That is to say, because the creature found less competition in or near the water doesn't mean it automatically started gaining flippers over feet. The environment dictates which mutations become dominant, not the animal's choice of environment.
Good quality video. But I wouldn't say that feet just evolved into fins; it is more like members of the species who got the right random mutations to support a more aquatic life were the ones to live on, breed and pass along the mutation.
@thejewishagnostic yea right! if you mean evidence from lies after lie after lie well yea there will be evidence. computers were programed by humans to determine age.. evolution! plz
yes, but still, this is just a myth.. the machines they use in those laboratory to determine the age of dinosaurs or of earth is just a myth or simply a lye! those machines were built by humans lol
@OptimalElement - The computer part are different kinds of nerd my bad for not saying what kind of nerds but technerds are cool lol... and btw i dont get vaccinated... Only the vaccine that my school is asking for, for a new virus that no one knows
Can fairy tales get any lamer, they sure sound scientific, but with 'billions' of years anything can happen! How can people still believe this $&@! Hello its 2011 already.
@mironyuk because we have taken care of all the factor that prevent the unfit form reproducing, in the wild we would be attacked by animals, have no proper way to cure diseases and have to salvage our food to survive
But how do things evolve? There is no evidence. Why aren't animals evolving anymore? Isn't it possible that these animals just became extinct? Is an animal born without legs and with fins in replacement from one generation to the next? This is as confusing as believe God made the Earth in 6 days.
If the evolution theory was true, then there would have been only one creature on this earth, there wouldn't be fishes or whales in our time because according to scientist say that it all started with whales, some say bacteria started everything and turned into a fish.. blah blah blah.... what hppened to the fishes and whales that excist now...they didn't evolve?
I dont believe in nerds! they make up to much crap!
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
Really nice and amazing example of how remarkable the evolution is! I would add that what is also significant about mammals that now live in water is that their backbone is also different from fish so that they move their back fin up and down instead of left and right as it happens with fish that are derived from different ancestors than mammals. Also very nice example :) Thanks for video ;)
Evolution is a happening look at swine flu. One moment it doesn't exist then it does. The virus changed - evolved. God allowed that small change. Denying evolution is denying the omniscience of God by trying to limiting the size of creation to imagination of humans who did not even know virus existed 3000 years ago. A faith based on blind dogma that cannot accept the knowledge we have been favored to be able discover is contrary to any omniscience and will perish with time.
How can even an evolutionist watch this video and not laugh at this joke of a lie wolves turned into wales these people are crazy and yet evolutionists actualy fall for this garbage and try to call it science.
Finding Whales in the desert proves the world wide Flood of the Bible happened nothing more.
Can you tell me where exactly in this video you hear them say that "wolves turned into whales"?
Actually what finding whale remains in the desert proves is that at some point in time that part of land was under water. There is no way you way you conclude that the ENTIRE world was covered by water just by looking at ONE specific part of it. There are lots of dry lakes and seas in the world, and there is lots of water still. Earth crust moves, climates change, it all shapes the planet!
the sinonx thing looks like a type of wolf to me they show in the video this fairytale This Shows ecactly why evolution is not science it is a scam just watch how they try to brainwash people with no proof. they try to cconvince people of there fairytale with a video clip of it happening. Do you think this is science?
Yep, it looks like a type of wolf, but it's not, obviously! As they mention it, it's a "wolf LIKE creature", comment being made just so the audience can compare it to something they are familiar with. You really didn't observe the fact that the fossils that were found fit very nicely together, like pieces of a puzzle. The video clip is clearly summarized and simplified for the general public.
I really don't get this view point, how can finding fossils that FIT together, can not be science?
How can Huge leaps of faith based on no evidence = science.
This is similar to me finding a gold fish in my back yard then finding a set of dinousour bones and saying this dinousour must have evolved from this fish thats not science its a rediculus lie, stretch of the imagination, fairytale or however you want to put it
You're absolutely right. If such a thing happend, then it would be a huge leap to say that the dinosaur evolved from the gold fish, or vice versa, IF you only have those two pieces of evidence to rely on. BUT, if you found OTHER skeletons and noticed the gradual change in structure from fish skeleton to dinosaur skeleton in each of those other skeletons, THEN you can conclude that one evolved from the other. That's EXACTLY what transitional fossils are and that's what they show us!
No even a few slightly the same fossils still only proves that scientists will ignore science and take huge leaps of faith to prove there fairytale called evolution but for the record they found one wolf type skeleton and tons of whale skeletons and said it must have evolved thats not science no offence but wow you believe this nonsence? will you believe anything a "scientist " tells you?
Did you not notice how they placed a couple of transitional fossiles onto that diagram? Among the other transitional fossils? There are many fossils, not just a few, there are tons of records of them. I don't just blindly believe in science, I've been studying science for the past 6+ years. I've seen these transitional fossils with my own eyes (those of human species by the way). So I don't just believe, I research myself.
No they did art work I can find a... we will go back to my original idea of gold fish and dinousour and then make a graph drawing in the "mising links thats what they did if they found the art they drew they would have showed us or at least told us instead the made a fake graph and a fake video I supose you believe the video was the truth too hu they taped it live hahah
Oh wow, and where do you think that 'art work' came from? Oh wait, you're going to say they made it up. Hm... where did the Bible come from? God? How do you know that wasn't made up? It says so in the Bible? And we are back at the start again.
Look, if you don't believe in what you are reading, watching, hearing, go out in the field yourself and take a look with your own eyes. You can do that! You can't do the same with the Bible though, THAT'S where you really need to BLIEVE!
You are simply making stff up to prove your point why are you defending this nonsense? were do they say they found more then 1 wolve type skeleton? they Dont so why do you assert they did because you like the cartoon because they made a diagram showing what they wish would have happened so they would have a great discovery onthere hands? humm give it up this isd junk science you have no loyalty to thids garbage you could have simply said wow what a crock but you feel you have to defend the trash
Once again, if you do not believe this to be true GO and look for YOURSELF! You have made absolutely NO advancement towards proving your point of view. You simply have denied everything I have said. I don't have any reason to lie to you and make stuff up, I simply state what I saw myself in real life and what I know to be true through studying it.
You expect everything to be answered in a 7min clip on youtube. What is given here is an example
I can see that. They have done a very good job... to the point where most people don't even bother to question what they are being told and see things for themselves.
It's ironic, but you have summed up religion very well!
yeah..the 250,000 scientific articles, over 150 years of compiled evidence, and thousands of scientists in several fields of science, are all pushing one gigantically orchestrated lie to fool all of us into denying the story of adam and eve..what a paranoid, insane fucking retard u are..what an insult to all of the exhausting work scientists have done for so many years..what an utter fucking insult.
@itzahazylife iTS really funny, I have debated a lot of evolutionists, and to date 100% can not name even single piece of evidence that proves evolution...
Not a single one of them. And I will wager that you cant either. (watch, he is gonna post nonsense like "go read a biology book" ) He will do everything and anything but not name even a single one of those 1000s of pieces of evidence of evolution.
endogenous retro viruses, chromosomal fusion, geologic fossil distribution around the earth, bacteria evolution, artificial selection among dogs, vestigial organs and behaviors, transitional fossils, genetic relatedness coupled with behavioral and anatomical relatedness.
bacterial evolution (dont confuse variation with evolution)
artificial selection among dogs )(again confusing variation with evolution, dog is still a dog)
vestigial organs (again unfalsifiable nonsense rooted in circular logic and contradicted by animals such as snakes with vestigial legs. Yet a legless snake would have absolutely no advantages..-watch him turn on the circular logic)
@itzahazylife I had to come back to this comment because i forgot one key factor about viruses (yes even ERVs)
Their very existence in the first place completely blows a hole in evolution theory. Darwin himself said that should a creature be found that completely depends on another creature for survival then his theory of evolution would fail. Viruses depend on other creatures for survival and procreation. They cant survive on their own or even procreate on their own.
contd.) So as a whole all viruses are completely invalid as use for evidence of evolution. It doesnt matter how they may interact with dna of the host creature. Their very existence alone is a complete contradiction of the theory.
So please scratch ERVs from the list of proof of evolution.
