Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (3-9)

[Sageangel18000]

Again, forgive my ignorance, but can someone tell me why these guys found these "transition stages" from a land mammal into an oceanic mammal in the middle of a desert. I do not claim much of an understanding of marine biology, I certainly do not have much of an understanding of them, but wouldn't you think to find them somewhere closer to water. Specifically closer to the ocean as it was "evolving" into an oceanic life form over "80-90 million years".

[Sageangel18000]

No, when we say give us transitional fossils, we mean the fossils of animals that are part-way through the "evolution". What I see is a tiger or some sort of large cat, go to something that looks more canine than feline, progressing to something that looks like a crocodile, going to something that is stupid looking, go to a whale. Forgive my ignorance here, but can someone help me understand how anything in that supports the claimed transition?

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: If you see no replies to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults and refusing to actually debate by evasion of Qs asked. If you wish to address any of the same points you feel they have made I would be happy to respond. However, I debate only with those who are civil & objective and actually debate.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Actually from the looks of it, you're the only one refusing to debate. You were asked a very simple question and you completely dodged it.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady So how was it a strawman? Be specific.

[LoricaLady]

9:35 "One of these pairs of human chromosomes must have gotten paired." "Must have...could have...probably...most likely...." These are all evo buzz words that evo lit is replete with. Speculation is presented as if it is actually evidence, or worse as if it is science. No one know how humans came to have either the usual fusion or the extra one that about 1 in 1,000 people also have. "Must have" is not evidence & has no data to back it up. It is not science. To be cont. on 4/9.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Yes that's how science works, it explains the data with plausible mechanisms. There is no matter of 100% certainty in any field of science and to expect so is a strawman.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer You need to learn what science & the scientific method really are. You've been taught by evo evangelists that its explaining "data with plausible data." Hypothesis-only is not data. Calling an hypothesis-only a fact is doing pseudo science. There is no scientific method used to "explain" human chromosome 2. Where is the experiment for example? Why don't you, or they, bother to explain where the other chromosome fusion that some people have is coming from? Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady It's pretty clear that I'm the only one in this discussion that does understand the scientific method.

It's not a hypothesis only, translocation is a known observed mechanism that leaves signs as exactly what we see in human chromosome 2

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer You say you understand the scientific method & that it was used to "prove"a fused chromosome fusion is from apes. So I ask you - again - where was an ex\periment used to show that? I' ask you -again - how there can be use of the scientific method w/0 experiment? These are simple Qs. I ask you - again - why we are to assume Chromosome 2 came from apes (and its a match w/chimps & even evo evangelists don't say we come from chimps anyway) & not the other fusioin? Waiting...

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady It's explained in this very video, it's known as a translocation. A process by which chromosomes fuse by their telomeres. This is a very well understood process to people who understand actual science, and has, in fact happened in sub populations since, with the same result..

It's not an assumption, it's based on homology of the fused chromosome to two independent chimp chromosomes to within the same percentage as the rest of the genomes.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer Cont. The fact that you think the scientific method can exclude an experiment, that an hypothesis w/0 back up data can be called proof, & that logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause & Incomplete Comparison don't bother you show that you yourself need to learn the scientific method & take it seriously. "Apes by definition" is also a nonscientific statement. Human, self serving, "definitions" aren't how data is determined. Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady What experiment or alternate explanation has been excluded? Don't confuse you being unable to falsify fusion or present an alternative hypothesis for some sort of censorship.

'Fallacy of the Single Cause'

It's not a fallacy of the single cause because we're not assuming there's just one explanation, that's what the data has shown.

No, we can objectively define apes and there's no way to define it to include chimps, orangs etc. without including humans.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. One thing puzzles me. Much is made of a superficial & highly incomplete comparison to chimps. But no one is even saying that we descended from chimps. As far as I can tell, not only are the logical fallacies listed below being used to tell us we came from apes, we're not even being given an animal that would be in our supposed lineage of ancestors. I guess we're just supposed to make the usual assumptions that if A (supposedly) is true, then unobserved B, C etc. had to follow. Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady 'highly incomplete comparison to chimps.'

