@pmoyer50 they may well do when we are long extinct..there has been many pre-human kind evolved before now, but you will not be here to see it matey.. !! lol
ATTENTION: (TheRationalizer): Your 'knee jerk reaction' to block me shows your immaturity & inability to disagree with your fellow man. Your accusation of 'threat by proxy' was non-existent and after your statement and use of the 'F' word, I tried to clarify my point, but you had blocked me. --YOU ARE WEAK-- ! ! ! ! !
Rational discussion about what "Jesus" did or didn't say should stop when its understood that "Jesus" was a mythical character used by various religious scribes and scholars to relay their historical 2 cents with. i.e. 'Jesus' said whatever the person writing the text, wanted 'him' to say.
Evolution negates the need for a God of any type or description, and is optional really for ones personal thoughts, that being said it does not mean human being's are not spiritual in anyway because most of us are in some sense, Carl Sagan was always spiritual in his words but was not a believer, personally the natural world leaves me with enough wonder without looking to mythical stories in old scrips, that have indeed led us into the dark ages war and destruction beyond belief for centuries ..
These are fantastic videos. The epitome of how scientific concepts should be introduced to the wider public, school kids... just fantastic. Thank you!
I'm not a Christian, but I'm not anti-christian and the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any religion or God and it's purpose isn't to disprove either of them.
Doesn't this prove that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation? The idea of genes being similar in places of ERV's would only logically flow if one being created everything too. Why does this prove evolution and not the Bible? Hmm I wonder if the sin ERV could be found. Or even if because by man sin entered the world and so other creatures would have similar sites although some in similar places and others in different places. God working corporately fits
That aside, There are many document, which are non-Christian that prove that Jesus walked the earth. The only real debate is whether He rose from the dead or not. Also I would like to add that I'm pretty sure many times you have been proven a liar, a cheater, or an adulterer. Which again proves my point that many things are proven.FYI-none of that was math.
although it is true God could have easily used Macroevolution to create us, I disbelieve that "theory". I believe that He did make us in his own image from dust, which he also created. Also, I believe the point that LittleMissBlessed was trying to make was that both Creation and Evolution are theories. Whether you want to believe they are both scientific is up to you. Also I would like to point out that many things have been proven. Noah's arc Has actually been found.
evolution is a theory in the scientific sense of the word while creationism is a religion-specific story. it is not for one to believe that one or both are scientific....evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and creationism is not.
Noah's arc has not been found; not even a little bit.
addressing Snipe, The Theory of Creationism also applies in that curcumstance. addressing rv, Evolution itself is not the problem, everybody knows that microevolution exists. Macroevolution however is a larger than life concept that many scientists would like to believe in.
"The Theory of Creationism" ? I got a good laugh out of that one! Thanks!
macroevolution is not a larger than life concept and requires understanding and education - not belief. Belief/faith are thing that are required for topics which have no supporting evidence.
@1n354a - technically, since no person could be alive for the entire process of macroevolution, it is in fact larger than life. and obviously you would have to have a "belief" on this topic to suggest so strongly that it is, in fact, the way things are. also a scientific theory could be considered a deductive theory in the sense that a theory is comprised of "if it isn't this, then it must be this" data. If it wasn't science that created the world, then it must be
I would also like to add that in 2006, although they did sign a disclaimer to appease people like you, B.A.S.E. Institute discovered a shiplike object with tracts of petrified wood with clam fossils 14000 feet above sea level in a mountain in iran with exact dimentions as those described in the bibe. so you may say whatever you would like, however the evidence is overwhelming. basically, believe whatever helps you sleep at night ;)
ROFL! Base Institute - a group who started out saying "God did it and we are going to find evidence to prove it!", [while ignoring all the evidence that disproves it] found the arc?? pardon me for not converting on the spot...
there is no evidence supporting your fairy tale. evolution, however has been oserved in the lab as well as in the wild. It is a fact. It happens independent of your wishes. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than our explanation of how it happens.
also it is microevolution that has been "observed" in a lab and in the wild not macroevolution. Also, if you want to go into it more, Charles Darwin himself claimed his theories to be wrong before he died.
wrong again bright star, evolution has been observed (micro and macro combined)...your understanding and knowledge on the topic is lacking.
Charles Darwin could have claimed whatever the hell he wanted to before he died...it does not chance the fact that life evolves on this planet. Thanks for the failed creationist crap argument though...perhaps you can tell me how he is also a Nazi?
please cite to which macro evolution experiment you are referring, so that I may check your research, since you seem to be so up-to-date on the subject. I don't believe that I mentioned anything about a Nazi either. and of course life evolves on this planet, but a dog does not evolve into a dolphin!
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. In fact, not even that. Sometimes macro evolution takes the form of much smaller changes than micro.
For example, a new speciation (macro evolution) of mosquito may look very similar to another species of mosquito, but the differences between a Poodle and Dalmatian is the result of micro evolution.
If you say there is micro evolution, you're also saying there is macro.
The assertion that since nobody has been alive for billions of years, nobody can know for sure so people have to have faith is a silly position and I think you know it. A detective who arrives at the crime scene after the fact does not rely on faith in order to figure out what happened. There is no more belief/faith in evolutionary theory than there is in gravitational theory or atomic theory. So technically you are wrong through ignorance or dishonesty...which one is it?
quite honestly one of us will be correct, the difference being: if you are wrong you will spend eternity burning in Hell. If you are right, you will spend eternity 6 feet under and not even know it. If I am wrong, I will spend eternity 6 feet under and not even know it. if; however, I am correct then I will spend eternity in Heaven will OUR creator. In the end you will either find out that it was you who was ignorant, or you will never know it was I who was ignorant God bless :)
if it wasn't science that created the world, then it must have be(en) God.
what about the large, undetectable, invisible Cheese monkey who lives three feet outside the edge of the universe in an oversized brown bag? I actually think that he is the one who did it....unless you can prove that he doesn't exist?
The Cheese monkey doesn't write bibles. The Cheese monkey just is. To not accept the Cheese monkey as the creator of all things is illogical and irrational.
@1n354a Yes Ha! "created in his image" perhaps god is large hairy primate after all ?.. now that would have the ID gang jumping up and down in anger !!! haha!!
@OurLucylocket well there are far more hairy monkey-like humans on this planet as opposed to silver-haired, incredibly fit, old Caucasian men loosely draped in a Greek-style toga....so statistics and probability are in my corner as well!
I'm not going to get in a fight with you. All I can do is pray for you. How can you think this world just POP here and that we do not have a creater??
i have been reading from a 14th christian mystic who argues that for god to be everything then he must be nothing (Nicholas Cusanus or Nicholas of Cusa uses the words contracted minimum and expanded maximum) so nothingness itself contains the whole of god and faith, and is not necessarily a bad thing. thank you for being nice. it is hard to derive tone from the written word, that is by having nothing you have everything. peace.
please note the fossil record is incomplete: meaning there are pieces missing to the apes to man theory. Also, I fail to see how history has anything to do with it. I have seen evolution theory in science books, not in history books. but I guess you wouldn't know any of that seeing as how you haven't yet made it out of the first grade.
