Genes, mutations and population: Evolution Impossible

[gadionson1]

5 stars from me ... good job ..

[alex3st]

From what I saw you are a 'geneticist' yet you haven't understood Mendelian laws of Heredity of which's unerstanding is considered to be entry level for a true geneticist.

You appear to be a pissed up idiotic fusser, upset he could not comprehend anything at all in school, and now trying to propagate his personality in a viral fashion over the net.

[alex3st]

In many ways Chemistry would be considered a philosphy for you because you probably cannot understand cannot understand simultanous reactions in organic compounds so you consider those that do understand these illuminate philosophers, despite the fact they are scientists, but your problem is that you do not understand evolution so you argue it cannot be understood.

[gregrutz]

There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!

[gregrutz]

Evolution is a process, observed and documanted, prove as fact. There is even a Theory to show how it happens.

[tlb50mustang]

He makes total sense and he keeps it simple

[tlb50mustang]

This is video is great. Thanx for the upload

[wild0hawk]

alot of pissed off athiests

[gregrutz]

@wild0hawk Most scientists accept God, all of them accept Evolution.

[grfield1]

This guy is very smart and brave.

[khaz6pill]

No positive mutation ???? Antibiotic resistance in bacteria - Bacteria that eat nylon - Sickle cell resistance to malaria - Lactose tolerance - Immunity to HIV .....

[laurenthrowdown]

They are talking about mutations confined within the organism which affect just the organism without outside factors

[laurenthrowdown]

like pathogens. they aren't positive for the organism in the absence of pathogens (sickle cell.. really?).. the mutations you are talking about are those which cause proteins not to work so there is no receptor for the targeting or pathogen to bind to. Pathogens usually go by a "lock and key" system where they need to bind to a specific receptor site or they can't infect the cell. If you change a protein and make it unable to work and it causes metabolic pathways to be screwed up,

[laurenthrowdown]

it is negative, and if you change a protein which has no effect on metabolic pathways you call that neutral. Positive doesn't exist.

[KoningStoma]

I can only laugh at this crap.

[goshawker07]

As a bio-geneticist for 20 years I can confirm everything Giertych says is absolutely correct.

[jl121982]

pardon? you should do another job then.....

[niazi1985]

what about the baby born in germany with twice as much muschles and twice as less fats as the others babies..is it nuetral or the baby with six fingers on each hands and feet..is it really a harmful or nuetral mutation...

[patrickledford420]

no dude there is facts that makes it true not a fuckin theory look around you look up abiogenesis and evolution says nothing about non humans having human babys

[owchywawa]

LOL! That guy is so tall haha!

[tipzdaturtle]

Wasn't the bible written by humans? Humans inspired to write, by God? If that's the case, I don't see how false claims (eg. Flat earth)in the Bible make it a case for Christianity being false. That just means it's subject to interpretation.

What has it taught me about reality? It sucks sometimes. Humanity? Ultimately unreliable. Now, I don't claim to know much about quantum physics, but I do know the laws of thermodynamics and I do know the current accepted theory negates them.

[hanbouman]

No a flat earth in the Bible, but a round earth:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[Killdozer6006]

@hanbouman

A CIRCLE is flat. and 2 dimensional.

[niekvdbogert]

@hanbouman a circle is a flat surface. it should have said: "sphere of the earth", to be kind of sure that the bible speaks of a round (3dimensional) earth.

[hanbouman]

@niekvdbogert The Dutch Statenvertaling (old Dutch Bible from 1637) says: kloot der aarde. Which means ball of the earth.

Have a nice day!

[niekvdbogert]

@hanbouman interesting. thank you. by the way what do the old hebrew texts say? a bible translation from afther Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the earth in 1519−1521 (proving empircally that the earth is round) doesnt say much to me. So lets see what the first writers thought of the earth, not the writers/ translators that came after that.

[austinboboston1]

@tipzdaturtle god is the fauther the son and the holy spirit and satan hated himself so much he turned himself into dirt intentionally.

[tipzdaturtle]

@austinboboston1 How about you address what I said?