Wrong, google 'human chimp genome project. After a full genome sequencing of both, the full identity between the genomes stands at 96%

'used to tell us we came from apes' We did come from apes, and we are apes by definition.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. I don't know as I have only someone's word for it, but we're told creationists "had nothing to say" at Dover regarding the chimp genomes. But we are also told the info was "brand new." Perhaps they had not yet heard this particular fallacious argument yet & so had no time to examine & debunk it. Miller has mentioned that in the future, thru Supreme Court cases, those who present evidence for intelligent design "could be in bad straits." That would mean the state running "science." Cnt

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady I really hope this isn't what you consider your 'debunking' of Ken Miller, it's particularly weak even for a creationist. For instance, the number of chromosomes alone was never used as an argument for common ancestry by anyone who even remotely understands genetics. It's the fact that our chromosome 2 corresponds to two independent chimp chromosomes to within a few percent.

'But what is inside the chimps's genes & ours at that point is extremely different'

Patently false.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer Cont. Yes, tho there are similarities between chimps genes & ours, don't get into denial about vast differences. If a woman at the maternity ward popped out a chimip you wouldn't pat her on the shoulder & say, "Don't worry! There is only a small %age of difference between your uh...kid...& the other kids at school. Teachers will hardly notice the difference when it's time for your little critter to start learning to read and write." Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady 'vast differences' Such as?

'popped out a chimp'

What a ridiculous strawman, now you're just resorting to pure non-sense since you don't seem to be able to manage a rational discussion.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer "What a ridiculous statement" doesn't exactly contain scientific data. I used a literary device to show the obvious, that human beings have vast differences between them and apes. "Vast differences. Such as?" Get real. Can chimps read or write, build & use computers, or send people into outer space, or use language to tell stories of the past or future? I feel ridiculous to even go on about the vast differences between them and us since they are so incredibly obvious.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady As I've pointed out, humans and chimps are 96% homologous which is well within the range of divergence we already knew about long before we had the capability to sequence entire genomes.

We were referring to genetic differences, not the mechanical or intellectual differences those percentages bring so your rant about what chimps can't do is a complete red herring.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer "It's explained in the vid..." "Since it's real science I wouldn't expect you to understand."When people really understand a concept they are able to articulate it with their own words. You avoid my Qs & like most YT evo fans, when pressed for actual evidence, when asked to answer Qs which you prefer to ignore - you have another strategy. Start insulting the your opponent! (Another logical fallacy you should look up is ad hominem.) I debate with the civil & objective. BYE!

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady I just did, it's known as telomeric fusion, aka translocation.

No, you realize you've been utterly trounced here so you're attempting to save face by declaring that I've used imaginary ad hom attacks and fleeing as quickly as possible. Though given your apparent level of knowledge regarding biology in general, not speaking may not be such a bad idea.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer I limit my time by debating with those who are civil & objective.It also helps if they actually debate and answer Qs. Note the number I left for you which you have totally evaded. Once the evo-ites start getting into the insult mode it always escalates. I have better things to do with my time. If I debated with all those that go that route I would need several life times. Ask yourself why you can't answer my Qs. Look outside the matrix box. The truth is there friend. Finis

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady If they actually answer questions that puts them miles ahead of you. You couldn't even answer my simple question regarding your assertion of the supposed strawman I used. So how did you ever feel competent to have a discussion regarding genetics? You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

That route? You mean the route of expecting you to actually support your claims instead of just letting you get away with throwing around empty accusations?

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer Cont. So-called evidence for apes-to-mne is the consistent use of pure speculation presented as if it is evidence. A few fossils, usually fragments, are found. Then by the usual magical thinking (until, as so often happens, fraud is uncovered and/or other evoutionists dispute the findings) we are told such & such IS a transitional form based on magical thinking that they know how it's invisible descendants' invisible descendants' are connected by invisible dots.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady Actually it consists of real science such as whole genome sequencing, comparative anatomy, photomicrography. Since it's real science I wouldn't have expected you to be dimly aware of them so no harm no foul.