@itzahazylife No sir.. you are the one who is poorly educated on the issue of viruses. They are not like other parasites in that they use the cells of their hosts to procreate. I know its difficult for you or other evolutionists to comprehend how that pretty much disproves theory evolution. But take a step back, think about it, even pick up darwins on original book on evolution and see why he even admits that should such an organism be found, it would disprove his theory.
@itzahazylife Wouldnt it be easier for you to explain how viruses, that depend on the cells of their hosts could have evolved? I am pretty sure a person as smart as you would ultimately find the conundrum he would face in explaining the evolution of an organism without the ability to pro-create independently. (its the typical chicken or the egg conundrum. ) frankly i am surprised you cant see it.
i'm not a biologist. i probably can't sit here and accurately explain how viruses evolved..maybe viruses didn't start out as parasites and gradually developed some primitive trait,(random mutation) allowing them to survive off of host cells, eventually getting more complex..the host body would act as a mini environment. (natural selection) the virus would have either defenses or weaknesses against the host immune system. the fittest and most compatible viruses dominate the area.
@itzahazylife No shit!! You aint a scientists. Otherwise, i wouldnt have had to explain to you the conundrum the virus presents evolutionists.
Oh and BTW, you silly little tale about how it could have happened is so absurd, it stands right there with greek myths of zeus being born of titan god!!! You have exactly as much evidence of your silly little tale as do
i don't know where to find the fucking peer reviewed paper explaining the evolution of viruses..my "little tale" is a rational idea..primitive viruses could have started surviving off of something other than a cell, and eventually evolved the ability to use cells. the virus would then increase in complexity over time. random mutations do or don't benefit the life form, depending on the environment. how about u e-mail a fucking biology professor??
@itzahazylife To help you out, i can give you a hint. Evolution theory relies on random mutations, you have to be clinically insane to even suggest that two creatures some how synchronized "random mutations" and thus co-evolved.
That nonsense is right up there with your dawkins spaghetti monster... It is the same level of absurdity...
just finishing my last thought.) I am not saying you cant claim that co-evolution rubbish as science. Yes you can, but dont fool yourself into thinking you are any different from the guy who believes, Gaia, xemu, or the judeo
xtian god. or the spaghetti monster for that matter.
karamarouge the magnificent doesn't know how viruses could have evolved, but doesn't mean evolution has been disproved. it just means that karamarouge the magnificent doesn't know, but expert evolutionary biologists DO, which is why 99% of expert scientists support evolution..get off of your high horse and go back to your cave.
@itzahazylife If it were true that even one single evolutionary biologist knew how the virus evolved and could prove it, then you would have simply posted proof from that scientist's peer reviewed paper with such proof.
But all you can do is claim that some scientists some where secretly have this information in some super secret lab, and they are part of some conspiracy against you.
lol...Your posts are getting dumber and dumber every time you post.
@EinonvanTassel So you are another ignoramus parroting on about something you yet again dont understand? A new vaccine is made every year because and already existing strain of virus that was not affected by previous year's vaccine has not become more prevalent. Understand that the virus already existed, we simply eliminated the competition and allowed it to thrive, now we have to kill it.
It is you who has little to no understanding of the concepts you parrot on about.
"A new vaccine is made every year because and already existing strain of virus that was not affected by previous year's vaccine has not become more prevalent." LOL What? Ever heard of "antigenic shift" and "antigenic drift"? By the sound of your explanation about influenza virus, this is the first time you're hearing about these concepts :P
Wow you obviously will believe anything that a evolution "scientist" tells you. Your faith in (erol) evolution religion of lies is great. You say you have seen this in real life wow are we lying now hummm?
Oh geez, I guess if you run a red light without knowing and a cop catches you, you're going to tell him "Are you lying officer? I didnt see it myself, I don't believe you".
Nope I would be smart Challenge him in court and look at the video tape in his car, unless I knew I accidently did run it then I would pay the fine but thanks for your time God bless I will be praying for you
@Spetsop i agree with you, understand evolution in 7 minutes, and besides evolution you have to understand other sciences as chemistry, geology, genetics and some others videos like this is like a sample you and you alone chose to be ignorant or read more thanks
@Spetsop Summed up beautifully, although the religous don't read the comments and simply deny anything you state which is proven; so all in all its pretty pointless. No offence Spetsop.
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
Reference(s): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882.
With original omissions restored. Edited by Nora Barlow. Page 23.
"I love fools' experiments. I am always making them ."
John Bartlett (18201905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
do you know they say you can tell how old a fosil is by what layer of the eath they find it in but then they say they know how old the layer of the earth is by the key fosil they find in it??? that doesnt work.
Obviously they do that when they want to know one from the other. There are different ways to tell how old something is. That's just one. If you know when an animal lived (through another method) then you also know how old the layer of rock it was found in is. And if you know how old a layer of rock is (through another method) then you also know how old the fossil in it is. Obviously no one does what you have in mind and just guesses a figure.
But please, do as Fonzy asks & watch Kent's videos. Anyone even partially scientifically literate (as his audience & viewers clearly are not) will be rolling on the floor.
Whales and wolves share a common ancestor because all mammals share a common ancestor if you go back far enough in time. Humans and chimps (6-8 mya) and any other two species you want to mention.
The evidence comes from both morphological analyses of fossils of both lineages (wolves and whales, although I'm sure there are many more whale fossils) and molecular (DNA) analyses, showing the changes between whale DNA and wolf DNA, which could be shown if you examined it.
the changes in bone morphology, whales clearly have the same earbones as wolves, albeit enlarged obviously, and have the same limbs (though the hind limbs are now vestigial, but still remain visible under the skin), whales have the same basic mammalian skeletal anatomy as every other mammal, I don't know how that's hard to see.
Sure I do understand, both animals needs to capture wave sounds, it´s not a big surprise that the earbones have similar structures, but it does not mean whales descent from wolves....today wolves produce wolves and whales produces whales...it does not prove or give support to any evolutionary conclusion, don´t you think?
A claim like that should have extraordinary evidence, which the most I search for it the lesser I find
@purpleletters the ancestor of whales use to fill the ecological job of the wolf in a specific time and part of the world as the tazmanian tiger use to do it in tazmania.
All these systems were cruel because of crazy maniacs in power who did not kill in the name of atheism but politics. Religion on the other hand has always been a reason for war and slaughter.
Actually "God with us" was on every belt buckle of the german soldiers in WW2 for example.
The NAZIS did crystal night on Luther's anniversary, Fascism is best understood as bourgeois conservative religious bigots getting into power, Hitler banned abortion, he made Christianity compulsory in schools, He introduced the German united church. Mein kampf drips with references to God.
Anti semitism comes from punishing Jewish people for killing Jesus. All this is also the reason why Europe is secular today, we had enough of the bigoted authority crap that Christianity really stands for.
This reflects a profound ignorance of militantly atheistic regimes. In any event, this is exactly the kind of excuse theists make for violence in the name of religion. If you disallow that excuse for them, you can't use it for atheists either.
Let's assume for a moment that what you claim is actually true. It's not, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument.
You still have no argument against evolutionary theory. The use, misuse, or misinterpretation of scientific knowledge does not argue, at all, against the veracity of that knowledge.
Using nuclear weapons to destroy huge populations would not invalidate atomic theory.
Modern evoultion is in disagreement with the fossil record. After recent findings of very simple structures right before the cambrian, the last remaining legitimate theory attempting to coincide the fossils with gradual evolution was debunked.
Punctuated equilibrium is far more appealing than a "nature never makes jumps" evolution.
The Cambrian "explosion" took place over several tens of millions of years.
Modern evolutionary theory is explains this rather well. Evolution is gradualistic in the sense that it can only work on the variation which is typical of what you would see in any shopping mall.
Nothing in modern evolutionary theory, however, requires that the pace of evolution be constant, even though it is gradual.
Based on radioactive dating of rocks that bracket the Cambrian explosion, the development of extremely complex organs(eyes, notochords, appendages, gills, etc..) happened within startingly brief periods of time. The sediment revealing these fossils is almost 300 meters thick. Through the depth of this sediment, and therfore the entire five million yrs, there is little or no change in morpholgies. The changes were incredibly abrupt. This is neither gradual nor constant.
And the changes were NOT gradual. Please elaborate on your "no hopeful monsters required" comment. I will be more than happy to take you through the numbers of convergent evolution in different phyla, based on mutations per generation.
So you believe that dogs can give birth to cats, in effect?