[13thLegio]

What's he a professor of? Assertion?

[owchywawa]

:\ He said population genetics.

[antiantiantifahool]

lol epic fail. What he says at 1.50 is not the evidence for evolution. Straw man arguments for the win.

[sixthday132]

Great video, the theory of evolution is dying and thank God for it. What's amazing is that it's held on this long soley due to man's arrogance. We now know evolution is impossible so lets kill it off altogether. Enough is enough. God Created everything and what an awesome God he is! Christ is King.

[Tomzmetal]

this fucking clown is such a disgrace for my country ;/

[lexscripta1]

Wow, pretty awesome... I wonder how long it is going top take for evolution philosophy to finally dry up and go away?

[SupremeChimp]

That professor is pretty silly. "Evolutionists say the first human was born of a non-human" ... um no. His whole understanding of genetics in evolutionary terms is horrible, genetics have done nothing but strengthen the theory of evolution. Maybe if he pulled his head out of his ass and added a 3 1/2 billion year timeline, it would make a little more sense.

[Liaoxiornis]

This is too boring to watch all the way through so I sadly missed the punch line to this comedy sketch. A really nice send up of straw man arguments from a clueless git! XD

[itsChristonabike]

I wonder what the good professors explanation for the fused chromosome #2 would be? He gives himself away at the end (paraphrasing) "I'm not clever enough to think of a way a cell could evolve, so the magic man in the sky did it"

[mounthydra]

"would Darwin have loved Hitler?"

"Darwin was a racist, the answer is probably yes."

The evidence points toward that direction since he agreed with Eugenics

[riverlioness]

Hitler's idea of a super race depended on eugenics.

Darwin's racist cousin is the reason for eugenics and the pain it caused civilization. Eugenics doesn't hold any power without the support of evolution.

Stalin demanded evolution be taught by every teacher. Under his brutal communist reign that perceived conflict as a means of climbing the evolutionary chain, Stalin butchered 49 million of his followers without a conscience

[Johannes9126]

Muahaha! Sickle cell anaemia, nutheads.

[spookysaurus]

Sure, RandomChance7: the source is Giertych's 32-page pamphlet, 'Civilisations at war in Europe', which can be read in its entirety on the Internet as a PDF document. And who cares whether 'Hitler loved Darwin'? Hitler even claimed classical composers such as Wagner and Richard Strauss for his cause. We cannot control how others use (or rather, misuse) our ideas. More to the point: would Darwin have loved Hitler? By the way; I've given you my source. What's yours?

[jouc12]

"would Darwin have loved Hitler?"

Darwin was a racist, the answer is probably yes.

[RandomChance7]

forgive my tardiness - I never saw a message that you had responded. There is no shortage of historical documentation of Hitler's exploitation of Darwin's theory. Try these two for starters: "From Darwin to Hitler" by historian Richard Weikart and "Mein Kampf" In the end I agree that this only means so much but after all, you were the one who introduced the Hitler connection. I merely responded

[spookysaurus]

Giertych is apparently on record as saying that 'Jews are biologically different'. Hitler would have loved this guy.

[RandomChance7]

just curious...What's your source and the context?  I know that Hitler loved Darwin

[damianpoirier]

Our knowlege of evolution informs us that diversity makes a species stronger and more adaptable. If hitler though of evolution it was a striken and feable notion of genetic theory that lead to such idiot evil.

[vince54321]

Prof. Giertych told the European Parliament. "The presence of such people in European politics as Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today. Christian Europe is losing against atheistic socialists today and this has to change."

Yes, yes, this says it all.

[mejc2]

Evolution is a fairy tale. it is wonderful to see a scientist tell the truth. I have studied this topic for a long time and have yet to see any evidence proposed for chemicals bumping into each other and forming life.

[borja001f]

So you believe everything sudden appeared? And there are still stuck on bronze age believes. I do not see an argument at all present where the basis is on a book (bible) that is as real as all the "bibles" of lost civilizations ; i.e inca, maya, etc.

[borja001f]

typo, I meant so you are stuck on bronze age believes.

