@parasitesarefunny you claim evolution hasn't been duplicated, in the past ten years it's been duplicated tens of thousands of times you're the idiot.
There's no difference, the terms micro evo and macro evo were invented by creationists, there is no actual distinction. There is no such biological term as "kind", creationists made it up too. Really they are based on the same concept, if microevo is true then so is marcoevo.
Macro Evolution is NOT Scientific and cannot even pass the Scientific Method that DEMANDS a theory be duplicatable and predictable. ROFLMAO! Yet idiots fall for this crapola? Truly amazing!
So in your opinion no science can be done regarding events in the past because history isn't 'repeatable'?
Certainly the DNA evidence indicating evolution is reproduced in the laboratory all the time - and evolution does make predictions which are constantly being confirmed with new archeological discoveries and chemical analyses.
What's truly amazing is that you deride science on the interwebs which itself is based on scientific discoveries.
You dont even know the difference between SCIENCE & HISTORY. ROFLMAO! Let alone what the Scientific Method entails.
There is ZERO DNA evidence that proves or supports evolution my dear fool and never has Macro Evolution been proven through archeology. That is just too funny!
You take a FAITH BASED BELIEF called Macro Evolution and attempt to call it Science! LMAO! What an idiot.
ALL REAL SCIENCE DEMANDS THAT A GIVEN THEORY CAN BE PREDICTED & DUPLICATED BY ANYONE. YOU FAIL.
To bad your "theory" FAILS the basic Scientific Method of simple Duplication and Prediction required of any "SCIENTIFIC" theory. It's the underlying foundation of what makes science, science.
You cannot duplicate or predict your UN-scientific theory and you call it science? roflmao! Just another brainwashed idiot who repeats what ever it is told to repeat.
Catholics and even mainline Protestants can believe in evolution. The Catholic Church has never been opposed to evolution, even in Darwin's lifetime. There's actually a pretty solid documentary by the BBC "Did Darwin Kill God?" (link's on my channell) which goes into this topic.
r u serious?, the concept of micro evolution and macro evolution does exist, and is well explained by ur video, but come on, just because u explained the concept it doesnt prove the reality of macroevolution, the problem is that the container (glass) can only hold so much information (iced te?), and macro evolution needs more information (iced te?) that the container (glass) can hold. Can u make the glass contain more iced te than its capable of containing?. dont be too simplistic
Do you have any scientific evidence of the re-engineering of the physiology of one creature into a fundamentally different creature? No. So all you are doing is extrapolating the variety within breeding populations to explain all living diversity. Nice idea, no evidence for it. You can day dream about building up changes, but the evidence clearly shows the limits. Dogs remain dogs, bacteria remains bacteria, and so on. So all you have done is demonstrate a baseless idea.
Yes, the fossil record shows there were no dogs at one time, but that creatures evolved from primitive bacteria-like forms to more complex things, and modern animals didn't arise for millions of years.
Evolution explains the fossil record.
Meanwhile there is not a speck of evidence for any animal ever being 'created'.
Bacteria are the masters of earth, they are robust and able to survive almost anything. According to the evolutionary theory of ecology, animal life is far more fragile. So tell me, what caused bacteria to evolve into animals? I mean, you look at the fossil record and draw imaginary lines. What makes you so sure? You need more than dead creatures. You need mechanisms in action, you need pathways, not just stories or patterns.
Well, bacteria are an essential part of not only the ecosystem as a whole, but specifically, many biological processes in the animal kingdom. There is no reason why bacteria would evolve. No environmental pressure known has ever wiped out bacteria. So why would they evolve into plants and animals? Descent with modification doesn't even address this. Is it design (yes.?)? Or maybe it's something else, like consciousness being primary and having the "desire" to expand it's awareness.
I can create things to a lesser degree than what is exhibited in nature. Perhaps life is to a lesser degree a reflection of that which created it. Although we don't like that idea, especially because it's hard to reconcile with modern definitions of science (at least those of scientific naturalism), it could still be absolutely true. Interestingly, we can know, at least in theory that intelligence has acted because we too possess intelligence. Just some thoughts.
There isn't one speck of evidence for any animal ever being 'created'? Interesting that you put tick marks around created. Here is the thing. There isn't a shred of evidence that bacteria turned into animals either. Nearly all of the body plans for animal life show up fully formed in the Cambrian? Yet you want to rule out the idea that information was injected into the equation? Trilobites with the most complex eyes known? Nervous systems? Skeletons? What environmental pressures would do that?
But living things *do* evolve as is easily observed. Thus evolution explains the fossil record. It's not such an unbridgeable gap between single-celled and muti-cellular, nor from there to specialization among the cells - and once that's happening you have plants & animals.
No need for the notion that information was 'injected' into the system - by whom? how? evidence for this is...? - when evolution works well enough.
First of all, where did the genetic expression system come from and how many different versions of it are there? How many times did life arise? I can understand the idea of common ancestry, and even modification. The question, which you so casually brushed off, is still...WHY? And HOW? Random variation and selection doesn't get you new integrated systems, it gets you adaptations to preexisting ones. No magical appearances required, although they can't be ruled out entirely.
I think 'why' questions are very ambiguous - it sometimes seems to suggest purposefulness. Why should a rock roll down a hill? To what end? Why 'put' the rock up there only to have it roll down later?
The mechanisms of evolution seem to be fairly well understood - at least in relation to putative designers of terrestrial life (whether super-advanced aliens or magical beings). Everything about life here is very physical and chemical - we are of the elements here.
Okay, but there are why questions that certainly deserve an answer. Like why is there life at all? You can rephrase it to, how did life originate? Tis true we are made up of matter/energy. But living things are fundamentally different than piles of rock. I don't think anyone really knows WHY that is yet. That may settle much of the debate. Example, it wasn't known how heredity worked, now we know. Perhaps if we find a way to dig deeper, we will come to know why something lives.
Why would a designer require heredity? It's certainly explained by evolution - but not an obvious advantage when you can just poof things into exiostence whenever you like.
Indeed the facts about heredity show how all life is related - an amazing thing which confirms evolutionary theory's predictions and confounds creationist claims.
That being said, we still don't understand exactly what constitutes a living thing, and how it came about, although we have decent working definitions. There is the poly-functional nature of the genetic code itself, the sequencing of the nucleotides, the shape and electrochemical properties, morphogenetic fields, the movement of quantum entangled electrons along the positions of base pairs, spacing of repetitive elements as physiological timers, and on and on. No intelligence?
Certain species of plants contain up to 1260 different chromosomes. Maximum number of information isn't a problem, besides, the amount of information is less important than the information itself ;)
@proudfootz - I am not promoting a creationist view here but I do think the example in the video is a bit weak. You can add as much liquid as you want to the glass over time but it remains a glass. I think the problem most creationists would have is at what point does the glass become a plate...? With your demonstration we keep adding change and come up with a glass every time.
Thank you!!! If Theists won't convert after watching this video (or at least admit about evolution) then they never will. Though it is likely that they will change the argument :\
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
@proudfootz Micro evolution brought forth many variations of the same species and that is all evolution has done, it never will never create life or change on species into another completly different species.
that is a dumb demonstration. we know what they mean but it still don't see how one animal can change into another when dogs will produce dogs and cats will produce cats and we have no proof of any evolutionary change that we can observe and say this dog just had a baby something else. shouldn't at lease one animal on this planet have some sign of becoming something else.
It's dumb to think evolution means dogs will produce cats or cats will produce dogs. The fossil record shows that cats and dogs have a common ancestor.
"we have no proof of any evolutionary change that we can observe and say this dog just had a baby something else"
lol. thats the problem. you think evolution says a monkey gave birth to a person. an offspring will NEVER look very different from its parents, but over...time... differences accumulate, and you will not look like your great great great (etc etc) grandparents. theres plenty of evidence.
@roont I get your point but what i'm saying is that just because you say it's a possibility or your believe this is how it happened there is no proof of micro-evolution or macro-evolution. It cannot and will never be observed except in theory which makes it hard to believe.
People believe in lots of things they cannot and never will observe.
However we can and do observe that modern species do not exist in the fossil record of earlier times. We also observe in the fossil record that life started in exactly the way evolution predicts - with simple forms and the record shows that life became more complex and more and more like modern life over millions of years.
Science is all about things we can observe, and evolution is one of them.
But there is! There's tons! Giant turtles on the Galapagos islands. On one island there is little or no grass and they need to eat from cactus. If you look at these turtle "saddle" shells, they are VERY different from the turtles on the islands that have lots of grass and they don't need to reach their neck upwards. There were experiments done taking certain fish, placing them in different environments and after so many generations they had produced camouflage for the area.
@biblelover777 It has absolutely been observed, both micro and macro, in science labs and elsewhere. Everything science says about evolution is something that has been observed. The only people saying there is "no evidence" are creationists. Scientists ALL agree that there is an enormous amount of evidence for "macro" evolution. As long as you keep thinking there is "no evidence", you're going to be wrong. It's there, and it's plentiful. No amount of denying it will help your case.
