lived 7-10 million years ago. That ape shared a common ancestory with the animal that evolved into gorillas farther back in time.
Chimps are closer to humans than than they are to Gorillas !
And all apes and monkeys are primates. All Primates are still mammals. All mammals are still cordates. You can't outgrow your ancestory. SAME KIND
gregrutz 4 months ago
@HirizaKyo no not really, just because like most animals some adapt and change charecteristics and some dont like some apes
chichitahirih 4 months ago
Evolution is a framework for explaining observations, not a true theory. It is not testable as it does not make definitive predictions. The one big one is intermediate species, we don't find them, so now we have a theory of rapid bursts of evolution to cover up the missing evidence.
So many of the steps in the process would lead to useless intermediate species, like a flightless reptile with incomplete feather cover. That would have extinction written all over it, but magically a bird appears.
wjestick 6 months ago
@wjestick Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus afarensis Ambulocetus, Archaeopteryx are the obvious transitional fossils, but every living creature is in transition, just look at our own species, we have an appendix that killed millions of people, yet not one person who has had it removed has ever suffered any adverse effects, women synchronize their menstrual cycles if a group is close, a spine that causes compression pain because the disks evolved horizontal and are to thin for vertical use
hughjarrse 6 months ago
@hughjarrse interesting, that sounds more like an argument against evolution to me.
akai1sora 4 months ago
@akai1sora "interesting, that sounds more like an argument against evolution to me"
can you expand on that?
hughjarrse 4 months ago
Of course evolution is real. How do you explain the skulls of apes that loo suspiciously human?
KingofWWESpoilers 6 months ago
That was some stupid shit.
dinopad10 6 months ago
this is not evidence/facts, this is theory.
when you learn how the dynamics in our surroundings work (though physics, mathmatics statistics and hypothesis), you can create a plausable ideology/creationism by explaning "what could be" responsible for what it is we are researching/looking for to answer our questions (where we come from).
evolution is theory.
Emblemz 1 year ago
@Emblemz evolution is just a word to explain how things change over time, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a device to try to pull together certain facts, evidence shows humans and apes (and everything else) had a common ancestor is to the best of our knowledge using the technology is a fact, vestigial organs/limbs are facts, the theory of evolution tries to unite these facts. I'm sure there are people looking for answers other than evolution, there are non that stand up so far
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse I like how you talk.You are an intelligent person.
tirpitz19 10 months ago
@Emblemz the law of complex adaptation is not a theory its a law
marcuspinson 9 months ago
@Emblemz Every proven scientific discovery was once a theory...
GetAFuckinClue 9 months ago
@GetAFuckinClue Theories DO NOT BECOME LAWS. Theories attempt to explain laws. Get your terminology right.
brghost23 8 months ago
@Emblemz LOL. You'll be saying that gravity isn't a fact next, even though we have a Theory of Gravity.
But try jumping off a high building and see what happens. Genome research has proved evolution.
JapGeordie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Disregard religion for a moment...
Science makes us discover all the law of physics, law of inertia, law of gravity, etc.
The universe & the earth does not came by chance or probability. Scientist now argue coz all evidence points to a product of design. Their factor rate came to that conclusion. If by design, question is why? for what purpose? and by whom?
jandysanchez 1 year ago
@162Deathnote "are you saying a 57 year old life is not important" not at all, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion! "wow your (you're) retarded" struck me as a rather ridiculous comment for a 57yr old to make, and if you reach the age of 57 and still don't understand how evolution works is very sad indictment on the united states education system.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
Evolution is not real! Everything comes from something. So what is the very first cell that was made? Do you really think you know? This is obviously know one raised with the bible by his side!
dunadain5 1 year ago
@dunadain5 You're getting aboigenesis and evolution mixed up, evolution is a scientific fact and you will not find a credible university in the world teaching otherwise,
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Do you mean Microevolution? Yes that is fact. Macroevolution however is not.
brghost23 1 year ago
@brghost23
Can you explain the difference between microevolution and macroevolution please?
