I am showing this next semester in Evolution- to ask students what is the one major aspect of evolution being ignored here?
Evolutionary changes only happen if the current characteristics of a specie need to change to survive for natural selection. If there is no threat to survival no change is necessary.
Honestly, who the fuck cares? I personally dgaf about the crazy bible thumpers or the obnoxious rants from people supporting evolution and science. I believe in science not religion but I don't go about trying to convert the religous
@N0madlc True Christians are commanded by the Bible to tell others about the free gift of God by faith in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with religion. Yes, I am considered "crazy", but a love for the lost and a greater love for the Lord, compels us to continue doing so.
Whoever chooses to believe in a (or multiple) god(s) is purely up to them. It's their choice and for others to respect your decision, you must respect them and theirs. It won't end an argument, it won't solve anything. This doesn't prove or disprove anything, only that the Hagfish hasn't been forced to adapt to any changes where it dwells. Stop slandering each other and take it as entertainment value.
@AdrinAmdis Either the Bible is true or all others ways are true.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Do you know the narrow way?
@iansmelly Both evolution and creation are based on faith. If you have the "facts" for evolution, go to The Science Prize. If not, please stop clucking.
@BereanBeacon1 In case you didn't notice, the only ones continually spouting a completely unscientific challenge on the internet are the creationists. Evolution is and has been done continually in the actual scientific community for 150 years
If you're not a coward, challenge your fellow creationists to submit their data for actual factual peer review. If you ARE a coward, just keep making your pitiful little challenge over youtube.
erm...it doesn't need to evolve because it works perfectly the way it is..why would it need to improve itself..just like crocodiles..and please prove there is a god, then surely i'll believe
@iansmelly All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
OMG YOU GUYS. Crocodiles and sharks haven't really evolved much at all for hundreds of millions of years therefore evolution never occurs. This isn't completely explained by evolutionary theory which suggests that without selective pressures a species will not undergo drastic changes.
Evolution (the theory, not the process) explains how species change and diverge. It does not necessitate change of any particular magnitude over any particular timescale. If it were possible to get genetic information from early hagfish, the number of neutral mutations would most likely be perfectly in line with the predicted mutation rate based on our understanding of genetics, evolution and hagfish biology. Since it is not possible, the "lack of evolution" is not evidence either way.
wow Bravo.. you... you guys are on the money... wow. im convince.. you know what im quiting school.. screw science.. wow.. you guys got it.. WOW Very coclusive....WOW
Hahah...thats is wow...the white shark hasn't evolved in over 35 million years...becasue it perfect hunter....slime eel hasnt evolved becasue it the perfect scavenger you religious sillies :D
this is retarded, charles darwin proved evolution you religious fucktards. evolution is the adaptation to ones environment. this thing is already well suited for its environment, eating is no problem and escape is no problem either.
guess what else hasn't evolved? the creationist's ridiculous claims lacking scientific theory and physiological basis; THATS PROOF OF CREATIONISM THROUGH LACK OF EVOLUTION!!!....so god DOES exist!! BAHAHAHA
just because it hasn't evolved doesnt in any way disprove evolution; there just were no hagfish who's genetic code mutated in such a way that they were more suited to their environment than the current hagfish.
It sickens me that people act as if evolution is a theory. Genetic mutation is unquestionable: dna is not always copied correctly. Given that, creatures with a beneficial mutation can take over the population. Its so simple and blatant, ignorance like this is pathetic
@fatbchester maybe if you stop being such an ignorant moron and went and actually studied the theory of evolution and gained a basic understanding of the process you could answer that question yourself. my guess is youd rather keep going to church and fanatically praise god.
they haven't you stupid piece of shit. Monkeys, like any other organism, experience genetic mutations. One day a monkey might be born smarter or stronger or with a better coat and begin to populate the area more successfully than the other male monkeys. Thus the incredibly slow process of evolution continues for monkeys.
ok, so you're sayin "evolution isn't real, because it did not happen to this species", but by this you are implying that it exists, because there's proof that it did happen to others, thus accepting it as real..
@gameover2005 no he's saying that God is supposed to create a beautiful species every time... This clearly isn't beautiful and hasn't been since the Earth was young like 5'000'000'000'000 years ago. The church argues that evolution was God's creation to make animals more beautiful.
It is true that there are animals that have been pretty much the same for millions of years, but that doesn't mean that other creatures didn't evolve, the explanation is that the aspect and "skills" of that animal allows him to survive perfectly, so it doesn't need to evolve. BEING A FREE THINKER ROCKS.
That something exists in a state, unchanged from that of ancient fossils, doesn't mean that there weren't any evolutionary changes, but that the original fossil representation didn't suffer any disadvantages that would cause it to go extinct. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for altered offspring of a species to progress along an evolutionary course to become a different species in a different environment, where it flourishes, leaving the original to flourish unchanged.
The claim that they`re trying to assert here is preposterous. If all of "god's creatures" are beautiful, then why would a hagfish be considered ugly? Also, it is possible that an animal does not under evolution or even adaptation in the course of 6000 years (The supposed age of Earth, according to Christian dogma). There are thousands, of animal species who have not undergone evolutionary change i thousands, even MILLIONS of years! To put it short, this video is trying to assert unsupported BS.
it still evolved into what it is right now it didnt appear out of fukkin nowhere it might not have further evolved but it evolved into that in the first place
What I want to understand is why they even bothered to use scientific "reasoning" to this when they are trying to disprove a scientific theory which is so, so close to a fact. Such a stupid way to try and prove yourself, this is why no one buys this stuff anymore. No one cares if a hagfish is ugly, if there is a god and we were all created in its image than it shouldnt matter how it looks.
what the hell does being ugly have to do with being created by god? know what else is disgusting? a cheeseburger. it's ground up cow's ass pressed into a circle topped with the same species' (cow) breast milk that has been fermented with fungus/mold (the cheese). think about that the next time you eat eggs - unfertilized chicken fetus/placenta. yeah.
compared to that, this fish is beautiful. it reminds me of the retard with the "bananas are proof of creationism".
Just because the Hagfish hadn't changed it doesn't mean that humans and the other animals are the same since the world is world, some creatures changed and others remained the same, its natural selection... The possibilities are infinite... creationism is just a way to close your mind for those possibilities for ever! Seriously why would a God create a meaningless world? To be worshiped? If God is God he really needs your worship?
*Facepalm* I think that the one responsible to this video does not understand evolution, natural selection and life... Really in my opinion creationists are just a bunch of close minded fanatics. Do you creationists think that evolution is just like Pokemon?
haha, hilarious. This is obviously a parody about just how ridiculous creationists are... and if it's for real, then it's proof of just how ridiculous creationists are, hahaha.