True, the fossil record is incomplete. But we know enough to kill ID off without a doubt and with the help of DNA, confirm evolution.
Not, almost, nearly, or practically. Evolution is a confirmed fact. Things evolve. Period. The Theory of Evolution simply describes the processes that drive evolution.
As the maker of this video, I'm disappointed that you would seemingly assume that I do not believe in God.
I am a Christian. I personally believe that the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the process that God used to create life on Earth, including human beings.
The reason that evolution is seen as contrary to belief in God is because some Christians apparently worship their personal interpretation of the Bible rather than the God the claim to believe in.
@standup4REALscience Great videos. One question- how do you still manage to call yourself Christian? By Christian you believe that Jesus died for mans sins and is God? Doesn't that whole story fall apart when you admit that Adam and Eve weren't real (and I agree), and thus their original sin was never there either, therefore negating the need for Jesus to die and save us from that sin? I don't see how you can accept evolution and still manage to cling to christianity at the same time.
@georgetcr I read the story of Adam and Eve as a great myth. It's a story told to convey a theological truth, not a scientific one. The Biblical doctrine of "original sin" describes the alienation of human beings from each other, from nature, and from God and our need for redemption. In my view, "Adam and Eve" function as representatives of the human condition.
@standup4REALscience Ok, how did human beings become "alienated" from eachother, from nature, and from God? Why did God allow this to happen, and then have to reincarnate himself, allow himself to be tortured and killed, so that he could forgive himself for humanities "sin"? It makes absolutely no sense when you think about it.
@georgetcr standup4REALscience is clearly a moderate and intelligent christian, why cannot you accept it? I am an atheist, but as long as people are not stupid fundies, I am perfectly okay with that.
@standup4REALscience IMO, it is way better to be AGNOSTIC that being religious or atheist.
If a person says that Christianity is the ONLY true religion, then it fuel's discrimination.
Discrimination against people of OTHER faiths. We have so many different religions.
If Christianity is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, than what does that imply to people who are born non-Christians such as Hindus. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Pagans, etc. They did NOT choose to be non-Christians.
IMO, it is way better to be AGNOSTIC than being religious or atheist.
If a person says that Christianity is the ONLY true religion, then it fuel's discrimination.
Discrimination against people of OTHER faiths. We have so many different religions.
If Christianity is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, than what does that imply to people who are born non-Christians such as Hindus. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Pagans, etc. They did NOT choose to be non-Christians
@standup4REALscience You are making Jesus a liar, since He made reference to the creation, and Adam & Eve as literal events in space and time. Also evolution means there was death before Adam & Eve, which contradicts the biblical truth of the need for redemption because of death introduced in the world due to the fall. If there was death before A&E, the whole christian theology and the bible collapses, and there's no need for a redeemer! Theistic evolution is impossible. Face it!
@raponte1955 Jesus also made reference to the moon giving light and the stars falling from the sky (Mark 13:24-25). Do you still believe that the moon gives light and that the stars are fixed upon the firmament? If not, you are making Jesus a liar. If Jesus was willing to lie about the structure of the solar system, then how can we believe anything he said? A reconciliation between Christianity and heliocentrism is impossible. Face it!
@standup4REALscience Learn a little hermeneutics, dude. The referenced passage is a figure of speech, so people would understand Jesus' message. Jesus was not addressing 21th educated people, but a middle east primitive tribe with no knowledge at all of astronomy. And you know it. There's no comparison to his other references to Adam and Eve and the creation. And if you claim your are a Christian, how you dare to even suggest that Jesus was a liar?
@raponte1955 We agree that Jesus was addressing people with very little scientific knowledge. The passage I referenced was not a figure of speech. That's what people of the time really believed. The idea that humans share common ancestry with other living things would have been as foreign to them as the notion that the stars are actually massive, luminous balls of plasma held together by gravity. He was speaking in terms they could understand using scriptures they would have been familiar with.
In that case I am curious, what do you think is the purpose of the story of Adam and Eve, and do you think the default position is for humans to *not* go to heaven (if so, for what reason?)
@gymgirl12345678910 your an idiot. i guess the sky being blue isnt real either, your delusional mind projecting the god you desire to fit your personal requirements is the cancer in the human race today. wake up and reject ignorance
also the act of you calling us judgemental is, in itself, a judgement. And for those of you who think that Christians are just weak people looking for a krutch or non educated people with no real Ideas, I believe what I am saying is a real idea and I am not in need of a krutch. Just a truth and a savior that brings it.
Okay and we have listened to yours...so again how does that make us the closed minded ones? And quite frankly if you look at the end of the evolution, then you will see that it has the word "theory", which means that it's not proven, it is simply a belief...
The term theory can be used in many ways. Technically the theory of relativity isn't proven even though all evidence without a doubt shows it to be true. The same applies here.
First and foremost I would like to address the fact that all living organisms have common links. Honestly it would only make sense, considering that they all had the same creator. Next, I would like to address the fact that many of you non-Christians like to say that us Christians are closed minded and judgemental. I would only have to argue that the fact you would not reasonably listen to our ideas makes you yourselves closed minded.
There is an ERV (HERV-K) that is present in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans. Contrary to creationist claims, however, this does not violate the nested hierarchy or falsify common descent.
See shanedk's video "ERVs and the Nested Hierarchy" for details.
Yes, I almost included an explanation concerning this in my video, but I left it out because it made the video too long.
I should clarify that when I say in the video "insertions are shared by all of the species that have a common ancestor" that only really applies to species that descend from an ancestral population in which the ERV has reached fixation.
gorilla is a very arguementive mammal..... example .. when an animal gets trapped in a corner and has no where to go there only option is to lash out in attack like an animal......human.... a gorilla! dude you make yourself sound stupid and crazy by aguing with otherpeople and yourself........ sop running man just understand reality....
You can not claim that something is lie, jus because you don´t like it; (typical evolutist falasy) there are plenty of scientific articles on ERVs why don´t you reed some, instead of claming nonsense?
Answer ¿how do you know that ERVs prove evolution, if you don´t know a thing about ERVs?
"why don´t you simply admit that you are wrong?" Im not "ervs are functional" No they are not "it is a fact" Its a klie by creationists "I made a video and included sources." WOW so tell me again what are qualifications so you can deny what the experts know? Refrences from lyingcreationists websits? and biased fundies? your video is lies even if your too dumb to know that. 6000 year old earth right? LOL
ervs are functinal, if you whant to call then dead viruses, then do it, but it does not chnge the fact that ERVs are functional, please take my challenge REED ONE NON-DOGMATIC article that talks about ERVs
I think it's OK to reject without comment the scientific assertions of someone who cannot spell the word "read" correctly.
Even someone for whom English is a second language should have that capability. And the fact that he doesn't is all the evidence any of us need regarding his scientific literacy.