'the usual magical thinking'

Projection.

Actually we conclude that it's ancestral based on morphology and its placement in the fossil record. Basically you're saying here that 'There is no fossil evidence I would accept' and not 'There is no fossil evidence'

[LoricaLady]

Cont. 2) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Yes there is a fusion that makes a number match with chimps. But what is inside the chimps's genes & ours at that point is extremely different. 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Chimips & tobacco both have 48 chromosomes, bats, birds & moths fly, snakes & worms slither. So? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:25 The whole "chimpanzee genome dna sequence" is based, as evolutionary theory commonly is, on logical fallacies: 1) Fallacy of the Single Cause. Because we have a fusion that makes a numerical match with chimps the only explanation considered is that we are ape descendants. But wait. 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome! It doesn't make a match with chimps. But there it is. If that fusion didn't come from apes, why must we assume that the other match did? Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady 1: This is not a fallacy, it's known as the scientific method which uses inductive reasoning. This means if you want another cause to be considered you have to actually present it along with evidence, just asserting 'I don't like there only being one evidenced cause, so won't you consider my magic space man' is not sufficient reason to give your idea equal time.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer Cont. You comment about "magic space man" is the usual strawman logical fallacy of religion that YT evo fans almost invariably throw out. Regardless of what you or I feel about Diety or the Bible, evolution stands or falls on science and logic alone. And since you don't yet understand how science or the scientific method are supposed to work, I suggest you get busy with them first.

No, there's 0 evidence for ape-to-man aside from what Miller says re chromosomes. Cont.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady 'the usual strawman logical fallacy'

In what way? How is it a misrepresentation? Be specific.

As usual, wrong. The mountains of evidence solely support common ancestry, from the genetic record in its entirety to the embryological record to the fossil record.  Just pick a specific field you want a mountain of data from.

[LoricaLady]

@TheJaredJommer "The usual strawman logical fallacy. In what way?" If you had looked it up you would not have to ask that Q as I already told you. Learn logical fallacies. Evo theory lives and breathes them.

You have made a lot of...faith...based statements with no real data in them. For ex. you say embryological records show evidence of evolution. Give details. Should be fasciinating. No saying, "Read this link & watch that vid" now. Use YOUR mind & YOUR words to show YOU understand.

[TheJaredJommer]

@LoricaLady So your argument is that it's a strawman because you can't actually show that it's a strawman? No, your projection of fallacy has no affect on the empirical data supporting evolution.

'Give details

I asked for you to explain how my statement was a strawman and you utterly failed. Now you want me to answer your question after you dodged?

[LoricaLady]

6:25 This diagram & Darwin's Tree are similar also in that there is 0 evidence for either of them. Both are based on conjecture that is not supported by data to show they have any accuracy. I do not believe we are seeing any vindication for Darwin's Tree, but that Nature mag is using a purely theoretical chart, with a mere handful of fossils, to`bolster Darwin's postulate that we descended from apes. Fossil support has been scanty, untestable & evidenceless. Onto molecular "evidence." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Note also the use of the word "species" in describing the fossils. This may make it sound as if they are just another species of homo sapiens. There is only one species of homo sapiens, us. To go from those fossils to us requires far more than a change in species. Again, we see speciation all the time, but as Mendelll showed peas stay peas & bees stay bees. Bacteria stay bacteria & people stay people. That is what the data shows, not change of genus or climbs up Darwin's "tree." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

5:50 "These are the species that lived in the last 5 million years." Again, there is no way to test ages of fossils over such a great period. Again, the Geologic Column, tho it is often shown in text books as if it exists, is nowhere to be found on earth so there is no it can date such fossils. Notice "Unknown last common ancestor." We are to assume there was such an "ancestor" w/0 evidence & use our imaginations to fill in the blanks for all the countless other "missing" links. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