Crocodiles haven't changed either (other then becoming smaller) but that doesn't meen that they haven't evoloved. The Hagfish may appear the same in a fossil and have the same anatomy, however, maybe it produced more of or less slime and secreted a weird toxin. Go take a Bio class and THEN come back and try to prove your point. This video proves nothing.
THIS is why noone takes creationists seriously, its pretty clear they're just spouting lies because they know the ones who believe them already aren't going to do any research whatsoever.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Sir Arthur Keith).
Keith admits what the real reason behind defending evolution theory is, it's to bad so many are not as forthcoming.
Nope there is more than a reasonable doubt concerning evolution. Evolution is an explanation for how species originated. It is a theory rather than a law; thus it treats causality. Almost all of the "evidence" for evolution is based on descriptive research rather than causal research. Until there is much more replicable causal research to demonstrate that species' origins can be explained by sexually transmitted random mutations and natural selection, TOE is largely conjecture.
No, there is none actually. You seem to suffer the same confusion of theories/laws/facts as most creationists, a scientific law is basically a theory that can be express as a mathematical function. A search for 'speciation' at pubmed returns about 10,000 results, so you're well behind the curve.
Hey question, why do you make sockaccounts and upload mirrors of people which is against youtube guidelines ? Don't you think you're crossing a line ? Don't you think you're disrespectful towards those who put hours of work in it ?
The ignorance is all yours. A law and a theory are different. A theory addresses causation whereas law does not. Descriptive research might prove a law but not a theory. TOE is an explanation for for species origin. TOE states that species origin can be explained by natural selection and sexually transmitted random mutations. Eliminate all other possible causal factors in a controlled environment and show how those causal agents produce a new species. Compare results to a controlled group
Only then can you say that you have proven the theory using causal research (data) You can have one million articles based on descriptive research and conjecture and you still haven't provided the necessary proof to support a theory. It you say differently it only testifies to your ignorance.
If you would learn the difference between a theory and a law and if you would learn the difference between causal and descriptive research and if you would take a course in research design you not not make such an ignorant statement.
The difference is I am the one that knows the difference between a theory and a law, a law can be expressed mathematically. I would like one real source please, that says scientific theories are made to be proven? Or that TOE says random mutation and selection are the only mechanisms?
no the difference is that you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about and I do. Look up about any definition of law and theory on the internet and you will find that laws are descriptions of observable observations and that theories are explanations (meaning causality). Look to any discussion of the difference between causal research and descriptive research on the internet and elsewhere and you will find what is needed to support causality.
Look up any explanation of theories and Laws on the net. Laws are descriptions and theories are explanations, Whether we live in a causal universe or not there is a difference between descriptive research and causal research and a difference between theories and laws.
Yes laws address causation, IE the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. You still seem to be under the impression that theories are constructed to be proven, they aren't, they are explanatory models. No, the TOE does not say that random mutation and natural selection are the only mechanisms, there are things like Evo-Devo, genetic drift etc. As pointed out before, new species HAVE been observed to evolve thousands of times.
Nio the second law of thermodynamics does not address causation. Yes TOE does say that those are the only mechanisms. Species have not been observed to evolve thousands but that is beside the point. To prove the theory you must use causal research and not descriptive research.
Yes the second law addresses causation, entropy. No the TOE does not say those are the only mechanisms. Yes, thousands of species have been observed to evolve, and no theories still aren't constructed to be proven, they are explanatory models.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. The second law is a description of a natural phenomenon; not an explanation. To say that thousand of species have been observed to have originated. may be wishful thinking on your part but it is not factual. I refer you among other places to Darwin's Origin of the Species which is on the internet. I challenge you to demonstrate one other TOE mechanism that is not derivative of natural selection and random mutations sexually transmitted. give cites
Define explanation without giving a definition which would not encompass the description of entropy in the second law. No, it's a fact that thousands of new species have evolved, not wanting it to be so is irrelevant. horizontal gene transfer
Explanation tells why things happens as they do. It details causes of phenomenon, Haven't bothered that second law at all. Like I say descriptive research (real or imagined) does not give support to causality. Find a sample that you can treat with the factors you believe causes new species to originate. originate the new species and compare to the control sample which does not originate a new species. Repeat experiment. Then your theory will no longer just be a conjecture.
The nylon bug, evolved independently several times.
You can't even grasp that scientific theories aren't 'conjectures to be proven' but explanatory models, you almost seem to get it, then you revert back to 'but it isn't proven'
No I revert back to there isn't sufficient evidence to support it. Rain can be explained by thousands of invisible leprechauns pull down the rain drops from the sky. That might be an explanatory model but there is insufficient evidence to support than one either. You seem to be living in the land of Oz without much grasp of reality.
Theories must have support from causal research or they are just empty conjecture. If they are just conjectures then it is left up to the individual whether he wants to believe it or not,
Most non experimental research is not, Correlations between variables do not support causality (statistics 101). Like I say if you would just take courses in research design (as I have) you might not ask such stupid questions.
@GarebearShields All I can do at this point is laugh at yours and SF's unwarranted arrogance and your utter ignorance and stupidity. As Dorothy asked the scarecrow, what would you do with a brain if you had one?
@TheScienceFoundation lol look how much alagators and crocks evolved and jelly fish when something is right its left alone......and yea science does have evidence that evolution happend i agree with u
and actually, all thats really required is the inability to breed with its direct ancestral stock, verification through repetition is useful, but not necessary.
No what's required is that you originate the new species in a controlled environment. and you make sure that the sample is treated only with those variables that you believe explain origination of a new species, It is vitally important that you have a control group as well as a treatment group and that you be able to repeat the experiment with the same results a number of times.
It was, Ohno did it several times, so did Lemski with his cit plus E. Coli. And no, in this instance, the exact result is not required to be repeated. That'd be sort of like saying 'show how the latin language evolved independently more than once or it never did at all'
I have a lot of questions about the ecoli experiment. Did they really evolve into a new animal? did they evolve a new mechanism. I don't eat monkey brains. I knew an Indonesian girl who does. Euel Gibbons ate stuff that I would not consider eating. Are they on their way to becoming a new species? If evolution is correct, I don't see why we don't see greater differences among those e coli after so many generations. In any case they did not do an experiment that successfully proved hypoth.
First off, they weren't animals to begin with. One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli used to be the inability to metabolize citrate. They already are a new species. "I don't see why" Well, that's certainly your personal incredulity.
Actually, if the theory evolution is not correct then I do see why. For example a lot more radical changes are supposed to have taken place in humans in that number of generations. And humans require two of the opposite sex to be going down the same evolutionary highway. Not so with e coli. How do we know that it was an inability or it was just something they did not do? in any case it was not a proper experiment to support evolution for reasons I mentioned,
Except that it is. You'll rarely if ever see any huge single changes, evolution is cumulative. 'Because i dont want to accept it' is not a invalidating reason.