Whinging about there being 'no evidence' for evolution is ironic coming from people who have never seen a god or seen an immaterial spirit creating matter or life.
@proudfootz You made a good point. But, I have another question. The Ensinata Salamander is prbably the most well know ring species. But either on both ends of the spectrum. It's still a salamander. Why aren't there any drastic mixtures of species. Like a dog with hoofs, or a lizard with wings?
There are lizards with wings - draco volans. And mice with wings - bats.There are fish with lungs.
But the way evolution works is by gradual change - lots of little changes to an existing species until over time we can observe the accumulated changes are enough to call the descendants a different species altogether.
Your asking the wrong questions, it doesn't work like that. Although there ARE lizards that glide on the air. While not "wings" they do fly. But in your context an example would be that whales have vestigial leg bones. Why would a whale have leg bones, if at one point, it did not live at least part time on the land?
You have the idea wrong. There's no such thing as "in between species" Any given animal belongs to whatever species it is. But there are examples in your terms. Look at the platypus! Flying squirrel and gliding lemur. Ostrich and penguins are birds that can't fly. (because they've gotten better at other tasks, running and swimming.) The Okapi looks like mix between a zebra and a giraffe. Dolphins and whales are mammals but live in the water. There's plenty of examples.
There are spiders and beetles that look pretty much exactly like ants on the outside, because then they can infiltrate the ant nest to eat. Look up ant mimicry on Wikipedia. There are lots of them.
To say you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution demonstrates a special level of stupidity. Of COURSE lots of micro-evolution adds up to speciation.
Language is the same. You can go from one end of England to the other and hear distinct differences in spoken English. Venture further to Scotland and it's getting harder to understand. Listen to most European languages and you'll hear snippets of English but usually not enough to get the message across. Simple evolution in action.
Interestingly Darwin used the example of languages developing over time and geography to illustrate the truth of his ideas about biological evolution.
@proudfootz I read a book a long time ago called the "Language of the Genes". Although it was a whole book you could summarize the whole thing in one paragraph:
"The degree of genetic differences between isolated populations of humans tracks the degree of differences in their language too". This trait has been diluted by modern travel and civilization of course but it's an interesting parallel between genetic evolution and the evolution of language. It's what you'd expect too.
@Tnig01 not always, but in genreal it is. More complex organisms with more abilities are more likely to survive, that's of course not ture for every case.
so what I am getting at, is whether it's microevolution or macroevolution, it happens in one generation. You just get micro micro micro, then macro. But micro or macro, is one generation. I see microevolution is not speciation, but Is macroevolution the same as speciation?
Typically macroevolution is considered to be when enough microevolution has occured to consider the group a new species distinct from its cousins and forebears.
@jameshanley40 every generation is an instance of micro evolution, since every individual is differenty to each other. Macroevolution happens as generations pass and the small differences accumulate. The term microevolution and macroevolution were put forward by evolution deniers, so there is really no formal definition for wither, other than what i just said. To be continued in part 2.
@jameshanley40 Speciation occurs when a group of organisms that can reproduce between themselves, like a pack of wolves for example, evolves enough to no longer be able to breed with that kind of organism any more. For example, if a pack of wolves gest separated into two environments, they will each evolve differently, and over time, if the two communities should mix again, they might no longer be genetically compatible and wont be able to breed. That's what happened with the domestic dog.
a)I know what speciation is - to the level you mention anyway and I wasn't asking about that b)macro evolution I don't think was a term made up err, coined, by creationists..I think it was from evolutionists originally, but it may be that there isn't one definition but a few possible ones..
@jameshanley40 I checked my info and you are absolutely right, I was under the misconception that the term was coined by creationists, which is clearly wrong.
To answer your question more directly, speciation requires macro evolution, but since there is no real criterium for separating macro from micro at a specific moment, I would say that you CAN have macroevolution without speciation. For example a great dane and a poodle are very diverse, yet belong to the same species.
If your video is true, that one species into another takes many generations and doesn't happen in one step, then it's not observable. But isn't the reality that we're talking of 2 lineages, each become so distinct over time as to not be able to breed. Each one is the same species as its parents. So shouldn't macroevolution be observable and not require lots of time to observe? isn't speciation one species to another, and observed?
One good example of evolution is 'ring species' where geographic separation creates conditions where isolated populations can accumulate genetic differences and the descendants of the parent species become different species from both the parents and their sister species.
they (eventually have accumulated enough differences to) become a new species from their parents in one generation? and is change of species not macroevolution?
@proudfootz it's one generation a description of reality? when one animal of lineage A, that can theoretically breed with its distant cousins of lineage B producing fertile children, breeds instead with its own and comes up with an animal that cannot breed with lineage B That new animal is a new species. So the change of species itself, pretty much by definition, happens in one generation.
Hey, if evolutionists want to reject their creator while living on His planet and being sustained by all He provided, then they can. Reject Christ, you can spend eternity with the author of the fraud of evolution, satan himself.
No one is 'rejecting their creator' since there's no evidence of such a thing. This is not anyone's planet, & no one is sustained by anything such a being provides.
The character worshipped by Xians very likely never existed, just as satan doesn't exist.
Go ahead & reject the very science that keeps you alive with nutrition, pharmaceuticals, & medicine - reject the science that gives you light to type by, a computer to surf porn on, the internet to flog your ignorant opinions.
"does the cup ever change into something else, like an apple"?
No more than the matter that makes up the members of any species changes into something else. The cup just makes it convenient to show how the contents change gradually over time to something drastically different.
@proudfootz Micro evolution isn't evolution. Changes in allele frequency is what is most referred to as micro evolution. How can changing the frequency is which already existing genes are expressed, which causes changes in size,shape, and color, cause a fish to evolve into an amphibian tetrapod for example? Give me one example of an organism acquiring a new structure. The lack of critical thinking skills in the ametuer evolutionist, like yourself, is truly amazing.
"...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the *same way* and for the *same reasons*, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons."
So it would seem the lack of critical thinking skills is on the side of science-deniers.
The fossil record is chock full of organisms acquiring 'new structures' over time.
@proudfootz So changes in allele frequency equals new morphological structures? Do you even know what alleles are? In order for micro to lead to macro, you would have to be gaining something new, micro evolution is actually a loss of information, and entire genes. There is no fossil that shows organisms acquiring new structures. Show me two fossils that are exactly the same except for a new structure. 99% of the fossil record should show this type of progression, not not a single one does.
In your mind, 'micro-evolution' is the 'loss of gnetic information'? So when a species originates (as observed by scientists) it is some sort of degeneration?
Your evidence for this is...?
Your demand that evolution proceed according to your mis-understanding of biology is just your ignorance talking.
@proudfootz Micro evolution is a loss of information, the genome of the new offspring is always more limited. The reason two populations will not be able to interbreed is because of a defect, a loss of information. There is absolutely no morphological difference between any two species that are related. If it's an increase in genetic information, why aren't new structures being produced?
@proudfootz Also most of the genome is meta information, which is information about information. They are instructions on how to use the other portion of the DNA. One can't exist without the other. Gene duplication and then mutation to that gene is useless because there is no meta information that tell how and where to use it. Meta information comes from intelligence not nature.
Wat evidence is there that this so-called 'meta-information' comes from intelligence and not from nature?
And suppose there were some intelligence: do theses advanced beings just orbit the Earth 24/7 waiting for a species to die out so they can make a new one very similar to the one that failed?
Macroevolution is when 1 species turns into 2 and they cannot breed with eachother. They can look a lot alike still, but it's whether or not they can interbreed which sets them apart. It's not so much to do with the many changes. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Exactly! Macroevolution is just microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + ... + microevolution. It's not exactly rocket science, yet some people simply don't have the brainpower to grasp this simple idea.
same old evo line...neither interesting or new...the problem is there are definite genetic limits within species which have never been crossed. filling the glass with fluid proves what exactly??
@proudfootz lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
@bullviii lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
@bullviii Just what are those limitations? How does the DNA know what it can change to vs. what it can't change into, how does it know when a mutation would cause us to call it a new species? Are eagles and oscriches not related then, is that too much of a stretch, but eagles and doves are, or eagles and hawks?
The fact is there are no known limitations. The idea that 'kinds' are somehow magically conserved is simply dogma derived from old myths collected in a book.
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
Good video. Not only does all the evidence support evolution, but no one has yet proposed a plausible alternative. If the creationists had any evidence, you can bet they'd have presented something by now. Every time it's been science vs religion, science was right, religion was wrong. Science is about truth. Religion is just wishful thinking.
When human knowledge was less, the gods were more numerous and powerful. Now that we have found natural explanations for things like rain and lightning, the gods have retreated.
I'm laughing so hard I'll probably make a bunch of typing errors. Now, you're expecting me to believe a bunch of little glasses of liquid filling up a big glass is analogous with all life forms extant today descending from a common ancestor. Is that right? If so, when does the big glass become a 4 course dinner? I can't type any more. I'm still laughing too hard. This is priceless. I guess you thought the buttoned-up shirt & the earphone/microphone combo would had some credibility. Too funny!