A hopeful monster is an offspring which is so different from its parent that it would be considered a monster, yet its fitness exceeds that of its parent. This sounds like the kind of evolution that you are proposing. Is it?
Also, only mutations in sexually mature reproductive cells(gametes) would be of significance towards variation. With convergent evolution happening in different phyla, the possibility of analogous traits arising is impossible. Much more time would have to be necessary.
You clearly do not understand how mutations occur. They occur during cell division for the most part. Assuming that you are male, your sperm all contain mutations which have resulted from imperfect meiosis. All children inherit mutations from their parents.
Ok I thought you were more educated on the basis of mutations. So my apologies, I'll simple it down for you.
A mutation for a convergent organ MUST occur in sexually mature reproductive cells. A mutation in, for example, an individuals skin will not be passed on to that individuals progeny. If you do not understand that, or disagree with it, I highly suggest reading an ecology book. I'm not sure if you understand the difference between asexual reproduction, and sexual.
I understand that, and apparently you agree with me. Germ line cells ARE sexually mature reproductive cells. Hence the reason I said "gametes" last comment. (Those are germline cells.) A cell that forms the body of an organism(somatic as you phrased it) are NOT sexually mature reproductive cells. My overall point was the cell in which a mutation occurs is only relevant in a gamete.(A germline cell). This greatly affects the needed rate of mutations to seek a convergent structure.
Germ line cells are not limited to "sexually mature reproductive cells". The relevant point is that the mutations must take place in the germ cell line.
These mutations typically take place during meiosis when the eggs and sperm cells are created.
I am unclear about what you mean by "to seek a convergent structure". Evolution has no goals by which it "seeks" any structure at all. Natural Selection simply chooses from the structures [or functions] available at the time.
When I say "seek a convergent structure" I'm relating to what has already happened. The eye arising in an octopus and a human has happened. So I want to go back and see the possibility of it happening within the time frame it did. But it happened completely independently of each other. Two seperate routes were taken to achieve the same complex structure. And just like you stated, nature doesn't "seek" anything. It doesn't have an end result. So it will not know what mutations are always
The human [vertebrate] eye and the octopus [cephalopod] eye bear only superficial resemblance. All vertebrates have eyes which have a common structure and design, and all cephalopods have eyes of similar structure and design, and their eyes are not like ours.
The human eye and the octopus eye(mollusca) may have a different choice of proteins, but both have eyes with a cornea, iris, lens, vitreous humor, three layered retina with rods, pigments for moderating light, ganglion of nerves connecting the photoreceptors to the brain, and even lateral inhibition. In other words they are remarkably similar organs. JSTOR and science, two respected peer-reviewed journals have writtien about the similarity of these organs.
They are similar in function, this is because they both need to resolve an image on light sensitive material to function.
They are remarkably different in how they develop in the embryo and in particular in how the retina is constructed. The cephalopd eye is superior in that regard. Our eye has the light sensitive cells on the bottom, the light has to pass through blood vessels and nerve tissue first. Our retinas are also prone to detaching, and we have a blind spot. Cephalopods don't.
Natural Selection is the filtering process which screens out the traits, or combination of traits, which are less successful at surviving and making babies in the environment which exists right now.
Yes, that is true. But if they are working towards a specific organ, like an eye, nature doesn't know which mutations are beneficial. It doesn't know which "letters" in a sentence to keep and which to not. Evolution is not a free agent. (That reference made towards richard dawkins analogy defending random mutations.)
Here's the key...Natural Selection had no idea that it was working towards an eye.
All NS did was to select from the available variation within the living population and give preference [as measured in living descendants] to those creatures that could resolve an image a little bit better than others in the same population.
Over the eons, this selection pressure modified a simple patch of light sensitive cells [such as exist today in flatworms] into the eyes that we see today.
No, but a more a beneficial mutation is likely to survive through natural selection, the struggle to survive, than a harmful mutation. You could look at this way: there's predators and prey. Predators have to be able to catch prey to survive and prey must escape predator to survive. So if a predator evolves a beneficial mutation, one that helps catch prey, he's more likely to survive and more likely pass on that gene and vice versa. Repeat this over and over, through time more complexity emerges
Birds and bats wings are analogous as wings, yet are homologous as tetrapod forelimbs. Do you understand what "analogous" and "convergent evolution" means?
And about defining terms, I was referring to organs which arrived during the Cambrian explosion, in DIFFERENT phyla. (Like an eye.) Any trait that arouse in those circumstances would be analogous. Bird and bat can have homologous forelimbs because they are both vertebrate. Convergent evolution simply means a common trait that arouse in two different lineages.
The bird and bat forelimbs are homologous because they arose through common tetrapod [not vertebrate] ancestry.
The modification of tetrapod forelimbs into wings occured independantly three times [that we are aware of]...birds, bats, and pterosaurs. The wings of these lineages bear scant resemblance to one another due to their independant origins. They are analogous.
Simple, light sensing cells may have evolved only once, or at best very few times. From these origins evolved eyes.
I didn't know bird and bat forelimbs evolved through a common tetrapod ancestor. If they did, I stand myself corrected. I guess I'll have to study my phylogenetic trees some more.
All land vertebrates [which includes whales as well] are tetrapods. We all descend from a common lineage which arose from the [fresh] water some 365 million years ago. Look up Tiktaalik for an example.
I made the distinction between tetrapod and vertebrates [in general] because the relevant common ancestor is the tetrapod, which is a sub-set of the larger vertebrate grouping.
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. -Charles Darwin
I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence. -Charles Darwin
" I seek to show God's glory throughout my work" -Issac Newton
Note: darwin was a Christian when he finished his book, very ironic Chistians, You guys unwillingly started evolution. -.-
@majorvoltage You lie sir. The only observation is the fossil. Theories and hypotheses drawn from the fossils DO NOT QUALIFY AS FACT! That is just how a few people have chosen to interpret the "observed" fossils. One has every right to claim your theory wrong by arguing that you have no proof or evidence that similarity in fossil record equates to relatedness.
One can equally argue that the existence of living fossils dismisses the whole idea of evolution.
@majorvoltage Regarding "observed fact", I am sure I am not the only one who finds it curious that evolutionists always act as though nobody is aware of the existence of cambrian era fossils that completely destroy the theory of evolution. Not only are the oldest fossils present in the record with no ancestors (unlike what that Gingrich falsely claims) there are living fossils from this era alive today. UNCHANGED!
HOW ABOUT YOU ACCEPT ALL THE "OBSERVED FACTS" INSTEAD OF JUST THOSE U LIKE?
It is a small wonder why some people view the theory of evolution a threat to their religious views. It can be believed that a majority of these people had bad educators who have no love for the subject that they were teaching. The earths history is very complex with; continents moving, the climate changing, natural disasters, and life forms changing with it. We are all a speck on the timescale of the world.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Before Charles Darwin Die he Said Unto People; "Teach Them Who Is God, Make Them Religious. Im Not Forcing You To Believe In Me, Its You Who Should Decide What Really Happens". A Strong Proof That Darwin Was Not Sure On Its Theory Nor He Believe In The Divine Theory Where In God Created Us All, Not Only The Living Things But All Organisms Present Inside And Outside The Earth.
Wrong. Darwin said no such thing, nor did he ever recant his scientific views. For more info do a web search on ChristianAnswers click the first link and search their site on Charles Darwin. There you will find that Darwin was committed to the soundness of his theories and his disbelief in a deity to the very end. Rumors otherwise have been thoroughly refuted.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
how do you know, was you there, were the people that live in modern times there. No, so we don't know, he could've after all he was on his deathbed, so get your facts right
It is unimportant to scientists how certain Darwin was of his idea. Just because the idea was his, doesn't mean he is the leading authority on it. His idea has been corroborated many times since his death by new discoveries, for example new fossils coming to light and the discovery of DNA.
If I lose my keys and someone has an idea that they might be under the sofa, and I go on to find them there - it is unimportant if that person changes his mind because I have what I was looking for!
@cda151 He didn't say that, and even if he did - which he didn't - it does not neccessarily mean what you state. He could mean that religion has inspired many great things ( although I personally disagree with this - take the holy wars for example), nor does it mean he didn't believe entirely in his theory - a therory which he faced many threats from theists and took years of him premoteing it before it was even slightly accepted.
A common misconception is that we have descended from animals of today. It's like saying our cousin is our grandmother. When in fact, we both share a grandmother.