´´I said provide one scientific peer reviewed article where it says its not dead. an dI will become christian!´´
I did, as I said before look at my last video, PLEASE TAKE MY CHALLENGE reed one non dogmatic article about ervs, you can reed from wikipedia or from a scientific article, you descide, JUST TAKE MY CHALLENGE
Choose some ERVs and tell us what are the functions for each of them. Enumerate some of those "non-dogmatic articles" you're talking about. Others already told you mispelled the word "read", but you keep making the same the same mistake - may I think this extends to other issues?
So god created ERVs because we need them to survive, and we share them in the same place because we need them in the same place, chimps and humans share ERVs in the same place, for the same reason we both have our eyes in the same place WE SIMPLY NEED THEM IN SPECIFIC PLACES IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE FUNCTIONAL.
...arrrrrrrr Just about every single scientific article on ERVs talks about the functionality of ervs, you are simple showing that your research on ERVs is limited to talk origins, and youtube videos. You havent even reed about ERVs in wikipedia. ¿how do you know that ERVs prove evolution, if you don´t even know about ERVs?
¿how can I falsify that smal part of the evidence?
My point is that you reed from persuasive sources, such as talk origins, wikipedia is usually the first source at google, so the fact that you havent reed about the functionality of ervs proves that you havent made even a quick research, ¿why don´t you reed from objective sources before claiming that ervs are prove for evolution?
Do the retro-viruses have any effect on physiology? Do populations with retro-viruse sequences show trait characteristics that may be linked to the ERVs? Such as immunities or defects or any morphological change?
The fact that it can be falsified is what makes it a good theory based on evidence and good science. You need to learn about the scientific process a bit more. One thing that would falsify it is exactly what Minttzz said: show us a godamn bunny down in Cambrian rock. Show us a real chimera - a jackalope or a crocoduck you guys are so fond of. Show me a lizard turn into a bird over the course of one generation. All of those would prove special creation and make evolution false.
Well yes, I was wrong, the truth is that evolution predicts every single possible scenario, which means that it is impossible to find an ERV that evolution does not predict, not even a hypothetical ERV would falsify evolution, we do find ERVs in chimps and gorillas and not in humans, we also find ERVs in monkeys chimps but not in humans, nor in other apes.
We are not discussing weather if the ERV exists or not, the discussion is on weather if evolution is falsifiable or not, specifically if it can be falsified with ERVs, so tell me, would an ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans falsify evolution?
Your video is the best explanation of ERVs I have seen. Thanks very much for your hard work. Wouldn't it be nice if the evolution deniers watched this.
yes we do find ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans, the predictions where tested and failed to be consistent to what evolution predicts. So ether reject evolution or admit that evolution is untestable.
Not quite. Evolution predicts that ERVs found in two distantly related species should also be found in the intervening species.
Since a species often exists as a collection of populations, it is possible for some members of a species to have an ERV while others do not. Some, but not all, members of the species that was the common ancestor of gorillas, chimps, and humans had the ERV. Gorillas and chimps are the direct descendants of individuals who had that specific ERV. Humans are not.
I pointed out that if common descent is correct, then it would not make sense to find an ERV sequence in two *distantly related* species, like mice and humans, but not in the "intervening" species, like apes and monkeys.
Do you know of any examples where this is not the case?
No, but if an ERV in monkeys and humans but not in apes does not contradict evolution why would an erv in mice and humans but not in apes would? The same explanation that you used to explain the erv in monkeys and humans can apply if we find an erv in mice and humans
btw ¿can you provide an example of an ERV present only in some humans?
Who said anything about an ERV in monkeys and humans but not in apes? I thought we were talking about an ERV in chimpanzees and gorillas but not in humans?
It would be highly improbable that an ERV could remain solely in the human lineage during the 75 million years of separate evolution that separates humans and mice. So improbable, in fact, that it could not be explained by common ancestry.
Finally, HERV-K113 & HERV-K115 are examples of ERVs present in some humans but not others.
I was confused, I was trying to say that we find ervs in chimps gorillas and some monkeys, but not in humans orangutans and some monkeys, for example the family CERV2 so now we are taking about a whole family that is not found where evolution predicts. ¿what does it take to falsify the claim?
The CERV1 & CERV2 sequences are not found in the same genomic locations in the different primate species you mention. Therefore, these ERVs most likely represent separate infection and insertion events.
The theory of evolution predicts that ERVs in the same place in the genomes of different species should match the patterns predicted by the common ancestry model I described in the video. They do.
ERVs that do not occur in the same places in the genomes of different species are lineage specific insertions, and they were most likely acquired after divergence from a common ancestor. Ironically, the CERV pattern you mention is exactly what we should expect if common ancestry is correct.
"so finding an ERV in monkeys cheeps and gorillas but not in humans and orangutans would falsify evolution?"
I don't know. What's a cheep?
"I mean and ERV in the same place..."
In exactly the same location or just within the same integration site?
"if I show you one would you post a video admiting that ervs contradict evolution?"
Such an observation would be unexpected, but it would not automatically invalidate the rest of the ERV evidence that is consistent with common ancestry.
I meant chimp not cheep, well then what would invalidate evolution? if you want to use ervs as prove for evolution you have to provide a potential falsification, so ERVs do not match up exactly as evolution predicts, and as you said in your video
ill try to re-find the article that says that chimps gorillas and old world monkeys share ERVs that humans orangutans and new world monkeys do not have
Is it the April 2005 article by Yohn, et al in PLoS? Here's a relevant quote:
"...there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon..." (p. 0582)
That means that the PTERV1 copies in chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys are likely the result of horizontal transmission. If they were found in identical locations, the only explanation for their absence in humans and orangs would be an unlikely series of deletions.
´´t would be highly improbable that an ERV could remain solely in the human lineage during the 75 million years of separate´´
how do you know that? how did you test the probabilities? wherent monkeys suppose to evolve 60 million years ago? if so then an ERV in chimps and monkeys but not in humans shoould falsify the claim
Well Done! An excellent video. Great science explained well. I'm forwarding the link to all my creationist friends. Who knows? Perhaps it will make them think. Thanks
It is now known that retrotransposons (transposable genetic element resembling a retrovirus genome, bounded by long term repeats(LTRs)) with striking similarities to retrovirus genomes form a substantial part of the genomes of all higher organisms including humans. This shows that genomes are dynamic and fluid entities and not constant and stable like previously thought.
Evolution is an inexact science. I guess the monkeys in zoos will one day evolve into humanoids, huh? God created all what is seen and unseen.
pmoyer50 2 months ago
@pmoyer50 they may well do when we are long extinct..there has been many pre-human kind evolved before now, but you will not be here to see it matey.. !! lol
OurLucylocket 1 month ago
ATTENTION: (TheRationalizer): Your 'knee jerk reaction' to block me shows your immaturity & inability to disagree with your fellow man. Your accusation of 'threat by proxy' was non-existent and after your statement and use of the 'F' word, I tried to clarify my point, but you had blocked me. --YOU ARE WEAK-- ! ! ! ! !
hamzah938 3 months ago
Rational discussion about what "Jesus" did or didn't say should stop when its understood that "Jesus" was a mythical character used by various religious scribes and scholars to relay their historical 2 cents with. i.e. 'Jesus' said whatever the person writing the text, wanted 'him' to say.