Just as I'm sure you thought your twisting of the analogy into something utterly stupid was going to make you look more credible? Or that typing how hard you are laughing is suppose to discredit what is being presented?
In what way have you not made a fool of yourself, while the video poster, much to the contrary, is trying to be honest and sympathetic to those who don't understand his viewpoint. You are being cruel, childish, and rather idiotic.
@coreygames "Type a real response..." How do you type a real response to such stupidity? Do you even understand the nature of an analogy? The guy who made this video obviously doesn't. An analogy is intended to demonstrate a concept by drawing a comparison between 2 similar objects or situations. All this video demonstrated was small amounts of liquid can add up to a large amount. That is in no way analogous to a common ancestor being responsible for all extant life.
"How do you type a real response to such stupidity?"
I believe I showed you how when I responded to your comment.
And, no, you are reading the analogy wrong. This video was demonstrating that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. If you think that a small bit of change can happen over a long time, then, when dealing with much longer time scales, you have proportionately larger amounts of adaptation.
It seems as if you are the only one not getting it.
@coreygames "Reading the analogy wrong." Sorry, I'm not. No one argues minor changes can occur ie, small amounts of liquid can add up to large amounts. Large enough to result in minor differences within a species, perhaps large enough to prevent reproduction. However, it's never been & can't be shown these changes lead to the emergence of a fundamentally different creature no matter how much time is allowed. There are lines which can't be crossed. Mules for example. Equines are always equines.
So what do you have to say about the fossil record and DNA mapping which show transitions from one creature to another over time? Do you just disregard these points of data, or do you have your own theory/idea of how they came to be? How would you explain the unique structure of, say, whales without evolution? These are not "you are stupid" questions, they are honest. What is your reasoning?
How do you explain these things outside of evolution?
@coreygames "The fossil record..." The fossil record is evidence, but as with all evidence it's open to interpretation. Transitional species are "transitional" only because they've been labeled as such. There is not a single fossil which can be said to be in transition from one type of animal to another outside the use of conjecture & presupposition. Why do you assume evolution explains whales? Unique structures would imply design, not evolution through random mutation & natural selection.
Yes they can be explained as transitional forms. You take a species from today and trace its current known origins. Those clues should lead you to where and how deep a fossil might be found. If one is found that resembles the original, you then date it, decode the DNA, and then see if it matches. If there are any discrepancies, then you have something different than your target.
We have evidence that suggests whales were mammals that returned to the water. You say, "God did it."
@coreygames "They can be explained..." And they can explained as simply a unique creature, maybe extant, maybe extinct. The transitional label is applied only by conjecture & presupposition. Your problem goes much deeper. If common descent is true you must demonstrate our common ancestor A, via the fossil record, turning into B-Z. This you simply can't do. Give it all the time you want, that only increases your problem as it would increase the number of transitions that should be easily found.
First, not every creature, or species for that matter, gets fossilized. It is something that only happens under specific conditions. To expect every single step of A-Z to be found is ridiculous and shows your ignorance on the subject.
Our DNA is very similar to the other African Apes. We can also trace our history back to that region. We also have several transitional fossils, dated to an acceptable time table, showing the transition. That's conjecture? That's presupposition? :/
@coreygames "Your ignorance of the subject." That's a favourite line of evolutionists. Those who disagree with them are naturally ignorant of the subject. I'm not & it's more than arrogant of you claim I am. Of course I know every creature does not fossilize. However, that doesn't allow you to assume their existence & in turn claim it as evidence of evolution. Simply claiming a fossil is transitional does not make it so. Yes, it's conjecture & presupposition.
@wallyjude3 Yeah Corey, you shouldn't call Wally ignorant! He obviously knows exactly what he's talking about. I'll bet he even knows it better than you do!
Yeah, what Wally is isn't ignorant, what he is, is a liar. A dishonest, boldfaced liar. He knows that evolution is a proven fact, but his religion can't coexist with it so he has to discredit it in every way that he can.
I mean, look at how he's completely avoided the evidence from genetics.
@coreygames "DNA is very similar..." Very similar? Even a 2% difference amounts to millions of differences. As ape DNA is unraveled the % difference is getting greater all the time. That argument is dying very quickly. If you believe these transitional fossils exist, provide me with a list.
I did. Read the links in my other comment. Learn something. It's fun.
Secondly, there are plenty of differences in our DNA from those of Chimps and the like. That's why we look, behave, and live differently. But, in comparison to other animals, especially non-mammals, the DNA between Humans and other apes is close to a match.
And what is this "As the ape DNA is unraveled..." babble? It already has been decoded and the comparisons drawn... it's not incomplete.
@coreygames "Read the links..." Wikipedia & youtube videos are hardly sound references, you're going to have to do better than that. If that's where you're getting your "facts," it's no wonder you're mixed up. Naturally our DNA is closer to that of other mammals, but to claim that as proof of common descent is pure conjecture, no matter how hard you want to assert it. Human & ape DNA is no where near a "match." That's the trie you get from youtube videos.
Hey, Wally. If 2% amounts to millions of differences, how much does the 98% we have in common amount to? How is it that DNA analyses confirm those conjectures about the fossil record?
And you have the gall to ask for a list? How dishonest are you?
@coreygames "Then you date it..." And how do they go about dating it? "We have evidence that suggests whales are mammals that returned to the water. You say 'God did it." I'm full aware of your "evidence" for whale evolution. It's simply more assumptions & conjecture. You can't prove these creatures were land animals on their way to whales. You say, "evolution did it. But somehow you think your assertion is correct.
And no, no one will ever say, "This is how it is." That's why I said, specifically, "evidence that suggests." If you don't think that's it, I would like to know what theory better explains it.... excluding magic.
@coreygames "Geological dating..." And how do they determine that? "Wikipedia..." probably the most unreliable source for factual information you could choose. Why do you think many university professors reject Wikipedia as a legitimate source for research papers? Youtube videos? Hardly sound science. "Evidence that suggests..." Maybe you're starting to see the light. "Suggests" means it's open to different interpretation, which is what I said to begin with. Design is not magic, grow up!
Fuck, it's like trying to explain things to a toddler. You ask a question, I provide an answer. You question my credibility, so I go and quickly find some evidence.
That wikipedia article is full of information. More importantly though, CITATION LINKS including universities and lab work. The youtube clip easily sums up everything which is why I picked it. Perhaps if you actually took the chance to read information, you would... I don't know... LEARN SOMETHING.
@coreygames "Explain things to a toddler." Foul language & insults are the last refuge of a poor argument, so I think I'm safe to assume you're basically out of ammunition. I do read, extensively & from both sides of the argument. It's obvious you don't. Who rights the articles on Wikipedia? Check that out before using it as a source. You're simply typical of youtube evolutionists. Watch a few videos, read a couple of Wiki pages & poof you're informed. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way.
I'm frustrated because you are asking for information that I'm giving. You just aren't looking at it because you don't want to. How am I to argue, debate, or converse civilly with someone saying that magic is greater than science and, when provided with evidence, disregards it for utterly stupid reasons?
Like I said, the citation links on that wiki page are to universities and studies. If you don't think those are credible sources, then I suggest trying to convince me the Bible is.
@coreygames "Aren't looking at it..." Who said I didn't look at it? I said I didn't reference Wikipedia. What about the Wikipedia page on cetacean evolution makes you believe that is what happened? Each of the transitional fossils can as easily be interpreted as simply a unique creature. There's nothing about any of them which can be explained only as a transitional creature. As such, claims of transition are simply assumption & conjecture. University studies are always unbiased & correct.
I can interpret anything as anything, but this reflects little on reality. When we can look at a fossil compare it to another, take DNA from each and compare that, look at where both were found geologically (both globally and in depth), we can draw conclusions based off that evidence much like forensic investigation can determine a killer without actually being there.
The current best evidence points to evolution by natural selection over billions of years. What better explains life?
@coreygames "We can draw conclusions..." Any conclusion based on such evidence is at best only conjecture. Evidence can appear to have only one explanation, but that's rarely the case. "What better explains life?" DNA evidence can just as easily be interpreted as a result of a common designer as a result of common descent. In my opinion common designer is in fact a better explanation. There is not enough time for mutation & natural selection to have accomplished what we see.
"Any conclusion based on such evidence is at best only conjecture" At least it is based on evidence and not just pure speculation as is with design. "Oh this is really complex. I guess that means a/my God did it."
The Earth is currently dated to about 4.6 billion years old with the first "life" arising at 3.8 billion. Now, you are trying to tell me that is not enough time for this event and therefore, without any other supporting evidence, a God did it? How do you reach that end?
@coreygames "At least it's based on evidence..." It's based on a particular interpretation of evidence, nothing more. It's more than mere complexity, it's information based complexity. There's a big difference. Information is accepted as needing an intelligent source. Such a source is not found in evolutionary theory. Random mutation & natural selection cannot account for the origin or rise of the complex information systems required by life. Design IS NOT pure speculation, it's logical.