Wow, your inability to comprehend English words and reconstruct the idea being expressed in your brain is quite interesting. It is strange how you were able to make a link between something that was not expressed, with something that was.
mmm human microevolved also! how else do we explain the different races of humans! blacks people are well adapted to living in hot areas..an whites are adapted to live in cold areas!
their is no proof of evolution if evolution was true then we would have new species evolving but we don't all we have is sub-species (adaptation)evolution has never been proven and will never be proven bash me and call me ignorant or whatever but it is amazing of how evolutionists want creationists to be more open minded but yet you remain close minded to the concept of God and call us names but I say you are hypocritical in that you are closeminded by your own definition. There is a God.
actually, most people who accept evolution is christians (all atheists accept evolution, but there are more christians who accept evolution then there are atheists, at all) and yes, we do have many examples of speciation today
Not all atheists accept evolution btw. The evidence for evolution is HUGE, try endogenous retroviruses that exist in hundreds of places between other apes and humans, these are the genetic traces of viruses, they exist in many places in EXACTLY the same segments of code, in evolution one species contracts a virus that implants its DNA into the host DNA, as the animal speciates all its ancestors have the same code, we do, we share ancestors with all apes.
Again you have to realize that if Creation is right then animals would have to by definition EVOLVE from their 'kinds' at a crazy speed into the variation we see. We don't think this happened, you believe in evolution but at a very fast rate that happened about 3500 years ago in a period of about 100 or so years. That is crazy! We have evidence of evolution and you don't for this EXPLOSION of life, animals would have to have children every hour nonstop and each would have to be a new species!
and nobody said God doesnt exist but it is soo much facts an evidence around u if u look for it! but creationist want every1 to have there views of life soo even if the evidence is in your hands you still would say its not real lol..u people are in denile! its obvious God used evolution as apart of intellegent design
Intelligent Design is a scam created by creationist. There really is no God regardless of the twenty versions of yaweh you bring up. There appears to be recent evidence that Jesus was an invention also. Ahh, the prolific mind of the writer and hoaxters thru the centuries. Christians now have a real reason to moan and wail!
Yeah yeah, the same creationist BULLSH** as always!! Evolution is real you religious scumbags, get over it. There no god or after-life. In fact don't even Visit(creationist/Evolutionist) your deceased love one's since evolution is hard at work "CREATING" something useful out the Rotting garbage-remains that is now in that shit hole called the cemetery.
So much for hoping to one day see, and be with A lost love or dear friend and family member...WE EVOLVED FROM ANIMALS A TRILLION YEARS AGO.
Whoops..Our universe may have been rings of dust at a Trillion years ago. The timeline of species shows the first bacteria formed at 3.5billion years ago. The early humans at maybe 1billion years ago and then the first modern humans about 200,000 years ago.
2. Hom ergaster lived about 1.8 million years ago, several Homo species later, Erectus, Habilis etc. Homo Sapian Sapian (you and I) come along at ~250,000 years
Your right...oh science yaweh. The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
In a study published very recently in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old. Big gap...but it's nothing to quibble about!
That is to say, because the creature found less competition in or near the water doesn't mean it automatically started gaining flippers over feet. The environment dictates which mutations become dominant, not the animal's choice of environment.
TheGrimGary 1 month ago
Good quality video. But I wouldn't say that feet just evolved into fins; it is more like members of the species who got the right random mutations to support a more aquatic life were the ones to live on, breed and pass along the mutation.
TheGrimGary 1 month ago
Time changd us ovrtime in2 humanbeings,who r unique(based on scientific theory).(@@)={%}.
jgtdaw 1 month ago
Comment removed
davidDdrummer 2 months ago
@thejewishagnostic yea right! if you mean evidence from lies after lie after lie well yea there will be evidence. computers were programed by humans to determine age.. evolution! plz
davidDdrummer 2 months ago
Comment removed
davidDdrummer 2 months ago
yes, but still, this is just a myth.. the machines they use in those laboratory to determine the age of dinosaurs or of earth is just a myth or simply a lye! those machines were built by humans lol
davidDdrummer 2 months ago
Not sure about Evolution,the important point is that at the moment it's only a theory(Theory of Life.).{*?*}.
jgtdaw 3 months ago
@jgtdaw
''Evolution only a theory''. Do you even know the meaning of a scientific theory?
OptimalElement 2 months ago
@OptimalElement - The computer part are different kinds of nerd my bad for not saying what kind of nerds but technerds are cool lol... and btw i dont get vaccinated... Only the vaccine that my school is asking for, for a new virus that no one knows
davidDdrummer 6 months ago
@davidDdrummer
So you DID did get vaccinated?
OptimalElement 2 months ago
Comment removed
davidDdrummer 6 months ago
Can fairy tales get any lamer, they sure sound scientific, but with 'billions' of years anything can happen! How can people still believe this $&@! Hello its 2011 already.
mironyuk 7 months ago
@mironyuk because we have taken care of all the factor that prevent the unfit form reproducing, in the wild we would be attacked by animals, have no proper way to cure diseases and have to salvage our food to survive
freewaterfal 6 months ago
DISCLAIMER: Not saying it's not true!!!
But how do things evolve? There is no evidence. Why aren't animals evolving anymore? Isn't it possible that these animals just became extinct? Is an animal born without legs and with fins in replacement from one generation to the next? This is as confusing as believe God made the Earth in 6 days.
11CarpeDiem 8 months ago
@11CarpeDiem
luidol1 8 months ago
@11CarpeDiem
Did you ever made an attempt to study the topic? Hey, quantum mechanics is confusing for me to, so it can't be true!
OptimalElement 6 months ago
and ohh the wolf like creature swims behind a rock and its now a whale.
Danielfallz 10 months ago
@Danielfallz lol yeah I found that really funny too.
11CarpeDiem 8 months ago
If the evolution theory was true, then there would have been only one creature on this earth, there wouldn't be fishes or whales in our time because according to scientist say that it all started with whales, some say bacteria started everything and turned into a fish.. blah blah blah.... what hppened to the fishes and whales that excist now...they didn't evolve?
I dont believe in nerds! they make up to much crap!
davidDdrummer 11 months ago
@davidDdrummer
you mean same nerds that make computer in front of you a reality and vaccines injected up your ass to keep you alive?
OptimalElement 6 months ago
If GoodScienceForYou wants to tout his forum let's show you some of his 'science' quotes there, try not to laugh -
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
-Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.
-The cause of sickle cell anemia is unknown, dumb ass.
-Carbon is the only thing that makes us "carbon" based creatures
-There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.
-There are only two species of bacteria.
Anyone think they can learn anything from this clown?
KrokrX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
How do we know evolution happens? I'd say whales with hands works for me.
stufaman 1 year ago
Really nice and amazing example of how remarkable the evolution is! I would add that what is also significant about mammals that now live in water is that their backbone is also different from fish so that they move their back fin up and down instead of left and right as it happens with fish that are derived from different ancestors than mammals. Also very nice example :) Thanks for video ;)
JohnnyLee18 1 year ago
Evolution is a happening look at swine flu. One moment it doesn't exist then it does. The virus changed - evolved. God allowed that small change. Denying evolution is denying the omniscience of God by trying to limiting the size of creation to imagination of humans who did not even know virus existed 3000 years ago. A faith based on blind dogma that cannot accept the knowledge we have been favored to be able discover is contrary to any omniscience and will perish with time.
DOGBADWINE 1 year ago
Open-mindedness
watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Critical Thinking
watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
scientific theory:
watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
Babies in Hell
watch?v=yf-UploVjHA
ndyt 2 years ago
How can even an evolutionist watch this video and not laugh at this joke of a lie wolves turned into wales these people are crazy and yet evolutionists actualy fall for this garbage and try to call it science.
Finding Whales in the desert proves the world wide Flood of the Bible happened nothing more.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Can you tell me where exactly in this video you hear them say that "wolves turned into whales"?
Actually what finding whale remains in the desert proves is that at some point in time that part of land was under water. There is no way you way you conclude that the ENTIRE world was covered by water just by looking at ONE specific part of it. There are lots of dry lakes and seas in the world, and there is lots of water still. Earth crust moves, climates change, it all shapes the planet!