Judging from the name, macro would be a whole species changing?
majoraswrath132 1 year ago
@majoraswrath132 "Judging from the name, macro would be a whole species changing?" no if you grow 1/8 of an inch a month after 8 months your an inch taller, in 96 months you're a foot taller, the macro is a culmination of the 1/8ths and inches , all domestic dogs are bred from wolves over a few 1,000yrs, if you bred two wolves tomorrow you wouldn't expect a poodle, an Irish setter and a Pyrenean Mountain Dog all in the same litter would you?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@majoraswrath132 Yes Macroevolution would be a whole species basically mutating into something totally new. There really isn't any kind of mechanism to cause this other than random mutation which leaves a lot of holes in the theory.
brghost23 1 year ago
@brghost23 there's no difference, evolution simply means "change over time" the fact our sinuses drain from the top and causes a lot of pain and discomfort to many people would be very poor design indeed, when you understand that on a four legged animal the sinus then drains from the front, and also the disks between our vertebrae evolved horizontally and are too thin in vertical humans spines compress and cause pain is a give away, unless it's poor design again, prostate/appendix/toenails?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse There is a difference. When I say Microevolution I am referring to Natural Selection which is is the process of a species making minor changes to it's physical characteristics in order to best survive in it's living environment. Macroevolution is a species making massive mutations to form something largely different. Darwin tried to use his work on discovering Natural Selection to form theories on Macro which didn't work that well.
brghost23 1 year ago
True Darwin may well have found it difficult, but he never had DNA, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus platyops, Darwin had no idea that chickens have genes that sometimes express teeth (talpids). There is a huge raft of evidence that supports evolution that Darwin didn't know about, but that doesn't take away from his wonderful work, You won't find a single credible university in the western world that doesn't teach evolution as fact, I have never known a non religious person doubt it
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse By evolution are you referring to Natural Selection? Because by all means I agree. Nobody should ever teach against that it's absolutely true. What is highly controversial and should only be taught as theory is Macroevolution. There isn't solid truthful evidence that proves it in any way.
I am religious by the way. However, I don't let it blind knowledge of science.
brghost23 1 year ago
@brghost23 Evolution by natural selection is a done deal in the scientific community, variation in traits, differential reproduction, and heredity is observable , If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing, there are only religious reasons to counter it, and religion is what you want it to be, DNA proves we're related to other species
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@brghost23 by the way, Happy new year!
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@brghost23 If you're interested in science view of EbyNS you really need to be checking science sites, if you're interested in a religious view of EbyNS check religious sites. Where is all goes wrong is when religious sites try to suggest science backs religions view, it doesn't, AIG, Talkorigins, even the great Kent Hovind will mislead people (Kent is of course a con man) Kent will tell you the entire universe was made in 6 days, 6,000yrs ago, totally ignoring every scientific discipline
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Personally however, I take the book of Genesis metaphorically. 6 days was not actually 6 days our time but it is written like that as in the sense of a story almost. Whoever wrote Genesis was taking the story of creation and writing metaphorically to explain it. For all we know 1 day was billions of years. It leaves so much to wonder.
And Happy New Year to you as well!!
brghost23 1 year ago
@brghost23 I use to think the same way as you, then I learned more about Genesis, it makes the false claim that trees existed before the sun.
Sorry for breaking your attempt at defending the bible.
cjdragon1988 9 months ago
@cjdragon1988 Don't even try bud. The Bible is the most historically accurate text in the world. It holds true to that test better than any other piece of writing. I don't have to defend the Bible. It stands on it's own.
And again Genesis was a metaphorical account of the creation of the world. Obviously nobody was around to actually witness it. Honestly please think before you make bullshit claims.
brghost23 9 months ago
@dunadain5 So your asking where the very first cell had to have come from? So your questioning it in a scientific way yet you don't question God in the same way?? When you say something HAD to have made the first cell shouldn't you be asking the same of God? Where did God come from? Oh but of course it's an automatic answer "Oh he's always been there." well You need to ask yourself how it's possible God's always been if you don't think it's possible the universe has always been without god.
itsShawnP 1 year ago
@dunadain5 Evolution is a fact. The origin in life can never be known as no one was there to witness it, therefore the thoery of evolution on the origin on life is a thoery, but evolution happening in a actual fact. However, you people always say that life can not come from non-life, what is God then? Who made God and is he life or non-life? Where did he come from? What's more likely, a cell mutated into higher life form or that there's always been a high life form randomly for no reason.