[mejc2]

Beliefs not believes.

there is no viable mechanism to account for the diversity we have observed.

[borja001f]

so you resort to what people thought thousands of years ago? The world is not flat, as individuals chose to explore for themselves and not follow the dictate. I'm not saying there is no higher power, i'm simply saying that the bible is the equivalent of a children's story book, in comparison to a multi volume encyclopedia- reality. We can discuss such implications of order, just shoot me a message.

[riverlioness]

How do you link believing the world is flat to believing in the bible? Does the bible say the world is flat? NO.

Thousands of years ago, the ancient Alexandrians theorized the world is round, three hundred years ago, a rumor was started that the world was flat, to prevent an expansive shipping trade. Just because the ancient Alexandrians' theory the earth is round conflicted with the comparably newer theory the world is flat doesn't make the world flat.

[Imaginefree69]

The Bible says the earth is flat.

And that the sun revolves around the earth.

And that humans are made of dirt.

And that snakes, donkeys, and bushes talk.

And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.

I suppose this is a better source of information

than the careful collection and examination of data?

[Skyshattered]

Is taking quotes out of context the best argument you and other such skeptics can come up with?

[sixthday132]

Obviously you have not read the bible. To compare it to a children's story book is like comparing the space shuttle to a paper airplane. In fact, the bible contains vast amounts of knowledge pre-dating man's understanding of things. For example, in Isaiah, the bible describes the world as a circle that sits upon nothing. This is 600 yrs before the Koran claimed earth sits on the back of a turtle. The King James version is flawless. It was written for believers, unbelievers don't comprehend it.

[borja001f]

Obviously you choose to make assumptions based on pure baised formed by your upbringing rather than really thinking for yourself. Tell me, what do you truely understand of life other than a books dictate? Or furthermore, with the great magnitude of information now avaiable to us (i.e. quantum mechanics, etc.) what have you revealed to yourself.

[gmurray2401]

"To compare it to a children's story book is like comparing the space shuttle to a paper airplane."

You are so right! The lies within a children's book PALE in comparison to the lies within the bible! And it WAS written for believers, by both self interested actors and disillusioned victims of brainwashing.

[davidikari]

The Koran describes the mountains as great pins which hold the soil together (which they do), KJB describes the heaven as made of solid stuff in which the stars are held. Both books contain inconsistences with science.

Also, the Quran says the world is a circle similar to an ostrich egg. The KJB has been revised countless times, causing subtle (yet effective) changes in the meaning of the text.

[borja001f]

Let me ask you what has the bible taught you about reality, about humanity and about yourself that you couldn't have figured out by thinking? My point is that the knowledge available to us now supersedes, by magnitudes, the knowledge in the bible. Truly diving into the contemporary implications of quantum mechanics will bring you a lot closer to god than any religious text, I'm quite sure that free thought is favored over believe, specially when that believe needs no understanding. what's god?

[borja001f]

and thank you for correcting me, I'm like that too.

[riverlioness]

Is this an insult without substance? How so are any of these genetic beliefs bronze age?

[niekvdbogert]

@mejc2 you might want to check out some of cdk007 youtube posts on abiogenesis (origin of life from nonlife). its called "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak ", work from there. Furthermore, in the lab they have let environmental factors form RNA. Whilst there is still alot to learn, science is getting there.

[mejc2]

@niekvdbogert

Been there done that. no evidence of life from non life.

[niekvdbogert]

@mejc2 really? so emerging self-replicating strings of rna in (lab induced) early earth conditions are not suggestive that life could have emerged from nonorganic matter? I think you are thinking to light of there being no evidence. Sure enough, no fully functional living cel has popped up, but ofcourse you know thats not how it works(?). thanks for the reply though

[mejc2]

@niekvdbogert

Those molecules had so much intelligence needed to cause them to perform the way the biologist wanted them to, they are more evidence that it did not happen accidentally than they are for it happening accidentally. Your welcome.