Spetsop 2 years ago
the sinonx thing looks like a type of wolf to me they show in the video this fairytale This Shows ecactly why evolution is not science it is a scam just watch how they try to brainwash people with no proof. they try to cconvince people of there fairytale with a video clip of it happening. Do you think this is science?
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Yep, it looks like a type of wolf, but it's not, obviously! As they mention it, it's a "wolf LIKE creature", comment being made just so the audience can compare it to something they are familiar with. You really didn't observe the fact that the fossils that were found fit very nicely together, like pieces of a puzzle. The video clip is clearly summarized and simplified for the general public.
I really don't get this view point, how can finding fossils that FIT together, can not be science?
Spetsop 2 years ago
How can Huge leaps of faith based on no evidence = science.
This is similar to me finding a gold fish in my back yard then finding a set of dinousour bones and saying this dinousour must have evolved from this fish thats not science its a rediculus lie, stretch of the imagination, fairytale or however you want to put it
coolvideo28 2 years ago
You're absolutely right. If such a thing happend, then it would be a huge leap to say that the dinosaur evolved from the gold fish, or vice versa, IF you only have those two pieces of evidence to rely on. BUT, if you found OTHER skeletons and noticed the gradual change in structure from fish skeleton to dinosaur skeleton in each of those other skeletons, THEN you can conclude that one evolved from the other. That's EXACTLY what transitional fossils are and that's what they show us!
Spetsop 2 years ago
No even a few slightly the same fossils still only proves that scientists will ignore science and take huge leaps of faith to prove there fairytale called evolution but for the record they found one wolf type skeleton and tons of whale skeletons and said it must have evolved thats not science no offence but wow you believe this nonsence? will you believe anything a "scientist " tells you?
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Did you not notice how they placed a couple of transitional fossiles onto that diagram? Among the other transitional fossils? There are many fossils, not just a few, there are tons of records of them. I don't just blindly believe in science, I've been studying science for the past 6+ years. I've seen these transitional fossils with my own eyes (those of human species by the way). So I don't just believe, I research myself.
Spetsop 2 years ago
No they did art work I can find a... we will go back to my original idea of gold fish and dinousour and then make a graph drawing in the "mising links thats what they did if they found the art they drew they would have showed us or at least told us instead the made a fake graph and a fake video I supose you believe the video was the truth too hu they taped it live hahah
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Oh wow, and where do you think that 'art work' came from? Oh wait, you're going to say they made it up. Hm... where did the Bible come from? God? How do you know that wasn't made up? It says so in the Bible? And we are back at the start again.
Look, if you don't believe in what you are reading, watching, hearing, go out in the field yourself and take a look with your own eyes. You can do that! You can't do the same with the Bible though, THAT'S where you really need to BLIEVE!
Spetsop 2 years ago 4
You are simply making stff up to prove your point why are you defending this nonsense? were do they say they found more then 1 wolve type skeleton? they Dont so why do you assert they did because you like the cartoon because they made a diagram showing what they wish would have happened so they would have a great discovery onthere hands? humm give it up this isd junk science you have no loyalty to thids garbage you could have simply said wow what a crock but you feel you have to defend the trash
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Once again, if you do not believe this to be true GO and look for YOURSELF! You have made absolutely NO advancement towards proving your point of view. You simply have denied everything I have said. I don't have any reason to lie to you and make stuff up, I simply state what I saw myself in real life and what I know to be true through studying it.
You expect everything to be answered in a 7min clip on youtube. What is given here is an example
Spetsop 2 years ago 6
No what I find here is somone trying to brainwash people with lies
coolvideo28 2 years ago
I can see that. They have done a very good job... to the point where most people don't even bother to question what they are being told and see things for themselves.
It's ironic, but you have summed up religion very well!
Spetsop 2 years ago 3
@coolvideo28
yeah..the 250,000 scientific articles, over 150 years of compiled evidence, and thousands of scientists in several fields of science, are all pushing one gigantically orchestrated lie to fool all of us into denying the story of adam and eve..what a paranoid, insane fucking retard u are..what an insult to all of the exhausting work scientists have done for so many years..what an utter fucking insult.
itzahazylife 1 year ago 2
@itzahazylife Fucking awesome post
Oddessuss 1 year ago
@itzahazylife iTS really funny, I have debated a lot of evolutionists, and to date 100% can not name even single piece of evidence that proves evolution...
Not a single one of them. And I will wager that you cant either. (watch, he is gonna post nonsense like "go read a biology book" ) He will do everything and anything but not name even a single one of those 1000s of pieces of evidence of evolution.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
endogenous retro viruses, chromosomal fusion, geologic fossil distribution around the earth, bacteria evolution, artificial selection among dogs, vestigial organs and behaviors, transitional fossils, genetic relatedness coupled with behavioral and anatomical relatedness.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
endogenous retro viruses (exactly how do they prove evolution?)
chromosomal fusion (same question)
geologic fossil distribution (the entire fossil record argument is rendered moot by the fossils of the cambrian era and existence of living fossils)
transitional fossils (thats one heck of a pathetic lie with no proof)
genetic/behavioral/anatomical relatedness (totally unscientific unfalsifiable hypothesis completely steeped in circular logic.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
bacterial evolution (dont confuse variation with evolution)
artificial selection among dogs )(again confusing variation with evolution, dog is still a dog)
vestigial organs (again unfalsifiable nonsense rooted in circular logic and contradicted by animals such as snakes with vestigial legs. Yet a legless snake would have absolutely no advantages..-watch him turn on the circular logic)
karamarouge 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I had to come back to this comment because i forgot one key factor about viruses (yes even ERVs)
Their very existence in the first place completely blows a hole in evolution theory. Darwin himself said that should a creature be found that completely depends on another creature for survival then his theory of evolution would fail. Viruses depend on other creatures for survival and procreation. They cant survive on their own or even procreate on their own.
karamarouge 1 year ago
contd.) So as a whole all viruses are completely invalid as use for evidence of evolution. It doesnt matter how they may interact with dna of the host creature. Their very existence alone is a complete contradiction of the theory.
So please scratch ERVs from the list of proof of evolution.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
u are clueless. viruses are parasites. and like other parasites, they co-evolve with their host.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife No sir.. you are the one who is poorly educated on the issue of viruses. They are not like other parasites in that they use the cells of their hosts to procreate. I know its difficult for you or other evolutionists to comprehend how that pretty much disproves theory evolution. But take a step back, think about it, even pick up darwins on original book on evolution and see why he even admits that should such an organism be found, it would disprove his theory.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
hmm..why don't u tell all of us how viruses disprove evolution?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife Wouldnt it be easier for you to explain how viruses, that depend on the cells of their hosts could have evolved? I am pretty sure a person as smart as you would ultimately find the conundrum he would face in explaining the evolution of an organism without the ability to pro-create independently. (its the typical chicken or the egg conundrum. ) frankly i am surprised you cant see it.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
i'm not a biologist. i probably can't sit here and accurately explain how viruses evolved..maybe viruses didn't start out as parasites and gradually developed some primitive trait,(random mutation) allowing them to survive off of host cells, eventually getting more complex..the host body would act as a mini environment. (natural selection) the virus would have either defenses or weaknesses against the host immune system. the fittest and most compatible viruses dominate the area.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife No shit!! You aint a scientists. Otherwise, i wouldnt have had to explain to you the conundrum the virus presents evolutionists.
Oh and BTW, you silly little tale about how it could have happened is so absurd, it stands right there with greek myths of zeus being born of titan god!!! You have exactly as much evidence of your silly little tale as do
those greeks who believed that tale.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
i don't know where to find the fucking peer reviewed paper explaining the evolution of viruses..my "little tale" is a rational idea..primitive viruses could have started surviving off of something other than a cell, and eventually evolved the ability to use cells. the virus would then increase in complexity over time. random mutations do or don't benefit the life form, depending on the environment. how about u e-mail a fucking biology professor??
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife To help you out, i can give you a hint. Evolution theory relies on random mutations, you have to be clinically insane to even suggest that two creatures some how synchronized "random mutations" and thus co-evolved.
That nonsense is right up there with your dawkins spaghetti monster... It is the same level of absurdity...