DeadButBreathing 1 year ago
@DeadButBreathing Macroevolution is not fact. And to answer your question God is said by Christian teachings to have simply always been there. The human mind cannot fathom it. We think concretely of beginning and end but... God is beyond our intellectual comprehension level.
It is refutable and confusing. But it's religion it's belief. Macroevolution however, that is something that MUST have evidence to back it. It doesn't.
brghost23 1 year ago
@brghost23 We could conclude that the universe has always been there as has matter. Evolution is happening all the time, it's the most probable fact of how we developed. If we use the guessing game, I might as well say that a pink flying unicorn is what created us all.
DeadButBreathing 11 months ago
@DeadButBreathing Depends on how you define universe. There is no evidence of anything being here before the Big Bang, any existence of anything before that point in time is purely speculative. Matter has definitely had a beginning. You should study cosmology and the evolution of matter before making such claims. Also, had the universe as in the time-space curvature 'always' been here the laws of the conservation of energy states it would have grown very cold buy now. Nothing has 'always' been.
Robikus 11 months ago
@Robikus If nothing has always been, then how did we start? Something cannot come from nothing am I right? Yet something exists, therefore nothing has never existed, therefore something must have always been there. Same goes for God, if God exists, then he must have always been there because there is no logical explanation as to why an intelligent being would just appear for no apparent reason.
DeadButBreathing 9 months ago
@DeadButBreathing I'm not good at being diplomatic so sorry if I come off abrasive. The time space curvature we live in was a result of two colliding membranes in a higher dimension. Our time-space is a different frame of reference. Time is variable upon the space-bubble you live in. The expanded universe gives rise to many time-space curvatures each seeing themselves as the universe until such time they realize hyperspace.
Robikus 9 months ago
@Robikus I sincerely hope you haven't deceived yourself into believing in the "big bang?"
brghost23 9 months ago
@brghost23 Judging by the direction everything is moving it would seem to sprung from one point. What's your explanation?
Robikus 9 months ago
@Robikus
1) Look at the incredible complexity of life on this planet (and other things in the universe). The way everything biologically clicks on a macroscopic and microscopic level. You expect me to believe that was all created by an instantaneous explosion of some chemicals in the universe??
2) This "bang" would've been caused by a mixing of chemicals or some sort of elements correct? Where did those elements come from?
That theory died a long time ago.
brghost23 9 months ago
@brghost23 Actually it didn't die, no chemicals were involved. It would seem there is a lot about the big bang you don't understand. A lot about complexity and the universe as well. The universe wasn't created in a complicated sense, it was initially very simple. Complexity evolved over billions of years. This process most likely starting by the collision of higher dimensional membranes. You may want to wiki 'big bang theory' to get a better handle on it.
Robikus 9 months ago
@Robikus I understand the theory perfectly well. In case you haven't noticed there are different versions/interpretations people have made over the year. Yours doesn't involve chemicals. Fine that doesn't help your problem.
Where did the dimensional membranes come from? If you want to obey Science to every degree they couldn't have existed forever. And if they did you are basically taking God and reskinning him as membranes.
brghost23 9 months ago
@brghost23 I'm very interested in your idea of a big bang using chemicals, please forward the link of where you got this idea from to me. As far as the membranes are concerned, time may not exist in the hyperspace dimension as it does here so the laws of causality may not require membranes to be created, could be they just 'are' without time as we know it. Time is a local phenomena of the time-space curvature. Again, I ask you to please do some research on this to know where of you speak.
Robikus 9 months ago
@Robikus "Complexity evolved over billions of years."
I forgot to include that the idea of complexity involving violates the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases or stays the same in a process that is uncontrolled. Unless nature was being controlled by something (like mankind who didn't exist), it is not possible for the complexity of biological entities to have increased.