In a controlled setting, show me how natural selection and sexually transmitted random mutations originate (or cause) a species. Do that experiment a number of times. Have others replicate the experiment with the same or similar results. Because I want to believe it does not validate your conjectures.
In a controlled setting, show me how the english language can originate multiple times independently. What you want to believe is irrelevant in science, evolution is a fact regardless of your personal incredulity
Without an experiment, it is impossible even in your example to understand the factors that cause a language to develop. You might think that languages are caused by a certain set of factors and I might think that languages are caused by another set of factors. Without an experiment there is no way of demonstrating who is right or wrong,. Evolution is only a conjecture. The fact that you want to believe is irrelevant.
Now you're sort of getting my point, the chance that the same mutations would occur can be very small. It's not a matter of what I want to believe, it's a matter of evidence and the fact that I actually understand what constitutes science.
No it is you who missed the point. I said the same or similar results. Did not have to been the exact same. Although this presents another problem for TOE. A good theory should be able to predict and control. TOE does not seem to be able to predict or control anything. An animal might evolve into another species and then again it might not. It all depends on chance mutations. Sure natural selection guides but if it does not have chance mutations to work with; it can accomplish nothing.
Except that they were the exact same, half a dozen times. No, theories do not control anything, they explain. Thats part of why its not a law, no consistency to be expressed mathematically.
The same generations produced the same result a half dozen times. So what? Simply because species don't eat a substance doesn't mean that they can't. It is not that big of a variation of species and this is from as many generations as were in human history for a appx. a million years. In a million years, humans are supposed to have changed far more than the e coli in as many generations. Of course the experiment was never designed to give support or falsify evolution to begin with,
E. Coli aren't known to be picky eaters, so if they don't metabolize a substance through their entire known existence, they cant. Of course we've changed drastically in a million years, modern humans have only been around ~160,000 years
Hi TheScienceFoundation, i wanted to ask you a question about your sock account (creationistsLost) where you seem to mirror clips from cw, do you know you could get this account suspended too ?
Why are you doing this towards others ? Don't you have any respect for others ? Just answer me, because you delete my posts on your channel !!! Free speech right ?
Creationism thrives due to ignorance and fear .How will creationist keep their children from learning about evolution on a computer - by extreme cult like religious indoctrination .
computer and free information is how huge number of people heard first time about real creation deal, and leave evolution.
and every time u make statement like yours, know that creationists thinks exactly the same about evolutionists. - ignorants, who never bothered to research on topic, and fanatically believe in that religious cult which evolution obviously is.
Knowlegeaddiction - there is a huge difference between creationists and evolutionists .Evolutionists have more education , better incomes and are more moral .Google the stats to verify .
Being taught biology in school doesnt compare to Jesus camp like indoctrination .I've seen and talked to Luthern children in my neigborhood the mind control is sad .
It doesn't matter what the creationists think, evolution is the most scrutinized theory in history, yet its still the unifying theory of biology, think about that one.
Creationism is a multi million dollar a year enterprise fleecing Evangelical families .Creationist leaders are multi millionaires fleecing the scientificly illiterate .
"Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory?" Watch that video to understand the staus / definition of theory .99% of creationists dont know the actual definition of theory .
You are so ignorant it blows my mind. Like, you can sell this level of ignorance on the street as a narcotic.
Okay, listen. Why hasn't the hagfish had a change in it's physical form? It doesn't need to. Ta-daa!
Now, if something happened where dead fish were no longer available to the hagfish for food, it would either die out or evolve. That's how evolution works.
Congrats on proving nothing more than your own ignorance of science! :D
There are dozens videos that explain why evolution is a fact .Search under "evolution is a fact " Watch a few of those then write back with informed questions .
Given so much fossil, geological, biochemical evidence and in many other fields, it saddens me that my fellow scientists and especially experts in the aforementioned fields still believe in evolution.
As a former atheist, naturalist and evolutionist myself i still had some lingering and gnawing doubts with regards to creationism.
Yet in the past few weeks i've seen many videos, thought much and hard and became convinced that evolution is not just wrong, but a lie to explain away the Creator.
...and that evolution also works without abiogenesis.
But in fact abiogenesis is necessary for life to come to being in a naturalistic worldview and is an esence of modern evolutionary dogma.
Even the sporogenesis or alien seeding of life here on earth necessitates abiogenesis, even though in the dark reaches of space.
So if abiogenesis is disproven, the foundation of modern evolutionary dogma, then the asumed evolution cannot happen and such atheists have no naturalistic means to explain life.
Evolution is a fact its mechanics are a theory .Creationists are woefully ignorant , most cant pass a 5th grade science test on evolution or correctly define "theory".
Evolution is a hypothesis promoted to the status of dogma.
I've never seen repeatable evidence for evolution like we have for a much more tested theory like gravitation, be it Newton's approximation or Einstein's refinement.
All so called evidence is conjuncture dependent on interpretation.
Evolutionary biology is mostly a study of the past, a long ago past without any eye witnesses or written record.
And the conclusion that evolution DID happen is just scientist taking small, minute changes...
that are due to adaptation to outside circumstances and then extrapolating these changes at least a hundred fold.
And that's one of the theory's faults, extrapolations that large are generally unacceptable, unless it has been proven that they are valid.
But alas for evolution "science", this is not the case, as we do not have a full, comprehensive and detailed account of all changes that occurred during a species supposed "evolution" to another species, including the mutation and biochemical...
...pathways and all other changes in macrocellular structures.
Such a detailed, comprehensive and full pathway, including transitional fossils, is the proverbial "holy grail" of evolutionary theory, which would definitely prove the extrapolation to be justified and evolution to be true.
But such a "holy grail" does not exist and therefore the extrapolations of adaptations are not justified and therefore bad and fraudulent science.
Furthermore, much findings have been been made since the initial postulation of the theory, that do contradict it and that are disregarded, explained away, ignored and even destroyed and instead a portion of evolution scientists have used forgery and fraud to show proofs of evolution.
More and more the truths and frauds are exposed and combined with the fact that a cell is a computer and biochemical factory in one, it's justified to point to a creator.
If one looks at DNA and RNA as ROM and RAM, the nucleus and it's vicinity as a CPU and the rest of the as power supply with a chemical plant, then any cell is a miracle of engineering, using its own molecular and even atomic parts to interpret information, interact with its environment, sustain and replicate itself.
Cells can even form lager structures, up to what we call a human, which has the same capabilities as a cell, but with cells as it's subunits.
Not able to explain its beginning, hoping that another unbased assumption of extrapolation of some supposed favourable processes can rationalize abiogenesis and then giant extrapolations, hoping that the cull of natural selection among with mutations, which modify present information, will bring forth the desired evolution of species.
In light of the evidence, assuming a divine Creator seems more logical, reasonable and sensible.