I am not saying you cant claim it as
karamarouge 1 year ago
just finishing my last thought.) I am not saying you cant claim that co-evolution rubbish as science. Yes you can, but dont fool yourself into thinking you are any different from the guy who believes, Gaia, xemu, or the judeo
xtian god. or the spaghetti monster for that matter.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge
karamarouge the magnificent doesn't know how viruses could have evolved, but doesn't mean evolution has been disproved. it just means that karamarouge the magnificent doesn't know, but expert evolutionary biologists DO, which is why 99% of expert scientists support evolution..get off of your high horse and go back to your cave.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife If it were true that even one single evolutionary biologist knew how the virus evolved and could prove it, then you would have simply posted proof from that scientist's peer reviewed paper with such proof.
But all you can do is claim that some scientists some where secretly have this information in some super secret lab, and they are part of some conspiracy against you.
lol...Your posts are getting dumber and dumber every time you post.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge Um... You do realize why there's a new influenza vaccine every year right?
EinonvanTassel 1 year ago
@EinonvanTassel So you are another ignoramus parroting on about something you yet again dont understand? A new vaccine is made every year because and already existing strain of virus that was not affected by previous year's vaccine has not become more prevalent. Understand that the virus already existed, we simply eliminated the competition and allowed it to thrive, now we have to kill it.
It is you who has little to no understanding of the concepts you parrot on about.
karamarouge 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge Yes. It is me who has little to no understanding of the concepts I parrot on about.
"thats one heck of a pathetic lie with no proof"
"confusing variation with evolution, dog is still a dog"
"Evolution theory relies on random mutations"
Yes Dr. Karamarouge, you are right. Evolution is a conspiracy, viruses prove it, and H1N1 has existed since Eden.
EinonvanTassel 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge
"A new vaccine is made every year because and already existing strain of virus that was not affected by previous year's vaccine has not become more prevalent." LOL What? Ever heard of "antigenic shift" and "antigenic drift"? By the sound of your explanation about influenza virus, this is the first time you're hearing about these concepts :P
Spetsop 6 months ago
Spetsop
Wow you obviously will believe anything that a evolution "scientist" tells you. Your faith in (erol) evolution religion of lies is great. You say you have seen this in real life wow are we lying now hummm?
coolvideo28 2 years ago
Oh geez, I guess if you run a red light without knowing and a cop catches you, you're going to tell him "Are you lying officer? I didnt see it myself, I don't believe you".
Have fun :)
Spetsop 2 years ago
Nope I would be smart Challenge him in court and look at the video tape in his car, unless I knew I accidently did run it then I would pay the fine but thanks for your time God bless I will be praying for you
coolvideo28 2 years ago
@coolvideo28 Why have you quoted scientists? I'm sure athiests don't quote 'God' when speaking about your theories, so be more respectful of theirs.
xDavidFitzgeraldx 1 year ago
@Spetsop i agree with you, understand evolution in 7 minutes, and besides evolution you have to understand other sciences as chemistry, geology, genetics and some others videos like this is like a sample you and you alone chose to be ignorant or read more thanks
legolasgreenleaff 6 months ago
@legolasgreenleaff
"you and you alone chose to be ignorant or read more thanks" what is THAT supposed to mean? How did I choose to be ignorant?
Spetsop 6 months ago
@Spetsop Summed up beautifully, although the religous don't read the comments and simply deny anything you state which is proven; so all in all its pretty pointless. No offence Spetsop.
xDavidFitzgeraldx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EVOLUTION: FACT OR FICTION?
Charles Darwin hereby speaks for himself:
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
Reference(s): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882.
With original omissions restored. Edited by Nora Barlow. Page 23.
"I love fools' experiments. I am always making them ."
John Bartlett (18201905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
Inquiry000 2 years ago
do you know they say you can tell how old a fosil is by what layer of the eath they find it in but then they say they know how old the layer of the earth is by the key fosil they find in it??? that doesnt work.
Fonzy2606 2 years ago
Obviously they do that when they want to know one from the other. There are different ways to tell how old something is. That's just one. If you know when an animal lived (through another method) then you also know how old the layer of rock it was found in is. And if you know how old a layer of rock is (through another method) then you also know how old the fossil in it is. Obviously no one does what you have in mind and just guesses a figure.
mtanti87 2 years ago
ok what are the other ways you speak of?
Fonzy2606 2 years ago
talkorigins . org / origins / faqs-youngearth.html
(remove spaces)
mtanti87 2 years ago
guys watch kent hovind on evolution.
Fonzy2606 2 years ago 2
lol
UserNameForYeeTube 2 years ago
"guys watch kent hovind on evolution."
You mean "watch Hovind for a laugh."
But please, do as Fonzy asks & watch Kent's videos. Anyone even partially scientifically literate (as his audience & viewers clearly are not) will be rolling on the floor.
Hopeful71 2 years ago
lol Kent Hovind is one of my favorite comedian... who said Americans don't have deadpan comedy?
zefirum 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
ZincFuse 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does anyone relize how stupid this sounds?; whales used to be wolves.
MaliceInWonderland21 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finding solid evidence, examining it and finding out thats TOO WEIRD to be true?
ZincFuse 2 years ago
"whales used to be wolves"
No.
Whales and wolves share a common ancestor.
Yes.
purpleletters 2 years ago 20
purpleletters...
Whales and wolves share a common ancestor...
What is your evidence to assert such a claim to be true?....just curios.
Warning...Scientific hallucinations are not acceptable.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Whales and wolves share a common ancestor because all mammals share a common ancestor if you go back far enough in time. Humans and chimps (6-8 mya) and any other two species you want to mention.
The evidence comes from both morphological analyses of fossils of both lineages (wolves and whales, although I'm sure there are many more whale fossils) and molecular (DNA) analyses, showing the changes between whale DNA and wolf DNA, which could be shown if you examined it.
purpleletters 2 years ago
@purpleletters
What morphological features are taken into consideration to come up with such a conclusion?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
the changes in bone morphology, whales clearly have the same earbones as wolves, albeit enlarged obviously, and have the same limbs (though the hind limbs are now vestigial, but still remain visible under the skin), whales have the same basic mammalian skeletal anatomy as every other mammal, I don't know how that's hard to see.
Do you understand?
purpleletters 2 years ago
purpleletter
Sure I do understand, both animals needs to capture wave sounds, it´s not a big surprise that the earbones have similar structures, but it does not mean whales descent from wolves....today wolves produce wolves and whales produces whales...it does not prove or give support to any evolutionary conclusion, don´t you think?
A claim like that should have extraordinary evidence, which the most I search for it the lesser I find
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
@purpleletters the ancestor of whales use to fill the ecological job of the wolf in a specific time and part of the world as the tazmanian tiger use to do it in tazmania.
legolasgreenleaff 6 months ago
@legolasgreenleaff you're right, he may have been trying to make that point in a metaphor but i tend not to give him that much credit
purpleletters 6 months ago
I bet whales are so pissed they went back in the ocean now they get hunted to extinction and get to breathe in our toxic waste and feces
xlioilx 3 years ago
All these systems were cruel because of crazy maniacs in power who did not kill in the name of atheism but politics. Religion on the other hand has always been a reason for war and slaughter.
Actually "God with us" was on every belt buckle of the german soldiers in WW2 for example.
Bombur86 3 years ago
The NAZIS did crystal night on Luther's anniversary, Fascism is best understood as bourgeois conservative religious bigots getting into power, Hitler banned abortion, he made Christianity compulsory in schools, He introduced the German united church. Mein kampf drips with references to God.
Anti semitism comes from punishing Jewish people for killing Jesus. All this is also the reason why Europe is secular today, we had enough of the bigoted authority crap that Christianity really stands for.
marsCubed 3 years ago
This reflects a profound ignorance of militantly atheistic regimes. In any event, this is exactly the kind of excuse theists make for violence in the name of religion. If you disallow that excuse for them, you can't use it for atheists either.
lytrigian 3 years ago
Let's assume for a moment that what you claim is actually true. It's not, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument.
You still have no argument against evolutionary theory. The use, misuse, or misinterpretation of scientific knowledge does not argue, at all, against the veracity of that knowledge.
Using nuclear weapons to destroy huge populations would not invalidate atomic theory.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Evidence against "evolution"-NO
Evidence against gradual evolution by natural selection through random mutations. (Darwin's theory) Yes, there is evidence against this.
Classical evolution is NOT proven. Evidence actually refutes it's concepts.