123backinyerface 3 months ago
Evolution negates the need for a God of any type or description, and is optional really for ones personal thoughts, that being said it does not mean human being's are not spiritual in anyway because most of us are in some sense, Carl Sagan was always spiritual in his words but was not a believer, personally the natural world leaves me with enough wonder without looking to mythical stories in old scrips, that have indeed led us into the dark ages war and destruction beyond belief for centuries ..
OurLucylocket 5 months ago
These are fantastic videos. The epitome of how scientific concepts should be introduced to the wider public, school kids... just fantastic. Thank you!
LukeScientiae 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
I'm not a Christian, but I'm not anti-christian and the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any religion or God and it's purpose isn't to disprove either of them.
spinalglacier 1 year ago 3
Magic has no place in science!
Your imaginary friend in the sky can go suck it
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
Doesn't this prove that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation? The idea of genes being similar in places of ERV's would only logically flow if one being created everything too. Why does this prove evolution and not the Bible? Hmm I wonder if the sin ERV could be found. Or even if because by man sin entered the world and so other creatures would have similar sites although some in similar places and others in different places. God working corporately fits
Jmundwyler 2 years ago
This blew my mind. Thank you for this.
AlexPleaseHelpDotCom 2 years ago
That aside, There are many document, which are non-Christian that prove that Jesus walked the earth. The only real debate is whether He rose from the dead or not. Also I would like to add that I'm pretty sure many times you have been proven a liar, a cheater, or an adulterer. Which again proves my point that many things are proven.FYI-none of that was math.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
although it is true God could have easily used Macroevolution to create us, I disbelieve that "theory". I believe that He did make us in his own image from dust, which he also created. Also, I believe the point that LittleMissBlessed was trying to make was that both Creation and Evolution are theories. Whether you want to believe they are both scientific is up to you. Also I would like to point out that many things have been proven. Noah's arc Has actually been found.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
evolution is a theory in the scientific sense of the word while creationism is a religion-specific story. it is not for one to believe that one or both are scientific....evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and creationism is not.
Noah's arc has not been found; not even a little bit.
1n354a 2 years ago
addressing Snipe, The Theory of Creationism also applies in that curcumstance. addressing rv, Evolution itself is not the problem, everybody knows that microevolution exists. Macroevolution however is a larger than life concept that many scientists would like to believe in.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
"The Theory of Creationism" ? I got a good laugh out of that one! Thanks!
macroevolution is not a larger than life concept and requires understanding and education - not belief. Belief/faith are thing that are required for topics which have no supporting evidence.
1n354a 2 years ago
@1n354a - technically, since no person could be alive for the entire process of macroevolution, it is in fact larger than life. and obviously you would have to have a "belief" on this topic to suggest so strongly that it is, in fact, the way things are. also a scientific theory could be considered a deductive theory in the sense that a theory is comprised of "if it isn't this, then it must be this" data. If it wasn't science that created the world, then it must be
God.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
I would also like to add that in 2006, although they did sign a disclaimer to appease people like you, B.A.S.E. Institute discovered a shiplike object with tracts of petrified wood with clam fossils 14000 feet above sea level in a mountain in iran with exact dimentions as those described in the bibe. so you may say whatever you would like, however the evidence is overwhelming. basically, believe whatever helps you sleep at night ;)
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
ROFL! Base Institute - a group who started out saying "God did it and we are going to find evidence to prove it!", [while ignoring all the evidence that disproves it] found the arc?? pardon me for not converting on the spot...
there is no evidence supporting your fairy tale. evolution, however has been oserved in the lab as well as in the wild. It is a fact. It happens independent of your wishes. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than our explanation of how it happens.
sweet dreams.
1n354a 2 years ago
also it is microevolution that has been "observed" in a lab and in the wild not macroevolution. Also, if you want to go into it more, Charles Darwin himself claimed his theories to be wrong before he died.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
@sk8er4christ
wrong again bright star, evolution has been observed (micro and macro combined)...your understanding and knowledge on the topic is lacking.
Charles Darwin could have claimed whatever the hell he wanted to before he died...it does not chance the fact that life evolves on this planet. Thanks for the failed creationist crap argument though...perhaps you can tell me how he is also a Nazi?
1n354a 2 years ago
please cite to which macro evolution experiment you are referring, so that I may check your research, since you seem to be so up-to-date on the subject. I don't believe that I mentioned anything about a Nazi either. and of course life evolves on this planet, but a dog does not evolve into a dolphin!
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
examples of observed speciation: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas), Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis), Tragopogo. (google "observed speciation", click on first link...read paper.
you didn't mention anything about Nazis yet, but you were getting there.
evolutionary theory doesn't claim that a dog evolves into a dolphin. this statement verifies the fact that you know little of evolutionary theory.
1n354a 2 years ago
@sk8er4christ
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. In fact, not even that. Sometimes macro evolution takes the form of much smaller changes than micro.
For example, a new speciation (macro evolution) of mosquito may look very similar to another species of mosquito, but the differences between a Poodle and Dalmatian is the result of micro evolution.
If you say there is micro evolution, you're also saying there is macro.
MelowMurder 1 year ago
@sk8er4christ
Nice job completely ignoring the Archeological and Geological evidence that completely contradicts flood.
Did you know that a mere 14 years after the "Great Flood" King Sargon of Akked conquered Mesopotamia and created the first empire?
How on earth would it be possible for 8 people to beget enough offspring to fill an empire along with a standing army in 14 years?
Oh. That's right. It's not.
MelowMurder 1 year ago
The assertion that since nobody has been alive for billions of years, nobody can know for sure so people have to have faith is a silly position and I think you know it. A detective who arrives at the crime scene after the fact does not rely on faith in order to figure out what happened. There is no more belief/faith in evolutionary theory than there is in gravitational theory or atomic theory. So technically you are wrong through ignorance or dishonesty...which one is it?
1n354a 2 years ago
quite honestly one of us will be correct, the difference being: if you are wrong you will spend eternity burning in Hell. If you are right, you will spend eternity 6 feet under and not even know it. If I am wrong, I will spend eternity 6 feet under and not even know it. if; however, I am correct then I will spend eternity in Heaven will OUR creator. In the end you will either find out that it was you who was ignorant, or you will never know it was I who was ignorant God bless :)
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
@sk8er4christ
pascals wager doesn't work on me bright star.
that is, has, and always will be the lamest argument any creationist has ever fielded supporting the existence of a god or gods.
1n354a 2 years ago
@sk8er4christ
I'd rather keep my intellectual honesty than stoop to such a level as to sick the wrath of my all loving God onto nonbelievers.
And you know, we could still both be wrong. If Islam is the correct religion we're both screwed.
MelowMurder 1 year ago 2
if it wasn't science that created the world, then it must have be(en) God.
what about the large, undetectable, invisible Cheese monkey who lives three feet outside the edge of the universe in an oversized brown bag? I actually think that he is the one who did it....unless you can prove that he doesn't exist?