So in the end it's up to one self to either accept naturalistic evolutionary theory or theistic creationist theory.
The facts speak for themselves, but believing is another thing and in fact one's personal own choice.
Proposing evolutionary theory as factuated and tested like gravitational and any other scientific theory is nonsense and should cost one the title of scientist.
It is a hypothesis, a dogmatic and not substantiated one, and should be treated as such.
Barachem - evolution is a fact in the fossil record .Gapless records are now known in multiple marine species . Macro evolution is confirmed in real live over 4 ceturies as well .
It always go back to the question; WHich came first, the chicken or egg ? The egg came from the Chicken, the chicken came from the clay , and the list goes on. The evolutionist stumble on this---Where did Nothing come from ?---cause everything has a beginning, so when confronted with sa simple question, they dodge and jig, like a Native PowWow dancer.
As far as how do the stars and the planets form? Matter, and matter always was, like you say, god always was, now which god did you say that was? Remember long ago, all cultures had their own gods. Take your pick. Believe it or not, many of them have many corresponding elements to their stories that corresponds with the Jew god..
Running - no one is dodging .The Universe transformed from transcendental singularity which was the birth of time .Saying God did it is a theological label only .
That's a theory. It's not observable, and can't be proven. The complexity of life at all levels shout that there is a God. You just choose to ignore it. Doesn't bother me, but your taking a big chance, putting your belief in something that has gotten several things wrong and had to take back some of their so called missing links.
Evolution falsifies literal creation but not Gods existence . Creationist often suffer from cult psychology .There are serious issues of psychology at work which make deconversion nearly impossible .
I am showing this next semester in Evolution- to ask students what is the one major aspect of evolution being ignored here?
Evolutionary changes only happen if the current characteristics of a specie need to change to survive for natural selection. If there is no threat to survival no change is necessary.
curiousattube 2 months ago
eat a dick
thfelipeth 3 months ago
Honestly, who the fuck cares? I personally dgaf about the crazy bible thumpers or the obnoxious rants from people supporting evolution and science. I believe in science not religion but I don't go about trying to convert the religous
N0madlc 9 months ago
@N0madlc True Christians are commanded by the Bible to tell others about the free gift of God by faith in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with religion. Yes, I am considered "crazy", but a love for the lost and a greater love for the Lord, compels us to continue doing so.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
This commentary is inaccurate. I have studied the fossil specimen directly and can assure you that it is not like a modern hagfish.
taphonomist1 11 months ago
Whoever chooses to believe in a (or multiple) god(s) is purely up to them. It's their choice and for others to respect your decision, you must respect them and theirs. It won't end an argument, it won't solve anything. This doesn't prove or disprove anything, only that the Hagfish hasn't been forced to adapt to any changes where it dwells. Stop slandering each other and take it as entertainment value.
AdrinAmdis 11 months ago
@AdrinAmdis Either the Bible is true or all others ways are true.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Do you know the narrow way?
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 shit are you serious? you actually believe what this video is true? give me scientific proof "god" created anything...exactly
iansmelly 1 year ago
@iansmelly Both evolution and creation are based on faith. If you have the "facts" for evolution, go to The Science Prize. If not, please stop clucking.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 In case you didn't notice, the only ones continually spouting a completely unscientific challenge on the internet are the creationists. Evolution is and has been done continually in the actual scientific community for 150 years
If you're not a coward, challenge your fellow creationists to submit their data for actual factual peer review. If you ARE a coward, just keep making your pitiful little challenge over youtube.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
erm...it doesn't need to evolve because it works perfectly the way it is..why would it need to improve itself..just like crocodiles..and please prove there is a god, then surely i'll believe
iansmelly 1 year ago
@iansmelly All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
OMG YOU GUYS. Crocodiles and sharks haven't really evolved much at all for hundreds of millions of years therefore evolution never occurs. This isn't completely explained by evolutionary theory which suggests that without selective pressures a species will not undergo drastic changes.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Evolution (the theory, not the process) explains how species change and diverge. It does not necessitate change of any particular magnitude over any particular timescale. If it were possible to get genetic information from early hagfish, the number of neutral mutations would most likely be perfectly in line with the predicted mutation rate based on our understanding of genetics, evolution and hagfish biology. Since it is not possible, the "lack of evolution" is not evidence either way.
TheNikonSevast 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
OH MY GOD I BELIEVE IN GOD NOW.
no, because that was retarded
Calumwins 1 year ago
OH MY GOD I BELIEVE IN GOD NOW.
no, becasue that was retarded
Calumwins 1 year ago 2
how can u call a creature this awesome ugly? that guy is friggin rude
Broockle 1 year ago
I wanna throw one of those at my teacher.
00MrsHiga00 1 year ago
Wow this is so fucking dumb
WhatTehFuckWasThat 1 year ago
show me proof of creationism. make a damn cow in front of me out of dust. i wanna see it move and breath and get cooked and taste great.
thapwnisher 1 year ago
*dies from laughter* Er... Learn about evolution a bit more.
websurfer1232 1 year ago
There is no thing called "god"
BBEskil 1 year ago
wow Bravo.. you... you guys are on the money... wow. im convince.. you know what im quiting school.. screw science.. wow.. you guys got it.. WOW Very coclusive....WOW
kirec111 1 year ago
@mattisthegodofwar stfu go and suck your mada
fatbchester 1 year ago
Hahah...thats is wow...the white shark hasn't evolved in over 35 million years...becasue it perfect hunter....slime eel hasnt evolved becasue it the perfect scavenger you religious sillies :D
dzsuboy 1 year ago 2
more like my dick....it has a head and a mouth....and ...uhhh.....slimy...no not slimy lol
redeljann 1 year ago
Stupid god shit.
alex2974 1 year ago
*rolls eyes* If it hasn't evolved it means it's survived so far and doesn't need to change to survive.
candychandelier 1 year ago 2
yeah. um... I thought he said Fagfish. O_O LOL
TheRealBetsy 1 year ago
this is retarded, charles darwin proved evolution you religious fucktards. evolution is the adaptation to ones environment. this thing is already well suited for its environment, eating is no problem and escape is no problem either.
xsketcherx 1 year ago
thats because it hasn't needed to evolve... and how many years is "The earth still very young" the earth is billions of years old...
salesman259 1 year ago
Well that devinately settles the debate. VERY conclusive. Also, rocks haven't evolved into Jedi Knights. That clearly indicates Jesus is magic.
Jab2525 1 year ago 9
Creationists are definetly dumb enough to believe it.
LikeALeadZeppelin 1 year ago
(Christian here) Hoooooooo boy...
chobitz7 1 year ago
No evolution has taken place, because evolution happens because they NEED to happen.
If you need more neatly shaped hands in order to survive, within some generations, your descendants' hands would (maybe) be neatly shaped.