[niekvdbogert]

@mejc2 really, I thought and read that the biologists provided the environment and let 'nature take its course'. That's what's being written about it anyway. Do you have any sources I might look into to investigate your proposal that it was the (intelligence of the) biologist that was the key factor? many thanks in advance (<-- no sarcasm)

[mejc2]

@niekvdbogert

If you could direct me to the article that you read I could critique it for you. however, if you are speaking in general terms, the scientists control the environment to such a degree that without their input the event could not have happened.

[circusOFprecision]

@mejc2

I agree with you, but trying to explain it to the hordes of people who believe evolution is a scientific fact is like banging your head against a brick wall. They appeal to authority and refuse to be skeptical because they want it to be true. I have to admit, evolutionary theory is an interesting philosophy and I used to pretty much accept it, but I have discovered over time that it is not scientific.

[PlayaVato1]

they have been able to show in Lab experiments that it is possible to create living matter from non-living matter. Such as certain experiments in the 50s and 60s that produced adenine, one of the nucleotides in base-pair structures. Given millions of years in these conditions it would, theoretically also be possible to see other nucleotides emerge, but the fact that we were still able to procure living matter from non-living matter goes to show more evidence for the "theory" of evolution.

[hanbouman]

You are kidding :)

[gregrutz]

@hanbouman No, he is not kidding. Amino Acids are common in the universe. Evolution is not about how life started anyway, just how it changed.

[RandomChance7]

the Miller experiment? The one that every scientist since Miller and the one that Miller himself have denounced? The one that employed impossible conditions (i.e. the wrong type of atmospheric conditions and in a sterile enviornment) and even still fell way short of generating anything resembling even the simplest life? What did you do, dude? Read a half century old pamphlet and declare yourself an expert on evolution? Please?!

[broj8s8n79]

That's exactly what he did!! I thought the same thing, LOL!!

[broj8s8n79]

Talk about your ignorant statements.

[circusOFprecision]

@PlayaVato1

That is a theory based soley upon philosophical arguments. The downfall of such an argument is that proteins aren't "living" and have never been shown to accumulate in a fashion that would allow the assembly of a cellular system. Nice idea, not science, and probably not reality.

[fredontube]

Zo helder hoor je het zelden. Bedankt!

[Dodaz1988]

prof Giertych is father of one of the most stupid politican in my country. He's also politican. His theories aren't pure science. He and his son are kind of radical catolics. So his theories are more from believe to that what is written in Bible, not from any kind of science. He is absolutly NOT objective person.

sorry about mistakes :(

[hanbouman]

Witam Dodaz1988!

Dziękuję za komentarz! Może syn profesora Giertycha jest głupim politykiem, nie wiem dokładnie. Ale wiem że to, co mówi profesor Giertych jest bardzo dobre. Muszę dodać że nie jestem katolikiem (ale jestem chrześcijaninem, który przygotuje się aby być misjonarzem w Polsce (dlatego uczę się polskiego :)

[hanbouman]

Muszę także dodać że według mnie najduższa część ewolucjonistach wierzę że nie ma Boga. Chyba nie są obiektywni?

Twój angielski jest ok :)

Pozdrawiam,

hanbouman

Holandia

[Dodaz1988]

mi nie chodzi o samą ewolucję czy jakąkolwiek inną teorię na temat powstania człowieka. codzi mi o to że istnieje bardzo duże prawdopodobieństwo że jego teoria nie powstała z prowadzonych badań, lecz to padania są efektem postawienia sobie teorii która nie kolidowałaby z wiarą chrześcijańską\katolicką.

Twój polski jest ok;)

(jeden poważny błąd: jeśli "najduższa(błędzik)" znaczy "the biggest" to ma być "największa", jeśli "big' to poprostu "duża".

[hanbouman]

And today people are still believing Darwin, who wrote his book more than a century ago...

[Saukko31]

Ah yes, the no new information argument. Sorry, but there are several ways how new information is added to DNA by mutations, and there are observed cases of these.

There are even youtube videos about this.

[hanbouman]

Could you tell me what kind of information?

[Saukko31]

For example duplication, where a piece of DNA is duplicated, and if this piece is mutated, it produces new information.

Bacteria that is resistant to drugs has more information in its DNA, compared to the bacteria that is not resistant.