1n354a 2 years ago 11
If you honestly believe that then I won't judge you for that. I would; however like to see the bible you are reading.
littlemissblessed 2 years ago
@littlemissblessed
The Cheese monkey doesn't write bibles. The Cheese monkey just is. To not accept the Cheese monkey as the creator of all things is illogical and irrational.
1n354a 2 years ago 7
@1n354a Yes Ha! "created in his image" perhaps god is large hairy primate after all ?.. now that would have the ID gang jumping up and down in anger !!! haha!!
OurLucylocket 5 months ago
@OurLucylocket well there are far more hairy monkey-like humans on this planet as opposed to silver-haired, incredibly fit, old Caucasian men loosely draped in a Greek-style toga....so statistics and probability are in my corner as well!
1n354a 5 months ago
@sk8er4christ
So does that mean that if no one alive saw King Tut die, Does that mean that you have to have faith in order to think he is dead?
No one alive today was alive during the Ming Dynasty in China, so is faith needed to assume its existence?
Please, that is one of the worst arguments creationists have. You should be ashamed of yourself for using it.
MelowMurder 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is NOT real! There is A God who made all of us and made this earth. I will pray for all of you and hope you will come to know God.
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
someone has brain washed you soooo far. there is no hope for you.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
I'm not going to get in a fight with you. All I can do is pray for you. How can you think this world just POP here and that we do not have a creater??
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
well when theories like the big bang and evolution are practically proved. YES
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
Well Jesus loves you and I hope you will censider reading the Bible.
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
i have read the bible and dead men cant love.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
I guess you have not read the whole Bible because yes Jesus died but he rose again 3 days latter and is still alive!
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
So jesus is a zombie walking around somewhere?
rv186rs 2 years ago 2
No he is not a zombie he is Alive
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
Died and rose again from the grave = zombie
How do you Know he is alive btw?
rv186rs 2 years ago
The Bible and faith.
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gymgirl12345678910
so you have nothing
wolfman49er 2 years ago
I'm not going to get in a fight with you any more. God loves you!
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
@gymgirl12345678910
sorry
i did not mean to sound confrontational
i have been reading from a 14th christian mystic who argues that for god to be everything then he must be nothing (Nicholas Cusanus or Nicholas of Cusa uses the words contracted minimum and expanded maximum) so nothingness itself contains the whole of god and faith, and is not necessarily a bad thing. thank you for being nice. it is hard to derive tone from the written word, that is by having nothing you have everything. peace.
wolfman49er 2 years ago
first of all, it is "proven" and to say they are practically "proven" is ignorant. Please specify to which proof you are referring. thank you.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
practically- Almost, nearly
and the proof to which i'm referring is the fossil record, DNA, history, first grade logic, ect.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
please note the fossil record is incomplete: meaning there are pieces missing to the apes to man theory. Also, I fail to see how history has anything to do with it. I have seen evolution theory in science books, not in history books. but I guess you wouldn't know any of that seeing as how you haven't yet made it out of the first grade.
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
genetics put the nail in the coffin regarding our relationship to apes and monkeys. if we had no fossils, it would matter little.
1n354a 2 years ago 2
@sk8er4christ
True, the fossil record is incomplete. But we know enough to kill ID off without a doubt and with the help of DNA, confirm evolution.
Not, almost, nearly, or practically. Evolution is a confirmed fact. Things evolve. Period. The Theory of Evolution simply describes the processes that drive evolution.
MelowMurder 1 year ago
also the word practically means in practice not almost or nearly
sk8er4christ 2 years ago
As the maker of this video, I'm disappointed that you would seemingly assume that I do not believe in God.
I am a Christian. I personally believe that the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the process that God used to create life on Earth, including human beings.
The reason that evolution is seen as contrary to belief in God is because some Christians apparently worship their personal interpretation of the Bible rather than the God the claim to believe in.
How sad.
standup4REALscience 2 years ago 12
I did not assume you were not. I'm happy you are! I just dont beleave in evolution.
gymgirl12345678910 2 years ago
@standup4REALscience Great videos. One question- how do you still manage to call yourself Christian? By Christian you believe that Jesus died for mans sins and is God? Doesn't that whole story fall apart when you admit that Adam and Eve weren't real (and I agree), and thus their original sin was never there either, therefore negating the need for Jesus to die and save us from that sin? I don't see how you can accept evolution and still manage to cling to christianity at the same time.
georgetcr 1 year ago 2
@georgetcr I read the story of Adam and Eve as a great myth. It's a story told to convey a theological truth, not a scientific one. The Biblical doctrine of "original sin" describes the alienation of human beings from each other, from nature, and from God and our need for redemption. In my view, "Adam and Eve" function as representatives of the human condition.
standup4REALscience 1 year ago 4
@standup4REALscience Ok, how did human beings become "alienated" from eachother, from nature, and from God? Why did God allow this to happen, and then have to reincarnate himself, allow himself to be tortured and killed, so that he could forgive himself for humanities "sin"? It makes absolutely no sense when you think about it.
georgetcr 1 year ago
@georgetcr standup4REALscience is clearly a moderate and intelligent christian, why cannot you accept it? I am an atheist, but as long as people are not stupid fundies, I am perfectly okay with that.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@standup4REALscience
How did god evolve?
You can't have it both ways.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@standup4REALscience IMO, it is way better to be AGNOSTIC that being religious or atheist.
If a person says that Christianity is the ONLY true religion, then it fuel's discrimination.
Discrimination against people of OTHER faiths. We have so many different religions.
If Christianity is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, than what does that imply to people who are born non-Christians such as Hindus. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Pagans, etc. They did NOT choose to be non-Christians.
MrFareddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMO, it is way better to be AGNOSTIC than being religious or atheist.
If a person says that Christianity is the ONLY true religion, then it fuel's discrimination.
Discrimination against people of OTHER faiths. We have so many different religions.
If Christianity is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, than what does that imply to people who are born non-Christians such as Hindus. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Pagans, etc. They did NOT choose to be non-Christians
MrFareddy 1 year ago
@standup4REALscience And you are still an idiot for believing in fairy-tales.
SoCalFlya 10 months ago
@SoCalFlya
Uhm... You do realize that you're talking to the guy who made that video, right?
Einargizz 7 months ago
@standup4REALscience You are making Jesus a liar, since He made reference to the creation, and Adam & Eve as literal events in space and time. Also evolution means there was death before Adam & Eve, which contradicts the biblical truth of the need for redemption because of death introduced in the world due to the fall. If there was death before A&E, the whole christian theology and the bible collapses, and there's no need for a redeemer! Theistic evolution is impossible. Face it!
raponte1955 3 months ago
@raponte1955 Jesus also made reference to the moon giving light and the stars falling from the sky (Mark 13:24-25). Do you still believe that the moon gives light and that the stars are fixed upon the firmament? If not, you are making Jesus a liar. If Jesus was willing to lie about the structure of the solar system, then how can we believe anything he said? A reconciliation between Christianity and heliocentrism is impossible. Face it!
standup4REALscience 3 months ago
@standup4REALscience Learn a little hermeneutics, dude. The referenced passage is a figure of speech, so people would understand Jesus' message. Jesus was not addressing 21th educated people, but a middle east primitive tribe with no knowledge at all of astronomy. And you know it. There's no comparison to his other references to Adam and Eve and the creation. And if you claim your are a Christian, how you dare to even suggest that Jesus was a liar?
raponte1955 3 months ago
@raponte1955 We agree that Jesus was addressing people with very little scientific knowledge. The passage I referenced was not a figure of speech. That's what people of the time really believed. The idea that humans share common ancestry with other living things would have been as foreign to them as the notion that the stars are actually massive, luminous balls of plasma held together by gravity. He was speaking in terms they could understand using scriptures they would have been familiar with.
standup4REALscience 3 months ago
@standup4REALscience
Am I correct in assuming you don't subscribe to the idea of "original sin"?