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 Again you are basing an idea on a misconception. The second law of thermodynamics is dependent on a 'closed' system. Planets where life evolves are not closed systems.
Robikus 8 months ago
@Robikus Entropy constantly increases in the universe. That's a fundamental element of science taught in high school. The second law of thermodynamics may be to some degree based on closed systems, but entropy is a fact. Things don't become less random unless acted on by living things.
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 You mean like water vapor NEEDS a living thing to act upon it to turn it into a snowflake with all its intricate crystalline shapes?
The sun/Earth combination is a closed system. OVERALL the system is increasing in entropy, but locally, there are pockets of decreasing entropy.
To use an imperfect analogy, throughout winter, it's generally cold when you look at the season as a whole, but there is sometimes a day here or there which could be considered a warm day.
sleazybtd 8 months ago
@sleazybtd Basing on that analogy, is it really plausible for vast numbers of creatures to have their DNA strands rewritten in a way that causes them to change to a far more intricate lifeform continuously over time? Not if "sometimes a day here or there which could be considered a warm day" applies to this (and yes I do realize you said imperfect analogy).
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 Your argument is a complete non-sequitur. YOUR argument was that the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase, which is true. My analogy was to show that even if the overall trend goes one way, it's still possible to have very localized pockets of the reverse trend. I never claimed that my analogy proves evolution. I was only showing how evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Please try to follow your own argument.
sleazybtd 8 months ago
@sleazybtd Sorry if it seems like I strayed from the main topic but I was trying to say that having "very localized pockets of reverse trend" can't really explain such a massive increase in complexity among so many forms of life in nature.
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 You're right that localized pockets of reversed entropy doesn't explain the diversity or complexity of life. The first law of thermodynamics and gravity doesn't explain it either. But evolution explains it quite well, but only if you take the time to understand it. Most of the people who deny evolution are actually denying a twisted version of evolution which was created by the creationists. So much for religious people being honest.
sleazybtd 8 months ago
@sleazybtd I am NOT a creationist. And macroevolution does not explain anything. It isn't even a theory. It is a hypothesis based on guesses and fraud. Even Darwin himself admitted the idea was heavily flawed.
Natural Selection doesn't cause drastic changes to the DNA strands of the species involved. The only explanation left after that is random mutation which obviously doesn't explain the process.
Fact is half of the "scientists" trying to prove evolution are frauds anyway.
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 You're a creationist. Stop with the obvious lies.
Macroevolution is not a theory. It was made up by creationists. In biology, there's no difference between micro and macro evolution. There is just evolution.
Darwin said that his idea is flawed if we can't find the fossils. Guess what we've found since Darwin's time? Fossils, a whole buttload of them. Not only that, we also found DNA which could have destroyed evolution, but instead, it strengthened it.
sleazybtd 8 months ago 4
@sleazybtd No I am not a clueless idiot who think the world is only 6,000 years old....
And there IS a difference between micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is a proven fact. Not disputed by anyone.
Macroevolution is a hypothesis based on flawed information and a lot of guessing.
And don't criticize my knowledge of the subject. I know a lot more than you think. It is possible to have an argument without calling the other person stupid.
brghost23 8 months ago
@brghost23 So you're an Old Earth Creationist. Same difference.
Okay, I'll concede one point. Macro and micro evolution are actual scientific terms, but they work the same way, the only difference is scale. How many microevolution changes are needed before it becomes a macroevolution?
The fact that I had to correct you so many times gives me the right to criticize your lack of knowledge on the subject.
When did I call you stupid?
sleazybtd 8 months ago
@sleazybtd Anything and everything can be turned around to prove evolution. If this is true, then it proves evolution. If it's false, it also proves it (somehow... don't worry, we'll find a way to fit it in). Does NONE of it make you doubt evolution???
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 So far, no creationist argument has been convincing. Creationists use nothing but philosophical arguments, scripture, and outright lies. If they're determined to falsify evolution, they can go into the science field and find real evidence, but they never do. So far, ALL evidence supports evolution. No real evidence contradicts it. Fake evidence from creationists don't count.