@proudfootz "No reason to believe..." There isn't? Can you name a single instance where information has been found which did not have an intelligent source. Did your computer just put itself together by writing it's own programs? How about the simple stop sign at the corner, did it spring up on its own? Information requires an intelligent source & evolution simply cannot supply an answer to the problem. I'd be willing to bet it never will. To argue no intelligence is required is nonsense.
Now you're comparing artificial things like computers and traffic signs to biological entities. One thing IDers seem to do a lot is confuse an analogy for the real thing.
To argue that some 'intelligence' is responsible for what evolution explains is sheer nonsense on stilts.
@proudfootz Confuse an analogy..." You're a fine one to talk. You barely understand the concept of an analogy, as demonstrated by this video. It's perfectly legitimate to use an inanimate object in an analogy for an animate object. The computer & the stop sign both required intelligence to put them together. Life of any form is far more complex than either of them, yet you believe it "just happened" without intelligent input. Sorry, that's just not very intelligent.
You're still obviously confused between material artifacts (tools if you like) and biological entities which the evidence indicates have arisen by evolutionary processes.
That you cannot seem to grasp even the basics of biology is just very sad.
@proudfootz "Is just very sad." What's sad is you're totally without the ability to think logically or analytically. You simply cannot grasp the concept of ex nihilo creation. Material artifacts (tools if you like) & biological entities are all the result of God's creative actions. You have some idiotic idea that DNA, etc., are something separate from God's actions, entities that work separately from & without God's direction.
No evidence an immaterial thing (if such a thing were to 'exist' in some way) can have any effect on matter, let alone 'create' something from nothing.
Nothing idiotic about having confidence in the work of scientists over the 'contributions' of theologians in understanding how stuff works.
That you have such a low opinion of people who have dedicated their lives to actually *proving* their theories speaks volumes about your anti-rational bias.
@proudfootz "People who have dedicated their lives..." Who says I have a low opinion of them? Not me. You're again assuming all scientists are evolutionists which they are not. Many scientists believe in creation & work everyday on projects which make peoples lives better, so do evolutionists & neither of them give their respective opinions a second thought in their day to day routines. If you had even an ounce of intellectual maturity you would realize that & not make such ignorant comments.
@proudfootz "To argue some intelligence is responsible for what evolution explains..." Aw, now this is where the rubber meets the road. Evolution CANNOT explain the source of intelligence, which is obviously required to explain complex life, therefore it follows, evolution cannot explain anything at all, it simply assumes & asserts. It's this problem of "intelligence" which is turning people from the idea of evolution being able to explain life. Deny it I'm sure you will, but it's happening.
@proudfootz Development of brain capacity." How can you observe the increase of brain capacity. Brain capacity has everything to do with brain structure &virtually nothing to do with the size of the brain. As brain matter does not usually survive fossilization exactly how are such observations made? Increases in cranial capacity are meaningless in measuring intelligence. Are the humans alive today with smaller craniums somehow less intelligent?
Really, where is this rule written down where information has to come from an intelligent source?
And since when is it logical to say that the source of this information is a supernatural, intangible, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal force that rests outside of the universe?
Secondly, evolution deals with existing life, not how it came to be. That's abiogenesis. Different matter, possibly, completely (it's an unknown almost entirely. Could have come from evo though...)
The fact that organic molecules spontaneously form even in the harsh conditions of interstellar space would seem to indicate that abiogenesis is no big barrier.
But creationist ideologues will ignore the evidence because they have an anti-science pro-superstition agenda.
@wallyjude3 "Information is accepted as needing an intelligent source." Now who's jumping to a conclusion based on conjecture and presuppositions?
"Design IS NOT pure speculation, it's logical. " Design is only logical if you can supply the designer. Provide evidence for the designer FIRST, then you can argue the design.
"Random mutation & natural selection cannot account for the origin or rise of the complex information systems required by life." Is this another opinion?
"Watch a few videos, read a couple of Wiki pages & poof you're informed."
I can easily turn that around and say that you read a 2k year old book and you think you are more informed than someone who is looking at up-to-date sources (click the links at the bottom of the page. See where the info is coming from. Please. Pretty, pretty, please. With sugar.) including a world renowned biologist. Riiiiiiiight.
macro evolution experiments always fail. fact.
orlandofriend 1 week ago
@parasitesarefunny you claim evolution hasn't been duplicated, in the past ten years it's been duplicated tens of thousands of times you're the idiot.
kyekire 3 weeks ago
There's no difference, the terms micro evo and macro evo were invented by creationists, there is no actual distinction. There is no such biological term as "kind", creationists made it up too. Really they are based on the same concept, if microevo is true then so is marcoevo.
kyekire 3 weeks ago
The creationist method:
Introduce a distinction - between microevolution and macroevolution.
Describe the difference with a third new term - kind.
Don't define it. Use it to mean whatever's convenient at the time.
Pretend you've proven something.
KapStuf 1 month ago
Macro Evolution is NOT Scientific and cannot even pass the Scientific Method that DEMANDS a theory be duplicatable and predictable. ROFLMAO! Yet idiots fall for this crapola? Truly amazing!
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
@parasitesarefunny
So in your opinion no science can be done regarding events in the past because history isn't 'repeatable'?
Certainly the DNA evidence indicating evolution is reproduced in the laboratory all the time - and evolution does make predictions which are constantly being confirmed with new archeological discoveries and chemical analyses.
What's truly amazing is that you deride science on the interwebs which itself is based on scientific discoveries.
proudfootz 2 months ago
@proudfootz
You dont even know the difference between SCIENCE & HISTORY. ROFLMAO! Let alone what the Scientific Method entails.
There is ZERO DNA evidence that proves or supports evolution my dear fool and never has Macro Evolution been proven through archeology. That is just too funny!
You take a FAITH BASED BELIEF called Macro Evolution and attempt to call it Science! LMAO! What an idiot.
ALL REAL SCIENCE DEMANDS THAT A GIVEN THEORY CAN BE PREDICTED & DUPLICATED BY ANYONE. YOU FAIL.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
@parasitesarefunny
The evolution of species from common ancestors is a historic process studied by science.
It is well supported by DNA evidence indicating relationships between species.
All the CAPS LOCK in the world won't make science go away. Too bad for you.
proudfootz 2 months ago
@proudfootz
To bad your "theory" FAILS the basic Scientific Method of simple Duplication and Prediction required of any "SCIENTIFIC" theory. It's the underlying foundation of what makes science, science.
You cannot duplicate or predict your UN-scientific theory and you call it science? roflmao! Just another brainwashed idiot who repeats what ever it is told to repeat.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
@proudfootz
differnece between micro evolution and macro evolution
time... that is all
Mikeybetts 2 weeks ago
@parasitesarefunny Macro evolution is in fact, observable in a lab, it has been documented and PROVEN.
Suck on that.
Mrxb0x 1 week ago
I believe in big evolution but not little evolution ! No wait ...
gregrutz 3 months ago
I don't believe in micro evolution. I don't believe in miles, tons gallons, any thing that has the prefix kilo, giga terra etc. It makes sence to me
wuntbedruv 3 months ago
@wuntbedruv
Good for you!
proudfootz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationists are a joke...
Catholics and even mainline Protestants can believe in evolution. The Catholic Church has never been opposed to evolution, even in Darwin's lifetime. There's actually a pretty solid documentary by the BBC "Did Darwin Kill God?" (link's on my channell) which goes into this topic.
megaead69 4 months ago
r u serious?, the concept of micro evolution and macro evolution does exist, and is well explained by ur video, but come on, just because u explained the concept it doesnt prove the reality of macroevolution, the problem is that the container (glass) can only hold so much information (iced te?), and macro evolution needs more information (iced te?) that the container (glass) can hold. Can u make the glass contain more iced te than its capable of containing?. dont be too simplistic
elrogoff 6 months ago
@elrogoff
You claim that macro-evolution needs more information than is possible.
Do you have any science to back this assertion up?
Or is this your best guess?
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz
Do you have any scientific evidence of the re-engineering of the physiology of one creature into a fundamentally different creature? No. So all you are doing is extrapolating the variety within breeding populations to explain all living diversity. Nice idea, no evidence for it. You can day dream about building up changes, but the evidence clearly shows the limits. Dogs remain dogs, bacteria remains bacteria, and so on. So all you have done is demonstrate a baseless idea.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Yes, the fossil record shows there were no dogs at one time, but that creatures evolved from primitive bacteria-like forms to more complex things, and modern animals didn't arise for millions of years.
Evolution explains the fossil record.
Meanwhile there is not a speck of evidence for any animal ever being 'created'.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz
Bacteria are the masters of earth, they are robust and able to survive almost anything. According to the evolutionary theory of ecology, animal life is far more fragile. So tell me, what caused bacteria to evolve into animals? I mean, you look at the fossil record and draw imaginary lines. What makes you so sure? You need more than dead creatures. You need mechanisms in action, you need pathways, not just stories or patterns.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
It's difficult to answer 'why' questions because they are often ambiguous.