5:18  More fossils claimed to be transitional with no evidence that the fossils ever produced any progeny significantly different from themselves and aren't just part of the world's great number of extinct species. 5:23 "In many cases they are complete skulls" means that some are not but are still called transitional. 5:29 "Who is related to whom or who we think is related to whom." But again, there is 0 way to find out if these fossils even had descendants much less that they led to us. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

5:04 "The line leading to us showed a rapid increase in brain capacity" Based on what data? A few paltry fossils, not uncommonly just fragements of extinct animals. We're told twe're their descendants as if it''s a hard & fast fact when really there is 0 evidence. Here we see the oft used logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. If Fossil A has even very minimal similariites to B, that is called evidence that A led to B tho we have no clue on A's reproductive life. Cnt

[LoricaLady]

Cont. For ex. "Cambrian" fossils are found on mountain tops. The truth is there is really 0 evidence those diatoms, or any fossils, are millions of years old. Dataless speculation presented as science is pseudo science. 4:30 Again we are told, as fact, that things happened millions of years ago based purely on conjecture, tho offered as scientific evidence. What evidence shows australopith. ever produced any descendants significantly different from itself, much less that they led to us? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:40 "This species became increasingly diverse around 3 1/2 million years ago..& they are still with us today." How do we know it was that long ago? Can we test the age of those tiny diatoms or any fossils for such a long time span? No. Some would think they could be dated by the so called Geologic Column. But that Column is only a 19th century construct based on theory & 0 evidence. Subsequent world wide digs have not found 1 example of it. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:30 "This process of diversification. Exactly what Darwin expected." Actually it's not exact at all. 1st it was already known that there was diversification, different species. But Darwin never showed any origin of species whatsoever. He theorized far beyond speciation with his "Tree of Life", showing fish to salamanders, apes to man etc. & showed 0 evidence whatsoever for that either. In fact he lwondered why the earth's strata wasn't showing the transitions that His Tree showed. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:19 "So the intermediate forms continue to show up." As is so often the case in evo theory the opposite of what is said is true. The more things they dig up the more consistently we don't see any real evidence for climbs up Darwin's "Tree of Life". Here we go back to talk of species again and the true statement that the fossil record shows evidence of speciation. But we can see that evidence even w/o looking at fossils. As was already shown, it is happening in our own day. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:12 Here we are being told once again that fins evolved into feet and that this is shown 'very clearly'. Again, what we have is something that is 100% fin with a minor similarity to a foot on an animal. We are expected to believe it had descendants that led to land dwelling animals though we are offered no evidence for this and certainly never see any of such creatures' fossils with partial fins & partial feet. Where are they? How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:34 "We now know in great detail how mammals made the transition back to the water." No, we know no such thing. Do you see "great detail" in looking at those pictured "transitions"? Do you see any blowholes that aren't 100% blowholes or terrestrial nostrils that aren't 100% terrestrial nostrils? A few paltry fossils between the creature at top, with long legs & a long skinny tail, and a killer whale with its blowhole, dorsal fin, sonar etc etc.. is "great detail"? No way folks. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Why was the artist told to add these details that are no way seen in the actual fossil? To make it more believable, presumably, when you are told that Tik is a "transitional" form. Again, if they had real evidence, they would show it. They would not have to present the kind of phony art work which has been presented to the public since Ernst Haeckle and has gone on since then to this day. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:36 Look at the bones to the left again and the artist rendition below it. Notice any differences? If you Google Melbourne Museum Tiktaalik you will see a replica of it. Look also for the real fossil. Notice any differences? The fossil has tiny frontal fins & a missing back end. The replica has long, strong, muscular fins at least 5X larger than the real thing, pulling it's body up out of water for Tik's wonderful "transition" to dry land. The hind end has leg like back fins. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