Other more plausible theories should be considered.
cagefite007 3 years ago
What evidence is there which disputes modern evolutionary theory?
What other plausible theories exist?
kshackleton 3 years ago
Modern evoultion is in disagreement with the fossil record. After recent findings of very simple structures right before the cambrian, the last remaining legitimate theory attempting to coincide the fossils with gradual evolution was debunked.
Punctuated equilibrium is far more appealing than a "nature never makes jumps" evolution.
cagefite007 3 years ago
The Cambrian "explosion" took place over several tens of millions of years.
Modern evolutionary theory is explains this rather well. Evolution is gradualistic in the sense that it can only work on the variation which is typical of what you would see in any shopping mall.
Nothing in modern evolutionary theory, however, requires that the pace of evolution be constant, even though it is gradual.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Based on radioactive dating of rocks that bracket the Cambrian explosion, the development of extremely complex organs(eyes, notochords, appendages, gills, etc..) happened within startingly brief periods of time. The sediment revealing these fossils is almost 300 meters thick. Through the depth of this sediment, and therfore the entire five million yrs, there is little or no change in morpholgies. The changes were incredibly abrupt. This is neither gradual nor constant.
cagefite007 3 years ago
The changes were gradual. You need to understand what gradual means; no "hopeful monsters" required.
Evolutionary change is not constant, and no scientist argues that it is.
kshackleton 3 years ago
And the changes were NOT gradual. Please elaborate on your "no hopeful monsters required" comment. I will be more than happy to take you through the numbers of convergent evolution in different phyla, based on mutations per generation.
cagefite007 3 years ago
Really? Not gradual?
So you believe that dogs can give birth to cats, in effect?
A hopeful monster is an offspring which is so different from its parent that it would be considered a monster, yet its fitness exceeds that of its parent. This sounds like the kind of evolution that you are proposing. Is it?
kshackleton 3 years ago
Also, only mutations in sexually mature reproductive cells(gametes) would be of significance towards variation. With convergent evolution happening in different phyla, the possibility of analogous traits arising is impossible. Much more time would have to be necessary.
cagefite007 3 years ago
You clearly do not understand how mutations occur. They occur during cell division for the most part. Assuming that you are male, your sperm all contain mutations which have resulted from imperfect meiosis. All children inherit mutations from their parents.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Ok I thought you were more educated on the basis of mutations. So my apologies, I'll simple it down for you.
A mutation for a convergent organ MUST occur in sexually mature reproductive cells. A mutation in, for example, an individuals skin will not be passed on to that individuals progeny. If you do not understand that, or disagree with it, I highly suggest reading an ecology book. I'm not sure if you understand the difference between asexual reproduction, and sexual.
cagefite007 3 years ago
Yes, it is obvious that a mutation in a somatic cell will not be heritable. A mutation must occur in the germ cell line.
Did you understand what I meant when I stated that most mutations are copying errors made during meiosis [which occurs in germ cells]?
This is not the only way that mutations can occur in germ cells.
kshackleton 3 years ago
I understand that, and apparently you agree with me. Germ line cells ARE sexually mature reproductive cells. Hence the reason I said "gametes" last comment. (Those are germline cells.) A cell that forms the body of an organism(somatic as you phrased it) are NOT sexually mature reproductive cells. My overall point was the cell in which a mutation occurs is only relevant in a gamete.(A germline cell). This greatly affects the needed rate of mutations to seek a convergent structure.
cagefite007 3 years ago
Germ line cells are not limited to "sexually mature reproductive cells". The relevant point is that the mutations must take place in the germ cell line.
These mutations typically take place during meiosis when the eggs and sperm cells are created.
I am unclear about what you mean by "to seek a convergent structure". Evolution has no goals by which it "seeks" any structure at all. Natural Selection simply chooses from the structures [or functions] available at the time.
kshackleton 3 years ago
When I say "seek a convergent structure" I'm relating to what has already happened. The eye arising in an octopus and a human has happened. So I want to go back and see the possibility of it happening within the time frame it did. But it happened completely independently of each other. Two seperate routes were taken to achieve the same complex structure. And just like you stated, nature doesn't "seek" anything. It doesn't have an end result. So it will not know what mutations are always
cagefite007 3 years ago
The human [vertebrate] eye and the octopus [cephalopod] eye bear only superficial resemblance. All vertebrates have eyes which have a common structure and design, and all cephalopods have eyes of similar structure and design, and their eyes are not like ours.
kshackleton 3 years ago
The human eye and the octopus eye(mollusca) may have a different choice of proteins, but both have eyes with a cornea, iris, lens, vitreous humor, three layered retina with rods, pigments for moderating light, ganglion of nerves connecting the photoreceptors to the brain, and even lateral inhibition. In other words they are remarkably similar organs. JSTOR and science, two respected peer-reviewed journals have writtien about the similarity of these organs.
cagefite007 3 years ago
They are similar in function, this is because they both need to resolve an image on light sensitive material to function.
They are remarkably different in how they develop in the embryo and in particular in how the retina is constructed. The cephalopd eye is superior in that regard. Our eye has the light sensitive cells on the bottom, the light has to pass through blood vessels and nerve tissue first. Our retinas are also prone to detaching, and we have a blind spot. Cephalopods don't.
kshackleton 3 years ago
beneficial, and which are not.
cagefite007 3 years ago
Natural Selection is the filtering process which screens out the traits, or combination of traits, which are less successful at surviving and making babies in the environment which exists right now.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Yes, that is true. But if they are working towards a specific organ, like an eye, nature doesn't know which mutations are beneficial. It doesn't know which "letters" in a sentence to keep and which to not. Evolution is not a free agent. (That reference made towards richard dawkins analogy defending random mutations.)
cagefite007 3 years ago
Here's the key...Natural Selection had no idea that it was working towards an eye.
All NS did was to select from the available variation within the living population and give preference [as measured in living descendants] to those creatures that could resolve an image a little bit better than others in the same population.
Over the eons, this selection pressure modified a simple patch of light sensitive cells [such as exist today in flatworms] into the eyes that we see today.
kshackleton 3 years ago
No, but a more a beneficial mutation is likely to survive through natural selection, the struggle to survive, than a harmful mutation. You could look at this way: there's predators and prey. Predators have to be able to catch prey to survive and prey must escape predator to survive. So if a predator evolves a beneficial mutation, one that helps catch prey, he's more likely to survive and more likely pass on that gene and vice versa. Repeat this over and over, through time more complexity emerges
Harvey2face123 2 years ago
You need to be clear about your terms.
Birds and bats wings are analogous as wings, yet are homologous as tetrapod forelimbs. Do you understand what "analogous" and "convergent evolution" means?
kshackleton 3 years ago
And about defining terms, I was referring to organs which arrived during the Cambrian explosion, in DIFFERENT phyla. (Like an eye.) Any trait that arouse in those circumstances would be analogous. Bird and bat can have homologous forelimbs because they are both vertebrate. Convergent evolution simply means a common trait that arouse in two different lineages.
cagefite007 3 years ago
The bird and bat forelimbs are homologous because they arose through common tetrapod [not vertebrate] ancestry.
The modification of tetrapod forelimbs into wings occured independantly three times [that we are aware of]...birds, bats, and pterosaurs. The wings of these lineages bear scant resemblance to one another due to their independant origins. They are analogous.
Simple, light sensing cells may have evolved only once, or at best very few times. From these origins evolved eyes.
kshackleton 3 years ago
I didn't know bird and bat forelimbs evolved through a common tetrapod ancestor. If they did, I stand myself corrected. I guess I'll have to study my phylogenetic trees some more.
cagefite007 3 years ago
All land vertebrates [which includes whales as well] are tetrapods. We all descend from a common lineage which arose from the [fresh] water some 365 million years ago. Look up Tiktaalik for an example.
kshackleton 3 years ago
I made the distinction between tetrapod and vertebrates [in general] because the relevant common ancestor is the tetrapod, which is a sub-set of the larger vertebrate grouping.
kshackleton 3 years ago
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. -Charles Darwin
I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence. -Charles Darwin
" I seek to show God's glory throughout my work" -Issac Newton
Note: darwin was a Christian when he finished his book, very ironic Chistians, You guys unwillingly started evolution. -.-
ogirv101 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
huh, they lost their fur, grew fins from legs, what? that's a fairy tale.
vs1990sangha 3 years ago
Yes, which is why their fins still have a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges.