After all, why would a being capable of designing 'life' create bacteria? Slumming?
We only know that first there were simple things, then later complex ones. We also know that living things evolve over time.
Why would a 'designer' mimic what evolution seems perfectly able to produce?
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz
Well, bacteria are an essential part of not only the ecosystem as a whole, but specifically, many biological processes in the animal kingdom. There is no reason why bacteria would evolve. No environmental pressure known has ever wiped out bacteria. So why would they evolve into plants and animals? Descent with modification doesn't even address this. Is it design (yes.?)? Or maybe it's something else, like consciousness being primary and having the "desire" to expand it's awareness.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
It seems odd that any beings capable of designing life from scratch would have to rely on bacteria.
If one could 'wish' things into existence, why not make them self-reliant instead of flawed and susceptible to disease and death?
It seems odd to require bacteria millions of years before they animal life they here to help, too.
It's like planned obsolescence - except at least capitalists have the profit motive to justify their poor designs...
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz
I can create things to a lesser degree than what is exhibited in nature. Perhaps life is to a lesser degree a reflection of that which created it. Although we don't like that idea, especially because it's hard to reconcile with modern definitions of science (at least those of scientific naturalism), it could still be absolutely true. Interestingly, we can know, at least in theory that intelligence has acted because we too possess intelligence. Just some thoughts.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I agree that humans and other animals act intelligently. It is an amazing and wonderful thing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
proudfootz 5 months ago
There isn't one speck of evidence for any animal ever being 'created'? Interesting that you put tick marks around created. Here is the thing. There isn't a shred of evidence that bacteria turned into animals either. Nearly all of the body plans for animal life show up fully formed in the Cambrian? Yet you want to rule out the idea that information was injected into the equation? Trilobites with the most complex eyes known? Nervous systems? Skeletons? What environmental pressures would do that?
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
But living things *do* evolve as is easily observed. Thus evolution explains the fossil record. It's not such an unbridgeable gap between single-celled and muti-cellular, nor from there to specialization among the cells - and once that's happening you have plants & animals.
No need for the notion that information was 'injected' into the system - by whom? how? evidence for this is...? - when evolution works well enough.
Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
proudfootz 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Skeletons have been evolving for millions of years before the Cambrian. This is no 'sudden' thing.
Even simple sponges have the elements which resemble the human nervous system. First sponges date to 40 million years before the Cambrian.
Animals had up to 250 million years to work on eyes before the trilobites came along.
Your evidence for 'fully formed' seems to be lacking - in reality all these things took plenty of time and no magical appearances at all.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz
First of all, where did the genetic expression system come from and how many different versions of it are there? How many times did life arise? I can understand the idea of common ancestry, and even modification. The question, which you so casually brushed off, is still...WHY? And HOW? Random variation and selection doesn't get you new integrated systems, it gets you adaptations to preexisting ones. No magical appearances required, although they can't be ruled out entirely.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I think 'why' questions are very ambiguous - it sometimes seems to suggest purposefulness. Why should a rock roll down a hill? To what end? Why 'put' the rock up there only to have it roll down later?
The mechanisms of evolution seem to be fairly well understood - at least in relation to putative designers of terrestrial life (whether super-advanced aliens or magical beings). Everything about life here is very physical and chemical - we are of the elements here.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@proudfootz
Okay, but there are why questions that certainly deserve an answer. Like why is there life at all? You can rephrase it to, how did life originate? Tis true we are made up of matter/energy. But living things are fundamentally different than piles of rock. I don't think anyone really knows WHY that is yet. That may settle much of the debate. Example, it wasn't known how heredity worked, now we know. Perhaps if we find a way to dig deeper, we will come to know why something lives.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Why would a designer require heredity? It's certainly explained by evolution - but not an obvious advantage when you can just poof things into exiostence whenever you like.
Indeed the facts about heredity show how all life is related - an amazing thing which confirms evolutionary theory's predictions and confounds creationist claims.
proudfootz 5 months ago
That being said, we still don't understand exactly what constitutes a living thing, and how it came about, although we have decent working definitions. There is the poly-functional nature of the genetic code itself, the sequencing of the nucleotides, the shape and electrochemical properties, morphogenetic fields, the movement of quantum entangled electrons along the positions of base pairs, spacing of repetitive elements as physiological timers, and on and on. No intelligence?
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Yes, defining 'life' is difficult: for example it's still controversial whether viruses are 'alive'. Yet they are quite active and effective.
..and when eactly does a living thing 'die' - when the heart stops? When the brainwaves cease? When deacy sets in?
Yes, the genteic code seems quite complex. Who could 'design' such a thing? How could they implement such a design? And why?
The fossil record points to a long slog from simple to complex.
proudfootz 5 months ago
@elrogoff
Certain species of plants contain up to 1260 different chromosomes. Maximum number of information isn't a problem, besides, the amount of information is less important than the information itself ;)
1997xander 5 months ago
@elrogoff Finding flaws in an analogy does not an argument make.
doyhla 4 months ago
@proudfootz - I am not promoting a creationist view here but I do think the example in the video is a bit weak. You can add as much liquid as you want to the glass over time but it remains a glass. I think the problem most creationists would have is at what point does the glass become a plate...? With your demonstration we keep adding change and come up with a glass every time.
dpozassassin 7 months ago
Thank you!!! If Theists won't convert after watching this video (or at least admit about evolution) then they never will. Though it is likely that they will change the argument :\
nanaforiod 7 months ago
@nanaforiod
Creationist either have trouble understanding simple concepts or at least pretend they do.
The fossil record is just such obvious eveidence of evolution it's difficult to understand how anyone can deny it.
proudfootz 7 months ago 2
@proudfootz THANK YOU SIR, a simple thing alot DO ONT GET...ugh... love you (Platonic..ly)...(( and stranger,,....;y..)idk
pandamanman89 7 months ago
Being changed from glory into glory.
spacklepro 8 months ago
@spacklepro
Yes, science is glorious: it allows us to post messages here in cyber-space and much more besides.
proudfootz 8 months ago
Responses saying there is no evidence for evolution are lies. Lying is not very Christian.
alphaenemy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
pierrot79 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
pierrot79 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's say "micro" evolution is one step. Can't you figure out how several steps make a mile (macro evolution) ? Take the Italian wall lizard introduced in a new island. In 36 years, it increased in size and strength, changed in shape and nutrition, developed new digestive tracts. Can't you imagine what 3,6 millions years (100,000 times more !) could do ? And 36 millions years ?
pierrot79 10 months ago
Time is the evolutionist God without billions of years macro evolution falls on its face.
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil
Time is not a 'god'. Time exists.
And the evidence points to the fact that there have been billions of years (not a few thousand as theists would have us believe).
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz time is your God you need it for your religion to be valid.
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil
Time is not a god, time is something that exists.
The evidence shows there has been plenty of time in the past during which evolution broght forth all varieties of life on the planet.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@proudfootz Micro evolution brought forth many variations of the same species and that is all evolution has done, it never will never create life or change on species into another completly different species.
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil
It's nice to know your opinions, but science disagrees with you.
proudfootz 11 months ago
From wolf to chihaua in 2,000 years is a pretty huge change. Or would you call that micro?
baldurus1 11 months ago
@baldurus1
Had that happened by natural selection we'd probably find they actually were different species and thus be considered macro.
proudfootz 11 months ago
that is a dumb demonstration. we know what they mean but it still don't see how one animal can change into another when dogs will produce dogs and cats will produce cats and we have no proof of any evolutionary change that we can observe and say this dog just had a baby something else. shouldn't at lease one animal on this planet have some sign of becoming something else.
biblelover777 1 year ago
@biblelover777
It's dumb to think evolution means dogs will produce cats or cats will produce dogs. The fossil record shows that cats and dogs have a common ancestor.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@biblelover777
"we have no proof of any evolutionary change that we can observe and say this dog just had a baby something else"
lol. thats the problem. you think evolution says a monkey gave birth to a person. an offspring will NEVER look very different from its parents, but over...time... differences accumulate, and you will not look like your great great great (etc etc) grandparents. theres plenty of evidence.
roont 11 months ago
@roont I get your point but what i'm saying is that just because you say it's a possibility or your believe this is how it happened there is no proof of micro-evolution or macro-evolution. It cannot and will never be observed except in theory which makes it hard to believe.
biblelover777 11 months ago
@biblelover777
People believe in lots of things they cannot and never will observe.
However we can and do observe that modern species do not exist in the fossil record of earlier times. We also observe in the fossil record that life started in exactly the way evolution predicts - with simple forms and the record shows that life became more complex and more and more like modern life over millions of years.