By the way, it IS possible to falsify evolution. The most popular argument is to find a pre-Cambrian bunny.
sleazybtd 2 months ago
@brghost23 You're right that natural selection doesn't cause drastic changes in the DNA, and random mutation doesn't explain the process. You're right because you got it all bass-ackwards.
Random mutations causes the changes in the DNA. Natural selection is the process which separates the beneficial mutations from the detrimental mutations.
It's obvious that you have no clue about evolution. If you're going to criticize it, at least have a working understanding of it first.
sleazybtd 8 months ago
@dunadain5 ok, the first cells were made of amino acids and proteins. you now might debate where they came from. they formed from the atmosphere of the young earth, as well as scientists have proof that meteors had amino acids and proteins, that on impact, formed complex proteins. that is how the first cells were created.
nbj55 1 year ago
Does the poster of this video actually believe this "evidence" or is it a joke? (I think its a joke, but I am not sure lol)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Woah!! come on matey, you obviously never read the video description box, of course it's a joke, evolution is a scientific fact, but we can still have a bit of fun with the fundies
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse How is it a SCIENTIFIC FACT? The only evidence I have been shown has been steeped in assumptions. Assumptions are not scientific, nor are they empirical. Can you please show me some that do not first pre-suppose evolution is true or make assumptions on the nature of evolution?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "The only evidence I have been shown has been steeped in assumptions" you're confusing assumptions with reasonable expectations, many god squad affiliates try to put faith in the same light as reasonable assumption, you will hear "you have faith that the chair you sit on will take your weight" it's not "faith" it's reasonable expectation based on experience, morphology, taxonomy, vestigial and DNA offer the best answers science can find, there are no credible alternatives
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 How come when a geneticist tells your his tests prove a defendant in a court case is a murderer you accept it, yet when the same geneticist tells you with equal certainty that humans and apes share a common ancestor you don't accept it? suddenly a scientist you trust enough to see a man executed you dismiss when he tells you of common ancestry? why is he infallible in one case and totally wrong in the other, it makes no sense, you just don't like it
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike We share 75% of our DNA with worms, and at least 50% with Bananas, similarity in DNA does nothing to prove common decent. Furhtermore you are comparing apples with oranges, hence your point is moot
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Furhtermore you are comparing apples with oranges, hence your point is moot " no I'm not, I'm saying highly qualified geneticist will tell you they are just as certain in both cases, you choose to believe one and not the other, and losing a redundant part of your body isn't devolution, why would a body waste nutrition, blood and vessels when those resources can be put to other use? blind cave fish are born with non functioning eyes, these can become infected and kill the fish
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@Grtus1986 Ask your biology teacher why yawns are infectious why a group of woman synchronize their menstrual cycles, why you find the smell of your hands when you have been holding copper coins is so interesting. ask why all humans start out female, why men have nipples, why the disks between the human vertebrae are too thin and course back problems over 40yrs, similarly why the urinary tract passes through the prostate gland causing problems after 50?, ask whyYOUR sinuses drain from the top?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike All those questions have no relevance to this topic, whatsoever, spam much?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Always ask questions, don't be afraid if the answers don't match your expectation or wishes, who knows one day you may discover something that no one else ever has, you may prove the things you want to be right true, just make sure you mind is always inquiring. Take it easy
One last thing if you truely want to know real answers, seek out the experts, you wouldn't believe a science website hosted by scientologists, I wouldn't ask a plummer the meaning of christs words on the cross
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike I KNOW Science I am studying Biotechnology at Uni. I have been learning about evolution in detail this semester, however to my disappointment they were unable to answer a few simple questions about the nature of evolution. ie- Why does evolution defy Mendels First Law?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 " The appendix is used to help house "good" bacteria for the gut. Whilst it is non-essential, it is useful to have" not so useful if it kills you, whoever told you that isn't being straight with you, they're trying to make it fit a bronze age book, the cure for demonic possession used to be the heart of a black ass, now we control epilepsy with tegretol, no surprise then that very few possessions occur these days! don't be scared of knowledge, it keeps us alive
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike My Physiology lectuer said it does. He is an Evolutionist too!