This fish didn't need to evolve, ergo it didn't.
TheAnonymousSeeker 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA. really?
2YinYang2 1 year ago
lol, so one creature shows no signs of evolution and the complete theory of evolution is debunked?
OMG!
One would wonder what if all creatures would show the same...........
ImTheMostViewed 1 year ago
omg God just made one thing which looked sooooo ugly so its just a little more ugly then god he doesnt want to be the ugliest
MyGuitarSkills 1 year ago
guess what else hasn't evolved? the creationist's ridiculous claims lacking scientific theory and physiological basis; THATS PROOF OF CREATIONISM THROUGH LACK OF EVOLUTION!!!....so god DOES exist!! BAHAHAHA
FAKE+GAY...
CutMeASlize 1 year ago
some animals dose not evolve because they do not need to
zeetekk123 1 year ago
spongyollama that is hilarious im loving ur comment there it just leaves no room for argument
hulabalooful 1 year ago
interesting.... but i'm not convinced
nowandforever117 1 year ago
haha it hasnt changed through evolution over many years so god must exist.
well tell me this then mr. god, how to you explain the dinosaurs then? hmmm?
religon is fake and gay.
cuidado4289 1 year ago
just because it hasn't evolved doesnt in any way disprove evolution; there just were no hagfish who's genetic code mutated in such a way that they were more suited to their environment than the current hagfish.
It sickens me that people act as if evolution is a theory. Genetic mutation is unquestionable: dna is not always copied correctly. Given that, creatures with a beneficial mutation can take over the population. Its so simple and blatant, ignorance like this is pathetic
mattisthegodofwar 1 year ago
Since evolution is real explain why the other monkeys have stopped evolving
fatbchester 1 year ago
@fatbchester maybe if you stop being such an ignorant moron and went and actually studied the theory of evolution and gained a basic understanding of the process you could answer that question yourself. my guess is youd rather keep going to church and fanatically praise god.
1992account 1 year ago
@fatbchester
they haven't you stupid piece of shit. Monkeys, like any other organism, experience genetic mutations. One day a monkey might be born smarter or stronger or with a better coat and begin to populate the area more successfully than the other male monkeys. Thus the incredibly slow process of evolution continues for monkeys.
mattisthegodofwar 1 year ago
ok, so you're sayin "evolution isn't real, because it did not happen to this species", but by this you are implying that it exists, because there's proof that it did happen to others, thus accepting it as real..
mmmm....
gameover2005 1 year ago
@gameover2005 no he's saying that God is supposed to create a beautiful species every time... This clearly isn't beautiful and hasn't been since the Earth was young like 5'000'000'000'000 years ago. The church argues that evolution was God's creation to make animals more beautiful.
DustysPhotoshop 1 year ago
It is true that there are animals that have been pretty much the same for millions of years, but that doesn't mean that other creatures didn't evolve, the explanation is that the aspect and "skills" of that animal allows him to survive perfectly, so it doesn't need to evolve. BEING A FREE THINKER ROCKS.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
That something exists in a state, unchanged from that of ancient fossils, doesn't mean that there weren't any evolutionary changes, but that the original fossil representation didn't suffer any disadvantages that would cause it to go extinct. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for altered offspring of a species to progress along an evolutionary course to become a different species in a different environment, where it flourishes, leaving the original to flourish unchanged.
RichardRoy2 1 year ago
wow! this makes total sense, pause not!
51chad15 1 year ago
The claim that they`re trying to assert here is preposterous. If all of "god's creatures" are beautiful, then why would a hagfish be considered ugly? Also, it is possible that an animal does not under evolution or even adaptation in the course of 6000 years (The supposed age of Earth, according to Christian dogma). There are thousands, of animal species who have not undergone evolutionary change i thousands, even MILLIONS of years! To put it short, this video is trying to assert unsupported BS.
KaosEnforcer 1 year ago
it still evolved into what it is right now it didnt appear out of fukkin nowhere it might not have further evolved but it evolved into that in the first place
creaper587 1 year ago
how is the year dating inflated?
handysmurf210 1 year ago
GOD DOESNT EXIST!!!!
BitchUstupid 1 year ago
What I want to understand is why they even bothered to use scientific "reasoning" to this when they are trying to disprove a scientific theory which is so, so close to a fact. Such a stupid way to try and prove yourself, this is why no one buys this stuff anymore. No one cares if a hagfish is ugly, if there is a god and we were all created in its image than it shouldnt matter how it looks.
NathBed1989 1 year ago
People still believe in god?
chadsmith20 1 year ago
Who the fuck is god?
DizzyKayKay 1 year ago
How does one animal not evolving prove that evolution is not true? What a random leap in logic.. these guys are beyond stupid.
GarebearShields 1 year ago 2
@GarebearShields Just what I was thinking XD
snowleopard217 1 year ago
what the hell does being ugly have to do with being created by god? know what else is disgusting? a cheeseburger. it's ground up cow's ass pressed into a circle topped with the same species' (cow) breast milk that has been fermented with fungus/mold (the cheese). think about that the next time you eat eggs - unfertilized chicken fetus/placenta. yeah.
compared to that, this fish is beautiful. it reminds me of the retard with the "bananas are proof of creationism".
what a load of shit.
dsaerno 1 year ago
I couldn't agree more. Only Homer Simpson would fall for that load of crap
waikukujk 1 year ago
Just because the Hagfish hadn't changed it doesn't mean that humans and the other animals are the same since the world is world, some creatures changed and others remained the same, its natural selection... The possibilities are infinite... creationism is just a way to close your mind for those possibilities for ever! Seriously why would a God create a meaningless world? To be worshiped? If God is God he really needs your worship?
itsme4880plus 1 year ago
*Facepalm* I think that the one responsible to this video does not understand evolution, natural selection and life... Really in my opinion creationists are just a bunch of close minded fanatics. Do you creationists think that evolution is just like Pokemon?
itsme4880plus 1 year ago
@itsme4880plus EXACTLY!!! just like pokemon.
MicroMouse007 1 year ago
haha, hilarious. This is obviously a parody about just how ridiculous creationists are... and if it's for real, then it's proof of just how ridiculous creationists are, hahaha.
SpongyOLlama 1 year ago 38
@SpongyOLlama not parody
karlhenrikberger 1 year ago
i'm not even going to talk about all the things that are wrong with this story. i'll let the rest of youtube figure it out
coombsy16 1 year ago
Crocodiles haven't changed either (other then becoming smaller) but that doesn't meen that they haven't evoloved. The Hagfish may appear the same in a fossil and have the same anatomy, however, maybe it produced more of or less slime and secreted a weird toxin. Go take a Bio class and THEN come back and try to prove your point. This video proves nothing.