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@TheRationalizer Well, it depends on what you mean by "original sin."
standup4REALscience 3 months ago
@standup4REALscience
I am born guilty because of something Adam and Eve did.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
You're correct. I don't subscribe to that idea.
standup4REALscience 3 months ago
@standup4REALscience
I didn't think you would :-)
In that case I am curious, what do you think is the purpose of the story of Adam and Eve, and do you think the default position is for humans to *not* go to heaven (if so, for what reason?)
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
@gymgirl12345678910 your an idiot. i guess the sky being blue isnt real either, your delusional mind projecting the god you desire to fit your personal requirements is the cancer in the human race today. wake up and reject ignorance
MrJackclarke 1 year ago
also the act of you calling us judgemental is, in itself, a judgement. And for those of you who think that Christians are just weak people looking for a krutch or non educated people with no real Ideas, I believe what I am saying is a real idea and I am not in need of a krutch. Just a truth and a savior that brings it.
littlemissblessed 2 years ago
well we can prove our theorie through real things. you close minded people cant prove yours.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
First of all, I have just clearly and reasonably explained why we're not the closed minded ones...and second of all...the correct spelling is theory.
littlemissblessed 2 years ago
I have listened to your ideas and beliefs and frankly their bullshit. And being a spelling nazi isnt exactly relevant.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
Okay and we have listened to yours...so again how does that make us the closed minded ones? And quite frankly if you look at the end of the evolution, then you will see that it has the word "theory", which means that it's not proven, it is simply a belief...
littlemissblessed 2 years ago
The term theory can be used in many ways. Technically the theory of relativity isn't proven even though all evidence without a doubt shows it to be true. The same applies here.
SnipeZuDown 2 years ago
1. You being completely unaware that the word theory have a different meaning in science than in everyday life does not disprove evolution.
2. Proof has nothing to do with Any science except for Math, the Only thing that has Ever been proven is this "I think therefore I am".
rv186rs 2 years ago
First and foremost I would like to address the fact that all living organisms have common links. Honestly it would only make sense, considering that they all had the same creator. Next, I would like to address the fact that many of you non-Christians like to say that us Christians are closed minded and judgemental. I would only have to argue that the fact you would not reasonably listen to our ideas makes you yourselves closed minded.
littlemissblessed 2 years ago
evelution is real
MrCartoonvideos 2 years ago
There is an ERV (HERV-K) that is present in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans. Contrary to creationist claims, however, this does not violate the nested hierarchy or falsify common descent.
See shanedk's video "ERVs and the Nested Hierarchy" for details.
psychtrane 2 years ago 4
Yes, I almost included an explanation concerning this in my video, but I left it out because it made the video too long.
I should clarify that when I say in the video "insertions are shared by all of the species that have a common ancestor" that only really applies to species that descend from an ancestral population in which the ERV has reached fixation.
standup4REALscience 2 years ago 2
gorilla is a very arguementive mammal..... example .. when an animal gets trapped in a corner and has no where to go there only option is to lash out in attack like an animal......human.... a gorilla! dude you make yourself sound stupid and crazy by aguing with otherpeople and yourself........ sop running man just understand reality....
twisttieguy1266 2 years ago
"sop running man just understand reality"
I do I accept the fact of evolution and dont pretend in a rleigious fairy.
Are you a rfeligion pretender or did u not read my comments correctly?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Thanks for the videos, and for standing up for reason and rational thought.
Hopefully we can keep the Enlightenment ticking on, but one tends to wonder on occasion.
tehinfidel 3 years ago
Falisfy ERVs evolution proof by
Find ERVs that are in the wrong location or ERVs that should be there that are not
ERVs that are not there that should be there
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
You still have not explained why god planted ERVs or what ever creationism rxcuse you can think of.
Saying they do somthing is a lie
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
´´Saying they do somthing is a lie´´
You can not claim that something is lie, jus because you don´t like it; (typical evolutist falasy) there are plenty of scientific articles on ERVs why don´t you reed some, instead of claming nonsense?
Answer ¿how do you know that ERVs prove evolution, if you don´t know a thing about ERVs?
a01011399 3 years ago
"You can not claim that something is lie, jus because you don´t like it"
Im stating your wrong because science proves what u said is wrong.
Try reading the articles show me one where it says ERRVs do somthuing, prove me wrong?
Again I see no lame excuse of how ERVs fit into bullshit creationism!
PLEASE SUPPLY ONE!
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
´´Saying they do somthing is a lie´´
whatch my last video
a01011399 3 years ago
"´´Saying they do somthing is a lie´´
whatch my last video "
Oh im sorry I didnt know you where a world renowned expert on genetics, where did you you get your phd in genetics from again?
Oh story your a stupid dumb lying creationist who thinks the world is 6000 years old, and pretends dead virii in DNA do somthing aswell.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
why don´t you simply admit that you are wrong? ervs are functional, it is a fact, I made a video and included sources.
please feel free to post a reply
a01011399 3 years ago
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
OK THIS IS a challenge for you: reed one, just one scientific article that talks about ERVs,
a01011399 3 years ago
"OK THIS IS a challenge for you: reed one, just one scientific article that talks about ERVs, "
THE DNA STILL WORKS
THE DEAD VIRUS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING UNDERSTAND?
You think you know better than the worlds experts on the subject?
Supply one reference (BY a PhD grad, in the field) where it says the DEAD virus is alive and ill become xtian!
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
ervs are functinal, if you whant to call then dead viruses, then do it, but it does not chnge the fact that ERVs are functional, please take my challenge REED ONE NON-DOGMATIC article that talks about ERVs
a01011399 3 years ago
"ervs are functinal"
NO
"if you whant to call then dead viruses"
I do thats because what they are.
LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF ERV!
" ERVs are functional"
NO THEY ARE NOT!
"REED ONE NON-DOGMATIC article that talks about ERVs "
I said provide one scientific peer reviewed article where it says its not dead. an dI will become christian!
You had trouble finding one? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
gorilla:
I think it's OK to reject without comment the scientific assertions of someone who cannot spell the word "read" correctly.
Even someone for whom English is a second language should have that capability. And the fact that he doesn't is all the evidence any of us need regarding his scientific literacy.
middlekk 3 years ago
Comment removed
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
"I think it's OK to reject the scientific assertions of someone cannot spell the word "read" correctly."