Science is all about things we can observe, and evolution is one of them.
proudfootz 11 months ago
@biblelover777
But there is! There's tons! Giant turtles on the Galapagos islands. On one island there is little or no grass and they need to eat from cactus. If you look at these turtle "saddle" shells, they are VERY different from the turtles on the islands that have lots of grass and they don't need to reach their neck upwards. There were experiments done taking certain fish, placing them in different environments and after so many generations they had produced camouflage for the area.
roont 11 months ago
@biblelover777 It has absolutely been observed, both micro and macro, in science labs and elsewhere. Everything science says about evolution is something that has been observed. The only people saying there is "no evidence" are creationists. Scientists ALL agree that there is an enormous amount of evidence for "macro" evolution. As long as you keep thinking there is "no evidence", you're going to be wrong. It's there, and it's plentiful. No amount of denying it will help your case.
alphaenemy 10 months ago
@alphaenemy
Whinging about there being 'no evidence' for evolution is ironic coming from people who have never seen a god or seen an immaterial spirit creating matter or life.
proudfootz 10 months ago
If the existence of macro evolution was true then why aren't there any middle ground animals. Animals that look like a mixture of different species.
RepublicofTim 1 year ago
@RepublicofTim
But there are lots of species which fit that bill.
Google 'ring species' for example.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz You made a good point. But, I have another question. The Ensinata Salamander is prbably the most well know ring species. But either on both ends of the spectrum. It's still a salamander. Why aren't there any drastic mixtures of species. Like a dog with hoofs, or a lizard with wings?
RepublicofTim 1 year ago
@RepublicofTim
You mean like archaeopteryx?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Yeah, but animals like that that are in existence today.
RepublicofTim 1 year ago
@RepublicofTim
There are lizards with wings - draco volans. And mice with wings - bats.There are fish with lungs.
But the way evolution works is by gradual change - lots of little changes to an existing species until over time we can observe the accumulated changes are enough to call the descendants a different species altogether.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@RepublicofTim
"Like a dog with hoofs, or a lizard with wings?"
Your asking the wrong questions, it doesn't work like that. Although there ARE lizards that glide on the air. While not "wings" they do fly. But in your context an example would be that whales have vestigial leg bones. Why would a whale have leg bones, if at one point, it did not live at least part time on the land?
roont 11 months ago
@RepublicofTim
You have the idea wrong. There's no such thing as "in between species" Any given animal belongs to whatever species it is. But there are examples in your terms. Look at the platypus! Flying squirrel and gliding lemur. Ostrich and penguins are birds that can't fly. (because they've gotten better at other tasks, running and swimming.) The Okapi looks like mix between a zebra and a giraffe. Dolphins and whales are mammals but live in the water. There's plenty of examples.
roont 11 months ago
@RepublicofTim
There are spiders and beetles that look pretty much exactly like ants on the outside, because then they can infiltrate the ant nest to eat. Look up ant mimicry on Wikipedia. There are lots of them.
roont 11 months ago
To say you believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution demonstrates a special level of stupidity. Of COURSE lots of micro-evolution adds up to speciation.
Language is the same. You can go from one end of England to the other and hear distinct differences in spoken English. Venture further to Scotland and it's getting harder to understand. Listen to most European languages and you'll hear snippets of English but usually not enough to get the message across. Simple evolution in action.
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz
Interestingly Darwin used the example of languages developing over time and geography to illustrate the truth of his ideas about biological evolution.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz I read a book a long time ago called the "Language of the Genes". Although it was a whole book you could summarize the whole thing in one paragraph:
"The degree of genetic differences between isolated populations of humans tracks the degree of differences in their language too". This trait has been diluted by modern travel and civilization of course but it's an interesting parallel between genetic evolution and the evolution of language. It's what you'd expect too.
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz
Sounds like an interesting book - I'll pick it up if I see it.
Thanks for the recommendation.
proudfootz 1 year ago
The biggest misconceptions are that evolution is goal-oriented, or always going in the direction of greater complexity. it isnt
Tnig01 1 year ago
@Tnig01 not always, but in genreal it is. More complex organisms with more abilities are more likely to survive, that's of course not ture for every case.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
so what I am getting at, is whether it's microevolution or macroevolution, it happens in one generation. You just get micro micro micro, then macro. But micro or macro, is one generation. I see microevolution is not speciation, but Is macroevolution the same as speciation?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
Typically macroevolution is considered to be when enough microevolution has occured to consider the group a new species distinct from its cousins and forebears.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 every generation is an instance of micro evolution, since every individual is differenty to each other. Macroevolution happens as generations pass and the small differences accumulate. The term microevolution and macroevolution were put forward by evolution deniers, so there is really no formal definition for wither, other than what i just said. To be continued in part 2.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 Speciation occurs when a group of organisms that can reproduce between themselves, like a pack of wolves for example, evolves enough to no longer be able to breed with that kind of organism any more. For example, if a pack of wolves gest separated into two environments, they will each evolve differently, and over time, if the two communities should mix again, they might no longer be genetically compatible and wont be able to breed. That's what happened with the domestic dog.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
@PCGamerPortal
a)I know what speciation is - to the level you mention anyway and I wasn't asking about that b)macro evolution I don't think was a term made up err, coined, by creationists..I think it was from evolutionists originally, but it may be that there isn't one definition but a few possible ones..
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 I checked my info and you are absolutely right, I was under the misconception that the term was coined by creationists, which is clearly wrong.
To answer your question more directly, speciation requires macro evolution, but since there is no real criterium for separating macro from micro at a specific moment, I would say that you CAN have macroevolution without speciation. For example a great dane and a poodle are very diverse, yet belong to the same species.
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
@PCGamerPortal
What are the definitions of Macro?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
If your video is true, that one species into another takes many generations and doesn't happen in one step, then it's not observable. But isn't the reality that we're talking of 2 lineages, each become so distinct over time as to not be able to breed. Each one is the same species as its parents. So shouldn't macroevolution be observable and not require lots of time to observe? isn't speciation one species to another, and observed?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
Yes, speciation is observed.
One good example of evolution is 'ring species' where geographic separation creates conditions where isolated populations can accumulate genetic differences and the descendants of the parent species become different species from both the parents and their sister species.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
they (eventually have accumulated enough differences to) become a new species from their parents in one generation? and is change of species not macroevolution?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
I'm not sure why there has to be a 'one generation' condition.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz it's one generation a description of reality? when one animal of lineage A, that can theoretically breed with its distant cousins of lineage B producing fertile children, breeds instead with its own and comes up with an animal that cannot breed with lineage B That new animal is a new species. So the change of species itself, pretty much by definition, happens in one generation.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
Hey, if evolutionists want to reject their creator while living on His planet and being sustained by all He provided, then they can. Reject Christ, you can spend eternity with the author of the fraud of evolution, satan himself.
noimplant4me 1 year ago
No one is 'rejecting their creator' since there's no evidence of such a thing. This is not anyone's planet, & no one is sustained by anything such a being provides.
The character worshipped by Xians very likely never existed, just as satan doesn't exist.
Go ahead & reject the very science that keeps you alive with nutrition, pharmaceuticals, & medicine - reject the science that gives you light to type by, a computer to surf porn on, the internet to flog your ignorant opinions.
You fail.
proudfootz 1 year ago
There is not such thing as either, just evolution.
/thread
DemonZonkey 1 year ago
@DemonZonkey
Yes, this is another case of creationists misunderstanding science and basing their rejection of it on their inability to understand it.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz , I like your demonstration, but does the cup ever chance into something else, like an apple..
Thaer35 1 year ago
@Thaer35
"does the cup ever change into something else, like an apple"?
No more than the matter that makes up the members of any species changes into something else. The cup just makes it convenient to show how the contents change gradually over time to something drastically different.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Micro evolution isn't evolution. Changes in allele frequency is what is most referred to as micro evolution. How can changing the frequency is which already existing genes are expressed, which causes changes in size,shape, and color, cause a fish to evolve into an amphibian tetrapod for example? Give me one example of an organism acquiring a new structure. The lack of critical thinking skills in the ametuer evolutionist, like yourself, is truly amazing.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
"...for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the *same way* and for the *same reasons*, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons."
So it would seem the lack of critical thinking skills is on the side of science-deniers.
The fossil record is chock full of organisms acquiring 'new structures' over time.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz So changes in allele frequency equals new morphological structures? Do you even know what alleles are? In order for micro to lead to macro, you would have to be gaining something new, micro evolution is actually a loss of information, and entire genes. There is no fossil that shows organisms acquiring new structures. Show me two fossils that are exactly the same except for a new structure. 99% of the fossil record should show this type of progression, not not a single one does.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
In your mind, 'micro-evolution' is the 'loss of gnetic information'? So when a species originates (as observed by scientists) it is some sort of degeneration?
Your evidence for this is...?
Your demand that evolution proceed according to your mis-understanding of biology is just your ignorance talking.
You fail. Again.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Micro evolution is a loss of information, the genome of the new offspring is always more limited. The reason two populations will not be able to interbreed is because of a defect, a loss of information. There is absolutely no morphological difference between any two species that are related. If it's an increase in genetic information, why aren't new structures being produced?