ShadowDraik1 1 year ago 2
somebody needs to take biology 101
Ghostmonsters 1 year ago
Except the hagfish HAS changed in physical form
googling 'hagfish fossil' takes you right to it
THIS is why noone takes creationists seriously, its pretty clear they're just spouting lies because they know the ones who believe them already aren't going to do any research whatsoever.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
noone, means evolutionists?
man, u believe ure a monkey, thats fine with me.
KnowledgeAddicted 2 years ago
Not a matter of believing, its a matter of evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Sir Arthur Keith).
Keith admits what the real reason behind defending evolution theory is, it's to bad so many are not as forthcoming.
fellowservant34 2 years ago
Keith lived and died before the age of genetics, which has confirmed evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Also, appeal to authority, I could point out that the pope accepts evolution, but I doubt that would change your mind.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
BOOOOOOOORIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!!!!
KnowledgeAddicted 2 years ago
Nope there is more than a reasonable doubt concerning evolution. Evolution is an explanation for how species originated. It is a theory rather than a law; thus it treats causality. Almost all of the "evidence" for evolution is based on descriptive research rather than causal research. Until there is much more replicable causal research to demonstrate that species' origins can be explained by sexually transmitted random mutations and natural selection, TOE is largely conjecture.
muncastro 2 years ago
No, there is none actually. You seem to suffer the same confusion of theories/laws/facts as most creationists, a scientific law is basically a theory that can be express as a mathematical function. A search for 'speciation' at pubmed returns about 10,000 results, so you're well behind the curve.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Hey question, why do you make sockaccounts and upload mirrors of people which is against youtube guidelines ? Don't you think you're crossing a line ? Don't you think you're disrespectful towards those who put hours of work in it ?
AtheismSATANISM 2 years ago
Hey, do you believe in free speech '
TheScienceFoundation" ? Why do you block people who want to debate you on your sockaccount ?
Are you against free speech ?
newroze98 2 years ago
The ignorance is all yours. A law and a theory are different. A theory addresses causation whereas law does not. Descriptive research might prove a law but not a theory. TOE is an explanation for for species origin. TOE states that species origin can be explained by natural selection and sexually transmitted random mutations. Eliminate all other possible causal factors in a controlled environment and show how those causal agents produce a new species. Compare results to a controlled group
muncastro 2 years ago
Only then can you say that you have proven the theory using causal research (data) You can have one million articles based on descriptive research and conjecture and you still haven't provided the necessary proof to support a theory. It you say differently it only testifies to your ignorance.
muncastro 2 years ago
Thinking that science deals with proof really shows you have zero understanding, science follows the evidence, proof is for mathematics.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
If you would learn the difference between a theory and a law and if you would learn the difference between causal and descriptive research and if you would take a course in research design you not not make such an ignorant statement.
muncastro 2 years ago
The difference is I am the one that knows the difference between a theory and a law, a law can be expressed mathematically. I would like one real source please, that says scientific theories are made to be proven? Or that TOE says random mutation and selection are the only mechanisms?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
no the difference is that you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about and I do. Look up about any definition of law and theory on the internet and you will find that laws are descriptions of observable observations and that theories are explanations (meaning causality). Look to any discussion of the difference between causal research and descriptive research on the internet and elsewhere and you will find what is needed to support causality.
muncastro 2 years ago
Dodging the question, you didn't provide one source I asked for.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Also, since we live in a causal universe, causality is implied in all laws and theories.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Look up any explanation of theories and Laws on the net. Laws are descriptions and theories are explanations, Whether we live in a causal universe or not there is a difference between descriptive research and causal research and a difference between theories and laws.
muncastro 2 years ago
You can't define one without either encompassing the other, or butchering it so badly its not applicable to the original point you're trying to make.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Comment removed
DeliciousShemales 2 years ago
Yes laws address causation, IE the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. You still seem to be under the impression that theories are constructed to be proven, they aren't, they are explanatory models. No, the TOE does not say that random mutation and natural selection are the only mechanisms, there are things like Evo-Devo, genetic drift etc. As pointed out before, new species HAVE been observed to evolve thousands of times.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Nio the second law of thermodynamics does not address causation. Yes TOE does say that those are the only mechanisms. Species have not been observed to evolve thousands but that is beside the point. To prove the theory you must use causal research and not descriptive research.
muncastro 2 years ago
Yes the second law addresses causation, entropy. No the TOE does not say those are the only mechanisms. Yes, thousands of species have been observed to evolve, and no theories still aren't constructed to be proven, they are explanatory models.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. The second law is a description of a natural phenomenon; not an explanation. To say that thousand of species have been observed to have originated. may be wishful thinking on your part but it is not factual. I refer you among other places to Darwin's Origin of the Species which is on the internet. I challenge you to demonstrate one other TOE mechanism that is not derivative of natural selection and random mutations sexually transmitted. give cites
muncastro 2 years ago
Define explanation without giving a definition which would not encompass the description of entropy in the second law. No, it's a fact that thousands of new species have evolved, not wanting it to be so is irrelevant. horizontal gene transfer
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Explanation tells why things happens as they do. It details causes of phenomenon, Haven't bothered that second law at all. Like I say descriptive research (real or imagined) does not give support to causality. Find a sample that you can treat with the factors you believe causes new species to originate. originate the new species and compare to the control sample which does not originate a new species. Repeat experiment. Then your theory will no longer just be a conjecture.
muncastro 2 years ago
The nylon bug, evolved independently several times.
You can't even grasp that scientific theories aren't 'conjectures to be proven' but explanatory models, you almost seem to get it, then you revert back to 'but it isn't proven'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No I revert back to there isn't sufficient evidence to support it. Rain can be explained by thousands of invisible leprechauns pull down the rain drops from the sky. That might be an explanatory model but there is insufficient evidence to support than one either. You seem to be living in the land of Oz without much grasp of reality.
muncastro 2 years ago
Scientific theories use the available evidence in their explanation, they don't necessitate it to cease being theories.
evolution(.)berkeley(.)edu(/)evolibrary/misconceptions_faq(.)php#b1
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Theories must have support from causal research or they are just empty conjecture. If they are just conjectures then it is left up to the individual whether he wants to believe it or not,
muncastro 2 years ago
You keep using that word 'theory' I do not think it means what you think it means.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Be my guest google theory and law. You will find out that it does.
muncastro 2 years ago
Name a piece of research that isn't causal.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Most non experimental research is not, Correlations between variables do not support causality (statistics 101). Like I say if you would just take courses in research design (as I have) you might not ask such stupid questions.
muncastro 2 years ago
You're the one asking for something that isn't caused
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
And what would that be? Be more specific.
muncastro 2 years ago
"Theories must have support from causal research"
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
So which is not caused? - Theories or causal research?