[hanbouman]

Duplication 1/2

MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math

on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial — in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations — all occurring at the same time in the same organism!

[MarkG45]

do you even know what a transposon is? Because you clearly don't. And as such, you clearly don't even have a rudimentary grasp on even the basics of what you are trying to disprove. You are a child trying to disprove gravity with a paper airplane, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. PROTIP: copy and paste, an education does not make.

[hanbouman]

If I'm a child or not is not the matter, or even if I copy and paste is not the matter: it's the content which is important.

In the original clip professor Giertych is making his points. Probably you don't agree what he says also, but still he is a professor, which I think you aren't.

It's the content which counts and you just agree with the content.

[MarkG45]

No, copying and pasting intelligent and thought-provoking statements is indeed acceptable and recommended when you can't think of something good to say. My quarrel is that your copy/paste is easily disprovable, but it is pointless to tell you because you wouldn't understand it because you clearly can't even understand the concept you copy/pasted.

[hanbouman]

You don't know if I don't understand or not, it is a preasumption. I also think that the whole evolution theory is a presumption.

[MarkG45]

That kind of stupid response, one that doesn't even make logical sense, is exactly why I presume you don't understand complex scientific theories.

[hanbouman]

One more thing: do you agree with professor Giertych or not?

At least he is a professor, and I'm 100% sure we don't have to argue about that.

[clray123]

Ohhh, he is a professor, so he must be right! Sorry to break your spell but world just doesn't work that way.

[itsChristonabike]

the only "professor M Giertych" I can find has a BA and MA in forestry. now should I take his word or go along with lesser mortals like Hawking and Einstein? it's a toughie

[hanbouman]

Made a mistake in the last answer:

It's the content which counts and you just DISagree with the content.

Sorry for the confusion. I think indeed you disagree with the content, right?

[hanbouman]

Duplication 2/2

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.

[hanbouman]

Drugs 1/2

DRUG-RESISTANT GERMS — What about strains of

bacteria and viruses which are resistant to antibiotics and other modern drugs? You will frequently hear in the media that "new mutations" of germs are drugresistant.

This is not true.

We have here a situation much like the peppered moth. Each bacteria and virus

has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties.

[hanbouman]

Drugs 2/2

When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus, —opportunity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to

reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains

of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out.

[Saukko31]

Mutation rates are measured in mutations per base pair per generation, and these rates vary greatly between species and even between different parts of same DNA. There are about 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, if one in 10 million goes wrong during copying, that means on average 300 mutated base pairs (this was just example).

[Saukko31]

So we are not perfect copies of our parents DNA, every human has random mutations if their DNA, most of them do nothing, some are harmful (genetic diseases), some are beneficial (like immunity to certain disease).

[Saukko31]

if -> in

I can't type...

[hanbouman]

typo: this has to be left out:

[faith and 296 The Evolution Cruncher theorizing]

[hanbouman]

Darwin didn't know so much about DNA as we today, but here is something from him):

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and 296 The Evolution Cruncher theorizing]... When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory.

[hanbouman]

Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."

*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.

[MarkG45]

this is a quote from over a century ago, talking about how they haven't worked some things.....in the 19th century. Does any of this get through to you?

[quedorf]

This positive mutation argument is as stupid as can be. No mutation is positive, or negative. A fish developing the ability to breathe on land at the expense of breathing in water is negative... but if the water went dry due to a major drought, it would be positive. If this guy were as smart as he seems to like to think he is, he would figure this out.

[hanbouman]

Question: if according to you the fish came on land somehow, what was this creature before it allegedly evolved into a fish?

[quedorf]

First i didn't imply that the fish came onto land. It didn't even pertain. point was that mutations can be either negative or positive depending on other variables. . As far as what the fish came from, It would depend on the fish. changing the subject is a method used by someone who isn't too secure with his own opinions.

[hanbouman]

Why I asked you this question about where the fish came from, is that eventually it had to come from rocks, water or dirt. In my opinion it had to undergo so many mutations that it is impossible to get where it now is. Not only the fish, but all living creatures. You need a lot of faith in order to believe that.