No, not because he cant spell or because he did a typo even. I have had creationists use that on me for making a typo.
Hes extremely biased and lies for his religion (Its a basis for religion)
He still claim ERVs do things, when he is talking about the DNA the DEAD ERV's are in.
He thinks the world is 6000 years, big boat rides are real :( LOL
Thats reason to know hes wrong.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
Correct, once a person proves they have no grasp of the English, there is no need to debate them any further.
EricZombie 3 years ago
´´I said provide one scientific peer reviewed article where it says its not dead. an dI will become christian!´´
I did, as I said before look at my last video, PLEASE TAKE MY CHALLENGE reed one non dogmatic article about ervs, you can reed from wikipedia or from a scientific article, you descide, JUST TAKE MY CHALLENGE
a01011399 3 years ago
"PLEASE TAKE MY CHALLENGE reed one non dogmatic article about ervs,"
"Non dogmatic as in not reliously biased article"
Yes there the ones the experts in the field write.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
Choose some ERVs and tell us what are the functions for each of them. Enumerate some of those "non-dogmatic articles" you're talking about. Others already told you mispelled the word "read", but you keep making the same the same mistake - may I think this extends to other issues?
pedroac 2 years ago
Seen #2 of this series?
Explain why god gave all the apes the same useless DNA?
(Saying it has a purpose is a lie)
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
So god created ERVs because we need them to survive, and we share them in the same place because we need them in the same place, chimps and humans share ERVs in the same place, for the same reason we both have our eyes in the same place WE SIMPLY NEED THEM IN SPECIFIC PLACES IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE FUNCTIONAL.
a01011399 3 years ago
No that at best can falisfy how chimps, gorilla and humans are related.
The ERVS are all evidence of evolution as they are not in the wrong place, or ones that should nto be there.
Just like the fact there was no global flood does not mean some places actually exist didnt exist.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
´´Explain how they fit into the creationist belief.´´
because ERVs are functional you need then to survive, why woulnd´t god created Adam with retroviral DNA if Adan need it to survive?
¿so can evolutionary theory be falsified with ervs?
a01011399 3 years ago
"because ERVs are functional you need then to survive,"
NO WRONG WRONG WRONG
"why woulnd´t god created Adam with retroviral DNA if Adan need it to survive?"
They are not required, they do NOTHING!
"¿so can evolutionary theory be falsified with ervs? "
ERVS are only a small part of the evidence.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
´´NO WRONG WRONG WRONG´´
...arrrrrrrr Just about every single scientific article on ERVs talks about the functionality of ervs, you are simple showing that your research on ERVs is limited to talk origins, and youtube videos. You havent even reed about ERVs in wikipedia. ¿how do you know that ERVs prove evolution, if you don´t even know about ERVs?
¿how can I falsify that smal part of the evidence?
a01011399 3 years ago
" Just about every single scientific article on ERVs talks about the functionality of ervs"
Realy?
Do you even know what ERV stands for?
"talk origins"
Scientifically reviweded articles, by people who know the subject
"ERVs in wikipedia"
A blog which anyone can add to people who have no idea on the subject, biased people, children, the mentally insane etc
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
My point is that you reed from persuasive sources, such as talk origins, wikipedia is usually the first source at google, so the fact that you havent reed about the functionality of ervs proves that you havent made even a quick research, ¿why don´t you reed from objective sources before claiming that ervs are prove for evolution?
a01011399 3 years ago
Do the retro-viruses have any effect on physiology? Do populations with retro-viruse sequences show trait characteristics that may be linked to the ERVs? Such as immunities or defects or any morphological change?
CHAS1422 3 years ago
"always seeking out answers that define reality"
Apart from pretending a god exists, sorry not any god but the one you pretend is real!
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
Looks like some fundy got suspended and their comments removed.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
There's another creationist video that attempts to refute ERV here:
watch?v=SShGG0VGqXw
Minttzz 3 years ago
@a01011399
Simply present your evidence that will demonstrate evolution as false...
:)
fartbandit 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can´t evolution is a religion, therefore it can not be tested
a01011399 3 years ago
LOL
If evolution is a religion, so it photosynthesis.
"can not be tested"
Bunnies is the Cambrian.
Minttzz 3 years ago
The fact that it can be falsified is what makes it a good theory based on evidence and good science. You need to learn about the scientific process a bit more. One thing that would falsify it is exactly what Minttzz said: show us a godamn bunny down in Cambrian rock. Show us a real chimera - a jackalope or a crocoduck you guys are so fond of. Show me a lizard turn into a bird over the course of one generation. All of those would prove special creation and make evolution false.
magick205 3 years ago
Did you even watch the video?
He goes through in great detail exactly HOW evolution was tested.
An argument from ignorance in a video that explains the exact concept you're arguing against is evidence that you're unwilling to even try to learn.
middlekk 3 years ago
yes it was tested and failed, ERVs are not where evolution predicts
a01011399 3 years ago
Did you not watch the video?
It shows exactly where the ERVs are located and why they are exactly where predicted according to evolutionary theory.
Denying the plain evidence IN THE VIDEO is known as "argument from idiocy".
middlekk 3 years ago
"yes it was tested and failed, ERVs are not where evolution predicts"
Which ERVs are you referring to?
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
"yes it was tested and failed, ERVs are not where evolution predicts "
Whers your lies
Specific ones that is
Come on state them!
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
´´Whers your lies
Specific ones that is
Come on state them!´´
Well yes, I was wrong, the truth is that evolution predicts every single possible scenario, which means that it is impossible to find an ERV that evolution does not predict, not even a hypothetical ERV would falsify evolution, we do find ERVs in chimps and gorillas and not in humans, we also find ERVs in monkeys chimps but not in humans, nor in other apes.
a01011399 3 years ago
" the truth is that evolution predicts every single possible scenario"
No it does not!
If there the same erv in the same location for gorilla and chimps that would suggest chimps and humans dont have a common ancestor after gorillas.
Evolution is falisifiable ALL the DNA proves humans and the other great apes are related.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
"we do find ERVs in chimps and gorillas and not in humans, we also find ERVs in monkeys chimps but not in humans, nor in other apes. "
Yes and all of them line up with chimps and humans do have a common ancestor after gorillas.
None of them contradict that, all of them agree with the ancestor lines
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
finding an ERV is chimps and gorillas, but not in humans should contradict evolution, because chimps are closer to humans that to gorillas
a01011399 3 years ago
"finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans should contradict evolution, because chimps are closer to humans that to gorillas "
Thats right! (Assuming they are in the same location, even then its still possible tho)
There is not one so that falsafiable fact has been proven inline with evolution.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
yes, we do find it.
´´even then its still possible tho´´
yes nothing is impossible for evolution, The thing is that evolution predicts everything, and can not be falsified
a01011399 3 years ago
"yes nothing is impossible for evolution, The thing is that evolution predicts everything, and can not be falsified "
NO NO NO NO NO
We already covered this it does not!
Notice how the ERV's show the great apes are related (Alone with alot of other DNA )
We dont see more matches with any other animal.