I gave you a site that gives you evidence that I am right, yet you decide to go on a tanget that doesn't make any sense. Is this how you debate, with the silly antics of a child?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 every single one of those questions relate to evolution, it's the same when creationists say "the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution" they no nothing about the other two laws! but their wrong in the first case heat from the sun (entropy disorder) is harnessed by an oak sapling and re-ordered into a mighty oak, just because there is a question unanswered doesn't mean there isn't one, you don't know jesus last words on the cross, does that mean he can't exist?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Um no, questions about yawns and copper coins do not have anything to do with evolution, well not in reality. Perhaps in your mind it does.
Also you have it the other way round... The Laws of Thermodynamics disproves the Big Bang theory.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 you need to look deeper yawns are infectious because in past times a pack sleeps at the same time so it doesn't get split up, the smell of copper coins on your hands reminds you copper in blood, synchronized menstruation is the equivalent of being on heat, and it's the 1st law your getting confused with, the 2nd as I stated is erroneously applied to evolution by creationists, but why should that bother you, your not interested in anything that contradicts your holy book
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Still haven't shown how that has anything to do with evolution at all? Read a book seriously. Also, I am not a creationist, I am agnostic. However I see the logic flaws in evolution and that is why I oppose it. Who has ever said the laws of thermodynamics pertain to evolution? its about energy... not evolution at all, stop throwing mud around and start saying something coherent.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I never said you were a creationist I woudn't have wasted a second post on you if I thought that, I said creationists illegitimately use the laws of thermodynamics to try to bolster their cause, try listening to Ken Miller, there are 1,000's of logical facts to support evolution, you concentrate on the few science hasn't got answers for yet, just take a look at your own toenails and ask why? ask why every mammal from a mouse to a giraffe has seven neck bones
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Now you are lying!
You said this..
"your not interested in anything that contradicts your holy book"
Sounds like you are infering I am a creationist.
Furthermore, AGAIN the questions you state have NO relevance on evolution, ie- the belief that all things came from a single ancestor... To answer all your questions I can say they were made that way. Hence the questions have no relevance as they can go either way.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hold on "lying" is a bit strong, I assumed you were religious because like I said earlier I have never met a non religious person who denied evolution, creationists to me are the fruitloops who believe the universe was made in 6 days 6,000yrs ago that we all cam from Adam & Eve, and every living creature is decended from Noah's Ark. You said you were an agnostic and truth be told I don't believe you, but I'm not going to call you a lair, technically everyone is agnostic, but thats another story
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 What is your appendix for? before you answer the appendix kills around 3 million people every year through peritonitis (far more in the past) yet no one who has had it removed has ever suffered any adverse health symptoms (outside of poor surgery) what is the design idea behind this killer appendage? it can't be anything to do with the immune system, because the immune system isn't effected by removal! why are yawns infectious? why women synchronise their menstrual cycle?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Vestigial organs do nothing for evolution, (actually it shows De-evolution, as the oragnism is getting less complex). The appendix is used to help house "good" bacteria for the gut. Whilst it is non-essential, it is useful to have, as we were told in physiology class last semester. Or check out this
w w wDOTindependent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277DOT h t m l
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=related
Irreducible complexity
There are structures inside cells that are so complex that they had to have been developed top down, not brick by brick up, they did not 'evolve' they were designed top down.
Microbiology shows that Darwinian Evolution is impossible.
AND THAT IS STATING IT MILDLY.
This video is what they now teach in colleges, technology evolves fast and so what was true and popular yesterday is outdated info today. Darwinian Evolution has been owned.
c1zx 1 year ago
@c1zx Exactly, not to mention it breaks current laws and observations in reality. Furthermore it is lacking in any form of SCIENTIFIC evidence... (Assumptions are not scientific evidence).. What boggles my mind is that there is no actual scientific evidence, yet people still think it is scientific???