I am just playing along with your silliness.
muncastro 2 years ago
No, you realize you have no argument now you're pretending that you were trolling.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No I realize that you realize that you have no argument; thus you are reduced to muttering near gibberish or nonsensical statements.
muncastro 2 years ago
And now you're projecting.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Like I told you before, wishful thinking on your par does not make it so.
muncastro 2 years ago
Thats fine, because my side has the evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 19
Again wishful thinking on your part does not provide proper evidence.
muncastro 2 years ago
Again fine, because reality does that as well.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 3
nope. One more time you are totally wrong.
muncastro 2 years ago
Repeating fallacy does not make it any less fallacious.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 3
So, quit doing it.
muncastro 2 years ago
I never was.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
Lol, you're a fucking joke.
GarebearShields 1 year ago
@GarebearShields All I can do at this point is laugh at yours and SF's unwarranted arrogance and your utter ignorance and stupidity. As Dorothy asked the scarecrow, what would you do with a brain if you had one?
muncastro 1 year ago
@muncastro
What a blind sheep you are. Enjoy your controlled and organized religion , I'm going to go join the free thinkers.
GarebearShields 1 year ago
Good luck with that. It would help you to join a group of genuine free thinkers if you could produce something resembling a thought
muncastro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good luck with that. It would help you to join a group of genuine free thinkers if you could produce something resembling a thought
muncastro 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation lol look how much alagators and crocks evolved and jelly fish when something is right its left alone......and yea science does have evidence that evolution happend i agree with u
seahawkak 1 year ago
and actually, all thats really required is the inability to breed with its direct ancestral stock, verification through repetition is useful, but not necessary.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No what's required is that you originate the new species in a controlled environment. and you make sure that the sample is treated only with those variables that you believe explain origination of a new species, It is vitally important that you have a control group as well as a treatment group and that you be able to repeat the experiment with the same results a number of times.
muncastro 2 years ago
It was, Ohno did it several times, so did Lemski with his cit plus E. Coli. And no, in this instance, the exact result is not required to be repeated. That'd be sort of like saying 'show how the latin language evolved independently more than once or it never did at all'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I have a lot of questions about the ecoli experiment. Did they really evolve into a new animal? did they evolve a new mechanism. I don't eat monkey brains. I knew an Indonesian girl who does. Euel Gibbons ate stuff that I would not consider eating. Are they on their way to becoming a new species? If evolution is correct, I don't see why we don't see greater differences among those e coli after so many generations. In any case they did not do an experiment that successfully proved hypoth.
muncastro 2 years ago
First off, they weren't animals to begin with. One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli used to be the inability to metabolize citrate. They already are a new species. "I don't see why" Well, that's certainly your personal incredulity.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Actually, if the theory evolution is not correct then I do see why. For example a lot more radical changes are supposed to have taken place in humans in that number of generations. And humans require two of the opposite sex to be going down the same evolutionary highway. Not so with e coli. How do we know that it was an inability or it was just something they did not do? in any case it was not a proper experiment to support evolution for reasons I mentioned,
muncastro 2 years ago
Except that it is. You'll rarely if ever see any huge single changes, evolution is cumulative. 'Because i dont want to accept it' is not a invalidating reason.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
In a controlled setting, show me how natural selection and sexually transmitted random mutations originate (or cause) a species. Do that experiment a number of times. Have others replicate the experiment with the same or similar results. Because I want to believe it does not validate your conjectures.
muncastro 2 years ago
In a controlled setting, show me how the english language can originate multiple times independently. What you want to believe is irrelevant in science, evolution is a fact regardless of your personal incredulity
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Without an experiment, it is impossible even in your example to understand the factors that cause a language to develop. You might think that languages are caused by a certain set of factors and I might think that languages are caused by another set of factors. Without an experiment there is no way of demonstrating who is right or wrong,. Evolution is only a conjecture. The fact that you want to believe is irrelevant.
muncastro 2 years ago
Now you're sort of getting my point, the chance that the same mutations would occur can be very small. It's not a matter of what I want to believe, it's a matter of evidence and the fact that I actually understand what constitutes science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No it is you who missed the point. I said the same or similar results. Did not have to been the exact same. Although this presents another problem for TOE. A good theory should be able to predict and control. TOE does not seem to be able to predict or control anything. An animal might evolve into another species and then again it might not. It all depends on chance mutations. Sure natural selection guides but if it does not have chance mutations to work with; it can accomplish nothing.
muncastro 2 years ago
Except that they were the exact same, half a dozen times. No, theories do not control anything, they explain. Thats part of why its not a law, no consistency to be expressed mathematically.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The same generations produced the same result a half dozen times. So what? Simply because species don't eat a substance doesn't mean that they can't. It is not that big of a variation of species and this is from as many generations as were in human history for a appx. a million years. In a million years, humans are supposed to have changed far more than the e coli in as many generations. Of course the experiment was never designed to give support or falsify evolution to begin with,
muncastro 2 years ago
E. Coli aren't known to be picky eaters, so if they don't metabolize a substance through their entire known existence, they cant. Of course we've changed drastically in a million years, modern humans have only been around ~160,000 years
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Hi TheScienceFoundation, i wanted to ask you a question about your sock account (creationistsLost) where you seem to mirror clips from cw, do you know you could get this account suspended too ?
Why are you doing this towards others ? Don't you have any respect for others ? Just answer me, because you delete my posts on your channel !!! Free speech right ?
EvolutionistsLost 2 years ago
Creationism thrives due to ignorance and fear .How will creationist keep their children from learning about evolution on a computer - by extreme cult like religious indoctrination .
flyingscience 2 years ago
computer and free information is how huge number of people heard first time about real creation deal, and leave evolution.
and every time u make statement like yours, know that creationists thinks exactly the same about evolutionists. - ignorants, who never bothered to research on topic, and fanatically believe in that religious cult which evolution obviously is.
KnowledgeAddicted 2 years ago
Knowlegeaddiction - there is a huge difference between creationists and evolutionists .Evolutionists have more education , better incomes and are more moral .Google the stats to verify .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Being taught biology in school doesnt compare to Jesus camp like indoctrination .I've seen and talked to Luthern children in my neigborhood the mind control is sad .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Calling evolution a religion is like calling creationism/ ID a science .There is nothing cult like about nature and its mechanics .
flyingscience 2 years ago
To sit at a computer and spout these claims is an educational disgrace .I will always hold your your feet to the fire on this .
flyingscience 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what the creationists think, evolution is the most scrutinized theory in history, yet its still the unifying theory of biology, think about that one.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Creationism is a multi million dollar a year enterprise fleecing Evangelical families .Creationist leaders are multi millionaires fleecing the scientificly illiterate .
flyingscience 2 years ago
"Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory?" Watch that video to understand the staus / definition of theory .99% of creationists dont know the actual definition of theory .
flyingscience 2 years ago
FACEPALM IN 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... *facepalm*
You are so ignorant it blows my mind. Like, you can sell this level of ignorance on the street as a narcotic.