Those structures are unique to tetrapods. Fish fins do not have them. Plus we can see the transition from limbs to whale fins in the fossils.
Not sure how an observed fact can be a "fairy tale" but whatever you want to call it.
majorvoltage 3 years ago 8
damn...you can recite all that just off the top of your head?
what a amazing memory
i can't even remember all the complex shit they teach in school
putuontheposter 3 years ago
@majorvoltage You lie sir. The only observation is the fossil. Theories and hypotheses drawn from the fossils DO NOT QUALIFY AS FACT! That is just how a few people have chosen to interpret the "observed" fossils. One has every right to claim your theory wrong by arguing that you have no proof or evidence that similarity in fossil record equates to relatedness.
One can equally argue that the existence of living fossils dismisses the whole idea of evolution.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@majorvoltage Regarding "observed fact", I am sure I am not the only one who finds it curious that evolutionists always act as though nobody is aware of the existence of cambrian era fossils that completely destroy the theory of evolution. Not only are the oldest fossils present in the record with no ancestors (unlike what that Gingrich falsely claims) there are living fossils from this era alive today. UNCHANGED!
HOW ABOUT YOU ACCEPT ALL THE "OBSERVED FACTS" INSTEAD OF JUST THOSE U LIKE?
karamarouge 1 year ago
"Not all atheists accept evolution btw."
Yes. Raelians are an example of this. They don't believe in gods, but instead that aliens created us, so they are atheist creationists.
califoniania 3 years ago
orcas are whales??
jimmyti9cer 3 years ago
It is a small wonder why some people view the theory of evolution a threat to their religious views. It can be believed that a majority of these people had bad educators who have no love for the subject that they were teaching. The earths history is very complex with; continents moving, the climate changing, natural disasters, and life forms changing with it. We are all a speck on the timescale of the world.
omiteru 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Before Charles Darwin Die he Said Unto People; "Teach Them Who Is God, Make Them Religious. Im Not Forcing You To Believe In Me, Its You Who Should Decide What Really Happens". A Strong Proof That Darwin Was Not Sure On Its Theory Nor He Believe In The Divine Theory Where In God Created Us All, Not Only The Living Things But All Organisms Present Inside And Outside The Earth.
cda151 3 years ago
Wrong. Darwin said no such thing, nor did he ever recant his scientific views. For more info do a web search on ChristianAnswers click the first link and search their site on Charles Darwin. There you will find that Darwin was committed to the soundness of his theories and his disbelief in a deity to the very end. Rumors otherwise have been thoroughly refuted.
EmeraldView 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ur just saying that cause you dont believe in god! ur a pathetic!
cda151 3 years ago
ur just saying that becuae you are a brainwashed idiot! if you do not believe in science get off the computer!!!!!
fitchburgslut 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how do you know, was you there, were the people that live in modern times there. No, so we don't know, he could've after all he was on his deathbed, so get your facts right
vs1990sangha 3 years ago
It is unimportant to scientists how certain Darwin was of his idea. Just because the idea was his, doesn't mean he is the leading authority on it. His idea has been corroborated many times since his death by new discoveries, for example new fossils coming to light and the discovery of DNA.
If I lose my keys and someone has an idea that they might be under the sofa, and I go on to find them there - it is unimportant if that person changes his mind because I have what I was looking for!
Headword77 3 years ago
So What?
cda151 3 years ago
@cda151 He didn't say that, and even if he did - which he didn't - it does not neccessarily mean what you state. He could mean that religion has inspired many great things ( although I personally disagree with this - take the holy wars for example), nor does it mean he didn't believe entirely in his theory - a therory which he faced many threats from theists and took years of him premoteing it before it was even slightly accepted.
xDavidFitzgeraldx 1 year ago
@xDavidFitzgeraldx OK!
cda151 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
aw, it looks now that we actually came from whales.
ovidiugr 4 years ago
no however we share a common ancestor.
Vardenofrome 3 years ago
A common misconception is that we have descended from animals of today. It's like saying our cousin is our grandmother. When in fact, we both share a grandmother.
ggolbez 3 years ago 2
and you would know.
ovidiugr 3 years ago
well put.
thank you
purpleletters 2 years ago
Wow, your inability to comprehend English words and reconstruct the idea being expressed in your brain is quite interesting. It is strange how you were able to make a link between something that was not expressed, with something that was.
omiteru 3 years ago
mmm human microevolved also! how else do we explain the different races of humans! blacks people are well adapted to living in hot areas..an whites are adapted to live in cold areas!
BahamasIllestMC 4 years ago
Heat and high or low radiation levels.
scienceminded 4 years ago
their is no proof of evolution if evolution was true then we would have new species evolving but we don't all we have is sub-species (adaptation)evolution has never been proven and will never be proven bash me and call me ignorant or whatever but it is amazing of how evolutionists want creationists to be more open minded but yet you remain close minded to the concept of God and call us names but I say you are hypocritical in that you are closeminded by your own definition. There is a God.
jasonduskin 4 years ago
actually, most people who accept evolution is christians (all atheists accept evolution, but there are more christians who accept evolution then there are atheists, at all) and yes, we do have many examples of speciation today
Erech01 4 years ago
Not all atheists accept evolution btw. The evidence for evolution is HUGE, try endogenous retroviruses that exist in hundreds of places between other apes and humans, these are the genetic traces of viruses, they exist in many places in EXACTLY the same segments of code, in evolution one species contracts a virus that implants its DNA into the host DNA, as the animal speciates all its ancestors have the same code, we do, we share ancestors with all apes.
scienceminded 3 years ago
Again you have to realize that if Creation is right then animals would have to by definition EVOLVE from their 'kinds' at a crazy speed into the variation we see. We don't think this happened, you believe in evolution but at a very fast rate that happened about 3500 years ago in a period of about 100 or so years. That is crazy! We have evidence of evolution and you don't for this EXPLOSION of life, animals would have to have children every hour nonstop and each would have to be a new species!
BahamasIllestMC 4 years ago
Bahamas!!! you totally plagiarized my comment! Still I have a good point.
scienceminded 4 years ago
and nobody said God doesnt exist but it is soo much facts an evidence around u if u look for it! but creationist want every1 to have there views of life soo even if the evidence is in your hands you still would say its not real lol..u people are in denile! its obvious God used evolution as apart of intellegent design
BahamasIllestMC 4 years ago
Intelligent Design is a scam created by creationist. There really is no God regardless of the twenty versions of yaweh you bring up. There appears to be recent evidence that Jesus was an invention also. Ahh, the prolific mind of the writer and hoaxters thru the centuries. Christians now have a real reason to moan and wail!
UPCHUKKER 4 years ago
Indeed, every dig adds to the fossil record, and if you want to disprove evolution just pick up a shovel and start adding to fossil record.
The ammmount found already is staggering, and science can always use some critical cooperation when it leads to progression ;)
Keep looking for that ark too boys ;)
be quick though, as a lot of your supporters believe there's not long left ;p
mindwis3 4 years ago
Yeah yeah, the same creationist BULLSH** as always!! Evolution is real you religious scumbags, get over it. There no god or after-life. In fact don't even Visit(creationist/Evolutionist) your deceased love one's since evolution is hard at work "CREATING" something useful out the Rotting garbage-remains that is now in that shit hole called the cemetery.
So much for hoping to one day see, and be with A lost love or dear friend and family member...WE EVOLVED FROM ANIMALS A TRILLION YEARS AGO.
CAPONESPADAS 4 years ago
Whoops..Our universe may have been rings of dust at a Trillion years ago. The timeline of species shows the first bacteria formed at 3.5billion years ago. The early humans at maybe 1billion years ago and then the first modern humans about 200,000 years ago.
We're newbies!!
UPCHUKKER 4 years ago
1. universe is only about 13.5 billion years old
2. Hom ergaster lived about 1.8 million years ago, several Homo species later, Erectus, Habilis etc. Homo Sapian Sapian (you and I) come along at ~250,000 years
Close dude, keep learning
scienceminded 4 years ago
Your right...oh science yaweh. The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
In a study published very recently in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old. Big gap...but it's nothing to quibble about!
UPCHUKKER 3 years ago
well cmon:P think about it, 2.5 million years of human evolution and we still laugh at people falling downxD tells you alot:P
Erech01 3 years ago