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
AFAIK there is no 'loss of information' just because a mommy and a daddy love each other so much they make a baby.
If I am following your logic, this 'loss of information' should result in loss of structures - so your dad might have had antlers but you don't?
Generally the difference between two closely related species isn't more or less genetic information but *different* information.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Also most of the genome is meta information, which is information about information. They are instructions on how to use the other portion of the DNA. One can't exist without the other. Gene duplication and then mutation to that gene is useless because there is no meta information that tell how and where to use it. Meta information comes from intelligence not nature.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
Wat evidence is there that this so-called 'meta-information' comes from intelligence and not from nature?
And suppose there were some intelligence: do theses advanced beings just orbit the Earth 24/7 waiting for a species to die out so they can make a new one very similar to the one that failed?
proudfootz 1 year ago
Macroevolution is when 1 species turns into 2 and they cannot breed with eachother. They can look a lot alike still, but it's whether or not they can interbreed which sets them apart. It's not so much to do with the many changes. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@MassacreBlast
Thanks for the tip!
Maybe I should have had two glasses...
proudfootz 1 year ago
Exactly! Macroevolution is just microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + ... + microevolution. It's not exactly rocket science, yet some people simply don't have the brainpower to grasp this simple idea.
criskity 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
flyingdrunkboy 1 year ago
So, this isnt assumed? wow
xxxXPrisonBreakXxxxx 1 year ago
very good and simple thank u
yarrarat 1 year ago
same old evo line...neither interesting or new...the problem is there are definite genetic limits within species which have never been crossed. filling the glass with fluid proves what exactly??
bullviii 1 year ago
@bullviii
It is merely a demonstration of the principle how incremental change can build up to a major change - something many creationists deny.
proudfootz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proudfootz lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
flyingdrunkboy 1 year ago
@bullviii lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
flyingdrunkboy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bullviii lmao, he just went out of his way to find an excuse to have a beer. *No honey, I'm just explaining evolution to the people on the internet*
flyingdrunkboy 1 year ago
@bullviii Just what are those limitations? How does the DNA know what it can change to vs. what it can't change into, how does it know when a mutation would cause us to call it a new species? Are eagles and oscriches not related then, is that too much of a stretch, but eagles and doves are, or eagles and hawks?
thismortalsoul 1 year ago
@thismortalsoul fo what mutations do you speak?
oh yes, all those positive miraculous mutations that
evolved into sophisticated audio and visual systems without
leaving any fossil evidence? true species cannot be clearly defined.
all those you mentioned are most definitely bird family...of course you believe
they evolved from reptilian dinos? because you want to believe, regardless of evidence
bullviii 1 year ago
@thismortalsoul
As you can see bullvii cannot answer.
The fact is there are no known limitations. The idea that 'kinds' are somehow magically conserved is simply dogma derived from old myths collected in a book.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@bullviii which genetic limits?
PCGamerPortal 1 year ago
Nice vid dude!
paldepind 1 year ago
The Theist Challenge
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 2
@Ozzyman200
Every time there's a test, these gods don't show up.
I'd say they deserve to flunk out.
proudfootz 1 year ago 2
Good video. Not only does all the evidence support evolution, but no one has yet proposed a plausible alternative. If the creationists had any evidence, you can bet they'd have presented something by now. Every time it's been science vs religion, science was right, religion was wrong. Science is about truth. Religion is just wishful thinking.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
Truer words were never spoken... er... written.
When human knowledge was less, the gods were more numerous and powerful. Now that we have found natural explanations for things like rain and lightning, the gods have retreated.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
Well thank you, keep up the good work.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
I'm laughing so hard I'll probably make a bunch of typing errors. Now, you're expecting me to believe a bunch of little glasses of liquid filling up a big glass is analogous with all life forms extant today descending from a common ancestor. Is that right? If so, when does the big glass become a 4 course dinner? I can't type any more. I'm still laughing too hard. This is priceless. I guess you thought the buttoned-up shirt & the earphone/microphone combo would had some credibility. Too funny!
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Just as I'm sure you thought your twisting of the analogy into something utterly stupid was going to make you look more credible? Or that typing how hard you are laughing is suppose to discredit what is being presented?
In what way have you not made a fool of yourself, while the video poster, much to the contrary, is trying to be honest and sympathetic to those who don't understand his viewpoint. You are being cruel, childish, and rather idiotic.
Type a real response next time.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Type a real response..." How do you type a real response to such stupidity? Do you even understand the nature of an analogy? The guy who made this video obviously doesn't. An analogy is intended to demonstrate a concept by drawing a comparison between 2 similar objects or situations. All this video demonstrated was small amounts of liquid can add up to a large amount. That is in no way analogous to a common ancestor being responsible for all extant life.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
"How do you type a real response to such stupidity?"
I believe I showed you how when I responded to your comment.
And, no, you are reading the analogy wrong. This video was demonstrating that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. If you think that a small bit of change can happen over a long time, then, when dealing with much longer time scales, you have proportionately larger amounts of adaptation.
It seems as if you are the only one not getting it.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Reading the analogy wrong." Sorry, I'm not. No one argues minor changes can occur ie, small amounts of liquid can add up to large amounts. Large enough to result in minor differences within a species, perhaps large enough to prevent reproduction. However, it's never been & can't be shown these changes lead to the emergence of a fundamentally different creature no matter how much time is allowed. There are lines which can't be crossed. Mules for example. Equines are always equines.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
So what do you have to say about the fossil record and DNA mapping which show transitions from one creature to another over time? Do you just disregard these points of data, or do you have your own theory/idea of how they came to be? How would you explain the unique structure of, say, whales without evolution? These are not "you are stupid" questions, they are honest. What is your reasoning?
How do you explain these things outside of evolution?
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "The fossil record..." The fossil record is evidence, but as with all evidence it's open to interpretation. Transitional species are "transitional" only because they've been labeled as such. There is not a single fossil which can be said to be in transition from one type of animal to another outside the use of conjecture & presupposition. Why do you assume evolution explains whales? Unique structures would imply design, not evolution through random mutation & natural selection.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Yes they can be explained as transitional forms. You take a species from today and trace its current known origins. Those clues should lead you to where and how deep a fossil might be found. If one is found that resembles the original, you then date it, decode the DNA, and then see if it matches. If there are any discrepancies, then you have something different than your target.
We have evidence that suggests whales were mammals that returned to the water. You say, "God did it."
:/
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "They can be explained..." And they can explained as simply a unique creature, maybe extant, maybe extinct. The transitional label is applied only by conjecture & presupposition. Your problem goes much deeper. If common descent is true you must demonstrate our common ancestor A, via the fossil record, turning into B-Z. This you simply can't do. Give it all the time you want, that only increases your problem as it would increase the number of transitions that should be easily found.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
First, not every creature, or species for that matter, gets fossilized. It is something that only happens under specific conditions. To expect every single step of A-Z to be found is ridiculous and shows your ignorance on the subject.
Our DNA is very similar to the other African Apes. We can also trace our history back to that region. We also have several transitional fossils, dated to an acceptable time table, showing the transition. That's conjecture? That's presupposition? :/
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Your ignorance of the subject." That's a favourite line of evolutionists. Those who disagree with them are naturally ignorant of the subject. I'm not & it's more than arrogant of you claim I am. Of course I know every creature does not fossilize. However, that doesn't allow you to assume their existence & in turn claim it as evidence of evolution. Simply claiming a fossil is transitional does not make it so. Yes, it's conjecture & presupposition.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 Yeah Corey, you shouldn't call Wally ignorant! He obviously knows exactly what he's talking about. I'll bet he even knows it better than you do!
Yeah, what Wally is isn't ignorant, what he is, is a liar. A dishonest, boldfaced liar. He knows that evolution is a proven fact, but his religion can't coexist with it so he has to discredit it in every way that he can.
I mean, look at how he's completely avoided the evidence from genetics.
He's a liar, pure and simple.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@coreygames "DNA is very similar..." Very similar? Even a 2% difference amounts to millions of differences. As ape DNA is unraveled the % difference is getting greater all the time. That argument is dying very quickly. If you believe these transitional fossils exist, provide me with a list.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
In reverse order:
I did. Read the links in my other comment. Learn something. It's fun.
Secondly, there are plenty of differences in our DNA from those of Chimps and the like. That's why we look, behave, and live differently. But, in comparison to other animals, especially non-mammals, the DNA between Humans and other apes is close to a match.
And what is this "As the ape DNA is unraveled..." babble? It already has been decoded and the comparisons drawn... it's not incomplete.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Read the links..." Wikipedia & youtube videos are hardly sound references, you're going to have to do better than that. If that's where you're getting your "facts," it's no wonder you're mixed up. Naturally our DNA is closer to that of other mammals, but to claim that as proof of common descent is pure conjecture, no matter how hard you want to assert it. Human & ape DNA is no where near a "match." That's the trie you get from youtube videos.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3 OOO! Now he's finally taking on DNA!