2:33 People are smarter than they think they are often, when they really use their own minds & don't just have faith in the "experts." I think most people looking at these "intermediates" would never bet next year's salary dbl or 0 that any of them (if the truth could be demonstrated beyond doubt) led to whales. Why? Because inside they do know what real evidence is and they do know it's not superficial similarities here & there. If there was real evidence, you would be shown it. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont.Every animal fossil found is complete for its niche. It has flippers or feet or fins- no in between stage - tails suitable for animals who spend time on land & tails suitable for animals who are always in the water as with cetaceans. No in betweens. No intermediates. Darwin rhetorically asked why the earth isn't filled with intermediates, as he could see was not the case. World wide digs have revealed billions of fossils. Yet all we see are a few evidenceless claims like these. Cnt

[LoricaLady]

2:27 We are told that "no fewer than 5" intermediates were found "perhaps a dozen or more" and I've heard some evolutionists claim there are over 2 dozen.  Where are the gazillions of in between fossils? Fossils where there aren't nostrils on the tip of the nose, as we've just seen, but those part nostrils, part blow holes & feet partially visible & partially gone? What we are really seeing is the usual variety in life. Different animals suited for different niches in the ecosphere. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:51 In response to '"Where are the intermediates?" (No response is ever given to the Q: How do we know it produced progeny leading to whales & it isn't just 1 of innumerable extinct animlas?) we are told about "whale like fossils." What is the definiton of "whale like". Apparently any superficial similarity to whales. Look at the bones at 2:04. As is common with "transitions" we don't even have a complete skeleton, yet are told it is "whale like" & what kinid of descendants it had. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. In the meantime, the rest of the whale's body would have to be re-engineered over & over & over again continuously too, with new lungs, different body fat, etc. etc. etc. As each of these structures "evolves" what good is it until (1) it's fully completed (2) fully connected to the other body parts which it is useless w/o (3) those other body parts are fully completed & connected. Think statistical probabilities. Folks, it ain't gonna happen. And there's 0 evidence it ever did. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. For them to turn into a blow hole the animal would not only have to be re-engineered - new cortical instructions for a different kind of breathing, new blood vessels, new muscles - but it would have to be constantly and continuously RE-engineered as over the aeons the nostrils slooowly "evolve" into a blowhole. How are all those changes going to take place synchronously with one another? They are all useless w/o cranial instructions on how to use them for ex. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. In order for nostrils and the end of a snout to turn into a blowhole, no way would you just have to keep slowly moving the nostrils more & more toward the top of the head. Generally evolutionists only talk about the exterior of the animal. But every outer structure, as with a blowhole, is dependent upon innumerable inner structures to support it. Just a few examples: cranial & spinal nerves, blood vessels, muscles, tendons, cortical instructions. Think of those nostrils. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Where is a fossil showing a mammal's tail turning into a cetacean's tail? Think about this too. All your life you have heard that scales turned into feather and fins into feet. Did you realize that not only is there 0 evidence for that but literally tons of evidence show the exactl opposite? With billions of fossils out there all feathers are 100% feathers & all scales are 100% scales. Ditto feet & fins. Ditto blowholes & nostrils. Think about these things too... Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:34 Another animal's skeleton which we are being told as absolute fact is an ancestor of the whale based on 0 but conjection & superficial similarities. Admission: "It doesn't have a blowhole." No, and there are no fossils showing anything that is partially a blow hole or partially nostrils. There are no fossils showing just partial toes disappearing into the underside of "evolving" cetaceans. Of course that would cause a disadvantage, a drag, in the water. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. 1:14 If evolutionists would call speculation speculation then anti evolutionists would not be coming out of the woodwork so much the way they are now. Notice the statement "HAVE evolved". Again, in this picture we are told, with no hint that there is 0 evidence for the statement, that the animal at top led to the whale at bottom. In 5th grade we learned that presenting an hypothesis-only, with no data to support it, is not science. But evolutionists use that approach continually. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:00 Next we are being led to believe that tho speciation means bees stay bees, peas stay peas & tulips stay tulips, etc., somehow speciation shows that the animal at top in the picture turned into a whale. Does it look like a whale? Is there any evidence whatsoever to show that its progeny was significantly different from itself much less that they led in a whale direction, & its not just another extinct animal? Wild dataless speculation presented as science, is pseudo science. To be cont.