[quedorf]

First of all no scientist have ever said fish came from rocks or dirt. This is a creationist creation. Also the fact that life forms on earth evolved as they are, is far from impossible. It is what happened. why would someone say it is impossible.

[thrufaithalone]

quedorf-"no scientist have ever said fish came from rocks or dirt"

Sure they did. It's what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about.

[quedorf]

Well that shows what you know about the experiment. Using chemicals such as methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, do not equate to rocks and dirt. Now maybe this is what creationists call rocks and dirt, but tot he scientific field, it is not.

[thrufaithalone]

When it comes to attempting to get life from non-living matter, does it really make any difference?

[thrufaithalone]

"no scientist have ever said fish came from rocks or dirt"

I just visited Wikipedia's page on the subject and apparently there are still scientists that believe life did come from rocks and dirt (iron-sulphur, clay, etc.)

[gregrutz]

@thrufaithalone No, we did not come from rocks and dirt. We are made of organic [carbon] compounds. Dirt is sand, SiO2. Stop lying.

[thrufaithalone]

@gregrutz I will quote Wikipedia here: "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter"

I wasn't lying.

[gregrutz]

@thrufaithalone They are edited by Creationists. You are made or Organic matter, meaning based on Carbon. Inorganic is everything else. Life is based on Carbon Compounds, Organic.

[hanbouman]

It is far more easy to believe that everything was created at once. I mean the bird was made to fly. It would have needed too much the so called mutations, that it is statistically impossible.

But if you want I can send you by e-mail within YouTube more info if you want.

[quedorf]

How is it more believable to say everything was created by an omnipotent being. As far as birds being made to fly, why did this creator make the dodo, the ostrich, penguin, emu, turkey, chicken. That makes little sense to me. As far as information, I will always read information. Like to know everyones point of view.

[hanbouman]

As a creator can make everything in once, it doesn't need all kind of processes to get where we are now. In that sense it's far more easy.

Yes, birds are made to fly. A penguin also flys, but under water :) And I will upload another clip about the ostrich. I think the creator made the dodo etc., just because I think He liked it.

Will send you the info. Quite some stuff, but it deals with mutations etc..

[MarkG45]

Yes, you have a point. It OBVIOUSLY all makes sense if you just believe in magic! Any messups in our "magic done it!" plan? Well, they uhhh....were meant to do X [fly], but uhhh uhhh in this extremely ridiculously-grasping-at-straw­s way! [underwater]. I mean, it's not like the creator has made a better design, apart from every single other creation that lives in the sea.

[ThePhascolarctos]

"It is far more easy to believe that everything was created at once."

I find it incredibly difficult to ignore the evidence/remain uneducated or make up/believe lies and nonsense so I can go around and claim all animals were created at once. I am by far too interested in the world to go with that, I suppose.

In any case, just because something is easy for someone doesn't make it true. In other words: This is a quite unintelligent way to argue.

[hanbouman]

Same way for the evolution theory (it's by the way still a theory): if many people believe in it or propagate it, that doesn't mean it's true.

And I would like to add that first I have been an evolutionist, but after some study and common sense, I am now a creationist.

[ThePhascolarctos]

Your studies seem to not even have taken you to the point of understanding what a scientific theory is, so excuse me if I can't take your studies that very seriously.

[thrufaithalone]

quedorf-"but if the water went dry due to a major drought, it would be positive. If this guy were as smart as he seems to like to think he is, he would figure this out."

One thing missing that evolutionist insist is needed: Time. The fish would have died before it had the chance to "evolve".

[quedorf]

Not necessarily. If it did die, then that would be natural selection at work. There are several fish that can live on land, and also can walk. But also live in the water as well.

[thrufaithalone]

I know. And how long have they been around without changing?

[Chrismoore1281]

What the hell is the point of these retarded bullshit videos?

1 star

[hanbouman]

Sorry Sir, but you are not using proper language. And if you have watched well, you noticed e.g. that the so called argument of good mutations of the evolutionairy theory istn't working at all. No good mutations -> no evolution.