We DONT have ANY matches that even question commone descent of the Apes (which was worked out before DNA)
All the ERV's show the lineage was worked out correctly before hand.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
"yes, we do find it."
Find an ERV that contradicts Evolution?
Please supply your misinformation/lie!
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
I provide a source would you make a video admitting that evolution is wrong, and/or that ervs contradict evolution?
Are you saying that evolution can not explain an ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans?
a01011399 3 years ago
"I provide a source"
Tell me what your source claims and provide the source.
"Are you saying that evolution can not explain an ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans? "
Is there one? please provide sourse.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
We are not discussing weather if the ERV exists or not, the discussion is on weather if evolution is falsifiable or not, specifically if it can be falsified with ERVs, so tell me, would an ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans falsify evolution?
a01011399 3 years ago
So tell us how did the ERVS get their?
coincidence or
god planted them to prove evolution right?
Is their a third choice?
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
Give us another explination (logical one would be nice) of How the ERVS got their.
Explain how they fit into the creationist belief.
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
"yes, we do find it."
So this is a lie it doesnt exist?
Thats why you failed to provide it?
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
"yes, we do find it."
So tell us how did the ERVS get their?
coincidence or
god planted them to prove evolution right?
Is their a third choice?
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
Thats the bestyou have?
Pretend evolutionis as low as what you believe?
"I can´t evolution is a religion, "
gorilla199uncensored 3 years ago
Your video is the best explanation of ERVs I have seen. Thanks very much for your hard work. Wouldn't it be nice if the evolution deniers watched this.
bobx2x2 3 years ago 3
Actually, I think it would be nice if everyone watched this video, even those who accept evolution.
In general, people aren't aware of the strength of the evidence of evolution provided by modern molecular studies. I'm still learning a lot myself.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
yes we do find ERV in chimps and gorillas but not in humans, the predictions where tested and failed to be consistent to what evolution predicts. So ether reject evolution or admit that evolution is untestable.
a01011399 3 years ago
Not quite. Evolution predicts that ERVs found in two distantly related species should also be found in the intervening species.
Since a species often exists as a collection of populations, it is possible for some members of a species to have an ERV while others do not. Some, but not all, members of the species that was the common ancestor of gorillas, chimps, and humans had the ERV. Gorillas and chimps are the direct descendants of individuals who had that specific ERV. Humans are not.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
therefore evolution is not testable, You can not use the argument on ervs as prove for evolution, if you don´t provide a potential falsification
a01011399 3 years ago
Did you watch the video?
I pointed out that if common descent is correct, then it would not make sense to find an ERV sequence in two *distantly related* species, like mice and humans, but not in the "intervening" species, like apes and monkeys.
Do you know of any examples where this is not the case?
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
No, but if an ERV in monkeys and humans but not in apes does not contradict evolution why would an erv in mice and humans but not in apes would? The same explanation that you used to explain the erv in monkeys and humans can apply if we find an erv in mice and humans
btw ¿can you provide an example of an ERV present only in some humans?
a01011399 3 years ago
Who said anything about an ERV in monkeys and humans but not in apes? I thought we were talking about an ERV in chimpanzees and gorillas but not in humans?
It would be highly improbable that an ERV could remain solely in the human lineage during the 75 million years of separate evolution that separates humans and mice. So improbable, in fact, that it could not be explained by common ancestry.
Finally, HERV-K113 & HERV-K115 are examples of ERVs present in some humans but not others.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
I was confused, I was trying to say that we find ervs in chimps gorillas and some monkeys, but not in humans orangutans and some monkeys, for example the family CERV2 so now we are taking about a whole family that is not found where evolution predicts. ¿what does it take to falsify the claim?
a01011399 3 years ago
The CERV1 & CERV2 sequences are not found in the same genomic locations in the different primate species you mention. Therefore, these ERVs most likely represent separate infection and insertion events.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
The theory of evolution predicts that ERVs in the same place in the genomes of different species should match the patterns predicted by the common ancestry model I described in the video. They do.
ERVs that do not occur in the same places in the genomes of different species are lineage specific insertions, and they were most likely acquired after divergence from a common ancestor. Ironically, the CERV pattern you mention is exactly what we should expect if common ancestry is correct.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
so finding an ERV in monkeys cheeps and gorillas but not in humans and orangutans would falsify evolution?
I mean and ERV in the same place...
if I show you one would you post a video admiting that ervs contradict evolution?
a01011399 3 years ago
"so finding an ERV in monkeys cheeps and gorillas but not in humans and orangutans would falsify evolution?"
I don't know. What's a cheep?
"I mean and ERV in the same place..."
In exactly the same location or just within the same integration site?
"if I show you one would you post a video admiting that ervs contradict evolution?"
Such an observation would be unexpected, but it would not automatically invalidate the rest of the ERV evidence that is consistent with common ancestry.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
I meant chimp not cheep, well then what would invalidate evolution? if you want to use ervs as prove for evolution you have to provide a potential falsification, so ERVs do not match up exactly as evolution predicts, and as you said in your video
a01011399 3 years ago
Could you point me to the evidence that is not consistent with the evolutionary predictions I described in the video?
I've read quite a bit of the ERV literature, and I'm not familiar with the evidence you seem to be referring to.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
ill try to re-find the article that says that chimps gorillas and old world monkeys share ERVs that humans orangutans and new world monkeys do not have
but would that falsify the argument on ERVs?
a01011399 3 years ago
Is it the April 2005 article by Yohn, et al in PLoS? Here's a relevant quote:
"...there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon..." (p. 0582)
That means that the PTERV1 copies in chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys are likely the result of horizontal transmission. If they were found in identical locations, the only explanation for their absence in humans and orangs would be an unlikely series of deletions.
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
He won't understand what horizontal transmission is. I predict 3 days of arguing over that.
middlekk 3 years ago
´´t would be highly improbable that an ERV could remain solely in the human lineage during the 75 million years of separate´´
how do you know that? how did you test the probabilities? wherent monkeys suppose to evolve 60 million years ago? if so then an ERV in chimps and monkeys but not in humans shoould falsify the claim
a01011399 3 years ago
It would falsify the claim *IF* the ERVs were found in the same genomic location. As I explained above, they are not.
So, the ERV argument in favor of common descent IS falsifiable. We agree! Yay!
standup4REALscience 3 years ago
Well Done! An excellent video. Great science explained well. I'm forwarding the link to all my creationist friends. Who knows? Perhaps it will make them think. Thanks
wanderingskeptic 3 years ago 2
It is now known that retrotransposons (transposable genetic element resembling a retrovirus genome, bounded by long term repeats(LTRs)) with striking similarities to retrovirus genomes form a substantial part of the genomes of all higher organisms including humans. This shows that genomes are dynamic and fluid entities and not constant and stable like previously thought.
Mjhavok 3 years ago 2
Awesome. Well done. Good work.
csadler 3 years ago 2
This is a good series. I look forward to more.
Guncriminal 3 years ago 2
thanks for the great video!
LVskywalker 3 years ago 2