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
There is no 'proof of evolution'. There are just human beings ignoring contradictions to evolution because it doesn't suit their fancy. Evolution is not scientific, it has not addressd the data, it only responds to data that supports it, it never takes on data that doesn't.
c1zx 1 year ago
@c1zx Very true, the data that opposes evolution is thrown out the window. I am surprised they havent decided to get rid of Mendels Laws since evolution contradict them too :p
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
There is ZERO evidence to support darwinism, a true FACT, which is something that does NOT EXIST in DARWINISM.
MartinLuther444 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MartinLuther444 "There is ZERO evidence to support darwinism, a true FACT, which is something that does NOT EXIST in DARWINISM" "reason is the devil's harlot," Martin Luther
in other words "beleieve the bullshit" grow up and get an education
TheJarredJammer 1 year ago
@MartinLuther444 WRONG.... there is TONS of evidence for evolution, there is NO evidence for a god....FACT
broooziy 1 year ago
@broooziy Lol. Will you admit DNA is a CODE? If DNA is a CODE then it contains INFORMATION, and the only place you get INFORMATION is from INTELLIGENCE... Proof of a creator.... Unless you wish to be ignorant of these FACTS. Furthermore, what are these evidences for evolution? Are they scientific? Or are they based in assumption, (non-scientifc)?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 what are you going on about, my comment stands, there is TONS of EVIDENCE for EVOLUTION, now where did i STATE there wasnt some kind of creator, try ENGAGING your BRAIN before commenting to me
broooziy 1 year ago
@broooziy I have never stated a reply to you so I have no idea on what you are harping on about. Can you please provide a reference.
Otherwise you are spouting off as if you beat me at something when I hadn't even contacted you in the first place.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 i told you to engage your brain before you comment which you obviously havent done as you dont even remember sticking your nose in a replying to a comment i made to someone else, and if you cant be bothered to check back because you dont know who your,ve even replied to, do you really think im going to do it for you ((O_O))
broooziy 1 year ago
@broooziy Found it.
Where is all this anger coming from your initial comment was very rude, and not befitting of an actual debate or line of questioning.
I asked you is DNA a code?
I never said anything about evolution, so please don't go off on a tangent and spout of your evo-religious sites illogical loop-holes. I will get to them in a bit, however for now I'd like you to answer my initial question.
IS DNA A CODE? (as such DNA is refered to as the genetic code / DNA code)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 im not here to debate with you or anyone else, i replied to someones comment after they said there was no evidence for evolution and i corrected him, now if youve got nothing better to do than to go round in circles with the same old arguments then good for you, carry on firing out the brain farts
broooziy 1 year ago
@broooziy Thats fine, however that gives you no right to be abusive right off the bat.
I don't know your circumstances, but perhaps you may need anger management? Who knows?
Have fun.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 WUM
broooziy 1 year ago
nephlim fact you education types are hypoooocriiites
gbrlmrqz 1 year ago
@gbrlmrqz what are you talking about ???
48Hotspur1 1 year ago
@48Hotspur1 Don't bother.
Debating with creationists is like debating retarded kids, but with more ignorance and less willingness to learn.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@05swanbe Or perhaps, you are talking to the wrong people. I have talked to quite a few people about evoution, my Biology lectuers included, and it always ends with them being unable to answer a few questions as to the validity of evolution... Or pulling out some assumption based story to attempt to sound smart, assumptions aren't science, FACTS are.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "assumptions aren't science, FACTS are." Says the man who bases his world view on a magical, invisible sky fairy who, almost by definition, cannot be proved.
Okay then, shoot. What are these questions that your lecturers supposedly couldn't answer?
Of course, it's possible that you are one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and have seen something that everyone else missed, but if I'm honest I'm not expecting much :-)
05swanbe 1 year ago
@05swanbe
Where does the CODE, information in DNA come from?
Evolution defies Mendels first law, why hasn't the law been scrapped?
How do RANDOM mutations make up for the specificity of proteins?
Where does NEW genetic INFORMATION come from?
Why doesn't the fossil record show a slow progression from one species to another?
How do small changes "turn into" large ones, when no benefit is found in the initial stages of devel?