[LoricaLady]

(I am continuing on with a critical analysis of this presentation which I have started at 1/9 - 2/9 is not availaable - and will complete it if not Expelled - as has sometimes happened.) 1st we see an ex. of speciation. Speciation happens commonly. There are over 200 species of bees. But they are all still bees. Where is the evidence for any change from species to genus, any climb up the much touted Darwin's "Tree of Life", however? Miller says, "These ideas have implications..." Cont.

[HerrQuixota]

Evolution is now becoming part of Theology.

lol

[BohemianBlasphemy]

@HerrQuixota

Where?

And how exactly?

I mean, what motivates your comment?

[HerrQuixota]

@BohemianBlasphemy

You must be atheist if you are this clueless.

[BohemianBlasphemy]

@HerrQuixota

Explain to me how exactly evolution is becoming theology.

Because those were your words, and they are your responsibility.

[HerrQuixota]

@BohemianBlasphemy

Evolution has actually been theology for a while now that I think about it. Maybe it's all the same shit....

ETERNAL PROGRESSION. Get a grasp of the concept and see how it mirror's the Theory of Evolution when put under the lense of Freemasonry and Mormonism.

[HerrQuixota]

@HerrQuixota

Shit, I may as well include the Big Bang and a verse from IF YOU COULD HIE TO KOLOB by Phelps.

"Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?"

This was before Einstein

[BohemianBlasphemy]

@HerrQuixota

Evolution is a fact supported by evidence. And you are some kind of paranoid wacko.

[HerrQuixota]

@BohemianBlasphemy

I never disputed the theory of evolution. You are paranoid.

And Um, yeah. Anthropological and History counts as evidence you dolt.

Furthermore, you probably have never actually studied religion like a real scholar. This of course assumes your reservations....*cough* prejudice *cough*

[flyingscience]

Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.

"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"

[Michel290389]

Thank you so much for uploading the recording!

Most impressing to me is the match of Darwins Sketch and the Human Fossil Record.

Excellent!

[flyingscience]

Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.

"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"

[sirensymbol]

I think it's awesome that he is a Roman Catholic and an evolutionist. I have contacted him a few times before and he helped me get past my creationist days to my now theistic evolution belief.

[Capulator8]

Good for you!

[Salmo77]

Nice to hear

[thecommonsenseguy]

bravo!

[LoricaLady]

@sirensymbol Friend, trust the logical. 1st law of logic: 2 contradictory statement cannot both be true. Miller says on a YT Colbert clip that he believes that Yeshua, aka Jesus, "created all that is, seen & unseen." But he also has presentations called The Collapse of Intelligent Design. So, then Yeshua is a stooopid Designer? Also in that clip Colbert mentions the primal pond as if it's Gawd's truth. Is he told the truth: There is 0 evidence & its against the LAW of biogensis? No.

[Erech01]

good on darwin! pure genius! he got it right 150 years before genetics!!!:P

[Rivermonk2012]

is it just me or are there some hoties in this class

[spaceagebachelor]

Very interesting - thanks for posting :)

[jeremebp]

This series is great.

[nethius]

It might take a bit to get all parts up, but I will. I am also going to be uploading "Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads" and "The Double Life of RNA" so stay tuned!

[jeremebp]

Can't wait. I link to these kinds of videos all the time from my multiple evolution debates.

[Erech01]

i second that

[LoricaLady]

@nethius I am going thru this vid series bit by bit (if you don't Expell me), using critical thinking and the rules of logic to debunk most every point made. If you feel I have said something that is illogical or that is against the laws of science, please let me know.