Okay, listen. Why hasn't the hagfish had a change in it's physical form? It doesn't need to. Ta-daa!
Now, if something happened where dead fish were no longer available to the hagfish for food, it would either die out or evolve. That's how evolution works.
Congrats on proving nothing more than your own ignorance of science! :D
hgryphon 2 years ago
Evolution IS a FACT we have gapless fossil sequences now -SCIENCE WON . Read this and weep and find a new denomination NOT at odds with biology .
flyingscience 2 years ago
There are dozens videos that explain why evolution is a fact .Search under "evolution is a fact " Watch a few of those then write back with informed questions .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Given so much fossil, geological, biochemical evidence and in many other fields, it saddens me that my fellow scientists and especially experts in the aforementioned fields still believe in evolution.
As a former atheist, naturalist and evolutionist myself i still had some lingering and gnawing doubts with regards to creationism.
Yet in the past few weeks i've seen many videos, thought much and hard and became convinced that evolution is not just wrong, but a lie to explain away the Creator.
Barachem 2 years ago
Of course in the time before i already rejected evolution and was convinced it was wrong and a lie, but now i'm certain of it.
Many atheists are radical and extremist and have a need to disprove that a god and especially the biblical God exist.
So they have to assume that life came to being by abiogenesis and then evolved through mutations and natural selection into everything today.
Many a radical, extremist atheist will argue that abiogenesis is not part of evolution...
Barachem 2 years ago
...and that evolution also works without abiogenesis.
But in fact abiogenesis is necessary for life to come to being in a naturalistic worldview and is an esence of modern evolutionary dogma.
Even the sporogenesis or alien seeding of life here on earth necessitates abiogenesis, even though in the dark reaches of space.
So if abiogenesis is disproven, the foundation of modern evolutionary dogma, then the asumed evolution cannot happen and such atheists have no naturalistic means to explain life.
Barachem 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact its mechanics are a theory .Creationists are woefully ignorant , most cant pass a 5th grade science test on evolution or correctly define "theory".
flyingscience 2 years ago
Evolution is a hypothesis promoted to the status of dogma.
I've never seen repeatable evidence for evolution like we have for a much more tested theory like gravitation, be it Newton's approximation or Einstein's refinement.
All so called evidence is conjuncture dependent on interpretation.
Evolutionary biology is mostly a study of the past, a long ago past without any eye witnesses or written record.
And the conclusion that evolution DID happen is just scientist taking small, minute changes...
Barachem 2 years ago
that are due to adaptation to outside circumstances and then extrapolating these changes at least a hundred fold.
And that's one of the theory's faults, extrapolations that large are generally unacceptable, unless it has been proven that they are valid.
But alas for evolution "science", this is not the case, as we do not have a full, comprehensive and detailed account of all changes that occurred during a species supposed "evolution" to another species, including the mutation and biochemical...
Barachem 2 years ago
...pathways and all other changes in macrocellular structures.
Such a detailed, comprehensive and full pathway, including transitional fossils, is the proverbial "holy grail" of evolutionary theory, which would definitely prove the extrapolation to be justified and evolution to be true.
But such a "holy grail" does not exist and therefore the extrapolations of adaptations are not justified and therefore bad and fraudulent science.
Barachem 2 years ago
Furthermore, much findings have been been made since the initial postulation of the theory, that do contradict it and that are disregarded, explained away, ignored and even destroyed and instead a portion of evolution scientists have used forgery and fraud to show proofs of evolution.
More and more the truths and frauds are exposed and combined with the fact that a cell is a computer and biochemical factory in one, it's justified to point to a creator.
Barachem 2 years ago
If one looks at DNA and RNA as ROM and RAM, the nucleus and it's vicinity as a CPU and the rest of the as power supply with a chemical plant, then any cell is a miracle of engineering, using its own molecular and even atomic parts to interpret information, interact with its environment, sustain and replicate itself.
Cells can even form lager structures, up to what we call a human, which has the same capabilities as a cell, but with cells as it's subunits.
Barachem 2 years ago
It is quite puzzling how such a small, but so complex system could come into being.
Though some biologists have "created their own life", it was nothing more than tinkering around with cells and combining this with that.
Even more ironic, biologists cannot make DNA without the use of certain DNA duplicating proteins, which come from cells.
Another problem even, as proteins are need to duplicate, protect and repair DNA and DNA and proteins are needed to make proteins.
Barachem 2 years ago
Such is the enigma of life for evolutionists.
Not able to explain its beginning, hoping that another unbased assumption of extrapolation of some supposed favourable processes can rationalize abiogenesis and then giant extrapolations, hoping that the cull of natural selection among with mutations, which modify present information, will bring forth the desired evolution of species.
In light of the evidence, assuming a divine Creator seems more logical, reasonable and sensible.
Barachem 2 years ago
So in the end it's up to one self to either accept naturalistic evolutionary theory or theistic creationist theory.
The facts speak for themselves, but believing is another thing and in fact one's personal own choice.
Proposing evolutionary theory as factuated and tested like gravitational and any other scientific theory is nonsense and should cost one the title of scientist.
It is a hypothesis, a dogmatic and not substantiated one, and should be treated as such.
Barachem 2 years ago
Barachem - evolution is a fact in the fossil record .Gapless records are now known in multiple marine species . Macro evolution is confirmed in real live over 4 ceturies as well .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Creationism is not qualified by evidence to enjoy the status of "theory". Theories are backed by multiple thousands of facts .
flyingscience 2 years ago
It always go back to the question; WHich came first, the chicken or egg ? The egg came from the Chicken, the chicken came from the clay , and the list goes on. The evolutionist stumble on this---Where did Nothing come from ?---cause everything has a beginning, so when confronted with sa simple question, they dodge and jig, like a Native PowWow dancer.
MrRunningwolfe 2 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with creation!
As far as how do the stars and the planets form? Matter, and matter always was, like you say, god always was, now which god did you say that was? Remember long ago, all cultures had their own gods. Take your pick. Believe it or not, many of them have many corresponding elements to their stories that corresponds with the Jew god..
ktorch 2 years ago
Running - no one is dodging .The Universe transformed from transcendental singularity which was the birth of time .Saying God did it is a theological label only .
flyingscience 2 years ago
That's a theory. It's not observable, and can't be proven. The complexity of life at all levels shout that there is a God. You just choose to ignore it. Doesn't bother me, but your taking a big chance, putting your belief in something that has gotten several things wrong and had to take back some of their so called missing links.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
Evolution falsifies literal creation but not Gods existence . Creationist often suffer from cult psychology .There are serious issues of psychology at work which make deconversion nearly impossible .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Because life is complex doesn't meant special instant creation .Evolution builds complexity 1 step at a time over billions of years .
flyingscience 2 years ago