Hey, Wally. If 2% amounts to millions of differences, how much does the 98% we have in common amount to? How is it that DNA analyses confirm those conjectures about the fossil record?
And you have the gall to ask for a list? How dishonest are you?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@coreygames "Then you date it..." And how do they go about dating it? "We have evidence that suggests whales are mammals that returned to the water. You say 'God did it." I'm full aware of your "evidence" for whale evolution. It's simply more assumptions & conjecture. You can't prove these creatures were land animals on their way to whales. You say, "evolution did it. But somehow you think your assertion is correct.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Dating? Well, there's different radiometric dating systems(carbon, uranium, etc.), geological dating, paleomagnetism, and I'm sure others I'm unaware of.
As for whale evolution:
wikipedia(dot)org(slash)wiki(slash)Evolution_of_cetaceans
/watch?v=jugkhXn8YA4 (start at :042)
And no, no one will ever say, "This is how it is." That's why I said, specifically, "evidence that suggests." If you don't think that's it, I would like to know what theory better explains it.... excluding magic.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Geological dating..." And how do they determine that? "Wikipedia..." probably the most unreliable source for factual information you could choose. Why do you think many university professors reject Wikipedia as a legitimate source for research papers? Youtube videos? Hardly sound science. "Evidence that suggests..." Maybe you're starting to see the light. "Suggests" means it's open to different interpretation, which is what I said to begin with. Design is not magic, grow up!
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Fuck, it's like trying to explain things to a toddler. You ask a question, I provide an answer. You question my credibility, so I go and quickly find some evidence.
That wikipedia article is full of information. More importantly though, CITATION LINKS including universities and lab work. The youtube clip easily sums up everything which is why I picked it. Perhaps if you actually took the chance to read information, you would... I don't know... LEARN SOMETHING.
Stop trolling.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Explain things to a toddler." Foul language & insults are the last refuge of a poor argument, so I think I'm safe to assume you're basically out of ammunition. I do read, extensively & from both sides of the argument. It's obvious you don't. Who rights the articles on Wikipedia? Check that out before using it as a source. You're simply typical of youtube evolutionists. Watch a few videos, read a couple of Wiki pages & poof you're informed. Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
I'm frustrated because you are asking for information that I'm giving. You just aren't looking at it because you don't want to. How am I to argue, debate, or converse civilly with someone saying that magic is greater than science and, when provided with evidence, disregards it for utterly stupid reasons?
Like I said, the citation links on that wiki page are to universities and studies. If you don't think those are credible sources, then I suggest trying to convince me the Bible is.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "Aren't looking at it..." Who said I didn't look at it? I said I didn't reference Wikipedia. What about the Wikipedia page on cetacean evolution makes you believe that is what happened? Each of the transitional fossils can as easily be interpreted as simply a unique creature. There's nothing about any of them which can be explained only as a transitional creature. As such, claims of transition are simply assumption & conjecture. University studies are always unbiased & correct.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
I can interpret anything as anything, but this reflects little on reality. When we can look at a fossil compare it to another, take DNA from each and compare that, look at where both were found geologically (both globally and in depth), we can draw conclusions based off that evidence much like forensic investigation can determine a killer without actually being there.
The current best evidence points to evolution by natural selection over billions of years. What better explains life?
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "We can draw conclusions..." Any conclusion based on such evidence is at best only conjecture. Evidence can appear to have only one explanation, but that's rarely the case. "What better explains life?" DNA evidence can just as easily be interpreted as a result of a common designer as a result of common descent. In my opinion common designer is in fact a better explanation. There is not enough time for mutation & natural selection to have accomplished what we see.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
"Any conclusion based on such evidence is at best only conjecture" At least it is based on evidence and not just pure speculation as is with design. "Oh this is really complex. I guess that means a/my God did it."
The Earth is currently dated to about 4.6 billion years old with the first "life" arising at 3.8 billion. Now, you are trying to tell me that is not enough time for this event and therefore, without any other supporting evidence, a God did it? How do you reach that end?
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames "At least it's based on evidence..." It's based on a particular interpretation of evidence, nothing more. It's more than mere complexity, it's information based complexity. There's a big difference. Information is accepted as needing an intelligent source. Such a source is not found in evolutionary theory. Random mutation & natural selection cannot account for the origin or rise of the complex information systems required by life. Design IS NOT pure speculation, it's logical.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
Mere assertion about the what evolution allegedly cannot account for is not a logical or scientific way to discover knowledge.
No reason to believe the sorts of 'information' contained in physical or chemical properties of matter need an intelligent source.
That's a hallmark of ID - asserting when they should be investigating.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "No reason to believe..." There isn't? Can you name a single instance where information has been found which did not have an intelligent source. Did your computer just put itself together by writing it's own programs? How about the simple stop sign at the corner, did it spring up on its own? Information requires an intelligent source & evolution simply cannot supply an answer to the problem. I'd be willing to bet it never will. To argue no intelligence is required is nonsense.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Now you're comparing artificial things like computers and traffic signs to biological entities. One thing IDers seem to do a lot is confuse an analogy for the real thing.
To argue that some 'intelligence' is responsible for what evolution explains is sheer nonsense on stilts.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Confuse an analogy..." You're a fine one to talk. You barely understand the concept of an analogy, as demonstrated by this video. It's perfectly legitimate to use an inanimate object in an analogy for an animate object. The computer & the stop sign both required intelligence to put them together. Life of any form is far more complex than either of them, yet you believe it "just happened" without intelligent input. Sorry, that's just not very intelligent.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
You're still obviously confused between material artifacts (tools if you like) and biological entities which the evidence indicates have arisen by evolutionary processes.
That you cannot seem to grasp even the basics of biology is just very sad.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "Is just very sad." What's sad is you're totally without the ability to think logically or analytically. You simply cannot grasp the concept of ex nihilo creation. Material artifacts (tools if you like) & biological entities are all the result of God's creative actions. You have some idiotic idea that DNA, etc., are something separate from God's actions, entities that work separately from & without God's direction.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
No evidence an immaterial thing (if such a thing were to 'exist' in some way) can have any effect on matter, let alone 'create' something from nothing.
Nothing idiotic about having confidence in the work of scientists over the 'contributions' of theologians in understanding how stuff works.
That you have such a low opinion of people who have dedicated their lives to actually *proving* their theories speaks volumes about your anti-rational bias.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz "People who have dedicated their lives..." Who says I have a low opinion of them? Not me. You're again assuming all scientists are evolutionists which they are not. Many scientists believe in creation & work everyday on projects which make peoples lives better, so do evolutionists & neither of them give their respective opinions a second thought in their day to day routines. If you had even an ounce of intellectual maturity you would realize that & not make such ignorant comments.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@proudfootz "To argue some intelligence is responsible for what evolution explains..." Aw, now this is where the rubber meets the road. Evolution CANNOT explain the source of intelligence, which is obviously required to explain complex life, therefore it follows, evolution cannot explain anything at all, it simply assumes & asserts. It's this problem of "intelligence" which is turning people from the idea of evolution being able to explain life. Deny it I'm sure you will, but it's happening.
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Nothing obvious about your unsupported and baseless assertions.
We know that intelligence has to do with brains, and the fossil record shows the gradual development of brain capacity over millions of years.
Evidence for design? Nonexistent.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Development of brain capacity." How can you observe the increase of brain capacity. Brain capacity has everything to do with brain structure &virtually nothing to do with the size of the brain. As brain matter does not usually survive fossilization exactly how are such observations made? Increases in cranial capacity are meaningless in measuring intelligence. Are the humans alive today with smaller craniums somehow less intelligent?
wallyjude3 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Really, where is this rule written down where information has to come from an intelligent source?
And since when is it logical to say that the source of this information is a supernatural, intangible, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal force that rests outside of the universe?
Secondly, evolution deals with existing life, not how it came to be. That's abiogenesis. Different matter, possibly, completely (it's an unknown almost entirely. Could have come from evo though...)
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames
The fact that organic molecules spontaneously form even in the harsh conditions of interstellar space would seem to indicate that abiogenesis is no big barrier.
But creationist ideologues will ignore the evidence because they have an anti-science pro-superstition agenda.
proudfootz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wallyjude3 "Information is accepted as needing an intelligent source." Now who's jumping to a conclusion based on conjecture and presuppositions?
"Design IS NOT pure speculation, it's logical. " Design is only logical if you can supply the designer. Provide evidence for the designer FIRST, then you can argue the design.
"Random mutation & natural selection cannot account for the origin or rise of the complex information systems required by life." Is this another opinion?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@wallyjude3
Also, I have to laugh at this:
"Watch a few videos, read a couple of Wiki pages & poof you're informed."
I can easily turn that around and say that you read a 2k year old book and you think you are more informed than someone who is looking at up-to-date sources (click the links at the bottom of the page. See where the info is coming from. Please. Pretty, pretty, please. With sugar.) including a world renowned biologist. Riiiiiiiight.
coreygames 1 year ago