Why are these questions shunned in the classroom?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
where does the code in dna come from? (watch cdk007's video "the origin of the genetic code")
evolution defies mendel's first law (i have never even heard that, nor can i find it on google)
how do random mutations make up for the specificity of proteins (thru billions of years and natural selection)
where does new genetic information come from? (again, cdk007 has videos explaining this)
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
I want YOU to explain it not post up a video.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't make it unviable. Its a thought I had myself. Read Mendels first law and think about the ancestor bacteria that have ONE chromosome.
Not good enough, just saying natural selection is the same as saying "God did it", and has no science behind it, JUST your FAITH.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
why doesn't the fossil record show a slow progression? (actually, there are many transitional forms showing a gradual progression from one species to another)
how do small changes turn into large ones when no benefit is found in the initial stages of development? (no matter how small a change is, it can still be beneficial)
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
As I said I want YOU to explain it, hence when you are shown to be wrong you can't back out of it
Actually no, there is no smooth progression, showing all, (or most of), the incremental changes. If this took millions of years then there should be Trillions of transitional forms showing EVERY stage.
Why are they benefitial, because YOU say so? I am regarding the transition of major physiological changes, like wings, how are stumps (the beginings of wings) useful?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 1) ?? That's like saying where do the 1's and 0's come from. The bases are Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cystine (oh and Uracil), and are formed from carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. If you mean how are the bases used to store / transcript information, something tells me you didn't read biology at university. If you mean how were they first formed, that is a question about Abiogenesis, not evolution.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@05swanbe You aren't understanding what I am getting at...
How does the molecular machinery "KNOW", that when these 3 bases are together its coding for this particular amino acid and when 3 different bases are together it codes for the protein chain to stop... How was all this information concieved? Information in reality has only ever come from INTELLIGENCE, I think it is stupid to come up with a theory that suggests something that goes against reality.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'm beginning to doubt more and more that you read biology at university. *reaches for textbook*. The molecular machinery doesn't KNOW anything. A particular codon will code for a particular amino acid because the tRNA with that anticodon will ONLY pick up that amino acid, and will ONLY bind with that particular codon in the ribosome. The ribosome will stop coding for a polypeptide when a stop codon (UAG) is found on the mRNA, which codes for a stop factor, triggering the release.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@05swanbe
Actually Abiogeneisis is the ORIGINS of atheistic evolution, as such you can't have "God-less" evolution without it.... Otherwise you believe in a theory that has no origins..lol.. Which is really silly.
Life has to come from somewhere.... Since there is life today
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Yes, it is true that evolution first required abiogenesis, but you are talking about them as if they are one and the same (again, really a biology degree?). If you wan't to pose a question on abiogenesis, then feel free, but you can't dress it up as something on evolution. Evolution doesn't care HOW life came to be, only how it changed.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "How do RANDOM mutations make up for the specificity of proteins?" Most mutations either have no effect on the protein (because it still codes for the same amino acid), or adversely affects the organism by changing the protein for the worse. Thus the organism dies and the mutation is lost. Only mutations that improve a protein will actually form a new specific protein that survives to the next generation.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "Where does NEW genetic INFORMATION come from?". From mutations that involve the ADDITION of one or multiple bases.
"Why doesn't the fossil record show a slow progression from one species to another?" It does. Obviously, there are some gaps, but that's what happens when you are searching thousands of square miles for fossils millions of years old. We are filling in the gaps all the time with new discoveries that fit the predictions.
05swanbe 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "How do small changes "turn into" large ones, when no benefit is found in the initial stages of devel?". That is called Irreducible Complexity, and (despite numerous attempts), no such example has ever been found. The eye, the flagella, the immune system have all been suggested and have all been picked apart and transitional stages shown. Feel free to suggest one.
"Why are these questions shunned in the classroom?" I don't live in America, but as far as I know, they aren't.
05swanbe 1 year ago
wow your retarded
deepwood100 1 year ago
@deepwood100 "wow your retarded"
.Coming from a 57yr old bloke who believes there is a "magic man" who lives in the sky, that insult holds very little weight, but seriously fella try reading a book (er.. a different book) education is nothing to be scared of, I realise the learning process may be a little "left field" to you be give it a go, you have nothing to lose but your ignorance.
hughjarrse 1 year ago